HOME Featured Stories October 2009 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 31, 2009.

Israel's best kept secret? Fabulous fall foliage.

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.


"Is it a painting or a photograph?" I am frequently asked about this image. The answer, perhaps, is neither. This work is one of my rare forays into digital art. The afternoon sky was heavy and pale as I wandered the valley between two communities near my home in Gush Etzion. Though the light was dull, the vines danced with color. I shot about two dozen compositions, experimenting with different positions on the hillside, but when I returned home, all the images had the same lackluster appearance that such light produces.

One of the ways I've surmounted the digital learning curve of both camera and computer is by fooling around. What happens if I do this? Oops. Delete. What about this? Hmm. And this? Wow! And that's how this image was born. After applying a few standard corrections to enhance the color — boosting contrast and adjusting exposure — I applied a Photoshop brush strokes filter to give the image an Impressionist feel.

Finally, I cropped the photo several times before settling on this one because of how the two green triangles (upper right, lower left corners) give balance to the overall layout and emphasize the zig-zag of the lines within the photo. Printmaking has always been a highly subjective and integral part of the photographic process. Call it what you will, but I say, "I love this image. Goodbye cloudy day. Hello, masterpiece!"

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, October 30, 2009.

The United Nations and much of the world media have blasted Israel for alleged war crimes during its incursion into the Gaza Strip in January, but one Israeli tank commander is mounting a spirited defense, using declassified video footage from Israel Defense Force drones and commercial media.

The video clips show the extraordinary efforts the IDF made to avoid civilian casualties, at times steering bombs away from their intended targets, because the target had moved into a crowd of civilians.

They also provide graphic testimony of war crimes committed by Hamas. In one scene, an armed Hamas fighter can be seen grabbing a child by the arm holding the child in front of him as he crossed the street.

"He knows that our snipers shoot them when they are in the open, crossing the street," says Col. Ben-Tzion Gruber. "So they grab children as human shields. He knows we don't shoot when there are children around."

In another scene, a Hamas fighter can be seen launching a rocket from the roof of a house, and then calling in neighborhood children to serve as human shields so he can leave before Israeli jets bomb the house. In yet another, a Hamas fighter actually hides behind three children as he shoots at Israeli troops.

In a remarkable sequence filmed by The Associated Press on the ground in Gaza on the Palestinian side, armed Hamas fighters piled into an ambulance with the huge letters "UN" painted on its side as Israeli forces advanced into the street where they had prepared an ambush.

"How many Hamas terrorists will fit into a United Nations ambulance? Count them," Gruber told an audience on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, as he pointed to the fighters and their weapons.

Seven armed fighters piled into the back of the ambulance, some of them carrying bulky antitank weapons.

Shortly after Hamas took over Gaza 2 1/2 years ago, they fired all 500 ambulance drivers and 7,000 teachers in U.N. employ, replacing them with people loyal to them who allowed Hamas to use the ambulances to carry troops and munitions and the schools as rocket launch-sites, Gruber said.

"Wherever we entered a village, Hamas always had ambulances right at the front" carrying troops and munitions," he said.

Gruber was deputy commander of IDF Division 252. At one point, as his 60-ton Merkava tanks were about to engage in a major offensive operation, his commander called him with an unusual demand.

"Even during the fighting, we were talking all the time to the Palestinian forces," Gruber explained. "They called us that morning and said, 'There are two women who are pregnant who need to go to the hospital.' So I took four of my tanks out of the battle and located two ambulances, and escorted them to the hospital."

In his report for the United Nations, South African Magistrate Richard Goldstone accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes. But it was the allegation that Israel purposefully targeted civilians that stung Gruber the most.

"During [one] operation, we killed 709 terrorists. How do we know they were terrorists? Because we knew where they came from, what they did. We knew their families. We spent a lot of time identifying them," Gruber said.

Gruber said Israel acknowledges killing 295 non-combatants "by accident, regrettably," during the Gaza fighting. Of those, 89 were under the age of 16, and another 50 were women.

"How many women do you think live in Gaza?" Col. Gruber asked. "About 50 percent of the population, no? And there were just 50 women killed? This is killing civilian targets? No way."

By comparison, during the war in Bosnia 10 civilians were killed for every combatant. "That's not what happened here," he said.

About 435 people die every month in Gaza of natural causes. "So some of the names the Palestinians claimed we killed may have been these people."

Israel was unable to determine whether an additional 162 Palestinians killed during the fighting were civilians or combatants. Another video sequence Gruber showed made clear why there was confusion.

In the video, a wounded fighter lay on a stretcher, drenched in blood, his AK-47 assault rifle tucked by his side. As medics lifted the stretcher into a waiting U.N. ambulance, another fighter grabbed the assault rifle and took it away.

None of the men were wearing uniforms, so there was nothing to distinguish a civilian from a Hamas fighter. "And so now, this wounded terrorist becomes a civilian casualty," Gruber said.

Gruber also refuted oft-repeated claims by Goldstone that Israel used white phosphorus bombs during the Gaza operation. He showed photographs of real phosphorous bombs exploding, and compared them to actual footage of the bombs Israel used in Gaza. "We did not use phosphorus. Period. We used smoke bombs. You could walk through the cloud of smoke without feeling anything."

Goldstone and his small team of U.N. investigators held two days of public hearings in Gaza last July and visited 36 sites in Gaza where local residents claimed that Israel had committed war crimes.

Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation because it was performed under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council, a body where Iran, Libya, Syria and Cuba sit and they are slanted against Israel and the United States.

Even before the fighting began, the Council's Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights, American leftist Richard Falk, was comparing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to "the criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity."

The appointment of someone like Richard Falk to the U.N. Human Rights Council was "exactly why we voted against the new Human Rights Council," said former U.S. U.N. ambassador, John Bolton.

Gruber repeated the claims of Israeli leaders that the objective of December's campaign, "Operation Cast Lead," was "to stop the rockets from Hamas," not to punish the Palestinian population or kill civilians. "During the war, we brought 60 trucks full of aid every day into Gaza," he said. "We did this during the war!"

In the two year before Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, Hamas launched close to 6,000 rockets from Gaza into Israel, hitting towns and villages and killing about two dozen people.

An Israeli early warning siren system, which gives people roughly 10 to 45 seconds to find cover in prepared shelters, has "undoubtedly limited the number of civilian casualties in Israel," according to the Jewish Policy Center in Jerusalem.

"We have been hit by Hamas rockets since 2001," Gruber said. "How long you would wait to strike back if terrorists were sending rockets into Los Angeles from across the border?" he asked.

The entire 575 page Goldstone report devotes just one short paragraph to the subject of "Israeli casualties," and only takes into account Israeli civilians killed during the three weeks of the operation.

Gruber's presentation was sponsored by the Endowment for Middle Eastern Truth and Reps. Doug Lamborn, R, Colo., and Shelly Berkley, D, Nev.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is an author and a contributing editor for Newsmax.com. Write him at timmerman.road@verizon.net and visit his website at www.newsmax.com/timmerman/.

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Kaplan, October 30, 2009.

If one were to call any office at San Francisco State University two weeks ago they would hear a recording telling them that "Reduced funding from the California Legislature and Governor Schwarzaneggar has necessitated a furlough program at San Francisco State University. As a result the campus will be closed October 23rd to 26th." Yet despite the necessity of such actions by the Bay Area campus, SFSU will be hosting at California taxpayer expense an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate fest all day Tuesday on November 3rd.

The event is being sponsored by the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) and the University's Ethnic Studies Department that is affiliated with four other academic departments on campus, Asian American Studies, Africana Studies, Raza Studies, and American Indian Studies. Although being a "Palestinian" is not a race, there has been many instances of Arab groups trying to inject race into the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. La Raza has been particularly active in doing this, calling for the western United States to be returned to Mexico and that Mexican-Americans are "America's Palestinians."[1] Racism is cited as one issue to try and pin on both Israel and America.

The event is being mainly organized and run by the Palestinian irredentist group Al-Awda, also known as the Palestine Right of Return Coalition.[2] Al-Awda's motto[3] at past conferences has been "from the river to the sea" in calling for an end to Israel, and the organization's events sometimes engage in anti-Semitism with accusations of American Jews conspiring on behalf of Israel against the United States. Despite this event's taking place on a public taxpayer-supported campus, Al Awda also disallows cameras and recorders at their events with the campus administration's blessing in order to conceal what they say about Jews.[4]

In 2006, Al-Awda found its 6th international conference, a similar event, canceled[5] by the administration at UC Riverside when it learned the Boycott Israel campaign being promoted on an American Nazi Party website that linked directly to Al Awda's boycott Israel campaign and that the guest of honor was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist group per the US State Department. Al-Awda was founded by a former member of the terrorist PFLP named Mazen Qumsiyeh, according to former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat who grew up with him.

Al Awda in the San Francico Bay Area is led and organized by Dr. Jess Ghannam, a psychology professor who works at UC San Francisco's Medical School. Ghannam is also a leader of the International Solidarity Movement that has a reputation as a terrorist protection movement and whose membership openly advocates the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. He also heads the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee that has been accused of supporting Hamas. Other anti-Israel ISM-linked groups such as Middle East Children's Alliance, the radical front group Jewish Voice for Peace and Electronic Intifada also sponsored the event. All of these groups, including Al Awda, have in the past violated US taxpayer laws[6] to carry out their agendas so it should come as no surprise that they once again took advantage of SFSU's taxpayer-supported facility in the Caesar Chavez Student Union Building.

The alma mater of the late Yasser Arafat's second in command, Saeb Erekat, SFSU has been a campus where Palestinian activism has literally taken over the campus. The Student Union, once under the control of the Black Panthers, has, since the 1990's been under the control of the GUPS. Almost all food concessions there are owned by Palestinian Arabs. The campus bookstore that nets about $14 million dollars a year has its funds controlled by a student government dominated by Palestinian students. In the past, the College Republicans at SFSU while manning a table for ex-President Bush during the election campaign were physically assaulted by the GUPS and had to be escorted off campus because even the campus police feared for their own safety. In another instance, Jewish students on campus celebrating Israel were attacked[7] by the GUPS and 25 San Francisco city police had to be called on campus to escort the Jewish students to safety. Offices in the Student Union building are restricted from campus Jewish clubs because the GUPS control who can use them from their own office with a huge Palestinina flag painted on the door.

Since being kicked off the UC Riverside campus in 2006, Al Awda has been holding its events mostly at the privately-owned Hilton Hotels (which is on Al Awda's corporate boycott list of companies doing business with Israel). However, the group has been working to wheedle its way back onto taxpayer-supported campuses because the venues are usually free and have a captive audience of young students to propagandize to against Israel.

Al Awda managed to stage one conference in February of this year at UC San Diego (also at California taxpayer expense) and a smaller event at UC Davis, but the SFSU event was considered a major West Coast conference. It is being billed as a commemorative event for a mural that was put up on the Caesar Chavez Student Union building a year ago that promotes radical leftist causes and leaders that include late Edward Said.[8] Said was an American professor of Arabic descent who was active in the Palestinian movement against Israel and who protested against Arafat for making a "peace deal" with the Israelis at Oslo. The mural was the subject of considerable controversy at one point because when first painted it contained a Jewish Star of David dripping with blood, but was subsequently removed after protests from the Jewish community.

The Ethnic Studies Department cites its faculty members as not necessarily having any experience in the social sciences but rather that "These individuals are committed to the integrated scholar- teacher-community activist model of Ethnic Studies and to multi-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches to inquiry." Activism such as will be taught at this event on how to boycott, divest from and develop sanctions against Israel is the real goal of Ethnic Studies at SFSU.

The SFSU Professor most influential in sponsoring the event and the head of the Ethnic Studies Department is Keneth P. Monteiro. It was Monteiro who allowed Jess Ghannam to become another Ethnic Studies Professor to promote Palestinian aims. In California, having a post-graduate degree usually will qualify someone to teach on a college campus, even if their knowledge of a given field is limited. Ghannam has a post-graduate degree in Psychology which allowed him to teach in another field, but one where his lessons entail Palestinian propaganda against Israel more than any real scholarship. Likewise, Monteiro himself has no background in Ethnic Studies, but rather a degree in Psychology from Stanford. His background has always been displayed as an obsession for blaming "race" as being behind all societal problems.

Jess Ghannam, though not listed as a Professor on the SFSU Ethnic Studies Department website is frequently introduced as an "Adjunct Professor of Ethnic Studies" at anti-Israel events on the SFSU campus. Ghannam is thus able to hold anti-Israel events on campus under the sponsorship of Monteiro's leadership and department to lend such events an academic aura. In addition, these events, while designed to look even-handed, usually have shills for the Palestinians on the Israeli side.[9] A case in point was a "debate" between Ghannam and Uri Bar-Joseph, an Israeli professor who signed a petition encouraging desertion in the Israeli army and who was once referenced[10] by neo-Nazi David Duke on his website claiming Israel has a long history of terrorism against the United States.

The use of California's taxpayer funding to promote unending war overseas between Israel and the Palestinian groups that will accept nothing less than the end of Israel is outrageous enough, but especially when it is necessary for the University to shut down to survive and pay bills the University cannot afford. Such events only further serve to roil the war in the Middle East that affects the ability to fund our universities for American students by our government. Such events are excused as examples of "academic freedom", but when they are done in such a veiled manner and do not allow cameras and recorders, how is "academic freedom," let alone the taxpayer served?


[1] http://www.aztlan.net/razapal.htm

[2] http://www.al-awda.org/

[3] http://www.adl.org/israel/anti_israel/al_awda/default.asp

[4] http://www.stoptheism.com/content/index.php?pid=149&cid=202



[7] http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000107.html

[8] http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5341

[9] http://bss.sfsu.edu/meis/Flyers/PalestineDebateFlyer.pdf

[10] www.davidduke.com/general/will-anyone-dare-ask-why_14.html+Uri+ Bar-Joseph+%2B+Israeli+traitor&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Lee Kaplan is an investigative journalist. He is also a regular columnist for Front Page Magazine, the Israel National News and a senior intelligence analyst and communications director for the Northeast Intelligence Network. He can be reached at: leekaplan@worldnet.att.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, October 30, 2009.

This was a news item October 28, 2009 in Strategy Page


Israel has, over the last few decades, expanded the number of combat jobs women can volunteer for. Israel conscripts men (for three years) and women (for two years). But women have more exemptions (especially marriage). Women who volunteer for combat duty are hard core, because not only will they have to undergo some hard training, but will have to serve three years on active duty, plus several years as reservists. This is necessary to justify the longer training required.

Like many other countries, Israeli military police units contain men and women. Same with dog handlers, border guards, artillery units and some search and rescue units. Women have long served as flight instructors, as well as trainers for tank crews.

There is also a largely female infantry unit, the Caracal Battalion. Part of the 512th Brigade in Southern Command, the battalion was formed in 2000 to provide a place for women who wanted to be in the infantry. It's a light infantry units that mainly serves along the Jordanian or Egyptian borders. The battalion took part in safeguarding Israeli civilians and troops during the 2005 evacuation of Gaza. Initially, about half the troops in Caracal were female, as are most of the officers and NCOs, and, usually, the commander. Now about 90 percent of the Caracal members are women. While many troops see Caracal as a publicity stunt and a sop to the feminists, the unit has performed well, and has a reputation as a non-nonsense and reliable outfit.

During their independence war in 1948, Israel had female infantry units, but these were withdrawn. Not because the women couldn't fight, but because Arab units facing them became more fanatical, and less likely to surrender, when they realized they were fighting women. Conservative Jewish clergy in Israel want women to be barred from combat jobs, while Arab radicals are urging more women to get involved in terrorism operations, including suicide bombings.

Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 30, 2009.


Isracampus.org.il is the site of a group that warns of an academic fifth column. Last year, it submitted an ad to Yediot Ahronot, but was rejected. This year, apparently having heard more of Isracampus, the newspaper accepted the ad. It made a sensational controversy.

The Student Union of Haifa University distributed related material explaining, "Professors and lecturers in Israeli universities and colleges engaged in subversive activity such as: openly endorsing terror attacks against Jews, initiating international boycotts of Israel, using their status to anti-Israel preaching and anti-Zionist brainwash, cooperating with known anti-Semites, slandering Israel as a fascist, colonial State with an apartheid regime" and "promoting violence and law violations, encouraging draft-dodging among IDF soldiers and calling for the annihilation of Israel."

Isracampus website names "lecturers from various universities and their quotes on such topics..."

Someone complained to University President Aaron Ben Zeev, calling the material "incitement." "'Preparing black lists of academics reminds me of dark times in dark regimes when people were persecuted for their different opinions. The ad's title — a fifth corps — clearly amounts to incitement.' Members of the Haifa Student Union claimed that the ad doesn't constitute incitement but a legitimate expression of opinion."

"Chairman Felix Koritney commented, "It's an advertisement bought and published in the planner as by other advertisers. We went over the content and it is fine by us. It informs the students, in the way other websites inform of corruption and ethics violations...Students should know who they take classes with. We love the State of Israel and support it and see no wrong with the ad."

"Haifa University issued a statement reading, 'In accordance with its policy and the student rights law, the University of Haifa allows freedom of speech on campus, even when it opposes the contents of opinions, so long as no State laws were violated.'" (Prof. Steven Plaut, 10/28.)

Israelis use the term, "incitement," loosely. The Left feels free to denounce and defame, but cries "incitement," when criticized for it. The Left tries to exempt itself from criticism that way, and in the name of freedom of opinion, but it really is trying to stifle freedom of expression by people who don't agree with it. Isracampus does not incite to violence. It doesn't punish for opinions. It alerts students and donors to professors who abuse classrooms for propaganda, to incite to lawbreaking, and to try to destroy the Jewish state.


Hamas stated that it, too, wants peace. It qualified that as a "just peace," in which "Palestinian lands" are not occupied.

Hamas did not put into the same sentence that it considers all of Israel occupied "Palestinian lands." Therefore, its notion of peace is the mere respite after having conquered its immediate enemies (www.imra.org.il, 10/29).

The Supreme Leader of Iran declared that disputing the election results is a crime (Wall St. Journal, 10/29).

After the respite, of course, as good jihadists, Hamas would join with Iran to try to spread a backward form of Islam over the rest of the world. Remove the blocking efforts of the Israeli army, and considering how bogged down are U.S. forces, that Islamist task would be facilitated.

If Hamas put its notion of "occupation" and jihad into the same speech, it would make it too easy for Western policy makers to understand, finally, that there can be no peace with Radical Islam until it is defeated, and that concessions to it make it easier for Radical Islam to defeat us.


The Wall St. Journal has been discussing strategy for opposing jihad in Afghanistan. These Op.-Eds. dispute the strategy proposed by the expert I had interviewed (to see that piece, go here
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m10d16-Special-operations-officer-on-Afghanistan-and-interrogation .

Proper strategy takes time into account. Not a timetable for pulling out, but allowance for the 15 years it usually takes to defeat an insurgency. Once the enemy knows we intend to leave by a certain time, whether the job is finished or not, he will wait us out and return in triumph. Why should they lay down their arms permanently?

Pulling out the main body of troops would leave Western air and naval forces too far away from Afghanistan and Pakistan to help. "From where are you going to fly the drones? What intelligence will be available to guide the drones or special ops?" At least we need to get Pakistan to make peace with India, so that Pakistan can devote its forces to its real enemy, and so India can provide bases to Western forces (James Shinn, 10/27, A21).

Afghanistan doesn't need more troops. It needs a wiser mission. The mission now is "clear, hold, and build." A wiser one would be "befriend, secure, build governance — and then hold." Earnest and honest governors are needed. With the second strategy, tribes have kept insurgents out. With the first strategy, having ten times as many Western troops does not suffice (David Adams & Anne Marlowe, 10/28, A23).

President Bush had the theory right, but not the know-how, and his political opposition was too impatient. American wasted enough money to impair our economy, but not how to spend enough to stanch the outflow on war.

These articles have convinced me that we can differentiate Radical Islam from the moderates abroad, and that we must. Our President and State Dept., he with his radicalism, and it with its petty turf concerns and its subversion and anti-Zionist phobia remain confused about whom the U.S. should work with and whom to oppose.


The lower house of Bahrain's legislature passed a bill prompted by an opposition bloc, so that "whoever holds any communication or official talks with Israeli officials or travels to Israel will face a fine... and/or a jail sentence of three to five years." The impetus for the bill is thought to arise from the Goldstone Report and the Temple Mount Clashes.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said that peace cannot be made without contact.

Bahrain has a Shiite majority, Sunni rulers who work with the U.S. and favos more engagement with Israel, and an ancient Jewish community with the only synagogue in use in the Persian Gulf (www.imra.org.il, 10/28).

I worry that the U.S. military facilities there are insecure.

Goldstone issues a propaganda-only report, and the Muslim Arabs attack Israelis, but the Arab world gets angry with Israel, the victim in all this.


Nancy Brinker, founder and head of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization...claimed last week that despite threats in Egypt, Israelis were not barred from the Cairo conference" on cancer. But the Foreign Ministry and the Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization said they had been (www.imra.org.il, 10/28).

Since the Palestinian Arabs have a mostly collectivist society, since the polls show that most support jihad, and since the jihadists repress contrary expression, and since that society is indoctrinating young people in hatred, and since young Muslims can suddenly be converted into terrorists, I have condemned their society as a whole for being a menace to civilization.

Some readers suggest I make more allowances for individuals within that society not agreeing to jihad. They suggest I not impute a collective guilt. On the other hand, we see Arab governments imputing a collective hostility toward all Israelis, without hearing Westerners or my readers suggesting that that unfairly targets all Israeli individuals, of whom many are rather sympathetic to the Arabs. Why the double standard? When I see a double standard, I wonder about the ethical standard and the indignation directed against Israel and those who feel it is in the right.


Hamas said it won't allow Palestinian Authority (P.A.) election committee staff to set up for elections in Gaza. Its position is that since the term of the P.A. President has expired, so has his official authority.

From his cell in Israel, Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti urged Hamas to sign the reconciliation pact and then agree to elections (www.imra.org.il, 10/29).

People still think the P.A. is democratic. They ignor what a dictatorship both parts of it are. Its occasional elections screen out most non-terrorists. There is little civil law and little civil society not impressed into the service of jihad.

Israel is unwise to let Barghouti influence events, considering that he is a mass-murdering terrorist who was Arafat's instigator of the second Intifada and still believes in war on Israel.


Palestinian Arabs are attempting to strangle Jerusalem by developing settlements around it, thereby cutting off suburban Jewish towns not immediately abutting it. Some Israelis are attempting to fill in the vacant areas, themselves.

They did stop the Army from turning over its base, Shdema, to the Arabs. Shdema is in what the Oslo Accords designated Area C, under full Israeli security and administrative control. It lays between southern Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood of15,000 Israelis and the eastern "Gush Etzion" towns of Nokdim and Tekoa. [When Jordan first waged aggression on Israel, its forces overran the Gush Etzion bloc and expelled the Jews.]

"The Arabs of nearby Beit Sahour and Bethlehem saw this [Army base abandonment] as their opportunity to expand to the east, thus choking off the Jerusalem-Gush Etzion connection. In fact, rumors were soon substantiated that the Olmert government had agreed to turn the area into a Palestinian Authority hospital/neighborhood — despite the many other areas in the region that were already under PA control that could have been used for the same purpose." [Earlier news reported U.S. foreign aid subsidizing the illegal Arab building there.]

Nearly every Friday, activists led by The Committee for a Jewish Shdema and Women in Green have held lectures and other activities at the site." At first hostile, now the Army works with it, short of allowing permanent construction.

Women in Green have earned the gratitude of Members of Knesset for "having kept the hilltop from being given away — though illegal Arab construction still continues below." "Though a court has rendered the Arab construction illegal, not only has it not been razed, it continues apace." PM Netanyahu has been asked to "end the unauthorized and dangerous Arab expansion."

Retaining Shdema is also vital to ensure that the development of southern Jerusalem is not choked off." The Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem is scheduled for construction in its western end, but more important would be its eastern end, to connect to Shdema
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/28). Otherwise, Arab terrorists would get to Har Homa and Jerusalem.

Note yet again, that PM Netanyahu does not take right-wing action.


Sheikh Kamal Riyan. who heads the Al-Aksa Association for the Islamic Trust, urged Jews to "'observe Jewish Law' and not visit the Temple Mount."

The Sheikh is mistaken about Jewish law. "Basic Jewish Law allows Jews to enter the Temple Mount, after having purified themselves of a certain level of legal impurity, but they may not enter the site where certain parts of the Temple itself stood" [and where the mosque probably is now].

Jewish law also forbids gentiles entry to the whole Temple Mount
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/28). Would the Sheikh really like Jewish law applied there?


Let's warm up with famous last words on the U.S. economy.

1. "The new tax will be only 4%." Until the next legislative session. The comforting words are uttered just to get permission to start.

2. "The tax will affect only the rich." Until inflation, tax bracket creep, governmental desire to spend more, and loopholes or flight of the rich.

3. "The bill would preserve your freedom of choices." It would acquire riders and probably comes with restrictions and bureaucracy.

4. "Mayor Bloomberg, being rich, isn't tempted to be corrupt." He pays by our taxes or by government favors for support from unions and real estate developers.

Did that warm up your skepticism? Will you stop believing politicians who hire pollsters to teach them how to say what you want to hear, in describing what you don't want them to do? The same applies to the Arab-Israel conflict/jihad.

5. "Let's withdraw from Sinai, Lebanon, Jordan River area, Gaza, and Judea-Samaria, for peace and normal relations." Withdrawal from Sinai led to diplomatic hostility; withdrawal from Lebanon led to war and 40,000 rockets pointed at Israel. Ceding territory and water to Jordan led to diplomatic hostility and greater water shortage; withdrawal from Gaza led to war. Keep doing it?

6. "If the Palestinian Authority violates Oslo, we can always send forces back in." And get called a war criminal?

7. "Palestinian Authority President Abbas fights terrorism and wants peace." He honors terrorists and urges conquest.

8. "Boost the Arab standard of living, and they'll want peace." Tried that. Failed.

9. "Negotiate, and Iran will stop making nuclear weapons." 30 years of negotiations, and the weapons are almost ready.

10. "Settlements block peace." Wars preceded settlements. Ever hear of jihad?

11. "Jihad is an inner personal struggle." Tell that to the enslaved, raped, and murdered Sudanese, to the ethnically cleansed Indians, to the bombed Pakistanis, Iraqis, Londoners, or to us New Yorkers! We have been conned!


Sponsored by UNRWA, its spokesman, Chris Gunness, wrote, directed, and performs a play making propaganda in Israel against Israeli combat in Gaza.

His play portrays Israel as the aggressor, as if Hamas had not fired thousands of rockets at it, first. He contends that Israel bombed a warehouse with white phosphorus illegally and perhaps intentionally in the hope of injuring civilians. His contention ignores enemy shooting from alongside the warehouse. During the actual war, he raised doubts whether the IDF was reporting truthfully.

That doubt could be raised about him. Last January, he admitted to my source that it was not clear to him whether Israel used white phosphorus. He also admitted he did not know whether it was Israelis who fired toward the warehouse. But his play nevertheless condemns Israel.

"Subsequent probes by Israeli military officials proved that phosphorus material from smoke, and not as a substance in weapons, was measured in minimal quantities and far within the limits of international law." [It is allowed in smallish quantities as a smoke marker.]

The play has been poorly received, if received at all, since some theatres refused to show it. In another, the Tel Aviv audience walked out half way through
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/28).


Municipal council member Yakir Shegev, who oversees issues about eastern Jerusalem, said that the Palestinian Authority is slowly taking over the area.

Shegev said that "the PA issues building permits in parts of the Old City." "The Education Ministry pays the salaries of Arab teachers in eastern Jerusalem, where the PA administers students' matriculation examinations. 'It is absurd that the tests are checked in Ramallah while teachers receive money from us.'"

"The official charged that the Netanyahu government, similar to previous administrations, has ignored the needs of the Arab community 'as if the future of eastern Jerusalem is not clear...and that these problems will be someone else's concern in a few years. The PA serves most of the Arab residents and repairs roads, giving it more de facto control.'"

Israel would have to serve the people, collect taxes, issue parking tickets, and deter and demolish illegal Arab building
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/29). Fair enough. Is this neglect by mistake or by subversion?

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 30, 2009.

I am sure all on my list remember Wafa Sultan, the courageous woman from Syria who on live Al Jazeerah television told millions of Muslims that they were backward, and treated women like animals. She continues to receive death threats. What is harder to believe, is that some of the harshest criticism she's gotten comes from a California Rabbi, director of inter-religious programming at Wilshire Boulevard Temple, who slammed her for telling the truth.

To Sultan's remark in a speech that: "all Muslim women — even American ones, though they won't admit it — are living in a state of domination" Stein replied: "There is no subjugation in the homes of American Muslim women I know. They are equal, fully contributing members of their families." Right, the big expert on Muslim women. Stein was also "dismayed" that Sultan "never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternatives." Like he's read the Koran in Arabic?

This reminds me of the days in which good Jewish communists refused to believe Stalin was slaughtering millions of Russians. They kept defending him, especially American Jewish communists, and vilifying anyone who dared say the truth.

From a Jewish woman who has written a number of books critical of my own Jewish community, my deepest apologies to Wafa Sultan. I think I speak for most in the Jewish community whose brains are still in tact, and who have the guts to think independently. Bravo Wafa. You are my hero.

Dr. Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-born certified psychiatrist, human rights activist,& author of the forthcoming book A God That Hates.
Her article below is archived at


As an Arab woman who suffered for three decades living under Islamic Sharia, it is clear to me that Islam's political ideology and Sharia must be fought relentlessly by Western civilization to prevent its application in a free society.

However, I have found myself fighting on two fronts. The first front is against Islamists, a daunting fight indeed. But the other front is one shaped by too many uninformed individuals who like to view themselves as open minded "progressives". They seem to somehow claim superiority on compassion, on peace, on open-mindedness and on appreciation of other cultures. Regarding themselves as tolerant, free thinking individuals, they avoid questioning Muslims' harmful intentions. They restrict themselves to self-criticism, and make politically-correct excuses for Islamism. Regrettably, they show their indisputable acceptance of 'others' at the expense of the public's responsibility to learn the truth about Islam's detrimental tenets.

It is crucial for these so called "progressives" to realize that Islam is indeed based on an anti-liberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism oppose the liberal values they cherish. And equally important, they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and in the West, today.

For me, confronting those who adhere to multicultural relativism is a most painful battle. Their standpoint makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more challenging. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually suppresses and weakens my voice and that of others who are in this fight.

Simply put, too many individuals, and institutions stand in the way of overcoming Islamic political ideology. With their appeasing approach they obstruct the pressing effort to modernize Islam.

When I first immigrated to the US, I learned to my dismay that Islam has been labeled by many as "a religion of peace." But for me, as a Syrian who grew up in Islamic country, a set of beliefs that insists that women are wicked is an evil set of belief. A pious ideology — that obliges non Muslims to live as subjects under it as unequal — is an immoral pious ideology.

Regrettably, we frequently experience politically correct harsh responses to criticism of Islam by those who admonish liberated Muslims or Arabs. They often use clichés such as, "There are violent stories in all religions texts," or "How can we bulk all Muslims into one group?" Or, "Among Christians and Jews there are also zealots who have done horrible things to others." All of these excuses are made without considering critical Islamic doctrines which play detrimental role in Islam's march towards Western decline.

Two years ago Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein published an article in the Los Angeles Times criticizing me in an unjust manner. Recently Rabbi's Stein article came back to life when an Arab man who happens to follow my writings translated the Rabbi's article into Arabic and published it in an Arabic website under the title "A Jewish Rabbi scandalizes Wafa Sultan".

Among other claims, Mr. Stein mentioned that he could not imagine a "Jewish woman standing among a group of Muslims and criticizing Judaism the same way Wafa Sultan criticizes Islam".

Is Mr. Stein lacking basic knowledge about Islam and demonstrating duplicity in regard to his own Jewish religion?

Here are a few hypothetic scenarios:

If a group of fanatic Jews beheaded an innocent Muslim, justifying their gruesome act as permissible according to Jewish texts, is there any doubt that countless of Jewish women would publicly criticize the tenets of Judaism that permit these outrageous creeds?

Had Jewish women been relegated to the status of animals as a result of their religious teachings, would one doubt Rabbi Stein's obvious support for Jewish women rebelling against their own traditions?

Recently, a well known Egyptian female lawyer called on national Arabic TV, to incite young Palestinian men to harass and rape Israeli women as part of their war against Israel (you can view her clip on MEMRI.org).

Had an Israeli lawyer declared publicly on a National Israeli TV the same type of incitement against Arabs, would Rabbi Stein object to Jewish women's unequivocal rejection of this hateful provocation?

Also, I am quite amazed at Rabbi Stein's ignorance of the intrinsic nature of Islamic anti-Semitism. One would assume that his obligation as a teacher and a leader of his Jewish community is to educate and protect his people. Unfortunately, his criticism only weakens Jews, and further strengthens Muslim anti-Semitism. (Please read Dr. Andrew Bostom new book; The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.)

One Islamic concept in particular is called in Arabic "Al Taqyya." It allows and encourages Muslims to lie and deceive others in order to reach their ultimate objective which is submitting the world to Islam under Sharia Law. To be sure, Islamists who follow the political ideology of subverting non Muslims under Islam do use the concept of Al Taqyyaa.

Hence, a destructive relationship is created: on one hand, Islamists lie to the gullible non-Muslims and on the other hand, many non Muslims, in particular proponents of interfaith dialogue accept their lies and avoid asking harsh and necessary questions to expose their dangerous intentions. In that context, the Muslims' Al Taqyyaa and the West's naiveté and ignorance about the true intentions of Islamists are both harmful models of engagement. Further, they both violate our right to know the truth, regardless of how evil or unintentional each side's objective is. Thus, Al Taqyyaa and political correctness are recipes for irreversible damage to the values of freedom and liberty, which are the foundation of our US constitution and other Western liberal democracies.

Rabbi Stein is one in a group of countless others who practice political correctness to avoid hurting those he claimed to be "his Muslim friends," as he mentions in his article. People who avoid facing the gloomy facts regarding Islam, have no moral authority to admonish liberated Arabs like me. Those who cannot confront Islamic doctrine boldly and will not allow themselves to question openly dreadful components of Islam are on the wrong side of this conflict.

I have often been asked to soften and compromise my message. I refuse to do so. I believe the way to solve this Islamic predicament is to highlight and confront it in a most truthful and subsequently painful manner. As we all would agree, at times, an acute disease must be treated aggressively rather than with a benign medicine like Aspirin.

Lastly, I will carry on my mission because I love Muslims. I dream of a future when all Muslims, especially from the Middle East, who yearn for better life outside their suppressive environment, can savor the taste of the freedom we all experience here in the US. This is not just Dr. King's dream; this is a dream that should be granted to all humanity — including those in the Muslim world.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, October 30, 2009.

Israeli policy-makers and public opinion molders tend to accept US Administrations as top authorities on the Middle East. They have sometimes chosen to depart sharply from their own ideology/strategy — under US Administration pressure - in spite of systematic and dramatic US policy blunders, which have undermined US interests in the Middle East and have jeopardized Israel's existence.

For instance, in 1948, the US State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA were convinced that establishment of the Jewish State would trigger a war, producing a second Jewish Holocaust in less than a decade, that a Jewish State would be a strategic burden upon the US, that Arab oil producers would boycott the US and that Israel would join the Communist Bloc. In order to dissuade Ben Gurion from declaration of independence, they imposed a military embargo on the region (while Britain supplied arms to the Arabs) and threatened Ben Gurion with economic sanctions.

During the 1950s, President Eisenhower courted Egyptian dictator, Nasser, in an attempt to snatch him out of Soviet influence. However, accepting Nasser as the Arab leader and as a key Non-Aligned statesman, offering financial aid to construct the Aswan Dam and leaning on Israel to "end occupation of the Negev," evacuate the entire Sinai Peninsula and internationalize parts of Jerusalem did not moderate Nasser's subversion of pro-US Arab regimes, support of Palestinian terrorism, recognition of Communist China and moving closer to Moscow.

During the 1970s and 1980s, until the day of the invasion of Kuwait, the US Administration supported Saddam Hussein. It concluded an intelligence-sharing accord with Baghdad, authorized the transfer of sensitive dual use US technologies to Saddam and approved five billion dollars in loan guarantees to "The Butcher from Baghdad." President Bush — and his National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, who is a role model for National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Defense Secretary Gates and has the ear of President Obama, assumed that "the enemy of my enemy (Iraq VS Iran) is my friend." However, the "enemy of my enemy" proved to be "my enemy."

In 1977, President Carter — who is admired by President Obama — opposed the Begin-Sadat peace initiative. He lobbied for an international conference and focused on the Palestinian issue and Jerusalem. However, the determination of Begin and Sadat forced Carter to join their peace bandwagon, which reached its destination by bypassing the Palestinian and the Jerusalem issues.

In 1979, President Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, the bulwark of US interests in the Persian Gulf. Carter and his National Security Advisor, Brzezinski — an informal advisor to Obama — facilitated the rise of Khomeini to power, thus triggering a strategic volcano, which is still haunting vital US concerns in the Middle East.

During 1993-2000, President Clinton and his advisor, Rahm Emanuel — President Obama's Chief-of-Staff - embraced the Oslo Process and Arafat as harbingers of peace and democracy. They anointed Arafat to the Most Frequent Visitor to the White House. However, never has a peace process produced as much bloodshed, terrorism, hate-education and non-compliance as has the Oslo Process. Clinton — just like Obama — contended that terrorism should be fought, primarily, through diplomatic and legal means. Hence Clinton's meek response to a series of assaults by Islamic terrorism from 1993 (First "Twin Towers") to 2000 (USS Cole), which led to 9/11. President Bush's "Two State Vision" — which has been adopted by President Obama — constitutes an extension of the severely-flawed White House track record in the Middle East.

The nature of the leadership of the proposed Palestinian state can be deduced from the profile of its potential leaders, who have become role models of inter-Arab treachery, subversion and terrorism. The "Good Cop," Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) — a graduate of KGB training and of Moscow University and the engineer of hate education — was expelled from Egypt (1955), Syria (1966) and Jordan (1970) for subversion. He played a key role in the PLO violent attempts to topple the government in Beirut and PLO collaboration with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

A Palestinian state would doom the Hashemite regime to oblivion, would constitute a tailwind to pro-Saddam terrorists in Iraq and to Islamic terrorists in Egypt, Lebanon and the Persian Gulf and would provide a foothold in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean to Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. A substantial annual net-emigration/flight, by moderate Palestinians, attests to the Palestinians' own expectations of the proposed Palestinian state.

The proposed Palestinian state on one hand, and Middle East stability and US and Israel national security on the other hand, constitute a classic oxymoron. A Palestinian state would add fuel — and not water — to the fire of terrorism and Middle East turbulence. The promotion of "The Two State Solution" proves that the US and Israeli policy-makers are determined to learn from history by repeating — rather than by avoiding — past dramatic blunders.

END NOTE: Chronology of Specific US Pressure

Fact: In 1950, the US Administration pressured Israel to refrain from Jewish construction in Jerusalem and from declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel — Prime Minister Ben Gurion built, relocated government agencies and thousands of immigrants to Jerusalem and declared Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish State. In 1967, the US Administration pressured against annexation of East Jerusalem — Prime Minister Eshkol annexed, reunited Jerusalem, and built the formidable Ramat Eshkol neighborhood. In 1970, the US Administration pressured Israel to relinquish control over parts of Jerusalem — Prime Minister Golda Meir constructed the neighborhoods of Gilo, Ramot and Neveh Yaakov (current population over 100,000!). The US Administration pressured, Israel constructed, Jerusalem expanded and the Jewish State earned strategic respect.

Fact: In 1948, the US Department of State, Pentagon and CIA pressured Ben Gurion to avoid a declaration of independence. In 1961, President Kennedy pressured to stop the construction of Israel's nuclear reactor in Dimona. In 1967, President Johnson pressured against pre-empting the Egypt-Syria-Jordan military offensive. In 1977, President Carter pressured Prime Minister Begin to abstain from direct negotiation with President Sadat and participate — instead — in an international conference, focusing on the Palestinian issue and Jerusalem. In 1981, President Reagan pressured Prime Minister Begin against bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor. Defiance of pressure entails short-term cost but enhances long-term national security. Submission to pressure exacerbates pressure. Fending off pressure is required, in order to attain strategic goals. Avoiding pressure — through concessions — leads to departure from strategic goals.

Fact: US public and Congressional support of Israel is robust. "The Rasmussen Report" documents a 70% support (Aug. 10, 2009) and "Gallup" ranks Israel as the fourth-favored ally (March 3, 2009). 71 Senators signed an August 10, 2009 letter calling upon President Obama to shift pressure from Israel to Arab countries. The Democratic Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Howard Berman, called upon Obama to end his preoccupation with settlements. The Democratic Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, resents Obama's opposition to Jewish construction in East Jerusalem. The strongest (Democratic) Senator, Daniel Inouye, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is the most effective supporter of the US-Israel connection since 1948. Obama cannot get his legislative agenda without Inouye's support. While Congress has reservations about Israel's settlements policy, Congress opposes sanctions against Israel.

Fact: Following the 1991 Gulf War, Israel asked for emergency assistance, which Bush/Baker rejected, Congress supported and Israel received $650MN in cash and $700MN in military systems. In 1990, Bush/Baker attempted to cut 5% of the foreign aid to Israel because of Israel's settlement activities. Congress opposed the cut and the initiative was rescinded. The Legislature and the Executive are equal-in-power and fully independent of each other. The US Congress has been a systematic bastion of support of the Jewish State since before 1948.

Fact: President Obama has been transformed from a coattail President to an anchor-chained President, taking a dive from a 65% approval rating in January to less than 50% in September, the sharpest decline in recent decades, other than President Ford's (due to his pardon of Nixon). Thus, Democratic House candidates/members are experiencing the lowest ebb in two years, while Republicans enjoy a systematic edge. Obama is confronted by an effective Blue Dog Democratic opposition.

Fact: President Obama exercises psychological pressure against Israel. He cannot exert an effective tangible pressure. He was not elected to uproot Jewish settlements and prevent Jewish construction in Jerusalem. His political future — and that of Democratic legislators — does not depend on these issues. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not among Obama's top priorities, and his position on Israel is not compatible with most Democrats. Obama needs the support of Israel's friends on Capitol Hill, in order to advance his primary domestic and national security/international agendas.

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger served as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel's Embassy in Washington and Director of Israel's Government Press Office, in addition to other posts. He speaks frequently on U.S. college campuses about the conflict in the Middle East.

This article appeared September 09, 2009 in Front Page Magazine

To Go To Top

Posted by Warren Goldstein, October 30, 2009.

Much has been written and said about the inaccuracies, shortcomings and the moral inversion of the United Nations Human Rights Council's Mission presided over by Judge Richard Goldstone and his three fellow members. Most critics have understandably addressed the political and military issues involved. It is important, however, also to deconstruct the Goldstone Mission's Report from a legal point of view.

This is so because the report uses the veneer of respectability that comes with legal methodology, and with the presence of an internationally respected judge, to gain credibility. Law is a very powerful weapon to give respectability to contemptible actions and opinions. The South African Apartheid Government was very legalistic in its approach to racial oppression, and was punctilious about promulgating proper laws, and about maintaining a fully functioning judiciary to give the façade of respectability to its repugnant policies.

The United Nations, through its various organs, but particularly through its Human Rights Commission, uses the superficial veneer of law and legal methodology to give credence and credibility to its anti-Israel agenda. The Goldstone Mission is a case in point. Careful analysis reveals that the legalities utilized are merely a cover for a political strategy of deligitimizing Israel. Judge Goldstone claims that the Mission "is not a judicial enquiry [but is] a fact-finding mission."

This is a distinction without a difference. The Mission's Report makes numerous factual findings, and some legal, just as if it were a judicial body.

The Report could have salvaged some measure of integrity had it stated that its findings, both legal and factual, were only prima facie. It did not do so.

Judges make factual and legal findings which have practical implications. There are very real consequences for Israel resulting from the findings of the Mission. Apart from holding Israel liable in international law to pay war reparations, Judge Goldstone refers the findings to the highest authorities of international law, including the United Nation's General Assembly and the Security Council, and he recommends the commencement of criminal investigations in the national courts of the state signatories to the Geneva Convention of 1949. Of course, the Report also inflicts very great and real harm to Israel's reputation in the court of world opinion. This has serious political, economic and military implications for Israel's future, and for its very survival.

Any civilized legal system requires that justice be done on two levels: procedural and substantive. The Goldstone Mission is replete with procedural and substantive injustices. From a procedural point of view, there are four main areas of injustice.

FIRSTLY, THE Human Rights Council's Resolution S-9/1 establishing the Mission expressly states that it "[s]trongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation [in Gaza] which has resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people," and in so doing pre-judges the guilt of Israel. The Resolution refers many times to Israel's guilt in a very lengthy document which is phrased in wide, undisciplined and aggressive language. Furthermore, it calls upon the Mission to investigate Israel's conduct and not that of Hamas. Although Goldstone and the President of the Human Rights Council purported to extend the ambit of the mandate, the legal basis for their doing so without the express authority of the Council is not clear.

The second procedural injustice is that the members of the Mission publicly expressed beforehand their opinions on this conflict. The most explicit in this regard, Professor Christine Chinkin, was one of the signatories to a letter published in the Sunday Times of London which stated that "Israel's actions amount to aggression, not self-defense, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary." The letter is published under the heading "Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not self-defense - it's a war crime."

The other three members, Judge Richard Goldstone, Hina Jilani and Desmond Travers, all signed a letter initiated by Amnesty International stating: "Events in Gaza have shocked us to the core." Thus, all four members of the Mission, including Goldstone himself, expressed public opinions concerning the Gaza conflict before they began their work.

Thirdly, the Goldstone Mission violated another basic principle of justice, audi alteram partem - let the other side be heard. At least due to the procedural injustices already referred to, the State of Israel correctly refused to cooperate with the Mission. Once it had done so the Mission ought, if it were objective and fair, to have accepted Israel's right to remain silent and then ought to have desisted from making findings whether factual or legal. But it did not do so, and as any lawyer knows unanswered allegations often prove unreliable and in almost all conflict situations there are serious disputes of fact, and often of law as well.

The Mission's findings were based on accepting the allegations of only one party to the conflict. The Mission did not try to cross-examine or challenge the witnesses in any real way. There is a lengthy, fascinating article by Jonathan HaLevi of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in which he analyses in detail the methodology employed by the Mission in respect of witnesses. He demonstrates that there was a lack of adequate cross-examination of the testimony of the witnesses. Unproven allegations of Hamas officials were accepted as established facts. Even the most basic questions were not asked; when, for example, allegations were made of Israel's bombing civilian installations, witnesses were not asked whether there were Hamas fighters or weaponry in the vicinity, or whether any attacks had been launched from the area.

There is a fourth procedural injustice which undermines the integrity and credibility of Judge Goldstone and the three other members of the Mission: There simply was not enough time to do the job properly.

Any lawyer with even limited experience knows that there was just not sufficient time for the Mission to have properly considered and prepared its report. One murder trial often takes many months of evidence and argument to enable a judge to make a decision with integrity. To assess even one day of battle in Gaza with the factual complexities involved would have required a substantial period of intensive examination. According to the Mission's Report, the Mission convened for a total of 12 days.

They say that they considered a huge volume of written and visual material running into thousands of pages; they conducted three field trips; there were only four days of public hearings; and yet in a relatively short space of time the members of the Mission agreed to about 500 pages of detailed material and findings with not one dissenting opinion throughout.

They made no less than 69 findings, mostly of fact, but some of law and within those 69 there were often numerous sub-findings.

All of this was quite simply physically impossible if the job had been done with integrity and care.

The fourth procedural injustice also demonstrates the total sham of this process.

THE SUBSTANTIVE injustices of the Goldstone Mission's Report are too numerous to mention in this article, but one illustrates how far the Mission was prepared to go, and that relates to the very important legal element of intent. Goldstone and his Mission impute the worst of intentions to the actions of the State of Israel, finding that Israel's conduct was motivated by a desire to repress and oppress, and to inflict suffering upon the Palestinian people, and not primarily for the purpose of self-defense. It does this without any evidence and then, without any supporting evidence, asserts that many of Israel's military operations such as that of Lebanon were motivated by the same goal.

The Mission fails to mention a modern leading military expert, Colonel Richard Kemp (the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan), who said, "From my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I do not think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civil casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza."

By contrast, on the Palestinian side, there is very clear evidence as to Hamas's intentions - the Hamas Charter openly calls for the destruction of Israel, irrespective of borders. It also calls for the murder of all Jews worldwide. Hamas's clear intention was to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible and to use its own civilian population as human shields. But not a word of Hamas's expressly stated intentions appear in the report.

One aspect of the evidence, presented to but not accepted by the Goldstone Mission, was that of Hamas leader Fathi Hammad, who said: "This is why we have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if we are saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death while you desire life."

These procedural and substantive injustices demonstrate the complete lack of integrity and fairness of the process. It looks like law, but it is not. It is just politics.

The Goldstone Mission is a disgrace to the most basic notions of justice, equality and the rule of law. And it is dangerous. Injustice will only lead to more death and destruction.

The Talmud says "The world stands on three things: truth, justice and peace." These three values are linked. There can never be peace without justice and truth.

The Goldstone Mission is unjust and wanting in truth. It has, therefore, harmed the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

Warren Goldstein has a PhD. in Human Rights Law. He is the chief rabbi of South Africa.

This article appeared October 14, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255450652253&pagename =JPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, October 30, 2009.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Israel is doing quite well in American public opinion, as an important survey recently revealed.

Even with the media's regularly-scheduled bombardments against Israel's image, support for the Jewish state has proven to be fairly inelastic and durable among wide swathes of the American populace. A vast majority view Israel as an ally of the US, even if they know very little about the country or have trouble finding it on a map.

But, as I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, Israel and its supporters can not rest on our laurels. We need to start thinking outside the box, but also outside the bubble - worrying a little less about what the New York Times may have said yesterday, and a lot more about creating a comprehensive strategic vision for hasbara.

Combating specific instances of media bias is important, but at the end of the day what really counts is the "big picture" - the themes and narratives that take hold in the public's mind when (and even if) they think about the Jewish state. It is there that Israel and its supporters need to devote more of their time and energy.

Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly.



Always on the lookout for a chance to talk up Israel while traveling abroad, I decided to utilize a recent appointment with a physical therapist in Manhattan for more than just a stretch of my stubborn hamstring.

As this licensed professional politely twisted me into seemingly impossible contortions, perhaps mistaking me for some out-of-costume comic book hero, I ignored the desire to scream and instead asked what his impression was of the Jewish state.

"Israel? That's near Gaza or something, isn't it?" he said, applying yet another sideways yank to one of my legs, which quickly began to resemble those obtuse angles we had learned about way back in high-school geometry.

"Yes," I practically screeched, while quietly praying that his knowledge of human anatomy surpassed his acquaintance with Middle Eastern geography, "that's correct."

"And aren't they fighting against you, or at least they were?" he asked without any sense of irony as he applied a technique to my lower body that I was sure had originated with the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of the Iraqi insurgency.

In between bouts of occasionally gut-wrenching pulls and stretches, I proceeded to give him a brief discourse on the history and intricacies of the Arab-Israeli conflict. How effective it was I cannot say, though thankfully it did appear to distract him somewhat, giving my tormented muscles some much-needed relief.

Finally, before parting, he told me that he had always liked Israel and wanted to visit, and truly hoped to make it there someday.

AS I hobbled down onto the busy streets of New York, I began to consider the anecdotal evidence that I had just gathered regarding Israel's status in the minds of Americans, and what lessons could be learned about our efforts at hasbara, or public diplomacy.

Here was a well-educated non-Jewish professional in media-saturated Manhattan, where hardly a day goes by without various media outlets bashing the Jewish state, and yet he nonetheless felt a basic sense of sympathy and even support for our predicament. And while he would apparently have trouble finding Israel on a map, let alone understanding the intricacies of our military, diplomatic and political challenges, he had heard of our little country and thought of it as a place he would very much like to see.

This scene repeated itself - minus the leg stretches of course - in various other conversations that I had with a range of people in the New York metropolitan area. Clearly, there is a lot of general backing out there among the American public for the Jewish state, much more than perhaps many of us suppose.

Sure, I know what you think. New York is not America, and it would be a mistake to suggest that it is anything close to being a representative sample. Granted, that may be true. But the assertion that Israel enjoys widespread support in the US received some compelling scientific backing in the results of a survey published last week by the widely-respected Rasmussen Reports.

The venerable polling firm asked Americans from all walks of life "to assess America's relations with the key Middle Eastern countries in the news." Whereas only 39 percent said they deem Egypt to be a US ally, and just 23% consider Saudi Arabia to be one, the results regarding Israel were far and away superior.

A whopping 70% of Americans said they view Israel as an "ally," versus just 8% who consider her an "enemy."

That is a pretty astonishing figure. Indeed, many European countries probably wouldn't score as high on a popularity contest either in Washington or Wichita.

THUS, CONTRARY to conventional wisdom, Israel is doing quite well in American public opinion. Even with the regularly-scheduled bombardments directed against its image, support for the Jewish state has proven to be fairly inelastic and durable among wide swathes of the American populace.

Obviously, this does not mean that Israel and its supporters can rest on our laurels, kick back and relax. There is still plenty of work to be done in terms of rebranding Israel's image so that it is not constantly associated with war, conflict and turmoil. But it does underline an important point: most of us live in a hasbara bubble, where we are so consumed by the minutiae of each and every event and how it is reported or distorted that we often lose sight of the forest for the trees.

And so, when an unflattering article appears in the Boston Globe, or a derogatory piece is published in The Los Angeles Times, many pro-Israel activists plunge into crisis mode, investing countless hours in trying to rebut something that most people probably never even bothered to read. Since they live and breathe Israel, and follow everything that happens here with meticulous care, they often forget that the details actually matter far less to most people.

Now don't get me wrong - combating specific instances of media bias is important, and eliciting corrections when newspapers err is an essential part of the struggle for truth. But at the end of the day, what really counts is the "big picture," the themes and narratives that take hold in the public's mind when (and even if) they think about the Jewish state. It is there that Israel and its supporters need to devote more of their time and energy.

What is so desperately needed is a comprehensive strategic vision for hasbara, one that clearly articulates a set of objectives for what kind of image Israel can and should project, while spelling out an array of tactics for achieving them.

So let's start focusing just a little less on yesterday's Washington Post, and more on how to position Israel and improve her brand name in the future.

When it comes to hasbara, we desperately need to start thinking outside the box. But we also need to look beyond the bubble. For it is out there, in the physical therapist's office, the corner grocery and the local pizzeria, that the battle for American public opinion can, and ultimately will, be won.

Michael Freund writes a column for Jerusalem Post and it is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418640288&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by Zalman Shoval, October 30, 2009.

US President Barack Obama's inspirational speech at the UN included more thana few passages about the Middle East conflict. He expressed the hope for "a justand lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world," a wish shared by all Israelis. Upon closer look at some of the president's statements, several question marks arise.

The speech didn't, for instance, mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, the principal reasons for instability in the Middle East and beyond. Nor did it condemn the Arab world's refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of its own. No less problematic, the reference to ending "the occupation that began in 1967" puts history on its head, as it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This clearly inverts cause and effect.

As the writer and historian Simon Schama wrote, history should endeavor "to disentangle fact from fable," also reminding us that one of America's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had said "Facts are stubborn things." Well, the facts regardingthe conflict in the Holy Land, though often deliberately or inadvertently distorted or ignored , are indeed "stubborn." Terrorist activities against Israel had started years before the "occupation," and the PLO committed to the destruction ofthe Jewish state was founded in 1964.

NO LESS important in the factual and historical sense are the actual antecedents of the "Six-Day War" which resulted in the "occupation" to which the president's speech referred.

On May 13, 1967 the Egyptian dictator Gamel Abdel Nasser announced that two Egyptian divisions would move into the Sinai Peninsula bordering on southern Israel - contrary to international agreements, US commitments and UN guarantees. Caving in to Nasser's blustering, the then UN Secretary U Thant agreed to remove the UN emergency force from the area.

The next day, Egyptian armored and infantry columns crossed the Suez Canal and started moving towards the Israeli frontier. Shortly after, Cairo announced that it would block all shipping to the port of Eilat, Israel's only maritime outlet in the south, while Egyptian Mig21 war planes began flying over Israeli territory including the Dimona area. Concurrently, Syrian and Iraqi forces were ordered to prepare for an assault on northern Israel. The minimum strategic aim of the Egyp tians, as was revealed later, was to cut off Israel's Negev from the rest of the country - but Nasser himself, in both public and secret statements, left no doubt that his ultimate aim was the complete annihilation of the State of Israel.

A decisive turning point leading up to the Six-Day War and grievously affecting the history of the entire Middle East to this day, occurred on May 30, 1967. On that date, King Hussein of Jordan, who had been regarded both by Israel and theUS as a paragon of peace and moderation, without warning, infamously signed a military agreement with Egypt's Nasser, his former bitter enemy, including a Jordanian commitment to join Egypt in any war with Israel, stationing Egyptian and Iraqi forces inside Jordan. The "Arab Legion," considered by many as the Arab world'sbest fighting machine, was put under Egyptian command. Cairo radio crowed that now Israel's only escape was the sea.

Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan) had in 1948 occupied and later annexed the western part of Palestine, hence called the "West Bank" - thus making the kingdom Israel's next door neighbor, abutting on most of the latter's population centers, including west Jerusalem and Israel's only international airport. King Hussein's precise motives are debatable; some believe that he wanted to placate the Palestinian majority inside his country, others ascribed it to the King's desire to get part of the spoils if the Arabs were be victorious against Israel.

The rest, as the expression goes, is history. The war broke out on June 5; the Egyptian air force was totally destroyed on the first day and the IDF advancingtoward the Suez Canal, wiped out the Egyptian forces in its wake. The blockade of Eilat was lifted. In the north, the Golan Heights from which the Syrian army began its attack on Israel, were taken - and Jordanian troops, after an unsuccessful attempt to force their way into West Jerusalem, were, after several days of hard fighting, expelled from all of the land west of the Jordan River. Israel had achieved complete victory in a war of legitimate self-defense against blatant aggression whose declared aim had been its obliteration.

ALL OF the above was fully acknowledged by most of the nations of the world, though not, of course, by the Arab countries and their allies, or by the Soviet Union which according to some views, had actually egged on the Arab governments in their aggressive designs. Successive American leaders declared that Israel should never be asked to go back to its former vulnerable borders, while the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242 which specifically linked any Israeli withdrawals from "territories" to achieving secure borders.

This is what 1967 is all about: not "ending" occupation, but making sure thatIsrael will never again be put in a situation like the one it faced in that fateful year.

Zalman Shoval is the former Israel Ambassador to the US, and currently heads the Prime Minister's forum of US-Israel Relations.

This was published Oct 4, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254673317520&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by David Ben-Ariel, October 30, 2009.

The hypocritical UN, that diseased body of the dysfunctional family of nations, is worthless except as a polluted podium for the sworn enemies of freedom, righteousness and democracy.

It would have been well for the United States to have expelled the accursed UN from off our sacred soil of liberty years ago rather than empower them with a voice and credibility they clearly do not deserve.

The affirmative action UN has dumbed down and endangered the world and we have aided and abetted their terrorism against Judeo-Christian civilization.

The UN is an assault against those biblical values we hold dear, an insult to the ideals we championed: In the words of Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, ..."the Charter of the United Nations reflected our national optimism and our predilection for faith in good works. It was idealistic to the point of utopianism. ...And it was doomed from the start."

Remember when Chuck Lichenstein, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and deputy to Ambassador Kirkpatrick soundly remarked: "If, in the judicious determination of the members of the United Nations, they feel they are not welcome and treated with the hostly consideration that is their due, the United States strongly encourages member states to consider seriously removing themselves and this organization from the soil of the United States. We will put no impediment in your way, and we will be at the dockside bidding you farewell as you set off into the sunset"?

I disagree they were due anything but utmost contempt, abusing the good graces and naive hospitality of We The People of these United States.

Even as many are recognizing the desperate need for an alternative to the highly discredited Nobel Peace Prize, irreparably tarnished by leftists, proposing the Reagan Prize — it is imperative for the English-speaking nations of white Israelites to forge a more perfect union than the Gentile-dominated UN to advance our cause and secure our rights.

Cecil Rhodes was correct when he stated: "I contend that we are the first race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race." Of course, inspired men like Rhodes were instrumental in fulfilling prophecies about British-Israelites (Ephraim), the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples, inheriting the ends of the Earth. Israel in the Isles was driven by Manifest Destiny to settle and colonize our God-given inheritances, as the American people (Manasseh) claimed our God-given inheritance from sea to shining sea.

Rhodes' ideal of an English-speaking union of nations has been corrupted by godless globalists, his plans perverted, nevertheless it stands as a springboard for ideas we must seriously consider, so help us God.

Whether our white Israelite nations, including our Jewish brethren, amend our ways and work together for our common good, remembering our Hebrew roots and biblical responsibilities, we are reassured by the words of the Prophets that we shall ultimately, collectively, serve as One Nation Under God: a truly United Kingdom.

David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall." Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 30, 2009.

The Sociology department at Tel Aviv University has been engaged in subsidized sedition. It has offered a course in one-sided propaganda and leftist indoctrination. And Tel Aviv University students got PAID to sign up and be indoctrinated in the course! Really!

The course, which is evidently not offered this year but was offered as late as 2007-8, was entitled "Bureaucracy, Governmentality, and Human Rights." It was group-taught, mainly by Tel Aviv University Marxist sociologist and far-leftist anti-Zionist Professor Yehouda Shenhav, together with far-leftist non-academic political activists. The latter were two lawyers, Yael Berda from the extremist "Machsom Watch" political group, specialized in interfering with Israeli military checkpoints in the "territories," and Michael Sfard, the attorney for the far-Left "Association for Civil Rights in Israel." The ACRI believes that Jews have no civil rights worth defending but Arabs have the right to use violence to evict Israel from "occupied territories."

The course was also offered by Shenhav and friends to visiting students from Tufts University (see this). The syllabus of the course shows that it consists only of leftist anti-Israel propaganda. No pro-Israel speakers or writers were included in the course materials. Students in the course were taken around to visit various Israeli far-leftist groups like the extremist "Yesh Din," and also Palestinian propagandists. The lectures included diatribes against Israeli imperialism and colonialism. Israel is denounced throughout the course as racist and as an apartheid regime. Occupation of Palestinians is denounced as a horrible atrocity, with never a word as to how and why the "occupation" came about and what the costs have been to Israel from attempts at ending the "occupation." Go to
http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/AK_bureaucracygovernmentalityhumanrights.pdf to see the entire course outline.

So here we have the spectacle of Tel Aviv University not only offering a one-sided propaganda and indoctrination program in anti-Israel extremism all dressed up as a course in "sociology," but also making payments to students who agree to be subjected to the indoctrination. Each student was paid about 1450 NIS plus additional expenses.

Well, my friend and comrade Seth Frantzman, a Phd student at the Hebrew University and a writer for Isracampus.org.il, the watchdog group that monitors and exposes Israeli extremist academics, has come up with a brilliant idea. He (and I second his call) would like to challenge the heads of Tel Aviv University. We would like to ask the heads of Tel Aviv University whether in the name of pluralism and balance they would be willing to approve in principle the following course as a new one to be offered to students in the sociology department. We would like to know if the following course content, which largely parallels the course offered by Shenhav and his buddies, is acceptable. And we would like to ask how much money Tel Aviv University is willing to pay the students who sign up for the course.

Here is the course outline as prepared by Seth Frantzman:

Tel Aviv University
Faculty of Social Sciences
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Yearly Course
Two weekly hours

Bureaucracy, Governmentality and Individual Rights — Alternative Course Syllabus
Prof. Benny Alon
TA: Adv. Itamar Ben-Gvir
Guest lecturer: Baruch Marzel

The course will discuss managerial theory and practice, with an emphasis on mind control mechanisms that Palestinians developed to train terrorists in the context of the West Bank. We will examine the historical sources of these mechanisms and attempt to situate them within the Islamist context, particularly as envisioned in Wahhabism and the writings of Said Qutb. We will then demonstrate how the Hebrew freedom fighter is reflected, within the spaces of sovereignty he creates, in the NGO-funding practices of European countries, their agents and executive authorities. In addition, we will demonstrate how the Palestinian Islamist culture creates lawless spaces, where people's lives become exposed to violence or the threat thereof. Simultaneously, we will analyze the political and cultural implications of historical anachronism, relating them to questions of morality and religion, politics and sovereignty, and political theology. We will place special emphasis on the relationship between radical Hamas interpretations of religion and Fatah bureaucracy and their ties with violence, in all forms. Through the course, we will familiarize ourselves with the complexity of maintaining the human rights of the Hebrew, particularly in the unusual yet daily events in which they are most crucial. We will learn to listen to testimonies and stories from the points of view of different actors in the event, and primarily "look over the shoulder" of those working in service of the Yishuv, in order to try and understand the mechanisms and the networks of events operating in reality.

Course structure

The course is a seminar combining theory and practice. In addition to Prof. Alon's lectures, Activist Itamar Ben Gvir and his friends will accompany the course as a guest lecturer. Every two weeks, the students will take part in Yesh Yehudut's project of observing Palestinian militancy, and in Yad L'Achim's project of assistance to Jewish women trapped in the houses of their abusive Arab husbands in the Palestinian territories. Under the direction of these organizations, the students will be involved in documentation, building a Jewish outpost, advocacy and coordination while maintaining a journal documenting their activity. The students will be guided by Itamar Ben-Gvir, both individually and in groups. Students will receive transportation expenses and a yearly scholarship of NIS 1450. At the end of the year, each student will submit an article based upon her activities and experiences, with reference to the course's theoretical content. Some of the articles will be collected in a book edited by Prof. Alon, Baruch Marzel and Adv. Itamar Ben-Gvir, in cooperation with the organizations.

Schedule and outline

October 24 — Lecture 1: Introduction of the course, group guidance
Prof. Alon, Adv. Ben-Gvir, Adv. Marzel
October 31 — Field work
November 7 — Lecture 2: Development of bureaucratic thought, managerial revolution and rationalism as an ideology
November 14 — Field work
November 24 — Islamism and terrorism — Guest lecturer: Baruch Marzel
November 28 — Field work
December 3 — Lecture 3: Bureaucracy and political catastrophes
December 12 — Field work
December 19 — Lecture 4: Sovereignty, governance and power
December 20 — Field work
January 2: Testimony of suicide bombers and confession. Guest lecturer: Seth Frantzman
January 9 — Field work
January 16 — Field work
February 27 — Lecture 5: Political theology and the state of emergency
March 6 — Lecture 6: Islamism — occupier and occupied: from co-dependency to "exposed life"
March 13 — Field work
March 20 — Field work
March 27 — Racialization and Wahhabism
April 10 — Field work
April 17 — Lecture 7: The security paradigm
April 24 — Field work
May 8 — Lecture 9: Bureaucracy of Hamas' Shariah judicial system
May 15 — Field work
May 29 — Lecture 10: Globalization of terrorism, disaster management and humanitarian organizations
June 5 — Concluding meeting

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

This article appeared yesterday in the Jewish Press and is archived at
http://thejewishpress.blogspot.com/2009/10/ public-challenge-to-tel-aviv-university.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 29, 2009.


Amnesty International (A.I.) has issued more than 20 statements highly critical of Israel during Gaza and since, the latest accusing Israel on water.

The A.I. report, "Troubled Waters — Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water", is timed to strengthen the Israel boycott campaign, coinciding with a US speaking tour linking the water issue and Israeli 'apartheid'. The report itself is a political document which promotes an imaginary and highly distorted version of international law. In addition, it omits critical context to the conflict in order to promote the Palestinian narrative, thereby continuing the NGO-led political warfare against Israel."

The report backs up a coming speaking tour at U.S. colleges, "organized by the Palestinian Cultural Academic Boycott of Israel (PCABI) movement entitled, "Israel's Control of Water as a Tool of Apartheid and means of Ethnic Cleansing."

A.I. claims that Palestinian Arabs consume 60-70 liters per person per day, "the lowest in the region." Available evidence, however, finds similar or lower levels in Amman, Tunis and Algiers.

The report ignores other evidence, too, such as that Israel provides Arabs in Judea-Samaria with more water than Oslo requires and that Arabs steal almost half of the water in some areas."

The report presumes that Israel is violating Arab rights, because Oslo "codified inequality in access to water resources. This approach patronizingly assumes that the Palestinian leadership is incapable of negotiating agreements." Will A.I. encourage the P.A. to abrogate future agreements on similar ground?

"The report invents standards of international law, by erroneously claiming that Israel has an "obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to water" based on the International Covenant of Economic, Cultural & Social Rights (ICESCR). Amnesty falsely implies that the ICESCR demands a right to water when no such right is even mentioned in the treaty. In fact, the legislative history of the ICESCR indicates that the State parties deliberately omitted water issues."

"This report has been cynically timed by Amnesty to boost a new wave of Israel boycott campaigning. It is a pointed example of Amnesty's ongoing campaign of hostility towards Israel." (NGO Monitor in www.imra.org.il, 10/27.)


The Oslo Accords allocate 23.6 million cubic meters a year to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Israel, however, has allowed the P.A. access to almost twice as much. Israel also offered the P.A. desalinated water, but the P.A. rejects the offer for political reasons. Israel had more than met its commitment.

The P.A., however, violates its commitment. It refuses foreign aid to build obligatory sewage treatment plants, for political reasons. [One political reason is that that would mean cooperation with Israel. Unfortunately, sewage pollutes scarce water aquifers.]

Another violation is illegal drilling of more than 250 wells, without the authorization of the Joint Water Commission. [An excessive number of wells can lower water pressure, so that the new wells reduce output from the old ones.]

How many cubic meters per person are consumed per year, in both areas? In 1967, Israelis had 508. In 2008, it dramatically dropped to 149. The P.A. volume rose 86 (in 1967) to 105 (in 2008). Remember what the P.A. does to lower its own water availability.

Israel has been closing the gap in the two people's consumption, despite P.A. recalcitrance. How then can A.I. accuse Israel of "discriminatory policies?" A.I."chose to ignore Israeli data, papers and reports, although they contain verifiable facts presented with total transparency. This questionable approach, which consists in systematically disregarding Israeli material while relying exclusively on Palestinian allegations, raises doubts as to the real intentions of the report's authors and of the organization itself."

For a full report, see the Israel Water Authority website:
www.water.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/A111EFEF-3857-41F0-B598- F48119AE9170/0/WaterIssuesBetweenIsraelandthePalestinians.pdf (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, www.imra.org.il, 10/27.)

A.I. works like the Goldstone commission and Human Rights Watch. They accept Arab "agit-prop," as we used to dub Soviet warfare by propaganda, and reject Israeli information which is not aggressive but explains the situation in practical terms.

The Foreign Ministry might have added that when Israel acquired control over Gaza, it found that the Arabs had let it get too brackish for use. Israel flushed into the Gaza aquifer enough water to revive it. Does that sound like denial of water?

Arabs and their supporters toss around terms such as "ethnic cleansing" without basis or understanding. They don't study population figures. Israel still is sending water to Gaza, despite Gaza being in a state of war with Israel. Also, the government of Israel has been boosting the Arab economy in Judea-Samaria. Some ethnic cleansing!


MK Danny Danon of Likud is preparing a bill to ban from political activity in Israel NGOs financed by foreign governments. Some such NGOs, such as Peace Now, have become, in effect, foreign agents.

Peace Now violated existing law by failing to publicize its foreign funding. MK Danon wanted Peace Now stripped of its non-profit status for that. During investigations, Peace Now was forced to admit it got significant funds from foreign governments. Britain specifically directed Peace Now to spy out settlement activity and report it to Britain, so Britain can interfere in Israeli affairs.

For decades, Peace Now urged Israel to cede large swaths of territory to the Arabs. When Israeli didn't, Peace Now accused it of being responsible for the lack of peace. Under Oslo,16 years ago, Israel did cede "...half of Judea and Samaria, all of Gaza, as well as assets, funds and even arms to the Palestinian Authority (PA), only to receive unprecedented terrorism and extremism in return..." Nevertheless, "...Peace Now continues to urged massive concessions to the unreconstructed, terror-supporting PA."

Israelis have become disillusioned with Peace Now. "An August 2009 poll conducted by Magaar Mohot Survey Institute has found that 41% of Israeli Jews believe that the Peace Now movement has caused great damage to the State of Israel while only 19% think it has not." Other polls had similar results.

In 2006, Peace Now claimed that many of the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria were built on land owned by individual Arabs. Peace Now claimed dramatically that this held for 86.4% of the land upon which Ma'ale Adumim is built. Peace now was proved wrong. Eventually it admitted that only about half a percent of Ma'ale Adumim's land was privately owned by Arabs. Peace Now was proved similarly wrong about other Jewish towns. The owner of Revava's land sued for libel in Jerusalem Magistrates Court. "...Peace Now was convicted. The court ordered Peace Now to pay damages of 20,000 NIS and to make a public apology." (10/27 press release from ZOA, of which I am a member,

Peace Now had implied massive land theft by residents, but it is massive error by Peace Now. Residents may have had an occasional, understandable error.


Israeli National Union Dr. Michael Ben-Arai is the first MK to boycott the annual Rabin memorial. The memorials are used to propagandize for Rabin's policy of appeasement that led thousands to become widows and orphans and for denouncing religious Jews in general because the convicted assassin attended a religious college
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/28).


Do the government and certain officials of Israel surreptitiously "Arabize" the Old City? Consider the latest surprise and in the context of the pattern.

Israeli custom has road names either in Hebrew alone or combined with Arabic and English. According to law, changes in street names require prior public notice. Residents of Jerusalem, however, were surprised to find several street signs replaced from Hebrew names to Arabic ones with different meanings.

Some officials denounced this "waste of money," demanded restoration, and are determining the cause. Groups in Jerusalem had accused the government before of subversively encouraging a creeping sovereignty there by the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Examples are P.A. land-grabs and P.A. police patrols
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/, Arutz-7, 10/28).

I had reported other instances of this violation of Oslo, which bars the P.A. from jurisdiction in Jerusalem: P.A. diplomats receiving European diplomats, placing ministries in offices, adjudicating disputes among Arabs, and summoning Arabs not citizens of the P.A. to the P.A., abandoning the area around Atarot Airport and beginning to abandon the airport, barring Jewish worship on the Temple Mount, letting the Waqf build illegally on the Temple Mount, and letting the Waqf illegally destroy ancient Jewish artifacts from the Temple Mount while claiming that there was no ancient Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Government still impedes Jewish reclamation of property from Arab squatters. Individual Jewish efforts are denounced by foreign governments and humanitarian organizations, which prefer that laws, signed agreements, and individual justice be violated in behalf of Arabs.

The broader context is of a Left which can't win elections, but tries to make fait accomplish and keeps pressing for surrenders and withdrawals, stubborn about it despite thousands of casualties resulting from prior such experiments. The Left has gone to the treasonous extent of urging foreign pressure upon Israel to submit to the enemies seeking to destroy Israel and not merely accept concession.

The street name changes may possibly be a bureaucratic misunderstanding. But the pattern is of leftist subversion of the official government position and the Oslo Accords. It is difficult to blame the Arabs for certain violations, when they are encouraged to do so by leftist Israeli officials. By subverting those solemn accords, those officials encourage other Arab violations of peace agreements and an aggressive Arab attitude of creeping annexation.

Ironic, isn't it, that while the Arabs pretend that Israel is "Judaizing" Jerusalem, which has had a Jewish majority for more than 150 years, and whose Jewish ancestors built the Temple Mount, Israel is "Arabizing" parts of Jerusalem?


The Peace Bloc of Israel circulates a boycott list of Israeli "settlements" and their products. Jews of Samaria circulate that list to encourage patronage. They thank the Peace Bloc for informing Israelis where the listed products come from.

In exhorting to boycott, the list asserts, "The settlements over the Green Line are the main obstacle to historic peace between Israel and Palestine." "It is the national obligation of every Israeli citizen," Peace Bloc continues, "and of every person for whom peace is a supreme value, to do his best to return the Israeli citizen settlers to their homes that are in the State of Israel."

"This statement is widely considered to be patently false, in that there is no longer an entity called Palestine, and because the PLO was founded with the goal of destroying Israel in 1964, three years before Israel liberated the areas past the Green Line (Judea and Samaria)"

Another false notion is that Israelis in the Territories also have homes in the State of Israel. They have only their homes in the State. [One might think that Peace Bloc may just have used awkward wording, and may have meant homeland, but the Territories are more core to the Jewish homeland than the State of Israel.]

When 10,000 Jews of Gaza and northern Samaria were expelled several years ago, it was a daunting and still incomplete task to find them homes in the State. Many had their lives wrecked. To attempt the same for 300,000 to 500,000 would be nigh impossible
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/28).

This is another example of the Left, being divisive. Unable to gain its way democratically, it seeks to do so by a form of force and ill-considered subterfuge. Ironically, it calls itself the Peace Bloc, although itsr policy of appeasement encourages totalitarian imperialists, whether fascists, Soviets, or Muslim Arabs, to make war. Israel's recent wars and Arafat's Intifadas are examples.


Lebanon's Ministry of Information reports that the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL found four rocket launchers primed and aimed at "occupied Palestinian territories," referring to the Galilee in the State of Israel (www.imra.org.il, 10/28).

Lavish misapplication of the term, "occupied," has worked so well for Arab propagandists against the Territories, that they now are applying it to parts of the State of Israel. Their goals are conquest of Israel, in other words, holy 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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 28, 2009.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. To see more of his graphic art, go to
http://nowthese.blogspot.com/ and

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, October 29, 2009.

Yitzchak Rabin's Legacy, The Altalena

The Israeli media is now full of 1984-style programs and statements in memory of their idol, Yitzchak Rabin. In contrast, many of us remember a different Rabin and a different Israeli History.

Yitzchak Rabin was a David Ben Gurion loyalist, a Palmach officer, an IDF (Israel Defense Forces) Chief of Staff, twice Israel's Prime Minister, who was murdered (assassinated) after a public appearance at a Left wing rally, fourteen years ago. Since then Israel's Left, media, politicians, academics etc have used it as the springboard, justification for massive character assassination against anyone who dares to disagree with their opinions and ideology.

If this was literature, instead of history, it would be written as a classic case of poetic justice, "...a literary device in which virtue is ultimately rewarded or vice punished, and often in modern literature by an ironic twist of fate intimately related to the character's own conduct."

That brings us to the Altalena, a tragedy caused by vile hatred of Jew against Jew. It dwarfs the despicable sezon, when Ben Gurion's followers gave names of fellow Jews to the British to have them arrested and worse.

In 1948, Menachem Begin's Irgun had managed to buy much-needed arms for the battle for Israel's Independence. An agreement had been reached with the new provisional government concerning how they were to be used and distributed, with a priority for freeing Jerusalem's Old City. But David Ben Gurion tricked him and ended up sending his soldiers, including Yitzchak Rabin, to attack the ship, sink the weapons and murder Jews.

"Begin had meanwhile boarded the Altalena, which was now heading for Tel Aviv. He hoped that it would be possible to enter into a dialogue with the Provisional Government and to unload the remaining weapons peacefully. But this was not the case. Ben-Gurion ordered Yigael Yadin (acting Chief of Staff) to concentrate large forces on the Tel Aviv beach and to take the ship by force. Heavy guns were transferred to the area and at four in the afternoon, Ben-Gurion ordered the shelling of the Altalena. One of the shells hit the ship, which began to burn. There was danger that the fire would spread to the holds which contained explosives, and the captain ordered all aboard to abandon ship. People jumped into the water, whilst their comrades on shore set out to meet them on rafts. Although the captain flew the white flag of surrender, automatic fire continued to be directed at the unarmed survivors. Begin, who was on deck, agreed to leave the ship only after the last of the wounded had been evacuated."

The late Shmuel Katz, told me that he had always believed that the main goal of the attack was to assassinate Menachem Begin, whom Ben Gurion considered his strongest rival. Menachem Begin, always the noble gentleman, in his naive innocence could never accept such a theory, nor would he demand apologies and cheshbon nefesh, accounting of the soul, from those who attacked him and his followers.

In Psychology there's a principle called projection, "Projection also appears where we see our own traits in other people..." That explains why Menachem Begin and Israel's pro-Jews in the Land of Israel Right wing do not constantly verbalize character assassination and incitement against the Left, but the Left always does it against the Right.

The Israeli Left has a documented history of discrimination and violence, for example the Altalena and Amona, against the Right, though they have no problems constantly proclaiming us as violent and guilty of attacking fellow Jews.

Israeli society is still suffering from pre-State hatreds and the Yitzchak Rabin murder is being utilized as a tool against a large and growing segment of the Israeli public. I don't know if we'll ever really know who was behind that assassination. I just know that the Left has enthusiastically adopted it as their mantra, their weapon of choice against loyal and innocent Jewish citizens.

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il/ This essay is archived at
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2009/10/ yitzchak-rabins-legacy-altalena.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 29, 2009.

Israel's Defense Minister, Gen. (ret.) Ehud Barak is known to some as "The Poison Dwarf".

The Kvir Division soldiers being sworn in at the Western Wall Thursday October 22nd held up a banner sign that said "Shimshon Does Not Evacuate Homesh". They were collectively protesting the evacuation of the North Samarian settlement of Homesh during the August 2005 Disengagement — and continual destruction of any rebuilding attempted by the Jews who were forcibly evicted by Jewish soldiers on orders.

Barak proclaimed that the soldiers' actions constituted "an irregular incident which caused damage to the IDF and the state," stressing that there was "no place" for subversive behavior in Israel's military.

So, who was the subversive and who were the patriots?

The proud new recruits were protesting their orders to destroy Jewish homes and evict Jewish men, woman and children. Their parents and relatives attending the ceremony also raised such signs that "Shimshon Does Not Evacuate Homesh".

The un-proud Defense Minister has forgotten why the Nuremberg Trials took place after the German Nazis were defeated in WW2. At that time in 1945-6, the world objected to German officers and soldiers accepting orders to murder Jews and made no effort to object to those orders. Now, instead of protesting or even resigning, the Israeli government and Defense Minister have ordered their young soldiers to drive Jewish men, women and children out of their homes.

Those Leftists, like Ehud Barak, were not only in agreement with this dastardly betrayal of their own Jewish people, they had actually plotted this subversion of the Jewish enterprise for years. Men like Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, among others were natural adversaries against those who had pride in their Jewishness and desire to build the Jewish State.

The Shimshon Battalion raised banners which spoke of not being willing to drive Jews from their homes. This infuriated the Leftist Commanders who put some of the protesting soldiers in jail.

I have little doubt that, one day, when the people of Israel take back their own Government and their Courts, then those who betrayed the nation by bonding with the Arab Muslims will be tried and sentenced to long terms in prison. More and more those who serve in the military do not wish to follow the example of the Nazi regime who ordered their officers and soldiers to persecute and murder the Jews. From destroying their synagogues, homes, shops and factories — to enslaving them in the camps and, when they were no longer considered useful as slave labor — gassing, hanging or shooting them. The nations looked on with no objections or offers of rescue and refuge.

When Israeli soldiers volunteer to fight Muslim Arab Terrorists or the Islamic Jihadist states, they did not expect they would be forced to fight Jews in order to please and appease foreign interests.

Israelis of the Left who come to power, whether as politicians or generals, are the danger to the Jewish nation and the Jewish Army. Those Quislings of the Left are always the first to run. They resist volunteering but, always enthusiastic in joining the effort to attack hard-working Israeli Jews in the territories of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan Heights and all those parts of Jerusalem (north, east and south) that Jordan occupied and desecrated for 19 years from 1948 to 1967.

IF the Muslim Arabs (G-d forbid) get the upper hand as recommended by the Leftists, they will be the first to serve the Arabs as "Judenrat" and "Kapos". Whether you call them today's "Erev Rav" (the human trash of Egypt who used Moses to escape) or merely a subversive Fifth Column, they are traitors to the Jewish State. They strut about like humans assets for all others to see and admire while delighted to share the joy of successful Terrorist operations when targeted against the settlers in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan and/or Jerusalem.

Hopefully, more and more of the officers and soldiers in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) will remain committed to fight Arab Muslim and Palestinian enemies but, refuse to attack Jews, to destroy their homes and will ignore the Leftist Supreme Court in its pro-Arab Muslim rulings.

The Leftists are trying to destroy the Jewish nation from within, displaying their un-Jewish contempt — even hatred for the Jewish State. They want the Army to do their dirty work and, in doing so, Ehud Barak destroys the spirit and the purpose of the military.

In further confirmation of their duplicitous lack of connection to the Land, a Bill defining Jerusalem as Israel's Capital was blocked by the Labor Leftist MKs (Members of the Knesset). The Bill was intended to make it difficult for any Israeli Government to surrender any parts of Jerusalem.

We are reminded by Eugene Sockut, of the GRAPEVINE website, that Col. Schlomo Baum...z"l, taught Grapevine well. BAUM: "Leadership is taking a strong and clear stand. NEVER DIRTY OUR UNIFORMS. We are not the SS. We don't hurt Jews." GRAPEVINE misses BAUM...we need JEWS like him....NOW!" Eugene Sockut: genecyn@netvision.net.il

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 29, 2009.

Michael Freund says it so well that I have chosen to begin today with his column in the Jerusalem Post:

"Something astonishing, even alarming, is taking place in the battle over the future of Jerusalem. Even as Palestinian rioters run amok on the Temple Mount, egged on by the radicals of the Islamic Movement, much of the anger and dismay in the Israeli and international press is being directed, ironically enough, at Jews who merely wish to visit the site.

"Mustering all the righteous indignation at their disposal, the media have been filled in recent days with all kinds of pejoratives to describe them, ranging from 'extremist' to 'fringe' to 'ultra-right-wing,' as though a Jew's desire to exercise his basic, fundamental rights somehow constitutes an act of provocation.

"Local pundits and commentators alike have also joined the fray, going to great lengths to justify the restrictions imposed by the police on Jews wishing to visit the Mount, even accusing the would-be pilgrims of seeking to trigger a firestorm of Islamic fury. It does not seem to bother them one whit that the policy in place today is entirely discriminatory in nature, as the followers of Muhammad are allowed to visit and pray where Solomon's Temple once stood, but not the followers of Moses.

"Indeed, all the enlightened defenders of civil rights, and the champions of equality before the law suddenly fall silent when capitulation to Muslim threats is given preference over respecting vital Jewish rights.

"And why not, you might be asking. After all, if it is just a bunch of kooks who want to ascend the Mount, why go to all this trouble on their behalf? Needless to say, this approach plays straight into the hands of our foes, whose ultimate goal is to wrestle the holy site away from us by denying its historical and spiritual connection with the Jewish people.

"And what a sad and pitiful sight this is to behold. Before our very eyes, we are witnessing a concerted effort to delegitimize and even demonize our people's most cherished dream: the longing for the Temple. "The very aspiration that was born in the moments when Roman flames engulfed the Second Temple more than 1,900 years ago, and which was carried in Jewish hearts throughout centuries of exile, has now become an object of scorn, mockery and ridicule.

"Make no mistake: This is nothing less than an unbridled assault on Judaism itself, and it is time for the derision and name-calling to stop.


"And let's bear in mind one very important rule: The real extremism is not to dream of a Temple, but to attempt to silence those who do."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787836 &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


You don't have to personally long for the Temple-rebuilt to understand the outrage. What you do need to understand is that Jews are forbidden to pray (you read this correctly) at the site that is the most sanctified in Jewish history.

You need to understand that this site stands at the core of our heritage and thus our claim to this land. When the Muslims make it "theirs" they are challenging us in the most fundamental way possible.


Two Jews who were on their way to services this morning at the Yeshurun Valley Sephardic Orthodox Synagogue in North Hollywood CA were shot in the legs today by a young gunman; they are both in the hospital in good condition. The gunman — who has not been identified as I write — has been taken into custody, and the attack is being called a hate crime.


Are we surprised?

Iran has given what it is referring to as "an initial response" to the proposal for 70% of its uranium to be shipped to Russia for enrichment; further "negotiations" — aka known as stalling tactics — are being sought by Iranian leaders. What is clear is that demands being made do not comport well with Western intentions to slow down, if not actually stop, Iranian nuclear development.

In a speech today, Ahmadinejad indicated that Iran "will not retreat even an iota" on its nuclear rights. He expressed satisfaction that the West has moved "from confrontation to interaction" on the issue. But so what.


The one who will actually be tested now is not Ahmadinejad, though: it is Obama.

The president had vigorously advanced a policy of engagement with Iran. The question now is how he responds to the failure of this policy. It's difficult to over-emphasize the importance of that response.

As Robert Kagen wrote in the Washington Post today:

"Tehran is obviously probing to see whether President Obama can play hardball or whether he can be played. If Obama has any hope of getting anywhere with the mullahs, he needs to show them he means business, now, and immediately begin imposing new sanctions."


And, points out Kagen, there's another aspect to this situation: Russia.

"Russia joined France, the United States and ElBaradei in agreeing to the proposal...Iran is now rejecting that proposal. If the administration's engagement strategy is working, then Moscow should come through by joining in sanctions. If, on the other hand, Moscow declares that Iran's counterproposal is satisfactory, or calls for further weeks or months of negotiations, then we will know that Russia, too, is playing Obama. Here again, Obama will have to show whether he is someone whom other powers have to take seriously, or if he is an easy mark in a geopolitical con game. If Moscow continues to act as Iran's facilitator, then doesn't Obama need to make clear that, just as cooperation brings rewards, noncooperation will have consequences?

"Many of us worry that, for Obama, engagement is an end in itself, not a means to an end."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/ AR2009102803804.html?referrer=emailarticle

(Thanks Nan A)


The way I'm reading it, Obama's moment of accountability has arrived. According to Reuters yesterday, Russia is saying sanctions against Iran were unlikely in the near future.

"Russia's ties with Iran — which include oil, nuclear and arms deals — give it rare influence with the Islamic Republic's rulers...

"But Russia, a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, has always urged restraint and only supported previous sanctions against Iran after insisting on amendments softening the measures."


The US House Foreign Affairs Committee is certainly doing what it can to make it possible for Obama to get tough. By a considerable majority, the Committee, chaired by Howard Berman (D-CA), has approved a bill that would permit tougher sanctions against Iran. It still must pass a vote in the House and the Senate.

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is co-sponsored by almost three-quarters of the House membership; it would give the administration power to apply sanctions against those companies that provide Iran with gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum fuels. Iran exports crude oil but lacks sufficient refining equipment to provide for its own needs. This is the most effective way to bring Iran to its knees without military action. But the world, for a host of reasons, has not taken this route seriously.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the department prefers a multilateral approach: "Right now, I think most of our energies are focused on the engagement side."



It is now fourteen years since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and I'm not sure that national wound has ever healed. Across the country several memorials were held, including the official one at the president's residence.

Unfortunately, often the left uses the memory of the assassination politically — to chastise the right and to represent its vision of peace (return to pre-67 lines, dismantlement of settlements, etc.) as the one that Rabin had advanced. But this, in fact, distorts Rabin's position. Every year I find myself needing to remind people of what the Rabin vision actually was.


I thank Eli Hertz of Myths and Facts for putting out excerpts from Rabin's last speech, given to the Knesset days before he was murdered:

"Here, in the land of Israel, we returned and built a nation. Here, in the land of Israel, we established a state. The land of the prophets, which bequeathed to the world the values of morality, law and justice, was, after two thousand years, restored to its lawful owners — the members of the Jewish people. On its land, we have built an exceptional national home and state.

"We view the permanent solution in the framework of [the] State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity [Note from AK: he did NOT refer to a state] which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

"We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

"First and foremost, united Jerusalem ... as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.

"The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley ... The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

"We had to choose between the whole of the land of Israel ... and a state with less territory, but which would be a Jewish state. We chose to be a Jewish state.

"We ... committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.

"We are aware of the fact that the Palestinian Authority has not — up until now — [Note from EH: and never thereafter] honored its commitment to change the Palestinian Covenant, and that all of the promises on this matter have not been kept. I would like to bring it to the attention of the members of the house that I view these changes as a supreme test of the Palestinian Authority's willingness and ability, and the changes required will be an important and serious touchstone vis-a-vis the continued implementation of the agreement as a whole."

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Morton A. Klein and Dr. Daniel Mandel, October 27, 2009.

Last week, in return for a video — not the freedom of a kidnap victim, but a video of a kidnap victim — Israel freed 20 Palestinian prisoners. This has to stop.

At one time Israel would release terrorists — but not those with "blood on their hands" and only in return for living Israelis. In July 2008, however, Israel had agreed to release to Hizbullah a gruesome murderer, Samir Kuntar, and four others prisoners in return for the corpses of two kidnapped Israelis.

In August 2008, Israel also freed a further 198 jailed terrorists, including two with blood on their hands and 149 others guilty of attempted murder, as a "confidence-building measure."

Clearly, Israel is giving more and receiving less — and that is not the worst of it. The fact is, freed terrorists frequently return to terror and end up murdering more Israelis.

The evidence for this is clear: Col. Meir Indor, director of Almagor Terrorist Victims Association (ATVA), disclosedin April 2007 that 177 Israelis killed in terror attacks in the previous five years had been killed by terrorists freed on the basis that they were "without blood on their hands."

An earlier ATVA report showedthat 123 Israelis had been murdered by terrorists freed during the years 1993-99.

This exposes the fraudulence of the criterion "without blood on their hands," which lulled the Israeli public into thinking no serious danger was courted by freeing terrorists.

This was an illusion, and the loss of more lives was inevitable. "Without blood on their hands" is a misleading criterion that encompasses those convicted for attempting to kill, for planting or throwing bombs or for shooting at Israelis in attacks that just happened to prove non-lethal.

Israelis were fooling themselves if they thought freeing attempted murderers and accessories to murder carried few risks.

Additionally, such releases provide a major incentive for more kidnappings of Israelis. As Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal saidonly days ago, "The resistance is capable of capturing [another] Shalit and [another] Shalit and [another] Shalit, until not a single prisoner will remain in the enemy's jails."

Yet for years Israelis have been inundated with false arguments for releasing terrorists. It has been arguedthat Israel would not risk more kidnappings by releasing, for example, about 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in return for Shalit, because if Hamas could kidnap more soldiers it would, regardless of the price paid for Shalit's release.

This is simply dangerous nonsense. As the cited evidence indicates, the chief security issue raised by releasing Palestinian terrorists is not only more kidnappings, serious and real as that problem is, but freed prisoners murdering more Israelis. This aspect of the problem is routinely ignored in discussion of prisoner releases.

The August 2008 prisoner release was describedby analyst Yossi Alpher as a "smart and courageous move" because "draconian sentences" on jailed terrorists create "incentives" for other terrorists to kidnap Israelis in order to spring those locked up. This is shortsighted. Israel's willingness to release live terrorists in return for even dead soldiers provided the terrorists all the incentive they required.

Alpher claims such releases could be used as "confidence building measures." He did not mention that freeing even hundreds of terrorists has never improved Israel's standing among Arabs, moderated their demands or mollified their hatred.

As Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shalom Harari of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya notedafter the August 2008 prisoner release: "On the morning after we heard Fatah blaming Israel. Whatever happens, they will blame Israel and fault everyone except for themselves."

It has also been arguedthat those who oppose the exchange of jailed Arab terrorists in return for kidnapped Israelis should put themselves in the shoes of the families of the kidnap victims and then test their resolve.

This argument is no less false for being emotionally manipulative. Would we allow relatives of people held up by bank robbers to decide whether or not the police accede to the demands of their captors? The duty of the state is to protect its citizens. Therefore, the most important consideration must be preventing the loss of further lives to terror.

Moreover, when Israel frees terrorists for corpses, it endangers the lives of those kidnapped because it demonstrates that their deaths pose no obstacle to an exchange. This puts the lives of other kidnap victims in jeopardy.

Let us be clear: we deeply sympathize with Israeli families whose sons are kidnapped by bloodthirsty terrorists. We would support virtually any efforts to bring them home safely. But when the record plainly shows that releasing terrorists brings only more terror and tragedy, we must regretfully accept the fact that Israel will save more lives by not rewarding kidnappings through terrorist releases.

Morton A. Klein is national president of the Zionist Organization of America. Dr. Daniel Mandel is director of the ZOA's Center for Middle East Policy and author of "H.V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist" (London: Routledge, 2004).

This appeared October 14, 2009 in the Jewish Press

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 27, 2009.

Colossal, Jumbo, Brilliant or Bullets: Olives are delicious in any size

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.


Olives are one of my favorite foods. Although this photograph exaggerates the real size of my subject, I wish they were all this big, what the marketing geniuses have termed "Super Mammoth!" Fall is olive harvest time in Israel, where the most widespread method of collection remains whacking the branches with a stick and collecting the fallen fruit on a net or blanket. This activity helps burn a few calories that will certainly be regained when the olives are fermented and eaten.

I approached this photograph in the same manner as I would a portrait. The fruit itself is similar in shape to a human head, and I looked for a way to sculpt its features by finding a single source of light coming from any direction other than directly from the camera. Because I couldn't move the light — in this case the sun — I circled the tree until I found a pleasing angle and then searched out the best specimen to photograph. It may seem counterintuitive to look for light before a subject, but the word photography comes from the Greek words "photos," meaning light and "graphein," meaning to write. Photography, then, is writing with light. I doubt anyone would attempt any writing project without first locating the best pen available.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 27, 2009.


The U.S. installed tunnel-detecting sensors Rafiah, on the Gaza border with Egypt (www.imra.org.il, 10/2). A fuel-smuggling truck near the border caught fire and was consumed by it (www.imra.org.il, 9/4). Do you suppose that the truck was too small for Egyptian police to have spotted and stopped?

The main question is not whether the sensors work, but whether Egypt has the will to block the arms smuggling. If Egypt had the will, it could have employed other means to stop the smuggling, for the smugglers were in the open and they depended on Egypt leaving Rafiah on the border.


Palestinian Arabs have enhanced their counterfeit Israeli I.D.. They use it to infiltrate into Israel for work and for terrorism. Israel has apprehended hundreds of them. As before, Israeli Arabs drive them from the border (www.imra.org.il, 9/4) but pretend they don't know they are helping to smuggle illegals in.

For security, a tamper-proof I.D. must be used, such as eyeball scanning or something. It may be expensive, but is needed.


A Jewish policeman in Israel pursued a car thief. The thief tried to stab him. In self-defense, the cop shot him. The cop was indicted. You see, the thief is an Arab. Israeli prosecutors do not much expect Arabs to obey the law, and do not want Jews to enforce the law against Arabs. That is the Law of the Left.

The judge second-guessed the officer, and convicted him. (Israel does not have trial-by-jury.) The judge ruled that the officer could have subdued the suspect without firing at him or could have fired non-fatally.

The officer was sentenced to 15 months in a common prison, perhaps amidst criminals he had apprehended. Imagine their welcome to him!

The family of the thief complained that the sentence was too short. They said that if the thief were Jewish, the sentence would have been longer. More likely, the court would have found that the cop was just doing his job. In fact, he is a hero (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/4).

Prof. Plaut cites another example, among several I have reported: a Jewish farmer was convicted, but released on appeal, for shooting at Bedouin rustlers.

Think of the indignant parents of "our son the thief!"


The Olmert-Sharon regime expelled 10,000 Israelis from Gaza and northern Samaria, but Olmert blames their suffering on them. He says it is their own fault for listening to rabbis who urged them not to cooperate with the government.

An Israeli MK pointed out that those who did cooperate, especially farmers, suffered at least as much as those who did not. MK Ketzaleh urged Olmert to repent rather than seek to blame others for what he did to them (Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary, 9/9).

Olmert did not tell the whole story. As I recall, his regime vindictively sought to break the morale of the expellees, keeping them from organizing politically, instead of planning for their rehabilitation. The removal was done with deceit and unnecessary brutal force. Bureaucrats denied many housing compensation. The government provided housing too small and often remote from community services and tardily, forcing people to spend monetary compensation on housing. There was little counseling for people suffering emotionally. The government ruined their goods or let them be stolen. No discernable job planning.


The government of Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone mission, because the UN pre-judges Israel, but it was not averse to Israeli citizens testifying. One of the half-dozen who did was David Bedein, a journalist.

Mr. Bedein was given half an hour. He showed a film of children in Siderot, Israel, fleeing exploding rockets, which put Judge Goldstone to sleep!

In conclusion, he asked the panel, "What other democracy in the world would tolerate rockets in its territory?" The judges were silent during Bedein's Israeli testimony and asked no questions afterwards.

Bedein considered the Goldstone report's likening of Gaza with Sderot "ridiculous." "'We teach children to run to bomb shelters in 15 seconds, and they teach their children to run to rooftops and be human shields' during Israeli retaliation."
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 9/16.)

Apparently, the judges considered Israeli testimony a mere formality to ignore. Bedein's question resonates. The UN report failed to consider what other country would tolerate rockets being fired into it.

Any Arabs killed on rooftops of arms depots, the report blames Israel for. International law holds responsible whoever used the people as human shields.


Israeli police were lenient with a left-wing convict. A few days ago, he got a month in jail and a half-year of probation for assaulting police officers.

The convict, Ezra Nawi, 58, head of the left-wing Tayush organization, returned with Jewish activists and Arabs, including a Hamas supporter, to the Jewish community of Mitzpe Asael in the southern Hebron Hills. He claims that the community was built on private, Arab-owned land, and they came to protest.

They confronted Jewish residents. Residents alerted police, who ordered the protestors out of this "closed military zone." They refused. Police arrested eight intruders but not Mr. Nawi.

Jewish locals had complained to police a number of times that he trespassed, uprooted their olive trees, etc.. In 2006, he led Arabs to a Jewish family's farm, where they cursed and stoned the family. Nawi exposed himself in front of a farmer, Mrs. Talia, who photographed it and informed Hebron police. Nevertheless, police closed the case for "lack of evidence."

In 2008, Nawi led a group to Mitzpe Asael. 10 acres of Mitzpe Asael olive groves were set ablaze. The Hamas supporter claimed it was from a fallen cigarette. He was filmed being beaten up by three Jews. The three were indicted for "kidnapping, imprisonment, brutal assault and destroying evidence, punishable by more than 20 years."

"Nawi, a Jerusalem plumber, was convicted in 1992 for committing an indecent act on a minor, for illegal use of a weapon, growing and possessing drugs, entering a closed military area and transporting illegal Arab workers into Israel from the West Bank." [How principled is he really, about "Arab-owned land?"]

Nawi seeks criminal confrontation, but gets what the Legal Forum for Israel calls sentences too light to deter anarchist violence (www.imra.org.il, 10/25).

Photographed repeating what he had been convicted of is "lack of evidence?" For years, Arabs have been destroying Jews' crops but falsely accusing Jews of destroying theirs. Recently, some Jews have begun fighting back.


The Israeli Knesset bans Peace Now Chairman from its facility. Chairman Yariv Oppenheimer had sent three members to pose as students, interview Members of Knesset, and ferret material for use against them. Their false identification is a crime, there. Oppenheimer denounced the ban as "undemocratic." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/26).

Was Oppenheimer's conspiracy to break the law and his duplicity in gaining the confidence of legislators so as to harm them, democratic? Peace Now poses as idealistic, but earlier reports have shown it to have various underhanded methods, including use of false statistics. I find a contradiction between low ethics and high ideals. Peace Now's idealism favors the national enemy, regardless of facts, logic, and experience. Since it is not honest, why trust it?


Marwan Barghouti is in jail for life for multiple terrorist murders. Nevertheless, Fatah elected him to head its central council. In reaction, Minister Avishai Braverman of Labor and MK Gideon Ezra of Kadima urged his release, as a powerful "moderate," to run and negotiate for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Having popular backing, he can close a deal.

Mr. Barghouti had just written a plea for the P.A. to sponsor terrorism, again. He contends that terrorism and diplomacy both are required to close a deal. There is nothing moderate about his plea or contention (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/26).

His extremism accounts as much as his decisiveness for his popularity among his people. It means that his people are not moderate, either. A population of extremists is not likely to make peace. Labor and Kadima officials who want Barghouti released seem to want a deal at any price; it would be an open-ended price. The negotiations would be accompanied by terrorism. Since a terrorist would be running the P.A., what kind of peace do they think would ensue?

Since the Arabs' ultimate goal for Israel is to conquer it, any deal that any Palestinian Arab signed would not speak for outside Arab enemies of Israel. Based on their practice of violating agreements, there is no reason to expect them to honor a new one. It would be the starting point for more demands and worse terrorism. The terrorism would be worse, because the deal would strengthen the P.A. militarily.

The chief leftist assumption is that an Israeli withdrawal from all the land Israel acquired in 1967 would bring peace. Why assume that? The Arabs don't. A jihadist isn't satisfied with a compromise. He wants Islam to conquer. To him, Israel is the goal. The 1967 armistice lines have no significance. Why do leftists assumen that a territorial concession would end a religious conflict?

Labor and Kadima should review their "logic" and revise their assumptions. Since national survival is at stake, let them stop pulling disproved assumptions out of the air! Israel needs a national debate in place of the closed, polarized, polemics it now has about existential issues. When an ideology doesn't work, its adherents should abandon it. The Israeli Left is too stubborn.


Egypt led Arab states in canceling a meeting of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership meeting of foreign ministers, over prospective attendance by Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman [an unbeliever who once insulted a Egypt's President, a Muslim, with reason].

Meanwhile, Turkey's PM Erdogan now accuses Lieberman of having threatened to use nuclear weapons against Gaza during the recent war.

Israel's Foreign Ministry called it "a shame that Egypt is serving as a negative influence in the region, by turning a meeting intended to benefit it and other states in the area into a political issue." (www.imra.org.il, 10/26).

Not only is Turkey's accusation false. It is ridiculous. Israel kept Gaza civilian fatalities during the recent combat to a few hundred. Why would they resort to a weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands, spread a nuclear fallout on their own country, and turn the world against them in a dangerous way?

Sad to see Turkey adopt the Arab way of arguing, which is the antisemitic way, which is to accept every malicious rumor against Israel, paranoid as they are, and to dream up all sorts of false accusations against Israel.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Maayana Miskin, October 27, 2009.

Shomron Jews Plan Provocation

Jews living in the town of Kida in southern Shomron (Samaria) announced Monday that if the IDF permits Arabs and leftist supporters to enter the town on Tuesday, they will respond in kind.

Arabs who demand to "harvest olives" in the fields surrounding Kida are not actually interested in harvesting, but rather in causing a provocation, Kida residents said. If the army allows them to enter the fields in order to provoke Jews, Jews in Kida plan to respond by holding a peaceful rally next to a nearby Arab village, they warned.

The protest rally is to take place on state-owned land surrounding the Arab village. Jews are usually barred from the land for reasons relating to regional security.

Kida residents said it was clear that the Arabs and leftists who come during the annual olive harvest are not interested in farming due to one simple fact — there are no olives growing in the fields which they insist on entering.

In addition, the Arab "farmers" who plan to come are not the owners of the fields in question, they noted. "They're doing this in order to provoke us, and to gather information for use in terrorist attacks," residents said.

Residents said they had already informed IDF commanders that they have no intention of allowing hostile Arabs to approach their town. Their opposition is particularly strong due to a recent terrorist attack in the area, in which Kida resident Yair Hirsch was wounded while driving in the nearby town of Shilo.

Maayana Miskin is a writer for Arutz Sheva, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, October 27, 2009.

PA Steals Water, Israel Runs Dry

The Water Authority rejects Amnesty International claims, to be released in a report on Tuesday, that Israelis whet their thirst at the expense of Palestinian Authority Arabs. The Water Authority countered that PA Arabs continually violate Oslo Accords by illegally drilling for water and spilling untreated sewage.

"The Amnesty report is selective and incorrect, to make an understatement," said spokesmen for Water Authority chairman Uri Shore.

Despite several claims by human rights organizations that Israel has taken water away from what is now the Palestinian Authority, the amount of water available to PA Arabs since the Six-Day War in 1967 actually has gone up while Israelis have suffered a whopping 70 percent drop in their resources.

"The amount of natural water, including underground aquifers, the amount of water available annually to every Israeli before 1967 was 500 cubic meters a year," the Water Authority explained. "Today the figure is 149 cubic meters, while water available to PA Arabs actually has increased by 22 percent, from 87 cubic meters to 105 cubic meters a year per capita."

It noted that the gap that exists "is not so great" to be termed a disaster.

At the same time, the PA is not treating sewage for agriculture, as agreed on with Israel in 1995 as part of the Oslo Accords. NGO Monitor's President Prof. Gerald Steinberg said, "Amnesty's report manipulates the issue of water and ignores the complexities of history and law in order to again falsely portray Israel as a brutal regime. The report adopts a painfully simplistic narrative which places blame solely on Israel, to the extent that the Palestinian leadership is absolved of responsibility for the agreements signed under the Oslo framework."

Israel's water resources are near an all-time low, following four years of drought along with increasing water usage and a growing population. Higher water levies and conservation measures have cut water consumption by more than 20 percent this year.

Forecasters have cautiously predicted this winter will be wetter than usual, but it would take a modern miracle to replenish the country's resources.

Scattered heavy rain fell in northern and eastern parts of the country on Monday as another heat wave hit the country. The amount of precipitation was impressive by falling a period of a few minutes but had little effect on Kinneret and underground aquifers.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz-7. where this appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by M.S. Kramer, October 27, 2009.

We've heard it said that America should be more even-handed in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It seems to make sense because America wants to be an "honest broker" when it comes to leading the parties into negotiations. However, upon closer examination, the policy of even-handedness is a bad option for both Israel and America.

The Palestinians are very popular and have many countries backing their cause. Let's start with the United Nations. There are 22 Arab countries in the UN. They all back the Palestinians, every time. There are another 35 Muslim countries that also back the Palestinians, every time. There are an additional 61 countries in the Nonaligned Movement who also routinely back the Palestinians.

In total, there are 192 member states in the UN and only a handful of them back Israel when it comes time to vote; most who don't vote against Israel simply abstain from voting. If not for the permanent presence of the United States on the Security Council, there would be many binding resolutions against Israel. Of course, with no vetoes permitted in the General Assembly, non-binding resolutions against Israel are common. (See www.un.org for all the gory details.)

Because of its dismal human rights oversight, the UN Commission on Human Rights was reconstituted as the equally misnamed Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2006. The revised council has passed four-fifths of its resolutions against Israel while downplaying human rights violations by serial offenders like Sudan, Myanmar and others. Its recent "Goldstone report" into the Gaza conflict is just the latest example of the agency's inherent bias against Israel and for the underdog/terrorists.

The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is specifically tasked with prolonging the refugee status of Palestinians under its care. This is in contrast to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), whose mission it is to relocate all refugees except Palestinians as quickly as possible. Under the guidance and care of the UNRWA, the number of Palestinian "refugees" has burgeoned from 600-800 thousand in 1948 to more than 4 million in 2009. No other group of refugees except for Palestinians has refugee status conferred upon grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the original refugees.

Nor is there any other entity at the UN like the Division for Palestinian Rights (UNDPR). This agency provides support and services for the "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People"; organizes the annual commemoration of the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People"; and prepares studies and publications relating to the question of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinians and promotes their widest possible dissemination. All this for the "poor Palestinians", but not for any other stateless population, such as the far more numerous Kurds.

The 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban I, was held in Durban, South Africa, under UN auspices. It was a travesty against Israel, which was the center of attention at the conference. In addition, Durban I featured a companion NGO Forum which also had its own Declaration and Program trashing Israel. (NGOs are non-governmental organizations which are also non-profit.) Durban I marked the resurgence of a worldwide campaign to equate Zionism with Apartheid and to delegitimize Israel.

The pro-Israeli NGO Monitor reports that a large number of NGOs focus disproportionately on Israel. Their anti-Zionist strategy — in many cases also anti-Semitic — is to delegitimize Israel using legal frameworks. Israel is singled out as a "war criminal", a "racist" or "Apartheid" state, and is internationally isolated through a campaign of boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. This movement is led by Palestinian NGOs such as Al Haq, Badil and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. All of these have perfectly reasonable mission statements which mask their non-stop campaign to destroy Israel.

International NGOs aiding the Palestinians include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Federation of Human Rights (France), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (New York), to name only a few. These NGOs are largely supported by European governments, leftist foundations and wealthy individuals, American and foreign.

Unfortunately, I must also mention Jewish NGOs which are supposedly supporters of Israel but actually buttress Palestinian and international efforts by pressuring Israel to kowtow to the Palestinian narrative, that the existence of Israel is a catastrophe for the Palestinians. J Street, Peace Now, New Israel Fund, Rabbis for Human Rights, and others affirm that they have Israel's best interests at heart, but their strategy and tactics serve to undermine the Jewish State. I say, "With friends like these, we don't need enemies."

"Lawfare", a form of warfare waged by using international law to attack an opponent on moral grounds, is commonly used to advance the political war against Israel. Durban I called for the "adoption of all measures to ensure [the] enforcement" of international humanitarian law, including "the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to investigate and bring to justice those who may be guilty of war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the crime of Apartheid ... perpetrated in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories." (www.ngo-monitor.org) The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and has been a popular venue for lawfare condemning Israel.

The International Red Cross (ICRC) has followed a similar route. After a long period of denying admission to Magen David Adom (MDA), the Israeli version of Red Cross, the ICRC only recently allowed MDA to join the organization. The ICRC isn't just another NGO — it is the official recognized authority on the Geneva Conventions (GC). The four Geneva Conventions set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of war victims. Israel's supposed violation of the GC is the crux of the argument concerning settlements on "Arab land". The ICRC's decisions, therefore, were and are crucial in determining international law and in vilifying Israel.

Every judicial condemnation of Israel cites the GC and follows the ICRC's interpretation. This explains why the international community and courts have accepted ICRC's decisions that "Israeli (Jewish) settlements violate international law" without question. "The ICRC was the first international organization to charge that the presence of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is contrary to the Geneva Convention, and therefore unlawful. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited." (http://pajamasmedia.org)

I've discussed some, but not all, of the ammunition which is helping the Arab/anti-Zionist world to blacken Israel's reputation, to isolate Israel, and to eventually replace it with a 23rd Arab state — Palestine. Since the UN is dead set against Israel, resolutions of the General Assembly which condemn Israel pass easily. They pass, not because every member state really supports the censure of Israel, but because it's politically expedient to back the Muslim bloc. Nevertheless, Israel cooperates with many member states who routinely vote against it, such as India. Even in countries diplomatically hostile to Israel, such as Sweden, there are many civilians who are friends of Israel.

On September 22 President Obama addressed the UN with language that ignored UN Security Council Resolution 242, a document which does not call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. Obama's speech didn't mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism and it implied that the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, which occurred during a defensive war 19 years after Israel's independence. Just two days after the president spoke, the Quartet, of which America is the most significant member, redefined its Roadmap peace plan, seriously undercutting Israel's negotiating position with the Palestinians.

Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, had this to say about the latest version of the Roadmap: "At the outset, the [Quartet] statement discarded the principle of reciprocity, which not only is closely associated with the diplomatic principles advocated by Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but is also a fundamental axiom of international law."

"Astoundingly, the Quartet called on both parties to act on their previous agreements and obligations — in particular adherence to the road map, irrespective of reciprocity. With the principle of reciprocity jettisoned, there will be a straight path to Palestinian statehood in two years, regardless of whether the Palestinians are fulfilling their obligations under the road map or the Oslo Agreements from the 1990s."

In other words, reciprocity is discarded and Israel may be forced to sign a peace treaty with a terrorist state.

... If President Obama continues to take an even-handed stance towards Israeli-Palestinian relations, Israel will virtually stand alone! Because of America's weight on Israel's side of the diplomatic see-saw, it is able to counterbalance much of the organized efforts to delegitimize Israel. If America moves to the middle of the see-saw, Israel will find itself teetering against an overwhelming mass.

Israel is the only American ally in the Middle East which shares America's democratic goals. No other ally in the region can or will act as a bulwark against the jihadist militias and states. If for no other reason than these, President Obama must remain Israel's stalwart supporter. Even-handedness is called for in some situations, but not when Israel stands nearly alone against overwhelming odds.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." This essay is a speech he gave in New Jersey October 20, 2009.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, October 27, 2009.

'Abstain' is a Sinister anti-Israel "Yes" Vote! by Steven Shamrak

Despite Israeli lobbying efforts against the Goldstone Report, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva passed the resolution 25-6. Shamefully, 11 countries abstained: Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and Uruguay. Even more offensive and disturbing was that five countries, including the two biggest anti-Israel bigots and so-called super powers, ran away and did not vote at all: the United Kingdom, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola. But their deliberate indifference and attempt to avoid responsibility these countries gave the appearance of legitimacy to the resolution.

At least the 25 states that voted in favour of the resolution clearly stated their position and attitude toward Israel or some of them have surrendered to pressure from the oil rich Arab countries. They are: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Ni geria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia. By viewing this list and the 'quality' of the countries in it one can make a fear assessment of the true agenda of the UN Human Rights Committee. It was a big disappointment to see India, the country which is greatly benefiting from a friendship with Israel, among the list of bigots.

Countries that displayed integrity by opposing the resolution were: Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine and the United States. They did not succumb to Islamic pressure and maintained their impartiality and honesty!

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said that the UN Human Rights Committee resolution that approved the Goldstone report was "unbalanced" and that it would "exacerbate polarization and divisiveness." What he forgot to add was that the old and the new UN Human Rights Committee have been exhibiting a strong and well established tradition of anti-Israel bias traits, if not anti-Semitic ones!

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak There is a lot of talking about a talk to revive the talks for the sake of talking. I hope you do not mind me talking about it:)

Real Friendship or Another Move in Familiar Game? The "anti-Israel vitriol" at the United Nations needs to end, said U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice last Wednesday. "Member states must once and for all replace anti-Israeli vitriol with recognition of Israel's legitimacy and right to exist in peace and security," she said at the "Facing Tomorrow" conference hosted by President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem. "We will stand by our friends on the frontlines and we will uphold the inalienable right to self-defence." (Why hasn't she made the same stand as official statement of the US policy from the tribune of the United Nation?)

Tunnels' Saga. Israel is finally authorizing the trucking in of tea and coffee into Gaza. Until now, it was coming through the tunnels, like everything else there. (Hamas deliberately disallows the transfer of goods to Gaza through Israel as the organization needs tunnels to smuggle illegal weapons into Gaza and it collects tax from tunnel owners.)

Arabs are not Israelis. A study by Ben Gurion University shows that a majority of Israeli Arabs oppose paying local taxes...only 18.6% of Arabs in Israel pay their local taxes. (They love benefiting from living in Israel, but do not feel like contributing toward the higher standard of living, compared to any Arab country, which they enjoy!)

Hamas Official: Accepting 2 States is Betrayal. Acting Chairman of the PA Legislative Council and Hamas member Ahmad Bahar warned that accepting a Jewish state is betrayal and a crime: "Someone who accepts the Jewishness of the state [of Israel ] betrays Allah... Even recognition of two states is a crime against the Palestinian cause (which is the destruction of Israel). The state that the Jews want is a state in which we will be servants, messengers, of the Jews... We will not accept and not recognize a state for the Jews here on Palestinian land! We will not recognize it! It makes no difference what this will cost us." (But, in the twisted mind of an anti-Semite, it is fine that Jews remain subservient even in their own land! There is no difference between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas is just saying it loudly and undiplomatically, as Fatah used to.)

Quote of the Week: "Under the Westphalian code (the Treaty of Westphalia ), a country's internal affairs are the lawful concern only of its rulers. The code still prevails at the United Nations under the UN Charter, which enshrines the sovereign inviolability of its members, effectively undermining the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights." — Karl Meyer — This code prevails for all other nations except Israel. The human rights abuses conducted predominantly by Muslim countries is deliberately ignored by the UN, or should I say — "Useless" or "Ugly" "Nothing"!

Living in 'Friendly' Neighbourhood. 1. Iran is making a huge effort to smuggle to the Palestinian Hamas Fajr-5 ground-to-ground rockets that bring Tel Aviv within range of the Gaza Strip. 2. Syria has decided to transfer one-third of its missile stockpile to the Hizballah in Lebanon, topping up its arsenal with medium-range rockets that can cover central as well as northern Israel.

End Dependence on Oil. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the presidential "Facing Tomorrow" conference last week that the world must end its dependence on oil "that strengthens terror and damages planet Earth." And stunts economic growth in Africa and other poor areas of the world as well as in developed countries

Where does Turkey Stand? Syria said it would hold military exercises with Turkey, shortly after Turkey cancelled NATO's manoeuvres with Israel. Ankara's decision, which was commended by Syria, revived fears of cooler relations between Israel and Turkey. Turkey, a secular Muslim country, has been pretending to be a key ally of Israel for a while, but ties have been strained since Islamic party of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's took office.

Americans are in Tune with Reality. A Washington Post poll shows that 42 percent of Americans would support a military strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. (Even without government propaganda, as was done by Bush administration before the Iraq war, Americans know what is truly beneficial for the US national interest!)

Hypocrisy is Everywhere. A United States-based organization's conference on breast cancer awareness, hosted in Egypt, has been touted by international news networks as an example of "unprecedented cooperation" in the region. However the celebration of unity may be premature, as Israeli doctors were told at the last minute that their invitations to participate had been rescinded.

Labor Party is Against Israel as a Jewish State. The Labor party of Defense Minister Ehud Barak requested that the government grant full Israeli citizenship to 1,200 children who were born in Israel to foreign workers. In addition, Labor officials asked that at least 600 parents of the children be granted citizenship as well. Several veteran activists have warned that the issue of Israeli-born foreign children is being used to manipulate public sentiment for anti-Israel purposes and that the children of foreign workers are being used by Israel's left as a demographic weapon.

Obama Administration Supports anti-Israel Jewish Lobby. The Obama administration appears to be welcoming the efforts of the left-leaning anti-Israel Jewish lobby in Washington, J Street. While Israel's ambassador to the U.S. will probably not be attending Jewish group's October 25 conference of this group, James Jones, national security adviser in the Obama administration, and others have confirmed their participation.

Terror Must be Stopped. According to figures released by the Shin Bet, the number of violent incidents jumped considerably in September compared to August. In the West Bank, there were 95 security incidents, against 53 in August, in the Western Negev, 45 against 19, and there were 17 rocket launchings from Gaza, against only two in August.

Long Fight Against the UN Report? Netanyahu, who has said the Goldstone report could undermine U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace moves and that he would object to Israelis standing trial for war crimes, was quoted as saying Israel would wage a protracted struggle against the criticism. "Israel must delegitimise the delegitimisation". He said the campaign "would not take just a week or two but possibly years." (Our enemies have been continuously creating fake problems and bogus anti-Israel reports in order to divert Israel's attention from the real issues like neutralizing the 'nuclearization' of Iran and the pursuit of the Jewish National Goal!)

Talks with Iran is another UN Shamble. Just before Iran began talks a with Western officials at the offices of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna Iranian officials said the Islamic Republic will continue to enrich uranium regardless of whether it purchases nuclear fuel from other nations. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouvchehr Mottaki told journalists last Tuesday during a news conference: "These issues are not related. Iran will continue its uranium enrichment. It is not linked to buying fuel from abroad."

The Talk for the Sake of What?

Only on Sept. 26 US president Barack Obama threatened Iran with confrontation over the secrecy surrounding its nuclear capabilities. He even did not rule out military options. Just 8 days later, the Obama administration abandoned an Iranian enrichment freeze as the precondition for talks and sanctions are no longer brandished, leaving Israel taking stock of its decision to count on US-led international determination for halting Iran 's nuclear progress. Will Obama also drop his second demand: "Iran must prove its program is peaceful."

(From now on, the 'talk' may go on indefinitely with endless 'adjustment' of positions, making it difficult for Israel forcefully stop Iranian progress in developing a nuclear bomb, until the Jewish 'friendly' parties declare that it is too late to stop Iranian nuclear admission. This is a common diplomatic ploy! The same had happened with Pakistan and India before!)

Iran has posted hundreds of agents in world ports to organize clandestine supplies through third countries of items subject to UN or US sanctions present or future. These items range from nuclear components to refined petroleum products. Dubai and the Ras al-Khaimah of the United Arab Emirates are two such ports. Malaysia, Hong Kong and Venezuela are willing helpers. So too is China. (Iran is already well prepared for the 'talk' and many friends are willing to help Iran!)

Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Manhigut Yehudit, October 26, 2009.

Commenting on the Arab riots on the Temple Mount Sunday morning, Manhigut Yehudit head Moshe Feiglin said that as long as Jews were more or less banned from the site, Arab rioting would continue.

Feiglin said that the rioting would not end until "exclusive Israeli sovereignty is restored to the Temple Mount, and Jews receive full rights to pray there."


Note: Under Israeli law, freedom of worship is technically permitted to those of all religions on the Temple Mount. In practical application, though, things are not so "democratic".

Unfettered access is granted by Israeli police to Muslims to pray as they wish and when they wish on the Temple Mount.

However, Israeli police only permit Jews to ascend to their holiest site (the Temple Mount) on certain days, they must be off the Temple Mount by approximately 9:15AM, and they are forbidden to pray when on the Temple Mount. If a Jew violates the prohibition of praying on their holiest site, they will be arrested immediately. The police use the excuse that "Jews praying on the Temple Mount is a provocation to the Arabs" in order to continue this anti-Jewish policy. It hardly needs to be stated that the Israeli police would not be so bold as to undertake this policy without the blessing of each sitting Israeli Prime Minister.

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, October 26, 2009.

$$ Prize to Soldiers' Parents

Two soldiers who publicly protested against being used to evict settlers from Homesh are in jail for 20 days — and their parents will receive an "educational" monetary award for having raised such "wonderful" sons.

The prize amounts to 1,100 shekels ($300) for each night that the soldiers spend in military prison. It is being given by the Task Force to Save the Nation and the Land, a pro-Land of Israel and nationalist organization based in Tzfat (Safed). Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe, director of the organization, said the intention is to recognize and reward "parents who merited to raise and educate such wonderful sons as these, and to raise the spirits of these families who are suffering because of this grave decision to jail their sons."

An official of the organization told Israel National News that another group "apparently likes our idea and is planning to give a prize of its own to the parents as well. It will be given at the same occasion as our award — sometime next week in Jerusalem."

The two Shimshon Battalion soldiers, who have already begun their sentence in a military prison, were sentenced on Sunday after they held up signs at their swearing-in ceremony on Thursday at the Western Wall. The signs read, "Shimshon Battalion soldiers do not carry out evictions at Homesh." In addition to the jail sentences, the soldiers have also been permanently ousted from the Shimshon Battalion — a combat unit stationed permanently in Judea and Samaria. One observer said that the latter punishment alone would have been a sufficiently severe punishment for the highly-motivated soldiers.

A brother of one of the two said they knew in advance that they were likely to pay a heavy price but were not deterred. He explained that many of the Shimshon soldiers "have been demoralized for a long time: IDF officers incite them against their brothers in Shomron (Samaria) and forbid them from being guests in their homes and dining there on Sabbaths." He said that they "enlisted in order to fight the Arab enemy; instead, they are taken on actions against Jews throughout Shomron."

Officers, Soldiers Agree

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said he views the protest "with gravity," and said that IDF soldiers should not be used for outside interests. IDF Central District Commander Gen. Avi Mizrachi, only a few days in his position, said the army "should not be dragged into political discourse, causing division in the nation's army." The protestors apparently agree whole-heartedly with those sentiments.

Activists have been persistent in their attempts to return to Homesh since it was razed in the 2005 Disengagement, despite repeated and sometimes violent army evictions, some of which have taken place on the Sabbath.

Hillel Fendel is senior news analyst at Arutz-7.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel National News staff, October 26, 2009.

This was written by INN staff.


Palestinian Authority convicted terrorist murderer Marwan Barghouti, often touted by Israel's left as a "moderate" PA leader, has called for a resumption of PA support for terrorist attacks on Israelis. His comments were printed last week in Al-Quds.

The PA should support terrorists in its midst who launch attacks on Israel, Barghouti explained, because it has been proven that the PA cannot achieve its goals by negotiations alone. He called to continue talks as well, and to pursue both peace talks and terrorism simultaneously.

Barghouti compared Israel to Nazi Germany, saying, "The occupier's defeat is certain, its fate will be no different than the fate of Nazism or fascism."

Barghouti is serving five life sentences in prison in Israel for the murder of five Israelis in terror attacks. He was acquitted for lack of evidence of having arranged 33 other attacks. In August, he was elected in absentia to the top spot on the Fatah terror group's central council.

His new position led to renewed calls from Israel's political left to free him and allow him to take part in leading the PA. Israel should release Barghouti "in order to create a strong and moderate political leadership among the Palestinians," Minister Avishai Braverman of Labor said.

MK Gideon Ezra of Kadima said Barghouti should be freed because "Israel needs a strong man who can negotiate."

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 26, 2009.

Pretty Putty Prep

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. To see more of his graphic art, go to
http://nowthese.blogspot.com/ and

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 26, 2009.


Iran is about to start boosting its supply of gasoline, in order to weaken sanctions. Congress is moving to impose sanctions that would penalize companies that sell gasoline to Iran.

Iran plans to open a new refinery and increase production at others, so that it will not depend upon imported gasoline as much.

Iran subsidizes gasoline (www.imra.org.il, 10/24). That encourages drivers to waste it.

Had such sanctions been applied when Iran was more dependent upon gasoline imports, and had no plan to end that dependency, sanctions might have worked. Waiting as the U.S. did, sanctions will have much less effect.

The U.S. squandered the opportunity to use sanctions to good effect, by depending on diplomacy that Iran conducts in bad faith. Diplomacy can be dangerous!

For an idea of the urgency of sanctions, go here http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m10d18-US-may-revise-estimate-on-Irans-nuclear-weapons


The Aqsa Foundation for Awkaf and Heritage claims to have stopped "extremist Zionists" from prior attempts to desecrate al-Aqsa mosque and warn that they want to try again to desecrate the mosque (www.imra.org.il, 10/24).

No such attempts were made and none are planned.

The warnings attempt to cause riots and war. They caused riots this time and a war when Ariel Sharon visited the Mount. He did not go to the mosque. Years ago, I visited the Dome of the Rock, but first removed and washed my feet. Jews don't desecrate other religions' sites.

The Palestinian Arabs have desecrated and destroyed Jews; sites, as I reported.

Perhaps the Arabs are playing one of their word games. They misuse English language words, to mislead. The Aqsa Foundation briefing is vague about its accusations, as Arab accusations usually are. Perhaps it means that some Jews wanted to visit the Mount or pray at Judaism's holiest site, in a part of it away from the mosque. If the Muslim Arabs call that "desecration," they are so intolerant that they consider the mere presence of a praying Jew "desecration." It means they seize another religion's site and then ban the other religion's followers from it. That is not civilized, acceptable behavior.

To see what actually happens there, go here
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m10d13-Unreported-West-Bank-terrorism


By abandoning UN prohibition of illicit Iranian nuclear development, the IAEA (the UN's International Atomic Energy Association) legitimized Iran's drive for nuclear weapons. Indeed, the IAEA announced a deal whereby the US, Russia, and France will assist Iranian nuclear development. The U.S. indicated it might put Americans in Iran to serve as human shields against an Israeli raid.

Impurities gave Iran difficulty in enriching uranium to weapons grade. The foreign countries will enrich it for Iran part way, making it easy for Iran to enrich it the rest of the way. Iran has gotten away with its violations of its signed IAEA treaty.

As soon as those extensive concessions were made, Iran demanded more. [Such is the negative payoff of appeasement.] One demand was for the foreign countries to enrich the fuel much further toward weapons grade.

Israel gave the anticipated Obama diplomacy a chance. "But now that the administration has agreed to an accord that effectively transforms America into a facilitator of Iran's nuclear weapons program, the time has come for Israel to start voicing its objections."

Israel doesn't have many diplomatic means. The UN automatically condemns it. The EU usually does, too, because it has an anti-Jewish culture, a dependency upon Muslim oil, and a rising Muslim population. "Western NGOs are largely funded by anti-Israel governments and leftist philanthropists and so use their resources to advance the causes of Israel's enemies." "Under the Obama administration, the US is charting a diplomatic course that places it directly in the anti-Israel camp." (Caroline Glick in www.imra.org.il, 10/14).

The Obama administration also is undermining American security in foreign policy and in the soundness of the dollar.


How should Israel treat the Goldstone UN report? By adopting the Goldstone report's condemnation of Israel as a war criminal for defending itself, the UN implied that Israel does not have a right to exist. [The report distorted how Israel defended itself, but that is what the UN and Israel's other enemies do. Therefore the report really is a condemnation of Israeli self-defense.]

Israel should show how ridiculous the UN report is. But Netanyahu may appoint an investigatory committee. In doing so, he would be denigrating the routine but respectable investigations already undertaken. Enemies would take it as an admission of guilt. If the committee exonerated Israel, its findings would be denounced by Israel's enemies [the international star chamber court].

Israel blundered in calling for reform in international law, as it did. This also would be taken as an admission of guilt. Israel broke no law; Goldstone lied about the law. Therefore, the international lynch mob would lie about a new law.

Israel doesn't have much diplomatic clout. It must discredit the Goldstone report and not credit its recommendations (Caroline Glick in www.imra.org.il, 10/14).

Israel fails to realize that any concessions it gives to dedicated enemies are not appreciated but form the basis for more demands. The U.S. has the same problem. But now the U.S., like the UN, is showing that it does not know right from wrong!

Are the enemies of civilization smarter than civilized diplomats? In a way, yes, because they strive to get what they want, whereas the civilized diplomats do not. In a way, now, because what the enemies of civilization strive for is folly. It is not so much that they are smarter, as that they have no inhibitions, while the civilized diplomats try to appease enemies and therefore blunder, because appeasement does not work.


PM Netanyahu clarified Israel's position on Goldstone's UN report on Gaza. When he referred to Israeli investigation, he meant that Israel already had investigated 24 of the 36 incidents and was continuing to do so on its own.

He does not at present favor an "independent" investigation. He implied that this is because the IDF has high standards of investigation. To the contrary, he challenged the world to set up an independent investigation of the Goldstone mission (www.imra.org.il, 10/24).


PM Netanyahu remarked that the Palestinian Arabs just wasted another half-year that they could have been negotiating. Instead, the Arabs demanded pre-conditions for negotiations, which were new conditions, such as freezing "settlements" and agreeing to submit to the results of negotiations.

Netanyahu pointed out that the Arabs generated the conflict before there were settlements, so those could not have caused the conflict. The conflict arises because the Palestinian Arabs "refuse to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people." (www.imra.org.il, 01/24).

Correction: Not just the Palestinian Arabs but most Arab states, among others.

Explanation: Jewish "Settlements" were not prohibited in any way by the Oslo accords. In areas of Israeli administration, it is up to Israel whether to approve construction by both Arabs and Jews.

Agreeing to submit to results of negotiations implies that there is no democratic review and right of higher authority to reject what negotiators, usually not elected, conclude. Whatever prior Israeli negotiators offered, repudiated as they all have been by the electorate, somehow bind future governments of Israel. As a result, it would do Israel no good to learn from the follies of past negotiators' appeasement. This Arab demand would strait-jacket Israel.

He should have explained why they don't recognize Israel. Recognizing an infidel state on territory that Islam formerly had conquered would reverse history and be an affront to triumphant Islam. That reason is religious. Therefore, territorial concessions not only won't solve the conflict, it would give the Muslims the feeling that history now is running their way. It would reinforce their jihad.

Since the conflict is religious, and the religion and Arabs fanaticism about it are not being reformed, what chance does negotiation have for conflict-resolution?


The New York Times interviewed Thorbjorn Jagland, chair of the Nobel Committee. Mr. Jagland awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama because he "has done the most for peaceful development in the world in the last year." "Obama has reduced tensions in the world to a large extent — namely, in the divide between the Muslim world and the Western world." The award is not a repudiation of any other policy maker, he said, but Obama emphasizes multilateral negotiation over unilateral action (Deborah Solomon, 10/25, Magazine, p.14).

Most of the questions were irrelevant, including ones about other types of Nobel prizes in which Jagland had said he was not involved. Americans still wonder why the prize went for talk of hope rather than accomplishment.

"Tensions" are reduced? What does that mean? The madrassas still indoctrinate in terrorism. The wars continue. The U.S. does not fight jihadist ideology. He appeases it. The result is that the Palestinian Arabs are getting more demanding instead of coming to terms, Iran feels unrestrained. He undermines resistance to in Israel and Iran, but encourages war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is not leading the free world. Indeed, Obama no longer promotes but demoralizes democracy abroad, and he tries to stifle dissent domestically. In my opinion, he is laying the foundation for more jihad and its victory.


President Obama wants the U.S. to set aside up to $150 million for development of Muslim countries, for better relations with Muslims (www.imra.org.il, 10/24).

Is this religious discrimination proper? Many poor countries are non-Muslim. On the other hand, lack of regular education enables madrassas to indoctrinate in holy war. Shouldn't the U.S. press Saudi Arabia to stop radicalizing Muslims?

How would making Muslims more competent in modern technology make their fanatics less effective in promoting jihad? If a non-believer is nice to them, they think he is weak. As aggressors and imperialists, our being "nice" doesn't matter.


"Obama's much heralded speech to the Muslim world in Cairo failed to make a dent in Middle Eastern realities and attitudes. His belief in the power of words to change people is naive when it comes to well-rooted attitudes or entrenched interests of nations. In instances where the US sided with Muslims when in conflict with non-Muslims, such as in Pakistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, there was little impact on Muslim dispositions. The anti-American rage among Muslims, primarily Arabs, is a result of a concatenation of factors: frustration originating from past grandeur, current poverty, backwardness, and a dark future; a cultural difficulty to accept responsibility; and a preference to blame others for failures to modernize and democratize. While words have great importance in Muslim culture, even the best of speeches cannot change the tide of history. Obama's words are unlikely to have long-term positive effects for the US, which in final analysis is seen as foreign and domineering."

Obama's "soft power" is blunted in a region where force and fear rule. His "engagement" with Iran is hastening Iran's nuclear independence. His "engagement" with Syria failed. People there think U.S. "engagement" reflects weakness. [It does reflect American impatience and war-weariness, on which the enemy counts.] They see U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and fumbling in Afghanistan. More Muslim states are failing. Our talk and our limited funds are unable to reform those societies. Our rescue of several Muslim-controlled states, such as Bosnia, made no discernable impression on Muslims who consider the U.S. the obstacle to their world conquest.

Obama presses for Israel to negotiate, although the P.A. is divided, and Hamas won't make peace. (Prof. Efraim Inbar in www.imra.org.il, 9/24).

Like Hamas, Abbas prefers conquest. How could Obama persuade fanatics to stand down, when their primary belief is in conquering? In just a few conversations, he hopes to overcome generations of fanataicism?


Israel's State Comptroller investigated the failure to get Pollard's excessive sentence commuted.

He claimed that the last four prime ministers all asked the U.S. for clemency for Pollard, but the U.S. resisted. He also claimed that the prime ministers kept their discussions so discrete that they did not document them. Part of his report was classified (www.imra.org.il, 9/3).

Pollard's attorneys have denied that the government tried to help Pollard. They pointed out that the government denied responsibility for him for years, gave his wife no aid while claiming it did, refused to endorse a clemency movement publicly, and some of them, involved in Pollard's spying, had a conflict of interest. Peres gave the U.S. the evidence with which to convict Pollard.

The Comptroller apparently took the prime ministers' or associates' word for it. I wouldn't. Whose version does the classified material support? "Quiet diplomacy" can be an excuse for inaction. I think that was so, considering that Pres. Bush gave out word that if Israel asked for clemency, he would grant it.

Israel could have made a fuss over U.S. spies in Israel, to get Pollard out.


Dutch social Internet sites visited by millions of residents are violently antisemitic. Most such sites are run by young Arab immigrants or offspring. Bigotry is prohibited, and the rule inhibits some hate-mongering, but much gets through.

The sites contain exhortations to kill Jews, send them to death camps, burn Israeli flags, and for Hitler to "finish his job," praise for suicide terrorists, denial of the Holocaust while likening Israelis to the Nazis, and lies about Israeli history and Jewish culture (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 9/4).

Anti-Zionists complain that critics of Israel automatically are dismissed as antisemites. Those Arabs in the Netherlands show themselves to be Jew-haters.


Israel has been reducing its raids into Judea-Samaria, claiming that P.A. police have improved security there. However, "the illegal militias are still there — some of them even with day jobs in the PA security forces." "Moderates' warn that if they don't get what they want at the negotiating table, they will use their weapons against Israel." Therefore, Israeli praise for temporary P.A. policing fails to take the long-range picture into account. Israel rarely plans well ahead (Dr. Aaron Lerner (www.imra.org.il, 9/4).

In other news, the increased presence of P.A. police finds them encroaching into Israeli security areas.


Maan, an Arab-owned, independent news agency, reports that for the Jewish holidays, the government of Israel closed the Cave of the Patriarchs to Muslim worshippers, troops barred them, and they fear that after "attacks" at the Temple Mount [i.e., Arab-instigated riots], Israel will bar Muslims from there.

The report omitted the fact that the government allocates the Cave of the Patriarchs exclusively to each religion during its holiest days. This is a form of impartial sharing, similar to what the report did acknowledge, that Israel set aside separate sections for the two religions (Dr. Aaron Lerner, (www.imra.org.il, 10/3).

Sure enough, the next day, Muslim Waqf leaders appealed to Muslims to come and defend the Mount. Arabs rioted. In response, Israeli police closed off the Mount. They kept Jews off it, although Jews had not rioted. In the Arab riots the week before, 12 policemen were injured (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/4).

There are no genuine fears that Israel will undermine, attack, or permanently bar Muslims worshippers. For more than 80 years, however, Muslim leaders have spread false rumors claiming such ill intent. That is how they keep their people in a spirit of war. Maan News contributed to Muslim and world misunderstanding.

Sometimes, security threats require Israeli authorities to bar younger Muslims from the Mount. At other times, unprovoked Muslims threw rocks down on Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall. The Arabs often complain that they are "humiliated" by Israelis, checking them for security. Israel checks for good reasons — Arab attempts to murder Jews.

Meanwhile, Israel treats facilities revered by other religions with respect. Muslim riots and threats prompt Israeli police to discriminate against Jews at the Temple Mount, allowing the Muslims to forbid Jews to pray aloud on it. Arab Muslim intolerance is such that when Muslim ruled in the Land of Israel, Jews were not allowed to pray at those two holiest sites. The Arab Mayor of Hebron bowed that if Muslims controlled the Cave, they would bar Jews again.

Palestinian Arab leaders beseech foreign Arabs to rescue them from Israeli religious oppression that does not exist. This problem of frequent Arab incitement to riot and religious war over planted rumor, is worthy of the UN Security Council. That worthy body is supposed to prevent war. However, it doesn't find Palestinian Arab wrongdoing worthy of investigation.

Thus we have these unresolved problems: Muslim violence, Israeli repression of Judaism, and UN dereliction of duty to prevent potential religious war on Israel.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, October 26, 2009.

"Protecting evil and elevating it over good is the surest path to destruction. When civilization stresses the rights of the perpetrators more of those of the victims, the balance of humanity will be thrown off and civilization will crumble."
— Norma Zager

The current generation in Israel hardly remembers what its founders have known. Many do not even fathom the wisdom to study their own core values, dismissing their eternal code of ethics as archaic, lacking modern luster or being ultra-religious (thus possibly poisonous or infectious).

Israel needs to go back to basics. It is a Jewish state, created from an eternal foundation, the Bible. God Himself had crafted her laws, and they address every manner of life, from the Ten Commandments to governance.

Jewish laws and traditions have evolved over time, adjusting themselves, adapting, flowing like molten lava, with enormous strength and heat, and then becoming solid, harder than any stone. The laws of the Torah are as valid today as they were when Moses presented them to the world, and they will remain applicable until the end of time.

Thus, while the Torah talks about stoning a son outside the walls of a city, stoning is not practiced today. Yet, modern punishments are necessary and imperative to deter the violence so commonplace in Israel today. While the Singaporean example seems very harsh, Israel is soon arriving to the point where youth's cruelty to elders, severe violence and murders and Russian-style executions, utilization of prostitution and drug-use must be stopped. Soon Singaporean harsh methods would seem suitable and compulsory.

There is yet another pressing matter, instituting — or rather reintroducing — the death penalty to our enemies who like to blow themselves up in crowded malls or kill innocents by launching home-made rockets at civilian populations. Israel has become so comfortable with the "rights" of those who afflict terror, maim and murder that she ignores her own RIGHT to live peacefully, without worry.

Foreigners come into Israel, hailing themselves "international peace activists," and instigate resistance. They stir and direct, lead and level accusations. These intruders feel immune and just and believe all means justify their goal. They, more than anyone else, are often to blame, yet there are no direct consequences for them. Thus, they return again and again, at times via Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport, other times onboard of a "peace vessel" designed to end the blockade of "Gaza under siege."

Instead of denying them entrance and limiting their movements, Israel closes an eye while looking the other way. During the "non-violent" demonstrations, in which stones are thrown and anyone within range may be maimed for life, trees are uprooted and "the settlers" are blamed. The activists also set houses on fire with fault cast on the "Zionists" for their supposed Nazi-like behavior.

Worse still, the army allows foreign press to be embedded within its ranks. There is no one presenting the Israeli side in these made-for-international-coverage-"non-violent" protests. A vacuum is thus created which should have been avoided in the first place. The pictures are taken out of context, and they are dressed with a narrative that is always against Israel. The result is simply surreal, yet extraordinarily effective.

Stone throwing and other violent activity must be met with immediate response, and in order to protect both the soldiers and the members of the foreign press, the areas must be declared closed military areas.

Then, and only then, when the presence of any journalists is prohibited, much of the fuel would be eliminated, resulting in much needed behavioral change. Why are the "anarchists" so effective? Simply, because the enemies dare Israel and she does not respond. If you have ever seen a bully operate, you would realize this is the worst plan of action. Avoiding confrontation is detrimental to one's wellbeing, and in the name of some "freedoms," Israel falls into this trap time after time.

All too often, terrorists with blood on their hands, sentenced in a court of law to multiple life sentences, are released as part of agreements with the enemy. At times, the release is done as a gesture of good will (two hundred terrorist in order to welcome a Muslim holiday or a new President in the White House or to "reignite" the peace process — a sacrificial lamb to appease and satisfy an appetite that will not stop). Other times the release comes as a result of negotiations in order to get back body parts of soldiers who were kidnapped specifically for that purpose from within the sovereign borders of the state.

If a citizen goes into a religious seminary and starts butchering the children, glorifying his action must not be allowed. If the custom of his family is to have a mourners' tent erected, this must be prevented and if built, it must be taken down immediately. Any "rights," including payment for burial, survivors' benefits paid by the Jewish State and other like monetary "entitlements" should immediately become null and void. Only in Israel do ministers have to become involved to fix what should be obvious!

Also in Israel, Arabs riot, and the police react to restore peace and order. Several years later, as the process winds its way down through the court system, the General Attorney's Office enters into an agreement to pay those among the instigators who were hurt as a result of their "civil disobedience." If Israel did not kneel the first time, then it did on the turnaround, to the tune of many millions.

Is there any surprise, then, that Israeli Arabs feel a growing strength and raise their heads with newly established "national aspirations?!?" In Israel, violence pays and using the system for its own destruction is working better than Israel's enemies could have dreamed.

If an enemy holds an Israeli citizen hostage and does not allow the International Red Cross access, all perks and privileges extended to the enemy's prisoners in Israel (from weekly visitation "entitelment" to TV to access to the internet etc.) must likewise be stopped. Moreover, any humanitarian aid flowing to the enemy must cease.

Preventing the flow of aid to the enemy is crucial when the enemy seeks to bring death and destruction to the country's kindergartens, schools, hospitals and cities. Where else would a war be declared, for the purpose of annihilating a country, and the country being attacked responds by allowing convoys of hundreds of trucks of humanitarian aid to pass daily through its border to enemy lines? Again — only in Israel. Would the allies have aided and abetted the Germans in their march across Europe?

Israel must stop delivering electricity, medicine and food into Gaza. She is feeding the elements set to destroy her. They launch rockets, she responds by sending more aid. For eight years she allowed it to go on, then when she could bear no longer, she reconciled an action with a soft belly. Why would she, or anyone, be surprised to read the Goldstone Report or have issues with the UN?

A rocket launched into Israel must be met with a like response. The only proportion to be allowed is ten to one or a hundred to one. Missing that proportionate response, the rocket has become a very effective tool against the ineffective ineptness of the so-called leadership of the state. Defend your citizens first. Irrespective of what you do, you would be accused of wrongdoing; at least make sure that in the little you do, you send a message that is clear and unmistaken.

Then, when an elected member in the parliament decides to meet and confer with Israel's enemies during a war or hostile activities, and such a meeting is clearly against the law, the person must be stripped of his or her position, any entitlements (severance, pension, a car and driver, etc.) and the future ability to hold any office. Loyalty to the state must certainly be above colluding with the enemy bent on a country's destruction.

As one looks at Israel over the past three years, Israel has failed in each and every one of the above instances, sending a message it is weak, lenient, overly flexible at the point of cowardliness. Worst of all, we discover that such behavior, because it is tolerated by Israel, is an effective weapon to further weaken her.

It is time for Israel to understand that fighting for her existence takes precedence. Protecting its citizenry is the responsibility of any government. Israel's own rights are as important and valid as any "rights" of those who oppose her and actively seek her demise, downfall and destruction.

In the series "Postcards from Israel," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel's on the ground, Zager's counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related — the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts — and so is this "point-counter-point" presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives. Feel free to share with others. Contact them at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Morris Sadek, October 26, 2009.

It is a Sunni transnational movement. Soon after the biggest calamity happened in 1924, with the collapse of the "Khalifa," and the declaration of war against all shapes of Islam in most of the Muslim countries, the Islamic "revival" entered into the movement phase in the Middle East by establishing "Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon" (Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, 1928, by Hasan al-Banna, a 22-year-old elementary school teacher, as an Islamic revivalist movement following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent ban of the Caliphate system of government that had united Muslims for hundreds of years.

Al-Banna based his ideas upon Islam, not only as religious observance, but as a comprehensive way of life; on the tenets of Wahhabism, better known today as "Islamism," and he supplemented the traditional Islamic education for the Society's male students with jihadist training. Al-Banna also instructs that Muslims should "completely boycott non-Islamic courts and judicial systems. Also, dissociate yourself from organizations, newspapers, committees, schools and institutions that oppose your Islamic ideology." Al-Banna also condones in this book the spreading of Islam through violence: "Always intend to go for Jihad and desire martyrdom. Prepare for it as much as you can."

The Muslim Brotherhood is working to spread its concepts and gain more followers. They work on a number levels: school students, university students, inside mosques and at work. The tools they use are cassette tapes, booklets, camps for youth in schools and universities, and recently the Internet.

The Brotherhood grew as a popular movement over the past 20 years, encompassing not only religion and education, but also politics, through the Party of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon. It blamed the Egyptian government for being passive against "Zionists" and joined the Palestinian side in the war against Israel; and started performing terrorist acts inside of Egypt, which led to a ban on the movement by the Egyptian government. A Muslim Brother assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt, Mahmoud Fahmi Nokrashi, on December 28, 1948. Al-Banna himself was killed by government agents in Cairo, in February, 1949.

The Egyptian government legalized the Brotherhood again in 1948, but only as a religious organization; it was banned again in 1954 because it insisted that Egypt be governed by Sharia (Islamic law).

1954: February: Due to differences about the appropriate governmental system, whether Sharia or secular law, the Brotherhood is banned again.

1970: With the death of Nasser, the new president, Anwar as-Sadat, promises the brothers that Sharia shall be implemented as the law of Egypt. All Brotherhood prisoners are released.

1997: Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mustafa Mashhur told journalist Khalid Daoud that he thought Egypt's Coptic Christians should pay the long-abandoned jizya poll tax, levied on non-Muslims (in exchange for protection from the state, due to the fact that non-Muslims are exempt from military service, while it is compulsory for Muslims). He went on to say that while `we do not mind having Christians members in the People's Assembly ... the top officials, especially in the army, should be Muslims, since we are a Muslim country. This is necessary, Mashhur explained because when a Christian country attacks a Muslim country and the army has Christian elements, they can facilitate our defeat by the enemy.

2005: The Muslim Brotherhood is prevented from running for Parliamentary elections as a political party. But their candidates, running as independents, manage to win 88 seats out of a total 454, making them by far the largest opposition group (other parties win 14 seats). This revived the debate within the Egyptian political elite about whether the Muslim Brotherhood should remain banned.

Western governments, including the government of the United States, are considering the MB and other "moderate Islamist" groups as potential partners in helping to advance democracy in their countries, and perhaps also in eradicating Islamist terrorism. Could the Egyptian MB fill that role? Could it follow the track of the Turkish Justice and Development Party?

After years of internal debate, the MB has more or less accepted the wisdom of setting itself up as a political party. To overcome the legal prohibition against religious parties, the MB leadership has accepted the idea that it should present the MB as a civil party with an Islamic source of authority. But unlike [Abdel Moneim] Aboul Foutoh's vision of the MB party as a substitute for the present movement, [Supreme Guide Mahdy] Akef accepts its formation only as an addition to the movement. He insists that the MB should remain a general Islamic society and that the party should serve only as the movement's political organ. He holds that a political party can never perform all the movement's missionary, educational and social tasks. Only by maintaining its non-party structure can the MB continue the international aspect of its missionary work and its alliance with the International Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.

On March 27, 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood organized a street demonstration in Cairo to call for political reforms.

Dr. Ahmed Saad, who is a member of Al Waref Advisory Board, said if the Muslim Brotherhood or a fanatic Islamist group gains power, even through the democratic process, one could look to the model of the recent war in Gaza.

The sort of behavior of a fanatic Islamist regime, or any religion based system for that matter, is not and was not unexpected. This behavior is consistent with the behavior of those who think that they are the only ones who understand God's instructions and have the exclusive authority to carryout God's will on this earth. The actions of such people are only normal by the standards of those who convince themselves that anyone who does not agree with them is the enemy of Allah and should be punished by them as the rightful representatives of God on earth. What is also typical of religious fanatics is their mixing of the physical world we live in with the metaphysical unknown. They confuse the "absolute" of God's domain with the "relative" of His creation. They enter in their planning, calculations and equations "forces" we have never seen and the influences of "beings" of which we cannot even imagine and rely on to realize their goals. The result of such behavior, actions and calculations would inevitably be a failure of mammoth dimensions.

Their vision of reality is totally distorted and their ability to deal with this life is essentially impaired.

Daniel Pipes said by Islamic government "I mean a government whose officers are Muslims who perform the obligatory duties of Islam, who do not make public their disobedience, and who enforce the rules and teachings of Islam."

The Egyptian government is now accusing the Muslim Brotherhood of links to Palestinian resistance groups and of establishing "global networks." The Muslim Brotherhood opposes secular tendencies of Islamic nations and wants return to the precepts of the Qur'an, and the rejection of Western influences. They also reject extreme Sufism. They organize events from prayer meetings to sports clubs for socializing.

The organization's motto is as follows: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

However, according to the Muslim Brotherhood, jihad, that is, holy war against the

Organization's ideology, as it appears on its official website, regards "the prophet Muhammad as its leader and ruler, and jihad as its path." Jihad has a global strategy beyond self-defense, it is the unceasing attack on every infidel, intended to widen the borders of the Islamic state until all mankind lives under the Islamic flag. An important aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is the sanctioning of Jihad, such as the 2004 fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi making it a religious obligation of Muslims to abduct and kill U.S. citizens in Iraq.

In conclusion, the Muslim brotherhood is a religious movement and its ideology is not the proper ideology for our time. It grows in the societies where poverty and ignorance are so high, so the members of this movement brainwash and spend money to change people's ideas to support their strategy. Also, the Muslim brotherhood members carry very old ideas from during the first and second centuries and force these old ideas on the Egyptian society. In response to the Muslim brotherhood efforts to change Egyptian society to an Islamic society, the Egyptian government bans this organization and its activities and arrests some of its members, but never acts strongly against the leaders of the organization or the president of the organization and his Cabinet. In result of this weak strategy from the Egyptian government, the Muslim brotherhood has become so popular in different fields of Egyptian society and also the strongest opposition to the government.

Morris Sadek is President, National American Coptic Assembly, Washington, DC. Visit http://www.nationalamericancopticassembly.webs.com/, http://nacopticas1.blogspot.com/ and http://nacopts1.blogspot.com/.

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 26, 2009.

This was written by Dan Senor and Sol Singer and it appeared in The Daily Beast (www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-25/ marching-through-the-meltdown).

Dan Senor, a professional investor, is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle. From 2003-2004, he was based in Baghdad as a senior adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition in Iraq. Saul Singer is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, where he also served for six years as editorial page editor.


Israel has thrived during the global collapse — thanks to an entrepreneurial culture built on compulsory military service. Dan Senor and Saul Singer on why U.S. companies should take notes.

For all the press coverage of the Middle East, there is one side of Israel that gets scant attention: the country's economy has the highest concentration of innovation and entrepreneurialism in the world today. For years, multinational technology companies and global investors have been beating a path to Israel. Even in 2008 — a year of global economic turmoil — per capita venture investments in Israel were 2.5 times greater than in the United States, more than 30 times greater than in Europe, 80 times greater than in China, and 350 times greater than in India. And Israel still boasts the highest density of start-ups in the world (a total of 3,850 start-ups, one for every 1,844 Israelis). More Israeli companies are on NASDAQ than companies from all of Europe, China, India, Korea, and Japan combined.

The root of Israel's economic dynamism — and the way it weathered a global downturn — can be traced to government policies that cultivate a unique entrepreneurialism. These include innovative immigration policies and disproportionate research and development spending (Israel is the world leader in the percentage of the economy that is spent on R&D). But the real turbocharger has been its universal military training and national service program. Here's how it works. While students in other countries are preoccupied with deciding which college to attend, Israelis are weighing the merits of different military units. And just as students elsewhere are thinking about what they need to do to get into the best schools, many Israelis are positioning themselves to be recruited by the elite units of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces).

One IDF Army officer with whom we spoke knew when he was just twelve years old that he wanted to learn Arabic, partly because he realized even then that it might help him get accepted into the best intelligence units. One year before reaching draft age, all seventeen-year-old males and females are called to report to IDF recruiting centers for an initial one-day screening that includes aptitude and psychological exams, interviews, and a medical evaluation. At the end of the day, a health and psychometric classification is determined and service possibilities are presented to the young candidate in a personal interview.

Those who complete the training together remain as a team throughout their regular and reserve service. Their unit becomes a second family. They remain in the reserves until they are in their mid-forties.

While it's difficult to get into the top Israeli universities, the nation's equivalent of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are the IDF's elite units. The unit in which an applicant served tells prospective employers what kind of selection process he or she navigated, and what skills and relevant experience he or she may already possess.

"In Israel, one's academic past is somehow less important than the military past. One of the questions asked in every job interview is, Where did you serve in the army?" says Gil Kerbs, an intelligence unit alumnus who today works in Israel's venture capital industry, specializing in China's technology market. The advantage that Israel's economy and its society gains from this equally dispersed national service experience was driven home to us by neither an Israeli nor an American — but rather by Gary Shainberg, an eighteen-year veteran of the British navy. Today, he is vice president for technology and innovation at British Telecom.

"There is something about the DNA of Israeli innovation that is unexplainable," Shainberg said. But he did have the beginnings of a theory. "I think it comes down to maturity. That's because nowhere else in the world where people work in a center of technology innovation do they also have to do national service."

At the age of 18, Israelis go into the army for a minimum of two to three years. If they don't reenlist, they typically enroll at a university. "There's a massive percentage of Israelis who go to university out of the army compared to anywhere else in the world," said Shainberg. In fact, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 45 percent of Israelis are university-educated, which is among the highest percentages in the world. And according to a recent IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, Israel was ranked second among sixty developed nations on the criterion of whether "university education meets the needs of a competitive economy."

By the time students finish college, they're in their mid-twenties; some already have graduate degrees, and a large number are married. "All this changes the mental ability of the individual," Shainberg reasoned. "They're much more mature; they've got more life experience. Innovation is all about finding ideas."

Innovation often depends on having a different perspective. Perspective comes from experience. Real experience also typically comes with age or maturity. But in Israel, you get experience, perspective, and maturity at a younger age, because the society jams so many transformative experiences into Israelis when they're barely out of high school. By the time they get to college, their heads are in a different place than those of their American counterparts.

"You've got a whole different perspective on life. I think it's that later education, the younger marriage, the military experience — and I spent eighteen years in the [British] navy, so I can sort of empathize with that sort of thing," Shainberg went on. "In the military, you're in an environment where you have to think on your feet. You have to make life-and-death decisions. You learn about discipline. You learn about training your mind to do things, especially if you're frontline or you're doing something operational. And that can only be good and useful in the business world."

This maturity is especially powerful when mixed with an almost childish impatience.

Since their country's founding, Israelis have been keenly aware that the future — both near and distant — is always in question. Every moment has strategic importance. As Mark Gerson, an American entrepreneur who has invested in several Israeli start-ups, described it, "When an Israeli man wants to date a woman, he asks her out that night. When an Israeli entrepreneur has a business idea, he will start it that week. The notion that one should accumulate credentials before launching a venture simply does not exist. This is actually good in business. Too much time can only teach you what can go wrong, not what could be transformative." The IDF also offers recruits another valuable experience: a unique space within Israeli society where young men and women work closely and intensely with peers from different cultural, socioeconomic, and religious backgrounds. A young Jew from Russia, another from Ethiopia, a secular sabra (native-born Israeli) from a swanky Tel Aviv suburb, a yeshiva student from Jerusalem, and a kibbutznik from a farming family might all meet in the same unit. They'll spend two to three years serving together full-time, and then spend another twenty-plus years of annual service in the reserves.

The IDF was structured to rely heavily on reserve forces, since there is no way for such a small country to maintain a sufficiently large standing army. So for combat soldiers, connections made in the army are constantly renewed through decades of reserve duty. For a few weeks a year, or sometimes just a week at a time, Israelis depart from their professional and personal lives to train with their military unit. Not surprisingly, many business connections are made during the long hours of operations, guard duty, and training. While a majority of Israeli entrepreneurs were profoundly influenced by their stint in the IDF, a military background is hardly common in Silicon Valley or widespread in the senior echelons of corporate America. As Israeli entrepreneur Jon Medved — who has sold several start-ups to large American companies — told us, "When it comes to U.S. military résumés, Silicon Valley is illiterate. It's a shame. What a waste of the kick-ass leadership talent coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The American business world doesn't quite know what to do with them."

In Israel it is the opposite. While Israeli businesses still look for private-sector experience, military service provides the critical standardized metric for employers — all of whom know what it means to be an officer or to have served in an elite unit.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, October 26, 2009.

This was written by Hana Levi Julian and appeared today in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).


Terrorists will not receive the standard privileges in Israeli prisons under a new law being reviewed Sunday by the Knesset Legislative Committee. The proposal is intended to bring their conditions into parity with those being experienced by kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

Shalit has been held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza since his abduction in a cross-border raid on June 25, 2006, and has not been allowed any visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), his family or any other international representative, to ascertain his condition. The sole sign of life received by the State of Israel in recent months was a videotape released by Hamas terrorists a few weeks ago, that showed Shalit holding a current Arabic-language newspaper, in which he identified himself, said he was being treated well and expressed his hope that he would soon be allowed to return home.

Terrorists being held prisoner in Israel, by contrast, receive a monthly salary from the Palestinian Authority, in addition to food packages, gifts and visits from their family members and sometimes other important visitors as well.

The proposed legislation states that any prisoner who belongs to a terrorist group holding an Israeli citizen hostage, would lose the privileges normally accorded to an inmate in the Israel Prison system. The terrorist inmate would, however, still be granted the rights accorded him by international law.

The proposed bill would "do justice by ending the irrational situation in which Israeli citizens and soldiers are kidnapped by terrorist organizations and held in sub-human conditions, while at the same time prisoners who are members of the same organizations who participated in murderous attacks on innocent civilians, are held in superior conditions," according to the text.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 26, 2009.

Over the past two decades we have witnessed the emergence of a mass movement of political extremism and support for totalitarianism on Western college campuses. Large numbers of university professors and administrators today advocate politically extremist positions that combine support for totalitarian Islamofascism and its terrorism with deep hatred of Israel and anti-Americanism. The dimensions of the phenomenon vary by campus and also by academic discipline. Middle East Studies is arguably the worst. The pro-totalitarian ideology and the hostility towards Israel and the United States have been documented for years by campus monitoring watchdogs like Campus-Watch [1] in the United States and by Isracampus [2] in Israel, as well as by web magazines, notably FrontPage [3].

Reading the exposes about campus political extremism today is numbingly shocking. No doubt many a reader responds bewilderingly by asking how such behavior and fanaticism could have been invented in the early twenty-first century. Actually, it was not. It was around many decades ago.

Campus radicalism, support for totalitarianism, and general political extremism are not new on Western campuses. Indeed some of the worst political extremism in academic history took the form of enthusiastic support on American campuses for Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This is a disgraceful chapter in American academic history and one largely unknown. Its story is the topic of a new book [4], "The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower," by Stephen H. Norwood [5] (Cambridge University Press, 2009). The author is a professor of history at the University of Oklahoma and holds a PhD from Columbia University (of all places; Columbia University is one of the schools whose ties with Nazism [6] he documents carefully). Norwood is an accomplished writer and researcher, but I believe that this volume will turn him into an American household name. It is based on five years of his intensive research efforts. And it is already flaming controversies [7] and debate [8].

None of what follows is my own original research. All of it is taken from Norwood's seminal study and he deserves all the credit for uncovering these things. The simple lesson from examining the behavior on American universities in the 1930s is that that the appeasement, the support for totalitarian aggression and terror, the academic bigotry, and the anti-Semitism that today fill so many American universities were all predominant forces on many campuses in the 1930s, especially at America's elite schools, including on much of the Ivy League. The Chomskies, Coles, Beinins and Massads of today could easily be fit into the campus atmosphere of the 1930s.

Norwood sums up the situation at American universities in the 1930s thus:

"The leaders of American colleges and universities remained for the most part uninvolved as others in this country forcefully protested the Nazis' barbaric treatment of Jews. The Nazis anti-Semitic terror in 1933 precipitated demonstrations and boycotts (of Germany) on an unprecedented scale... But although academicians were the Americans most conversant with European affairs, few engaged in public anti-Nazi protest.... American universities maintained amicable relations with the Third Reich, sending their students to study at Nazified universities while welcoming Nazi exchange students to their own campuses. America's most distinguished university presidents willfully crossed the Atlantic in ships flying the swastika flag, openly defying the anti-Nazi boycott, to the benefit of the Third Reich's economy. By warmly receiving Nazi diplomats and propagandists on campus, they helped Nazi Germany present itself to the American public as a civilized nation, unfairly maligned in the press." (Norwood, page 34)

Norwood's book is a must-read, but also a sad and uncomfortable read. He details the reactions of America's professors and universities to the rise of Hitler. The responses on American campuses ranged from complete indifference and refusal to join in campaigns against Nazi Germany to widespread support for German Nazism, including for German atrocities committed against Jews. This was not mere Yankee provincial ignorance of what was happening outside the country.

Starting in 1933 anti-Hitler mass protests were being held throughout the United States. Americans of all creeds joined in. So did labor unions, political parties, and others. Perhaps the most memorable anti-Nazi sign from the marches was that of the Undertakers Union, "We want Hitler!" American streets were filled with anti-Nazi protests every week. At the same time, "College and university presidents and administrators did not convene protest meetings against Nazi anti-Semitism on the campuses, nor did they urge their students and faculty members to attend the nationwide mass rallies held on March 27, 1933." (Norwood, page 15).

Some leading German Jewish scientists and professors managed to make it to the United States. The most famous was of course Albert Einstein. Some American schools went out of their way to hire these refugees. Harvard and Yale (which has a Hebrew slogan on its official coat of arms) were NOT among those! Yale's President James Rowland Angell said he was "only superficially concerned with the plight of the German refugees" and reluctant to commit resources to finding them jobs. Harvard refused to hire refugees even when the Rockefeller Foundation offered to cover half their salaries, not even as curators at the campus Germanic Museum (pages 32-33). In contrast, the Nazi Professor Friedrich Schoenemann from the University of Berlin went on a speaking tour of American campuses in 1933 to great acclaim, where his talks were titled, "Why I Believe in the Hitler Government." He had taught at Harvard during and after World War I.

Some academics condemned those calling for a boycott of Germany in response to the atrocities committed against on Kristallnacht. They insisted it would be "hypocritical" on the part of those protesting the boycott of German Jews by Nazis to call for a boycott of Nazi Germany. This is worth noting because one hears the exact same claim today. Those today calling for boycotts of the anti-Israel academics that lead the "divestment" movement demonizing Israel are similarly denounced; they are accused of supposedly exhibiting "hypocrisy." In other words, one must not oppose the evil use of boycotts to achieve evil totalitarian aims, especially not through a campaign against them of boycotts to achieve just and democratic aims, lest one be guilty of "inconsistency."

Harvard University stood out above the rest in its moral failure and in its collaboration with Nazism. Many of the faculty members at Harvard were openly anti-Semitic, including Harvard's president James Bryant Conant. Later, after the war, Conant served as US Ambassador to Germany and worked feverishly to get Nazi war criminals paroled and hired (pages 243-256). He lobbied for appointments of Nazis to various public posts in Europe and at the United Nations. Harvard's law school Dean, Roscoe Pound, was openly sympathetic to Hitler, vacationed in Germany and attended anti-Semitic events there (pages 56-7). Harvard history professor William L. Langer strongly defended Hitler's reoccupation and remilitarization of the Rhineland, which was the first step in launching World War II. More generally he served as a sort of academic apologist for the Nazis (pages 41-2).

Harvard went out of its way to host and celebrate Nazi leaders. The high Nazi official Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaungl was invited as the Harvard commencement speaker in 1934. The wealthy Hanfstaungel had been one of Hitler's earliest and most important backers. He was on record insisting "the Jews must be crushed," and describing Jews as "the vampire sucking German blood." Hanfstaungel was invited by a Harvard medical professor to serve as the honored speaker in the Harvard commencement ceremony and class reunion of 1934 and used the occasion for anti-Semitic incitement (page 49). (He also showed up in [9] Harvard at the 50th class reunion after the war in 1959.) He openly advocated the mass arrest or worse of German Jews. The student paper, the Harvard Crimson, defended Hanfstaungel (pages 49-50). Harvard called in the Boston police to arrest Jews and others protesting the visit, and they were charged with "illegally displaying signs" (page 52). When Hanfstaungel returned to Germany from Harvard, he was personally greeted by Hitler (page 55).

Harvard maintained warm intimate relations with many Nazi institutions, in particular the University of Heidelberg, even after it proclaimed proudly that it had expelled all its Jews and began promoting what it called "Aryan Physics" (page 62). Harvard's warm relations with German universities were used by Nazi propagandists, including Joseph Goebbels, to lull the world into accepting and legitimizing the Nazi regime. In 1937 Harvard's president was still saluting Nazi universities as playing a legitimate part of the "learned world" (page 70). Harvard President Conant pursued collaborative relations with Nazi universities throughout the 1930s and right up to the outbreak of war.

In 1935 the German consul in Boston was invited by Harvard to lay a wreath with a swastika on it in the campus chapel. Nazi officials were invited to Harvard's tercentenary celebrations in 1936, held intentionally on the Jewish High Holidays as a slap in the face of Jewish faculty and students (page 39). A mock student debate held in 1936 was presided over by Harvard professors as judges. They acquitted Hitler of most of the mock charges (condemning him only for having a German general killed) and declared that German persecution of Jews was simply irrelevant (pages 40-41). The Harvard Crimson, the student paper [9], ran numerous pro-Hitler articles. Its editors were among those coming out to celebrate the visit of a German ship with Nazi officials on board. MIT also helped host the ship. The Nazi "Horst Wessel" marching song was played by student bands. Meanwhile, the campaign to boycott German goods was condemned by rally speakers.

Yale was only marginally less friendly to the Nazis than Harvard. "President James Rowland Angell of Yale University refused the request by Rabbi Edgar E. Siskin to speak on March 27, 1933 at a community-wide mass meeting in New Haven called to voice 'dismay and indignation at the anti-Semitic excesses now being carried out in Germany'" (page 15). Yale and Harvard presidents welcomed a delegation of Italian fascists to both campuses in October of 1934 (page 57). The student newspapers at both schools warmly approved. Fascist Italy's diplomats were often welcomed by Harvard.

Other parts of thee New England academic elite expressed similar sentiments. A protest rally against German anti-Semitism was planned for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for March 30, 1933. It drew only a small number of protesters after MIT President Karl Compton intervened to oppose it. Compton also opposed the sending of petitions to the German government signed by MIT faculty and students. Some MIT professors came out vocally in support of Hitler and Nazi Germany, including mechanical engineering professor Wilhelm Spannhake (page 16). His son Ernst was a student at the time at MIT; the son insisted that the Nazis had committed no atrocities at all and he defended the Nazi boycott of German Jews and Jewish businesses.

Professor Thomas Chalmers of the history department at Boston University publicly demanded a "hands off" policy regarding Hitler and opposed American denunciations of Nazi Germany (page 17). Public efforts were made to recruit leading university presidents to refuse to travel on German ships flying the swastika flag, and to refuse to attend German "academic" conferences, but most refused. Among those who demonstrably insisted on traveling on Nazi ships was Nicholas Murray Butler, president of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, and Harvard's President Conant. President Robert Maynard Hutchins of the University of Chicago insisted on traveling on the same ships until the summer of 1937 (Pages 17-18). After the war the University of Chicago hired one of the leaders of the Romanian genocidal fascist organization "Iron Guard" as a faculty member.

Norwood's own alma mater of Columbia University is a major target in his book (pages 75-102). Columbia was an active collaborator with Nazi Germany in many ways. Months after Germany started book burning, Columbia's President Nicholas Murray Butler went out of his way to welcome Nazi Germany's ambassador to the US for a lecture circuit at the school, and praised the Nazi emotionally as a gentleman and a representative of "a friendly people" (page 76). Shortly afterwards, when a man who had escaped from a Nazi concentration camp lectured on campus, Butler refused to attend (pages 77-8). Butler frequently praised Germany and Fascist Italy. He would have approved of Joseph Massad [10] getting tenure this year at Columbia.

Columbia University itself had been officially discriminating against Jewish students since the beginning of the century. A Columbia Dean named Thomas Alexander praised Hitler's Nazism sycophantically and visited Germany himself (page 83). He especially approved of the Nazi policy of forced sterilizations. More than one Columbia faculty member was fired for taking an anti-Nazi stand. These included a Jewish professor of fine arts, Jerome Klein, who dared to protest the campus visit of the Nazi ambassador. Columbia built and maintained extensive connections with Fascist Italy. Things changed only after 1936 when Edward R. Murrow took over as president.

Many other universities were little better. The "Seven Sisters," meaning the seven elite women's colleges in America, were decidedly unwilling to take any anti-Nazi stands (pages 103-132). Professors and students served as apologists for Nazism. So did some of the college presidents. Collaboration with the Nazis continued at some campuses even after Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. The oppression of women in Nazi Germany made no more impression upon them than the oppression of women in Islamic societies does on today's campus extremists and feminists.

Freedom of speech was selectively defended on campuses in the 1930s, as it is again today in the 21st century. The President of Queens College prohibited an anti-Nazi speaker from giving a lecture on campus as late as spring 1938 (pages 223-46). Harvard suppressed student efforts to aid Jewish refugees from Germany. For many years Catholic universities in the United States were strongly pro-fascist (pages 196-219).

Phony symmetry, the condemnation of fascism together with condemning Western democracies, is not the innovation of the past decade's campus campaign to defend Islamic terror. In the 1930s academics and university presidents signed statements that protested German behavior but at the same time gave it legitimacy. For example, in one attempt at "even-handedness," a petition claimed that Nazi actions were "in large part the result of the lack of fair play to Germany" on the part of Western countries and their "slighting of German rights and needs." It added that "minorities are suppressed and discriminated against to some degree in every land." They knew so well — at the time most Ivy League universities and many other colleges officially and openly discriminated against Jewish applicants. (They still do under affirmative action quotas.)

Does all of the above sound familiar? It does to Norwood, who says he sees frightening similarities [11] between what has been happening in American campuses since the early 1990s and what transpired in the 1930s.


[1] Campus-Watch: http://frontpagemag.com/wp-admin/campus-watch.org

[2] Isracampus: http://frontpagemag.com/wp-admin/Elad

[3] FrontPage: http://frontpagemag.com/wp-admin/frontpagemagazine.com

[4] a new book: http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp? isbn=9780521762434

[5] Stephen H. Norwood: http://www.ou.edu/cas/history/fac-staff-norwood.html

[6] http://wcbstv.com/topstories/ columbia.university.prof.2.239504.html?detectflash=false

[7] http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2009/07/ boston-globe-reviews-norwood

[8] http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/ 200411/1115world.html

[9] http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref= 505593&picnum=2

[10] http://www.campus-watch.org/favicon.ico

[11] http://www.cnhinews.com/files/chameleon_favicon.jpg

This appeared in Font Page Magazine
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/26/nazis-in-the-ivory-tower- %e2%80%93-by-steven-plaut/

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 25, 2009.


J Street "has asked members to lobby against sanctions on Iran, when the only alternative is war or acquiescence." (Press release from ZOA, headquartered in New York, 10/23.)

The implication here is that J Street campaigns against sanctions, which were thought to offer a chance to avoid war, but does not offer alternatives. I think that sanctions would not be strong enough to persuade and would come too late.

J Street supposedly was formed to help split Jewish public opinion away from Israel and towards President Obama's policy. However, Obama says he prefers sanctions, though he acts as if negotiations and waiting for negotiations are his policy.

Negotiations mean promises that Iran and N. Korea are used to breaking. When Iran gets nuclear weapons, we would depend upon nuclear weapons on which Obama does not want to run tests proving they still can work. Our defense by deterrence may not work.


Ambassador Rice told the UN to "replace anti-Israeli vitriol with recognition of Israel's legitimacy and right to exist in peace and security."

For that, the Zionist Organization of American (ZOA.) praised her effort. But it criticized her undermining that effort by failing to suggest doing anything about that U.S. client, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The P.A. incite its people to murder Israelis and other Jews, because it rejects for religious reasons the legitimacy and permanence of a Jewish state. Despite that threat to peace and security, to which she said Israel is entitled, she calls upon Israel to make great sacrifices and therefore risks to prove it is "serious" about peace (10/23 press release of ZOA, of which I am a member).

In view of the continuing P.A. rejection of Israel and its inciting its people to want war with it, why should Israel risk its survival in the dubious hope of getting peace? Why shouldn't the U.S. ask the P.A., an imperialist aggressor, to make sacrifices for peace?

Considering the P.A. doctrine of conquering Israel in phases and of attempting it, and comparing that with Israel's many offers to negotiate that Abbas still spurns, shouldn't the U.S. ask the P.A., and not Israel, to prove it is "serious" about making peace?

Israel took and proposed risks, but did not get peace. She is unfairly demanding.


The U.C. Irvine has become a battleground between the Muslim Students Union, thought to harasses and incite against Jewish students and to raise funds for terrorism, and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), which seeks to uphold the law and protect students from intimidation.

After having received many complaints of intimidation, ZOA submitted evidence to UC Irvine and the U.S. Department of Justice, that the U.C. Irvine Muslim Student Union (MSU), violated federal law and University policy by raising funds there for Hamas. The evidence includes a 31-page report on Viva Palestina, for which the funds were raised. The report was by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), whose "Executive Director, Steven Emerson, is one of the foremost experts on domestic terrorism in the U.S.."


The Muslim Student Union (MSU) responded on campus by condemning ZOA and ignoring the accusations against it.

It accused ZOA of being a vigilante group trying to deny it freedom of speech, and suggested that ZOA not be allowed to intervene because it is not registered on campus. In other words, MSU is trying to deny ZOA freedom of speech.

A vigilante movement proceeds illegally and by force. By contrast, ZOA is proceeding according to law and to uphold the law.

ZOA efforts in behalf of the right of Jews to study without religious harassment is its civil right in behalf of other people's civil rights. MSU is violating civil rights.

ZOA explains that the civil rights movement represented blacks without having to register in every locality where it intervened to uphold the law. MSU is like Southern segregationists, who used to dismiss the NAACP by calling them "outside agitators." Actually, "For years, the ZOA has had connections with UC Irvine students, faculty and administrators, as well as with members of the Irvine community who oppose the Muslim Student Union's divisive conduct that is antithetical to the community's values of tolerance and respect."

MSU claims it is taking the "high road." On what road is it when it falsely accuses ZOA of trying to repress its freedom of speech and by force? On what road was it, when Jewish students at UC Irvine "had suffered years of Israel-bashing and anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation as the result of the programs and speakers that the Muslim Student Union regularly sponsored on campus?"


Last spring, MSU sponsored a speech by Viva Palestina, which sends supplies to Gaza. ZOA has video and other evidence that MSU used the occasion to raise funds for Viva Palestina and that Viva Palestina subsidized Hamas.

ZOA sent government and University an eyewitness report that Viva Palestina's convoy for which MSU raised funds went to Hamas.

The IPT report denies that Viva Palestina is just a relief organization. "Viva Palestina's most visible leaders call for the elimination of the State of Israel . . . They treat Hamas leaders as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and provide both material and moral support to the terrorist organization."

According to University records, MSU had informed the University that the event would not raise funds. MSU did raise funds, violating several University rules.

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigated. MSU claims the investigation vindicates it. Not true. OCR decided that much of ZOA's complaint to it was out of its jurisdiction, but did find "that Muslim Student Union speakers made broad generalizations about Jews, and that Jewish students were offended, intimidated and harassed by the Muslim Student Union's events."

The MSU letter brushed off accusations of intimidation. However, The Muslim Student Union regularly sponsors speakers and programs that defames Jews, Zionism and Israel. An MSU-sponsored speaker endorsed terrorism against Israeli Jews, and said Israel should be destroyed. He said, "We will fight you [Israel] until we are martyred or until we are victorious." Those are fighting words.

"MSU speakers have accused the Jews of arrogance, of being "a den of spies," and of controlling the government and the media. The Office for Civil Rights noted several statements by MSU speakers concerning Jews, which offended, intimidated and harassed Jewish students, including this, from May 2006:

"Liars. Straight up liars, Rupert Murdock, Zionist Jews. The Zionist Jews own Fox News. They say that it's anti-Semitic if you say that the Zionists control the media . . . They got the media; they got Congress. . ."

"You all definitely don't love children and you know why? Because you all kill them . . ."

"They [meaning the Jews] have taken the concept of chosen people and fused it with the concept of white supremacy. Once you take the concept of chosen people and white supremacy and fuse them together, you will get a people who are so arrogant that they will actually make a statement and imply that 'we are the only Semites.' [That is not a Jewish concept.] That's arrogance and that's the type of arrogance they display every day and that's the same type of arrogance that's getting them into trouble today."

Another speaker sponsored by MSU called Jews Satan. Another likened "the systematic murder of Jews by the Nazis" to Gaza [where there were less than one-one hundredth of a percent of the casualties as the Holocaust. In Gaza it was a war of defense, where Israel attempted to minimize civilian casualties. In the Holocaust, it was a war on civilians. Hamas' method was to war on Israeli civilians, launching thousands of rockets at them. The Arabs brought any repercussions upon themselves. How bizarre that MSU accuses ZOA of promoting hatred on campus!

"The Muslim Student Union calls the content of its speeches and programs 'political critique.' But none of it is legitimate political discourse about Israel and the conflict in the Middle East. It is false and demonizing rhetoric plainly intended to incite hatred of Jews and Israel, and the impact on Jewish students has been serious. At least two students left UC Irvine and transferred elsewhere because they could no longer endure the anti-Semitic hostility promoted in large part by the Muslim Student Union. "

Playing the victim, MSU claims that the most bias crimes in the U.S. are against Muslims. False. According to FBI statistics, in 2007, there were 1400 incidents of religious bias: 969 against Jews, 115 against Muslims (10/22 press release by ZOA, of which I am a member).

The difference between the ways MSU and ZOA operate is that MSU criticizes people for their ethnicity, whereas ZOA criticizes those who do wrongful action. The MSU way is the way of bigotry.

In not even trying to rebut the accusations against it, MSU tacitly confirms them. It is obvious that MSU has been promoting bigotry for years. Then it tries to bully and whine its way out of exposure.


Russia's ambassador to Israel said that although Russia had voted for the Goldstone report, it has second thoughts about it. Now it opposes further UN action. It gave excuses for its vote as involuntary and the fault of Europeans. Now it finds flaws of bias in the report.

Why second thoughts? Russia probably realized [or heard] that the same unfair condemnation made against Israel could be made against it, when involved in local wars (Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary, 10/23).

Russia is likelier to harm civilians unnecessarily than Israel.

Russia's excuse for its vote does not inspire confidence that it really opposes the Goldstone procedure now. Russia is inconsistent. It has been blowing hot and cold on sanctions on Iran for years. It alternately gives and dashes hope it will support sanctions. I think that is part of the process of stringing the West along, until its customer, Iran, has weapons that make it immune to sanctions.


Judge Goldstone challenged President Obama over the UN Report on Gaza. Obama had called the report "flawed." Goldstone replied that Obama failed to identify what he found flawed. Goldstone said that if Obama does, he would be glad to respond (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/23).

Obama is one of three world leaders that used the term, "flawed," without identifying the flaws. I had mentioned their reticence, before, and think it is craven and irresponsible. Why protect defamers?


Israeli excavation strengthens the Temple Mount. That is, excavations have exposed weaknesses that Israel then shored up. Muslims have been fear-mongering about excavations under the Mount and under the mosque on it.

Actually, Israel does not excavate under the Mount. It excavates areas near the Mount and under the wall around the Mount. To that extent, Jewish law, which forbids digging under the Mount, is followed.

Israel is planning a major excavation under the plaza in front of the Western Wall. The Government Press Office took foreign journalists on a tour of the planned work area, to explain plans to them. The Office probably wanted to inure them to anticipated Muslim objections that would not be based on fact (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/23).


There was a small Zionist rebellion in the IDF ranks. The Shimshon battalion [Samson, in English] had just been sworn in at the Western Wall. Some of its troopers, in coordination with their relatives in the audience, raised banners proclaiming that their battalion will no longer expel Jews from their homes. They were referring to numerous evictions and razing of Jews' homes in northern Samaria, done along with those in Gaza. The result of the expulsions in Gaza were to turn Gaza into a terrorist base for attacks on Israel.

IDF commanders warned they may discharge those soldiers (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/23).

Despite the expulsions having led to murder and war, the U.S. urges further expulsions, and the government of Israel plans, or seems to acquiesce to, further expulsions, which now seem even more like treason.

Those protesting soldiers feel that the expulsions are unlawful, unjust, and unpatriotic. Others feel they must obey orders.

Like Israelis, I find this a difficult issue in which to separate emotion from reason. I think that whatever Israel's policy on it, it should have kept the Army out of it. The Army is for national defense, not national oppression. Nothing should be done to dilute loyalty to the Army. It was a police matter. Police couldn't handle the opposition? Then perhaps the government was implementing a radical policy that the country as a whole did not approve.


Russia stands on principle, over arms for Iran. Russia declared that it had not shipped Iran the S-300 missiles, because Iran had not yet paid for them and because of other, unstated circumstances. It said it will not let itself be thought an unreliable partner, it will fulfill its contracts and it will not let competitors take its place (www.imra.org.il, 10/23). How noble!

On that issue, Russia has blown hot and cold. It lets the U.S. and Israel court it, but in the end, it disappoints those trying to keep civilization safe from jihad. The principle of honoring commitments was not applied to various foreign companies whose investments Russia took over by subterfuges. Many companies believe the business climate there is insecure for them.

Every power, however unscrupulous, portrays its motives as ethical.


State Dept. proposals describe Jewish towns in Judea-Samaria, and only Jewish ones, as "settlements," as if alien. Calling "settlements" an obstacle to peace, the State Dept. asserts that peace starts when the Jews are expelled from them.

An issue suppressed from State Dept. proposals — Jews' minority rights under Arab rule — was raised by a letter to the Wall St. Journal (10/24, Alan E. Scholnick, Bart Teush). Instead of portraying the issue as territorial, the letter frames it as one of minority rights that test the western Palestinian Arabs' commitment to peace and their moral legitimacy for statehood.

Let international policy makers hold those Arabs accountable for the minority rights and security of Jewish inhabitants! Why should a group of Arabs who won't protect minorities get statehood?

I think the letter makes valid points, but for Zionism, it is a fall-back position. Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, embraces the Jewish people's right to recover its homeland, including the Territories. That is the broader, fundamental issue of minority rights. I contacted one of the letter's authors, who does not mean that negotiations need grant statehood, but that if it did, he had laid out minimal qualifications for it not usually raised.

The Arabs already have given their answer to the letter's question. The Arabs continue their centuries-long oppression of minorities — religious, racial, and national. They still squeeze Christians from countries to which the Muslims were the alien invaders. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) authorizes capital punishment for Arabs who sell land to Jews. P.A. doctrine: use any land they gain to seize Israel. They cannot be entrusted with the war-making power of sovereignty.

The letter challenges us to measure the Palestinian Arabs in this modern age as if they were enlightened, too. But Scholnick and Teush acknowledge that the anti-Zionist media proposes ethnic cleansing of innocent Jews as the way to peace with those who war on them. That proposal give the lie to the image of modern statecraft as enlightened. It reflects a double standard typical of anti-Zionism, by not also proposing to ethnically cleanse the Arab fifth column of Israel, generally subversive in intent, committing acts of war, and electing representatives who endorse those acts. That double standard impugns the anti-Zionists' ethics and vitiates their case.

Why are Jewish towns in Judea-Samara more alien than Arab ones? All the Arab towns are built on or named after Hebrew towns. As between Jews and Arabs, Jews were the original inhabitants. Arabs conquered, but within a couple of hundred years, themselves were conquered by Turks. Some Jews remained. Under Turkish rule, both populations had dwindled to almost nothing. Zionism revived the area, so that Arabs followed Jews in. WWI cost the Turks control; the victors designated 99.5% of the Mideast for the Arabs and 0.5% for the Jews. The Arabs complained that was not enough. Britain then gave them 79% of the Palestine Mandate, now called Jordan. The Arabs complained that that was not enough, either. They tried to expel and murder the Jews. And now they want still another state, from which, as Arafat taught and the rest of them understand, they would fight, again, to destroy the Jewish sovereignty and people. Is their proposed genocide the opportunity that is in President Obama's "vision?"

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 25, 2009.

Iranian in-your-face obstinacy is what we must be grateful for. It is all that can save us, as we confront the foolishness and naiveté being displayed by the UN and nations — the US, France, and Russia — participating in negotiations with Iran.

Last week headlines were made when a draft of a potential agreement was tentatively accepted by Iranian negotiators at an IAEA meeting in Vienna. The proposal was handed out to those present by IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei, a snake in the grass if ever there was one. There was no discussion of this proposal at the meeting, according to the Guardian — it simply reflected an understanding established in principle in Geneva on October 1, with the addition by ElBaradei of some modifications that had been proposed and some red lines that had been set forth. Many details were lacking. Many questions were left unanswered.

There was no formal acceptance of this proposal by nations participating either, merely an informal indication by the US, France and Russia that they had no objections. Chief Iranian negotiator, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said he would forward this to Iran and gave a fairly positive interview to CNN.

From some quarters a very short-lived optimism was expressed that the nuclear crisis with Iran had been averted.

Not so fast. Not so easily.


The proposal called for Iran to ship some 70% of its (known) low-enriched uranium abroad for processing, first to Russia and then France — which would then send rods back to Iran for peaceful uses. By reducing available Iranian stockpiles of enriched uranium, it was thought that Iran's potential to further enrich uranium for use in manufacturing bombs would be significantly diminished.

The international concern at this point is preventing Iran from reaching the threshold in low-enriched uranium that would allow it to turn its stocks into more highly enriched uranium for a bomb within a matter of months.

But the plan did not call for a total halt to further Iranian enrichment and did not require extensive monitoring of Iranian nuclear facilities.


Iran was supposed to provide a final answer on Friday, and, not surprisingly, none was given. Iranian representatives said that the proposal was being studied and an answer would be forthcoming within about a week. But then speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, declared that the West was trying to cheat Iran. And various other proposals began to surface, according to the Financial Times (UK) — plans that would require transfer of less fuel, or transfer at a later date, or keeping it all in Iran.


For Israel, and indeed for the world, the proposal put forth by the IAEA, or anything akin to it, would be an unmitigated disaster. (Even if most of the world doesn't realize it.) For it would forestall sanctions and would effectively block our ability to carry out a military hit. Were Iran to agree to this proposal, should we then proceed with an attack, we would be cast as an international pariah, a seeker of military violence, to a degree that would make what is being done to us now, post-Goldstone, look a bear hug. But the agreement would not prevent Iran from ultimately achieving nuclear weapons or at least the ability to produce them.


Opposition to the proposal was found across a broad political spectrum here in Israel.

Vice Premier Silvan Shalom (Likud), in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, called the proposal a "bad mistake," and explained that:

"Iran will not change its path. Iran's intentions go beyond its nuclear program. Iran wants to bring back the Persian Empire, and in its view this is a way of buying time."

He said that Iran was laughing at the world, "turning the agreement into a powder keg that will explode in our faces."

Earlier, Defense Minister Barak (Labor) declared that this deal would set back Iranian nuclear plans by a year at most and that a total halt to uranium enrichment was required.

Tzipi Livni (Kadima) said the deal "would blow up in our faces," and Shaul Mofaz (also Kadima) called the proposal "a worthless piece of paper."

Are the Israelis the only ones who are clear-eyed here?


Barry Rubin lays out the parameters, the intrigue and the dangers of this situation with considerable clarity. I urge you to read what he says, because it is so very important:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/10/ iranian-negotiations-ploy-of-week-or.html


This entire discussion will, hopefully, turn out to be moot, and we'll be back to square one with regard to pushing tough sanctions and considering a military attack.

One European official, cited by the Financial Times, said that the discussions in Vienna "have been something of a reality check for Obama's officials on just how difficult and intransigent Iran really is."

If this were to serve as a wake-up call for Obama, that would be encouraging. But we don't even know that yet.


A change of pace and subject with this link to Street's Spiritual Conceit, by David Weinberg of the BESA Center:

"The pious spiritual claptrap that characterizes J Street's conference in Washington this week is both a conceit and a new form of Jewish apostasy. Conference speakers earnestly broadcast their 'profound' Jewish and 'spiritual' identities in order to besmirch the mainstream Jewish community and engender a distancing in US-Israel relations. This certainly does not fool the American Muslim leaders who are speaking at the conference. They know and appreciate exactly what J Street is up to."


PA President has announced that elections will be held for the presidency and the legislature on January 24.

Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine politburo member, Maher At-Taher, speaking from Bethlehem, and cited by the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, is actually making sense:

How can Abbas announce these elections and pursue reconciliation with Hamas at the same time, he ponders. I would answer that it is typical for Fatah to play both ends against the middle, to attempt to cover all its bases.

Expressing no preference on the part of his party either for or against a unity government, he makes the simple observation that, while elections are constitutional, and not illegal as Hamas claims, Abbas is using them to solve a problem it actually cannot solve:

"The fact is that there is an authority in Gaza and another authority in Ramallah, there's a deep division in the Palestinian arena and there can't be elections without the national reconciliation."

Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Ahmad Bahar of Hamas, expressed concern that for Hamas to recognize the elections would be to recognize the PLO, which, by extension would mean recognizing the Oslo accords that Hamas will not accept.

Sound like a whole lot of people have backed themselves into corners.


All in all, it doesn't seem like an opportune time for the PA to be involved in negotiations, does it?

One might suppose that the Obama administration would decide to hold off in promoting negotiations until issues of unity and elections were resolved and there was some sort of stability (relatively speaking, of course) in place. But if one were to assume this, one would be mistaken.

For in spite of the Palestinian unrest, and a report by Sec. of State Clinton to Obama last week indicating continuing gaps in the Palestinian and Israeli positions, the Washington Post reports that the administration "is intent" on getting talks going before the end of the year.


There has been more violence on the Temple Mount over the last few days.

And tonight there is a special conference being held at Heichal Shlomo (next to the Great Synagogue) in Jerusalem, as Zionist rabbis call for Jewish ascent to the Temple Mount and an end to the Muslim use of the Temple Mount as a platform for incitement.

A heartening turn of events: It signals a Jewish refusal to surrender control of the Mount to the Muslims.

This is, it must be explained, a sensitive issue. There are rabbis on the far right who say it is forbidden for Jews to go on the Mount because of the sanctity of the place, the difficulty of determining the precise location of the Holy of Holies, and the ritual impurity of the nation of Israel today. Those Zionists rabbis who endorse going up say visitors must first immerse in the mikvah (ritual bath), and on the Mount remain on the perimeter, to avoid standing on areas of sanctity where stepping would be forbidden.

Among those participating are Rabbi Dov Lior, rabbi of Kiryat Arba and Hevron, and Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovich, rabbi of the Kotel — neither of whom would remotely be classified as liberal.

Participants include political figures as well: MKs Uri Ariel, Aryeh Eldad and Michael Ben-Ari, all of the National Union; MK Uri Orbach (Habayit Hayehudi); MK Otniel Schneller (one of the more nationalist members of Kadima); Jerusalem Deputy Mayor David Hadari; Moshe Feiglin (head of Manhigut Yehudit faction of Likud).


The date for the conference was selected because it is the anniversary of the ascent of the Rambam (Maimonides) to the Mount. (This authoritative 12th-century Jewish philosopher and codifier of Jewish law was, it seems clear, in favor of ascending.)

Said conference chair, Yehudah Glick, "There is a worrisome phenomenon that every time two or three rocks are thrown [by Arabs], the Jews are distanced from the Temple Mount. The Arabs learned this and they behave accordingly."

There are sources that are comparing calls of this group to ascend the Mount with inciteful calls by radical Muslim groups. I find this highly offensive and very much off base.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, October 25, 2009.

Uh huh, we've heard this before, hasnt happened yet. Nothing remotely tough has happened to Arabs in Israel compared to what has been done to Jewish residents of Yesha.
Yaacov Levi


(IsraelNN.com) Police Commissioner Dudi Cohen accused the Islamic Movement of fanning the flames of hatred that fueled the violence on the Temple Mount Sunday morning, and vowed a "tough response."

Cohen told journalists at a news conference held at the site mid-morning Sunday that he had ordered police to act harshly against the Arab rioters who had hurled rocks and bottles. Three policemen were injured in the violence.

"I call upon the Waqf to help maintain peace and quiet in the area," said Cohen. "Israel Police will have a tough response for anyone who disturbs public order on the Temple Mount... The site will remain closed for at least another hour, after which we will re-assess the situation."

The police commissioner accused the Islamic Movement of incitement, pointing out that the organization had brought in "large groups of Israeli Arabs" from outside the area to "defend" the site from alleged conquest by right-wing Jews. He also noted that some 100 adults and youths were still barricaded in one of the mosques on the Temple Mount. Police officers were still deployed around the structure.

Three police officers had been lightly wounded earlier in the morning after being hit by rocks hurled at them by the mob of rioting Arabs. The violence, which began at approximately 7:00 a.m., continued sporadically throughout the morning and then spread to other areas in the Old City of Jerusalem. Police have been deployed throughout the area, and Magen David Adom emergency medical services have increased the number of rescue vehicles available in the city.

The Temple Mount has been closed to both Jews and Arabs. The Western Wall plaza remains open as usual.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shlomo Blass, October 25, 2009.

Yagil Henkin, an Associate Fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, explains how regimes much weaker than the Iranian one managed to survive decades of economic sanctions — and analyzes how sanctions can be imposed most effectively.


In recent years, economic sanctions against Iran have often been heralded as an alternative to an armed intervention and as a way to force the obstinate country to abandon its nuclear ambitions — much in the same way that Libya gave up its non-conventional weapons program in 2003.

Unfortunately, this view is over-optimistic. While economic sanctions have their merits, they, alone, are unlikely to catalyze change, unless other forms of pressure are applied. A survey of the last fifty years reveals a few well-researched lessons; it is worth reviewing them to understand the limits and possibilities of sanctions.

First, and contrary to the hopes of those who pursue economic sanctions, the chances of sanctions resulting in regime change are quite slim, especially in the short term, as British premier Harold Wilson was unfortunate enough to learn. In 1965, after Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom, Wilson imposed economic sanctions, claiming they would bring the Rhodesians to their senses "in a matter of weeks rather than months." It took fifteen years, a bloody guerilla war, a global recession and binding UN sanctions to bring about regime change — certainly not a "matter of weeks." Other notable examples are the Castro regime in Cuba, which has survived economic sanctions for nearly five decades and Saddam Hussein, who survived a decade of economic sanctions. Saddam's regime fell only after the US employed military force. A 2007 study conducted by the Washington Institute for International Economics surveyed 170 cases of sanctions, from World War I until 2006 and found that success (defined as regime change or democratization) was achieved in only 31% of the cases — not nearly high enough. Considering the passing of time as an additional factor, the results become even less satisfactory.

Some claim that Fidel Castro's resignation is proof that sanctions eventually work. Yet even if this is true, it is clear that sanctions don't bear fruit fast enough. The appeal of "if you wait enough, they'll give up," is essentially saying "let's wait until they all die of natural causes."

Needless to say, sanctions that merely aim to affect minor policies have better chances of success. Specific goals — i.e., "prevent Nowhereland from acquiring American-made strategic bombers" — has better chance of success than aiming for regime change or major policy change. Two decades of sanctions against Libya did not prevent the country from pursuing its unconventional weapons program, which ultimately reached a more advanced stage than most intelligence services had believed possible. On the other hand, the Libyan dictator applied sanctions against Switzerland in 2008 (a personal vendetta on Qadhafi's end, after Switzerland briefly detained his son, Hannibal, for beating two local servants). This forced Switzerland to humiliate itself and formally apologize for the incident. (This apology did not save Switzerland from Qadhafi 's rage: recently the colonel addressed the United Nations and urged the General Assembly to abolish Switzerland).

Sanctions may be necessary, yet alone they are insufficient to force change. The guerilla war and global recession amplified the impact sanctions had on Rhodesia; without those two factors the regime would have probably lasted for considerably longer. Decade of sanctions against Saddam diminished his army's combat ability, which helped the US crush it with a smaller military force of its own. The sanctions against South Africa helped the country reach a compromise with the African National Congress — but only after the Soviet Union, and with it the fear of communist influence in Africa, were in ruins. Significantly, Iran had been targeted by different US sanctions during the bloody Iran-Iraq war — yet neither regime changed, and democratization did not materialize.

Second, economic sanctions tend to strengthen the regime's control of the economy, and thus the population. Some say sanctions cause the rally-around-the-flag effect, but a more plausible explanation is that sanctions give the regime tighter control over the distribution of goods within its borders. Regimes can then force various interest groups to compete for favors, thereby distracting them from posing a political challenge to the regime. The ability of Hamas to sell aid items received in the Gaza Strip highlights this: he who has the guns has the power. As long as the regime can control the flow of imported or smuggled goods, it wields enormous power.

Strangely, sanctions can also become a blessing in disguise for the targeted country. The creation of Israel's military and aviation industries, which today are undoubtedly leaders in the field, was greatly aided by necessity: other countries' refusal to sell weapons and technology to Israel catalyzed the Israelis to begin developing such technology themselves. The Rhodesians managed to construct or create most of the items they couldn't buy, apart from reasonable alcoholic beverages. North Korea also seems to be able to develop most of the weapons it covets, even if it comes at the price of not feeding its citizens. On the other hand, no such developments emerged in Iraq, Libya, or Myanmar — indicating that the nature of the target society significantly influences the effectiveness of the sanctions. Actually, the nature of the target government influences the sanctions' outcome: sanctions are slightly more effective against democracies than against authoritarian regimes — if only because democratic societies can replace their rulers. At the same time, the more technologically advanced the society is, the more likely it is to find ways to mitigate the effects of sanctions.

Third, if demand exists and people can pay, almost anything can be bought in the free, if not quite legal, market. For example, in 1976, Rhodesia had been under mandatory UN sanctions for a decade. Nevertheless, the Rhodesian army had no trouble finding suppliers for anything from mini hovercrafts, M-16 riffles, used c-130 transports, brand new Kfir attack planes and even Dabur patrol boats. The latter would have been almost impossible to hide from the world, as they would have had to make their way into the landlocked country.

The Rhodesians' lack of funds prevented most acquisitions, yet the availability remained. It should be noted that sanctions affected this lack of funds, but were not its sole cause. Rhodesia was also able to export many precious metals and minerals, as well as beef — which was served, during the war, to African presidents who harbored the guerillas. All this was taking place in a country that was under obligatory UN sanctions. When only one country, who doesn't control the borders of the target country, applies sanctions — as the US is proposing vis-à-vis Iran — the chances of successfully blocking imports and exports are even slimmer.

However, in some cases it is possible to selectively and effectively target the export or import of a particular item or industry. This is most plausible when there are neither alternatives nor good substitutes. For example, the US sanctions on the Iranian oil industry for more than two decades did not prevent it from signing mega-deals with many countries, among them Switzerland and China. Nor did these sanctions deter it from pursuing its nuclear program. Yet by penalizing any company that wanted to invest in the Iranian refining industry or help modernize it — be it an American company, foreign subsidiary or any company interested in doing business with the US — the United States actively facilitated the deterioration of the Iranian refinery industry, resulting in considerable economic damage to Iran. But even this is not enough: the giant refineries being constructed in Pakistan, on behalf of China and Abu Dahbi (now on hold because of the global economic crisis), as well as the joint Indonesia-Iran refinery project at Bojonegara, may soon indicate that Iran has found an alternative way to satisfy its energy needs.

Obviously, sanctions are more likely to achieve something (although not political change) when applied against a small country with no major source of funds. Yet when the country imposing the sanctions is not a global superpower and the target country is large with developed industry and agriculture, success is not likely.

There is no point starting with minor sanctions and gradually increasing up; this is the economic equivalent of gradual military escalation. Better results can be achieved sooner by employing full-force sanctions from the start. Otherwise, as time passes, the targeted regime learns to manage, whereas imposing a sudden total embargo may have a greater effect. But, as the United Nation's typical hesitation towards Iran reveals, this is much easier said than done. In fact, it is usually outright impossible (in addition, there is the problem of coalition-based sanctions being less effective, as the Arab boycott against Israel revealed).

Fourth, sanctions may deter countries that are not targeted. While this can be hard to measure, regimes may consider the economic damage suffered by the targeted regime and decide that sanctions are not worth risking. Also, sanctions are sometimes needed in order to rally the public opinion, since not imposing sanctions may exact a high political price. Such is the case with the Israeli sanctions against Hamas in Gaza; these are unlikely to end as long as kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit remains hostage. Sanctions may also serve as an interim measure before resorting to military action — as was the case with the American invasion of Panama and the toppling of Noriega.

Fifth, sanctions that hurt the imposing country's economy are less likely to succeed. For example, despite ongoing tensions, the Israeli economy is linked with Gaza's economy. This summer, Israeli beef growers demanded to be allowed to export meat to the Gaza strip, from cows raised specifically for this purpose. Forbidden by sanctions, the only ones whose pocket books were hurt were the Israeli beef growers. Israelis nevertheless transported meat into Gaza — from other sources.

Obviously, sanctions should always target the regime, not its population. Imposing travel bans and confiscating bank accounts and personal belongings may be more effective than imposing country-wide sanctions. However, even this does not guarantee success, as the governments of Myanmar and Zimbabwe proved.

Ultimately, when considering the question of sanctions, countries should identify their goals, develop a plan for sanctions that is appropriate for these goals, and be realistic about how long will it take to achieve results. Because, to paraphrase Fredrick the Great, "He who sanctions everything, sanctions nothing."

Contact Shlomo Blass, Webside Editor, Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies by email at adelson-editor@shalem.org.il

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, October 23, 2009.

Dear Judge Goldstone,

I refer to your October 23, interview with Bill Moyers and in particular to your statement to him that you have not seen nor read any detailed response in respect of the incidents on which you reported.

I find this very surprising as in my several open memoranda to you and to the mission; I specifically addressed several incidents on which you reported. To quote just two examples of many, in my email of September 26, I wrote,

"Paragraph 9 of the Report deals at very great emotional length with the unfortunate shooting of Amal, Su'ad, and Samar, daughters of Abed Rabbo, and accepts, without any attempt at corroboration, testimony that they walked out of their house carrying white flags to find an Israeli tank. The Report describes two soldiers sitting on top of the tank, one eating chips, the other eating chocolate. One cannot but wonder how the witnesses in the tense circumstances were able to distinguish what the soldiers were eating. Without warning, the report says, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls. All very incriminating, creating an emotional picture of callous Israeli soldiers eating chips and chocolate while a third mows down innocent children carrying white flags. It is not inconsequential that none of these types of emotional descriptions are used when Hamas' infractions are mentioned.

BUT! Most importantly, the writers of this Report failed in their bounden fact-finding duty to check the accuracy of the information they purveyed. With just a little attention to detail, they would have read the report by Palestinian News Agency Ma'an and MECA — the Middle East Children's Alliance, that the unfortunate girls were killed in collateral damage from an attack by Israeli planes. No tank, no soldiers eating chocolate (or chips), and no white flags are mentioned. I trust you will agree that the Report must be amended to correct this and other inconsistencies.

The Report repeatedly declares that civilians were intentionally killed by the IDF, inferring that the Mission members, with no battle experience, possess superior intellectual powers that enable them to determine whether, in the heat of battle, a soldier has acted in self defense or with criminal intent. And, as the Mission places importance on intent, it is remiss in ignoring the openly declared intent of the rocket launchers to kill as many civilians as possible, the openly declared intent of the Hamas Charter to destroy Israel, and the Hamas declaration that it is not bound by international rules.

I did not misquote your statement on Al Jazeera. The interviewer asked you about a mosque incident mentioned in the report, adding a leading rider, "...and what it demonstrates about Israeli conduct in the war." You then described how a mosque was shelled during prayers with the deliberate intention of killing innocent civilians, implying that this was typical of IDF behavior. All of this was based on your unequivocal acceptance of oral testimony by dubious witnesses.

This is where the incident in Rafeh, to which I referred, is absolutely relevant. The battle in the mosque on August 14 in which 22 people were massacred [by Hamas] is well-founded, positive proof of Israel's allegations that mosques are and were used for military purposes and storage of weapons. Instead of alleging that the mosque you spoke of to Al Jazeera was shelled with deliberate intention to kill civilians, at the very least your Report should have mentioned the motivation, namely the use of mosques for military purposes. The gathering in the mosque was as likely to be a military planning meeting as a prayer meeting.

In fact Col. (res.) Jonathan Halevi has reported that the mosque was used to recruit operatives, and that several known terrorists who were operating from the mosque were killed in this attack, including Ibrahim Moussa Issa al-Silawi, an operative in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. According to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, Ibrahim "received his love of jihad and hatred for the Zionist enemy with his mother's milk." He was a Muslim Brotherhood operative and had close relations with Nizar Riyyan, a senior Hamas terrorist operative. Other known terrorists killed in this operation included Omar Abd al-Hafez Moussa al-Silawi; Sayid Salah Sayid Batah; Ahmed Hamad Hassan Abu Ita; Muhamad Ibrahim al-Tanani; Rajah Nahad Rajah Ziyyada and Ahmed Assad Diyab Tabil.

No doubt if you had been aware of this critical information, you would have investigated it thoroughly. It is too important to ignore even at this late stage.

May I look forward to your serious consideration of the above highly relevant concerns?"

Maurice Ostroff

Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il
and visit his website: http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 23, 2009.


While the U.S. presses for what it thinks is a "two-state solution," the Palestinian Authority (P.Aa.) presses for a one-state outcome.

Here are examples of what the P.A. teaches its children. The first two examples came from a TV quiz program.

"Where is Palestine's most important port, in Haifa, Jaffa or Acre?"

"There's a Palestinian city whose walls are very high and strong, where Napoleon, whom we all know, stopped his battle, because he was unable to breach the solid walls. Which city is it, Jaffa, Acre or Tiberias?"

"Previously reported children's television program included quizzes for children who answered that Tiberias is the 'Palestinian city' named after the Roman ruler and that Nazareth is the 'Palestinian city that is called the flower of the Galilee."

"In the PA school system, textbooks still teach that 'Palestine has a long coast facing the Mediterranean Sea and a short coast on the Gulf of Aqaba. The Tiberias Lake [Sea of Galilee] is in Palestine.'"

Thus the P.A. tells the children that their country is "Palestine" and that it encompasses Israel in it. Dozens of Congressmen found this out on a recent junket. They said they will ask President Obama to demand that the P.A. cease this practice
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 9/3/ from Palestinian Media Watch).

The children also are taught that their duty is to fight to retrieve that part of their country that the Jews control. This includes Israel.

When Tiberias was named after an emperor, Jews lived there but not Arabs.

The U.S. "vision" is not compatible with Obama's (lip service) promise to support Israeli security.


Fatah is preparing for student elections in its sector of Judea-Samaria. It arrested students belonging to the anti-Fatah Islamist wing.

Hamas depicts Abbas' crackdowns on Hamas or street crime as Zionist (www.imra.org.il, 10/21).

I didn't realize that Abbas is a Zionist. Perhaps Zionist Organization of America will welcome him to the fold.

After the student elections, I suppose that Jimmy Carter will certify that they were democratic. That's what he does.

Fatah is caught between Hamas and Israel. To get Israeli forces out of some of its cities, it cracked down on street crime. To save itself, it arrested some Hamas men. Hamas protests bitterly, though it used the Gaza war as cover for liquidating and intimidating a number of Fatah men.

On the other hand, Fatah is anti-Israel and terrorist. It does not want to help Israel or to seem to help it. Hence it keeps promoting terrorism and jingoism.


Israel rejected a U.S. scheme for it to concede in advance of negotiations that it would make a massive withdrawal from Judea-Samaria after negotiations conclude (www.imra.org.il, 10/21).

Making concessions in advance of negotiations is self-defeating, which is why the adverse or naïve Obama administration must have proposed it. Negotiating that way, out of weakness, actually may delay negotiations, because it encourages the other side, the Arabs, to demand more. It certainly is not the work of an honest broker.

For an Israeli reaction to U.S. demands, go here
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m10d22-US-asks-Israel-not-to-evict-Arabs-in-Jerusalem


Former Israeli ambassador to the UN urges Israel to undertake damage control against the Goldstone report. That report is heading for the Security Council and International Criminal Court, where it could do serious damage.

Damage control should not be very difficult. A number of countries, including some on the Security Council, suffer from Islamic terrorism. They could be made to understand how Israel was wronged, first by Hamas and then by Goldstone.

Goldstone's report was filled with errors. For example, it denied that Arabs fired from mosques, so that Israeli fire at mosques was wanton. Israel could give other countries proof that Arabs used mosques as forts.

Ambassador Gold defended Israel's non-cooperation with Goldstone's mission, because of the mission's anti-Israel charter. He revealed that not only did Goldstone omit testimony from Israelis, it also ignored British officers who wanted to testify
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/22) in Israel's behalf.

Refusing to accept testimony contradicting preconceived notions means that the Goldstone report's myriad errors are less innocent mistakes than the mindset of a "hatchet job." The media should focus on that, not the accusations against Israel. Then, having explored the fraud in the UN report, the media should turn to NGOs whose fraudulent findings form a basis for the UN report and which wage anti-Zionist warfare by feigning Israeli human rights violations. The media should expose prominent members of Human Rights Watch as anti-Zionist activists, ideologically biased and unscrupulous.


A resident of Samaria, whom some people would call a "settler," was arrested by Israel's security agency a few weeks ago. He was not allowed to get a lawyer. He was due for a hearing, so a friend was driving his wife to the court. Police stopped the car and seized the wife, without explanation. She pleaded with them to let her nurse her baby. Ignoring her plea, they separated her from the baby and other children for seven hours. A gag order was placed on her case, keeping her name off the news. Women in Green protested against this fascistic kidnapping
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/22).

They called it a "Third World kidnapping," but police state tactics are not all in the Third World nor only in the Third World. They are in Israel, against Jews. This case shows only one of the malpractices. In the U.S., when someone is arrested, he may get a lawyer. The U.S., confused over whether to hold suspected terrorists as military prisoners, pirates, or criminals, has often withheld counsel and charges. In Russia, dissenting journalists get assassinated.


"Goods Flood Gaza's Tunnels, Turning Border with Egypt Into a Shopping Mall," declares the NY Times headline. Thousands of motorcycles were on display in the Rafiah, border-straddling town. Their prices ranged from $2,000 to $10,000. So were refrigerators, flat-screen television sets, microwaves, air-conditioners, generators, and ovens, commanding a premium for smugglers.

Israel found that the tunnels also were used for smuggling in weapons and explosives. "Israel did its best to obliterate them during its three-week military offensive in Gaza, last winter..." Now there are even more tunnels.

About 1,500 tunnels are crammed into an 8-mile part of the border, employing 30,000 Palestinian Arabs (Taghreed el-Khodary, 10/22, A8).

Eight miles of flat desert shouldn't be hard for Egypt to patrol, if it seriously wanted to stop arms smuggling. How many Egyptians are employed, keeping the 30,000 Gazans busy?

Did Israel do its best to obliterate the tunnels? Did it check every house in Rafah, for tunnel exits? How many did it destroy? Why no figures in the report?

The types and quantities of goods make Gazans seem not as poor as reputed.

On what basis do critics of the siege claim it is so harsh? They criticize Israel, but why not also Egypt, which officially participates?


The American UN ambassador told Israelis "it was not enough to pay 'lip service' to peace and urged the government to restart negotiations immediately, without preconditions, aimed at creating an independent Palestinian state. Ambassador Rice told them that "being serious about peace means taking risks for peace." She said that the U.S. cares about Israeli security. NY Times, 10/22, A16).

How unfair the Obama administration is, considering that Israel's head offered repeatedly to restart negotiations unconditionally, but the Palestinian Authority head refused unless Israel met his preconditions! If the U.S. were an honest broker, it would tell Abbas to drop preconditions. The U.S. is paying "lip service" to concern about Israeli security when it sides with the Arabs, its goal is another Arab state and not peace, and it tells only Israel to take risks and sacrifices.

We are not doing well with our first Jewish President, Rahm Emanuel — Obama is just speechmaker. Obama loves the Third World so much, he is subordinating our own national security to it and is putting our economy into it.

SAUDI ARABIAN AL-QAIDA NOW BASED IN YEMEN Saudia Arabia cracked down on its al-Qaida branch. The terrorist organization relocated in neighboring Yemen, now beset by two rebellions. Al-Qaida intends to use Yemen as a base for attacking S. Arabia (www.imra.org.il, 9/3), then crossing back when pursued.


Iran's President Ahmadinejad says he intends to privatize government owned industry. Calling himself a reformer, he says Iran needs the money. His past reforms have been fraudulent. This one seems to follow the pattern of Iranian government deception. It is not likely that his dictatorship, which has increased control over the country by the Revolutionary Guards, would relinquish control over the communication industries.

It is believed that he will sell companies to fronts for the Revolutionary Guards. Industry would stay under tight control. Suggestion: the U.S. should trace the true ownership of the companies and then act to cut off foreign funds from flowing into them in Iran (Rachel Ehrenfeld, 9/3, e-mail, from Huffington Post).


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) abuses the human rights of journalists almost every day. At a P.A. checkpoint in Judea-Samaria, troops erased an Arab TV crew's tape. What was the P.A. hiding?

The checkpoint abuse wasn't reported — it wasn't Israeli troops abusing Arabs. Same goes for Arabs who die in P.A. prisons, allegedly of torture.

When Arafat was stealing billions of dollars in foreign aid, many foreign journalists thought the allegations of it were "Zionist propaganda." Other foreign journalists said they prefer writing anti-Israel articles, because they are more popular with their editors (Khaled Abu Toameh in Jewish Political Chronicle, summer 2009, p.63 from Hudson Institute, 6/24).

Zionist propaganda? Israeli regimes, if not actually complicit with the P.A., let the P.A. get away with slander. Only recently has Israel refuted Arab propaganda.


The Israeli Supreme Court asked why demolition orders against illegal buildings owned by Jews are implemented but hardly against those of Arabs. Prosecutors claimed it doesn't but also that it does because of staffing shortage (www.imra.org.il, 9/3).

Why doesn't the shortage limit demolition orders against Jews? Discrimination?


"More than 1,500 Arab refugees from Iraq, descendants of Arabs who fled pre-state Israel in the 1940s, have recently been welcomed into the United States and Chile. According to the English-language Arab news site Khaleej Times, refugees who relocated to Chile have settled in to their new home, and have received a warm welcome from Chile's leaders."

"'Recently we've seen refugees from Iraq successfully integrate in Iceland, Slovakia, Norway, and the United States,' said a representative of Israeli Initiative, an organization promoting an alternative track to Israel-Arab peace. 'None of them are among those under UNRWA's care. UNRWA does nothing to rehabilitate the refugees, and the millions of Palestinians under its care are doomed to remain refugees..." UNRWA is the UN agency tasked with assisting Arabs who fled Israel during the War of Independence and their descendants. The agency defines any descendant of an Arab who considered his or her primary place of residence to be pre-state Israel during the 23 months before the 1948 war as a 'refugee.' It runs programs throughout the Middle East to provide refugees with housing, food and education."

"The Israeli Initiative has accused UNRWA of encouraging a rapidly growing number of Arabs to define themselves as 'refugees,' and of preventing their successful repatriation, thus 'introducing fresh generations into the circle of poverty, despair and hate."

Israeli Initiative's head, Benny Elon, remarked, "UNRWA was not created to serve the Palestinian population, but rather, to serve the Palestinian national narrative. As such, it perpetuates the conflict..."

Another representative of Israeli Initiative says, "In contrast to the myth that says nobody wants to take in the refugees, there are many countries eager for immigrants because their own population is aging, or because they need workers in certain professions, or for other economic reasons."

"'Studies show that the overwhelming majority of refugees under UNRWA's care would willingly repatriate if given the option of doing so,' he said. 'In the camps, they will never be able to create a new life for themselves," he concluded
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 9/3).

The Arab states refuse to absorb their fellow Arabs. They perpetuate the conflict with Israel, for jihad. They complain about the Holocaust creating sympathy for Israel. That gives the Arabs a motive for denying that the Holocaust existed. But they perpetuate a refugee problem to gain sympathy against Israel.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, October 23, 2009.

This was written by Bruce Feiler and it appeared October 18, 2009 in the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2009/10/15/AR2009101503474_2.html

Bruce Feiler is the author of "Abraham" and "Walking the Bible," which was made into a PBS miniseries. This essay is adapted from his new book "America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story." Contact Feiler by email at bruce@brucefeiler.com


When the Supreme Court began its new term this month, the justices went to work in a building overflowing with Moses. The biblical prophet sits at the center of the structure's east pediment; he appears in the gallery of statues leading into the court and in the south frieze of the chamber; the Ten Commandments are displayed on the courtroom's gates and doors.

Similarly, when the House of Representatives gathers, the members meet in a chamber ringed by 23 marble faces, including those of Hammurabi and Napoleon. Eleven look left; 11 look right. They all look toward Moses, who hangs in the middle, the only one facing forward.

Elsewhere in the nation's capital, the prophet is ubiquitous. He stands in the Library of Congress. He appears in front of the Ronald Reagan Building. Images of his tablets are embedded in the floor of the National Archives. And nearly every occupant of the White House, from George Washington to Barack Obama, has invoked the Israelite leader to guide Americans in difficult times.

Moses is the patron saint of Washington — and a potent spiritual force in nearly every great transformation in American history, from the nation's founding to the Civil War to the civil rights movement.

Why did a 3,000-year-old prophet, played down by Jews and Christians for centuries and portrayed in the Bible as a reluctant leader, become such a presence in American public life?

Because, more than any other figure in the ancient world, Moses embodies the American story. He is the champion of oppressed people; he transforms disparate tribes in a forbidding wilderness into a nation of laws; he is the original proponent of freedom and justice for all.

His part in the American story begins with the Pilgrims. A band of Protestant outcasts who felt oppressed by the Church of England, they saw themselves as fulfilling the biblical story of the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham who were enslaved in Egypt and freed by Moses, then journeyed toward the Promised Land. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower in 1620, they carried Bibles emblazoned with Moses leading his people to freedom.

By the time of the Revolution, Moses had become a staple of proponents of American independence. In 1751, the Pennsylvania Assembly chose a quote from the five books of Moses for its statehouse bell: "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof — Levit. XXV 10."

After the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 — under that future Liberty Bell — a committee made up of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams set about designing a seal for the new United States. Their recommendation: the Israelites crossing through the parted Red Sea, with, as their proposal described it, a ray of fire "beaming on Moses who stands on the shore and, extending his hand over the Sea, causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh."

To beleaguered colonists seeking freedom from the superpower of the day, the story of another oppressed people achieving freedom was a powerful precedent, especially since it was taken from the ultimate source, the Bible.

When the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, though, they quickly descended into lawlessness, with the 12 tribes bickering and complaining about their leader. The solution was to bind them under a new law, a new covenant: the Ten Commandments. (The Bible says the Israelites "re-enslaved" themselves.) Similarly, "God's new Israel," as America was called, entered a period of disarray after the Revolution, and the result was also a commitment to stricter law: the Constitution.

The critical figures in each instance, Moses and George Washington, were warriors as well as lawmakers. Reluctant leaders, both resisted the temptation to turn their nations into monarchies. The analogy was not lost on the new nation. Two-thirds of the eulogies on Washington's death compared him to the biblical prophet. One orator even likened Washington's death before the completion of the District of Columbia to Moses's failure to reach the Promised Land.

The American promised land, however, featured an element of Egypt: slavery. Here again, Moses proved influential. Forced to adopt Christianity, African slaves across the South found kinship in the story of an enslaved people who escaped their masters. Harriet Tubman sang slave spirituals about Moses as coded messages when she led people to freedom on the Underground Railroad. As her fame grew, she adopted the alias Moses, triggering a wave of posters: "Wanted Moses: Dead or Alive."

On Thanksgiving in 1862, as the Civil War raged, Harriet Beecher Stowe, who used the Exodus as a major theme in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," visited the Washington barracks of fugitive slaves who had joined the Union army. After the blessing, the room sang the most famed spiritual of all, "Go Down, Moses," which Stowe's sister dubbed the "negro Marseillaise."

And when Abraham Lincoln died on the threshold of the promised land of victory, he, too, was compared to Moses in many eulogies. "What was the work which Moses was called to do?" asked a Connecticut preacher. "It was nothing less than to deliver his race from slavery. The work before our late beloved president was the same. God called him to free the nation."

Political figures weren't the only ones likened to Moses — so were national icons. Uncle Sam was compared to the prophet for leading immigrants across the Atlantic; Old Glory for going into the wilderness during the Civil War. And the country's greatest symbol, the Statue of Liberty, was designed to mimic Moses when he came down from Mount Sinai with shafts of light around his head and tablets of law in his hands. On the statue's opening day, Cuban patriot Jose Martí described her as walking "as if to enter the Promised Land." ad_icon

The presence of Moses in American iconography grew in the 20th century, even as the Bible declined in influence. Woodrow Wilson was compared to Moses for creating the League of Nations, and Franklin Roosevelt for defeating Hitler. Lincoln Steffens's 1926 book, "Moses in Red," called the prophet the founder of communism, while Bruce Barton published a book calling him the greatest capitalist who ever lived. And the builders of the Supreme Court in the 1930s used Moses as the ultimate exemplar of the rule of law.

But it was Cecil B. DeMille who truly elevated Moses to his status as a hero of the American century. His film "The Ten Commandments," released this month in 1956, turned Moses into a Cold Warrior. The Israelites were mostly played by Americans; the Egyptians by Europeans. DeMille himself appeared at the opening of the film to denounce Soviet-style tyranny. And he persuaded Paramount to place 4,000 stone Ten Commandments monuments on courthouse lawns around the country. The publicity stunt became the basis for a 2005 Supreme Court case that approved such displays as long as they had secular purposes.

Today, the Hebrew prophet is as resonant as ever. Early in his presidency, Bill Clinton explained his support of "don't ask, don't tell" by informing a group of senators that Moses went up Mount Sinai and came back with "God's top 10 list." "I've read those commandments," he said. "And nowhere in those Ten Commandments will you find anything about homosexuality."

George W. Bush said in an Oval Office interview that he was inspired to run for the presidency by a sermon in Texas in which his preacher said Moses was not a man of words but still led his people to freedom.

And Barack Obama said in 2007 that while the civil rights pioneers were the "Moses generation," he was part of the "Joshua generation" that would "find our way across the river."

Most striking about Moses's enduring appeal is that a figure introduced into America by white Protestants proved equally appealing for blacks as well as whites, immigrants as well as the native-born. Moses fits the American story because he embodies the courage to escape hardship and seek a better world. He keeps alive the ministry of hope.

He also encapsulates the American juggling act between freedom and law. Moses represents independence, but as the deliverer of the Ten Commandments, he also represents the discipline of being a people of laws. From the Mayflower's "covenantal people" to Bill Clinton's campaign promise to build a "new covenant," American leaders have invoked the Mosaic covenant to project a sense of cohesion and common purpose.

Finally, Moses is a reminder that a moral society is one that embraces the outsider and uplifts the downtrodden. "You shall not oppress a stranger," God says in Exodus 23, "for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt." In that sense, the prophet represents the ideals of American justice.

Yet while leaders often invoke Moses, they, like him, may not see their hopes come to pass. When the Pilgrims' dream of creating God's kingdom failed, for example, their leader, William Bradford, retired and wrote mournful poems comparing himself to Moses. And the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., on the night before his assassination, invoked Moses's heartbreaking death in the wilderness. "I've been to the mountaintop. . . . And I've looked over. I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land."

King's message reminds all the justices, lawmakers and presidents who come to work amidst the Moses images in Washington today: The ultimate goal for a leader is not to reach the land of milk and honey yourself, but to make it possible for others to get there.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, October 23, 2009.

The enclosed report from Arutz Sheva, regarding the demolition of Jewish homes in Mitzpeh Avichai, near Hebron, brings tears to one's eyes. It is unconscionable, immoral, shameful, disgraceful, and senseless, for simple Jewish homes in the land of Israel to be destroyed in a brutal fashion by Israelis. The photos show the wanton destruction of possessions, as well as the young children and families affected by this horrific action.

Please contact
PM Benjamin Netanyahu — Prime.Minister'sOffice@it.pmo.gov.il;
Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense — pniot@mof.gov.il;
Ariel Atlas, Ministry of Construction and Housing — sar@moch.gov.il; the Israeli embassy in Washington, Ambassador Michael Oren — 202-364-5500 — fax: 202-364-5560
email: emb-sec@washington.mfa.gov.il;

Deputy Chief of Mission: Mr. Dan Arbell; Defense and Armed Forces attaché: Major General Benjamin Gantz — Tel: 202-364-5403; Fax: 202-364-5503.

There are local Consul Generals in cities throughout the U.S. In New York, the Consul General is Asaf Shariv. His phone number is 212-499-5000 — ext. 8. Find out the numbers of your local Consuls and call them about this issue.

For all contact info (telephone and fax) for Israeli ministers:

When calling or writing to the Ministers and officials, please express your extreme chagrin about this situation. Ask why Israel, with so many weighty matters of internal and external threats to its very existence, occupies itself with the destruction of Israeli homes. What purpose does this serve? Is this meant to appease Arab terrorists or the Obama administration? Who can benefit from such an inhumane program? Let them know the world is watching and is appalled.

The article below is called "From Destruction to Renewal in 12 hours" and was written by Israel National News Staff.


The families living in Mitzpeh Avichai, near the city of Kiryat Arba in the Hevron region, managed to rebuild a number of homes on Thursday within a few hours of their total destruction. The homes were demolished the night before.

The story began at 1:30 a.m. Thursday, when security forces arrived unannounced in the outpost and proceeded to demolish three houses. Residents of Mitzpeh Avichai accused police of destroying the buildings without official authorization to do so.

One family, a couple with two children, was given only five minutes to leave their home, residents reported. The family was removed from the building by force and their belongings thrown on the ground outside, then the building was demolished.

Land of Israel activists published a notice Thursday accusing new Judea and Samaria commander Avi Mizrachi of "continuing with the destructive policies set forth by his predecessor, Gadi Shamni." Outposts that are destroyed will be rebuilt, they announced, in accordance with the biblical verse "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad" (Exodus 1:12).

The process of demolition and reconstruction was documented by residents of the Hevron region, and the pictures were placed on the Eretz Yisrael — Mamshichim U'b'gaon ("Land of Israel — Continuing with Pride") website.

A home in Mitzpeh Avichai, prior to Thursday's demolition

The home is destroyed

The family's belongings are thrown on the ground outside

A Mitzpeh Avichai resident watches the demolition while cradling his child

Newly homeless, a child sleeps next to the ruins of Mitzpeh Avichai

On Thursday morning, the families prepare to begin anew

Three-year-old Nahala assists in the reconstruction of her home

All photos courtesy of "Eretz Yisrael — Mamshichim U'b'gaon."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 23, 2009.

Haaretz is the Palestinian newspaper published in Israel in Hebrew. It features such "journalists" as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, who openly advocate Israel's annihilation. It unsurprisingly endorsed the smears of Israel by the "Goldstone Commission," and it always follows the rule that not only should Israel be assumed guilty until proved innocent, but should always be assumed guilty even AFTER being proved innocent.

Haaretz is a one-sided propagandistic medium whose idea of pluralism is like that of Pravda in the days of Brezhnev. It allows one or two non-leftist opinion pieces for every 100 leftist pieces, and it gives space to the worst anti-Zionists and anti-Semites to promote their views. It censors even the letters to the editor, and it is very difficult to get a pro-Israel letter published there.

Haaretz today ran in its English web site a hysterical column attacking the monitoring groups and web sites, including Isracampus.org.il, for daring to expose the political activities of Israel's Tenured Left. As you know, these include open advocacy by tenured academics in Israel of terrorism against Jews, of boycotts against Israel, and of Israel's annihilation.

The Haaretz column is a hysterical attack on those who cite verbatim what anti-Israel leftist academics write and say. That constitutes "McCarthyism," according to the writer, Benjamin Pogrund. The writer is not an academic but is a leftist journalist from South Africa living in Israel, known mainly for once having ties with Nelson Mandela and for his writings against apartheid when he lived in South Africa. Today he is a leftist Zionist of sorts, and has made some speaking tours overseas with Palestinians to tout the Left's agenda. Ironically he has been attacked by anti-Semitic Leftists who do not like the fact that he fails to call for a second Holocaust of Jews and for Israel's annihilation.

Anyway, in his hysterical attack on the monitor groups, Pogrund cites Ben Gurion University's David Newman, an anti-democratic geographer in the politic science department with close links to anti-Israel extremist Neve Gordon. Pogrund naturally tosses about the term "McCarthyism" as a descriptor of those who expose leftist sedition, citing Newman as some sort of authority on freedom of speech. For the record, Newman assisted Neve Gordon in his anti-democratic SLAPP suit harassment against me, designed to suppress MY freedom of speech and my right to criticize the opinions of Israel-hating extremists in Israel. Newman and even provided Gordon with a false affidavit for use in the court (which the court ignored).

Pogrund dishonestly tries to paint the monitor web sites as focused on attacking mainstream leftists like Amos Oz and Mordecai Kremnitzer. While a few comments by these are indeed cited on the sites, the main focus of the monitors is clearly on people like Neve Gordon and Ilan Pappe, those openly working for Israel's annihilation. To prevent people from visiting the sites and seeing for themselves, Pogrund and Haaretz naturally refuse to include the web addresses in the article.

The fact that Haaretz saw fit to run such a piece states volumes, I think, about how frightened the Left is by Isracampus.org.il and the other monitoring groups. The monitors MUST be doing something right to have the moonbats so frightened!

Here is the full item; it is called "The 'guardians' of Israeli academia." You will notice how they do not allow any "talkbacks" on the page! It is archived at


Israeli academics are being watched. Vigilantes check what they say or write — and, if they are judged "anti-Israel," incite donors to the universities and colleges where they teach to act against them. Students are encouraged to spy on their teachers and to report what they say.

Academics on the left are the targets. They are vilified as "Israel's academic fifth column" and "our inner scourge." They are called "traitors" and are accused of "treasonous betrayal" and of wanting "to suck up to and be accepted by the enemy."

One vigilante group is Israel Academia Monitor (IAM) started five years ago by the American-born (sic) Dana Barnett. Another is IsraCampus, which does not reveal who its organizers are although many of its articles are written by Seth J. Frantzman, also from the United States.

Prof. David Newman, of the department of politics and government at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU), who has been a target for attack, warns: "The academic McCarthyism of the right endangers Israeli democracy and society. It threatens the very basis of freedom of speech."

Newman, who has spent the past three years working informally on behalf of Israel's universities against the academic boycott attempts in Europe, sees these so-called watchdog groups as causing as much harm to Israel's academic community and reputation as the Israel boycotters themselves.

Both IAM and IsraCampus say they are modeled after Campus Watch in the United States, which is controversial for its monitoring of Middle East studies at American universities and of academics who are critical of Israel.

Barnett sends out near-daily e-mails fingering and quoting named academics, and decides when protest and dissent are "anti-Israel." Every e-mail ends by asking the recipient: "Are you a donor to Israeli universities? Learn about what is happening on Israeli campuses." She urges donors to know "what is being done with your gifts and generosity" and to "speak about anti-Israel Israeli academics when you are in touch with university officials." She does not say who funds her work. She has acknowledged in a newspaper interview that "most of them are from abroad," and claims they are "Zionists with a love of Israel."

The vigilantes totally attack any boycotts from abroad of Israel. But they want to use boycotts against the Israeli academics they condemn. They do not seem aware of the obvious contradiction in their stance.

Inevitably, Dr. Neve Gordon, the BGU political science lecturer who has been in the headlines for urging a boycott of Israel, is a particular target for them: IAM has for weeks now been soliciting signatures for a petition urging that he be dismissed as chair of the politics and government department and from any university committee, that all his courses be made electives rather than required, and that he be denied travel and research funding.

The response from international academic networks has not been long in coming. Respected academics throughout the world are said to have written letters to BGU President Rivka Carmi and to the Israel Academy of Sciences, protesting this attempt to infringe on the freedom of speech.

The vigilantes have also gone after Israeli academics who expressed support for Gordon.

Their net of condemnation is cast wide, and includes: Iaroslav Youssim, of the School of Social Work of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who was listed after circulating an invitation to a weekly "Stand Up for Jerusalem" march against Israel's occupation policies in the city. Dr. Kobi Snitz, professor of mathematics (he is no such thing — SP) at the Technion — Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, is listed for having served 20 days' in jail for trying to prevent soldiers from demolishing a house in a Palestinian village as well as other activities, such as "support[ing] Palestinian struggle against Israel." Also Dr. David Shulman, of the Hebrew University department of comparative religions, was named after writing about a court case in which colleagues were acquitted on charges of disorderly behavior during a protest. Former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former head of Tel Aviv University's history department, is listed for his review, in Foreign Affairs magazine, of Benny Morris' history of the 1948 war.

IAM got itself into a knot, however, over the call by Tova Rosen, of BGU's Hebrew literature department, and many others for civil disobedience against three antidemocratic Knesset bills. IAM acknowledged that civil disobedience was a "time-honored expression of protest in democracies." But in classic McCarthyite style it added a dark warning that the "Communist Party" was involved in this particular case — even though it said it did not know what role, if any, the party played.

IsraCampus has what it calls a "Rogues Gallery," with scores of names. Who are these dangerous people? They include many of Israel's most distinguished intellectuals: Amoz Oz ("and his ilk") features, as does historian and Haaretz journalist Tom Segev ("anti-Israel Israeli"), plus educator and feminist Dr. Alice Shalvi and Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, of the Hebrew University's Faculty of Law.

No doubt the vigilantes view themselves as super-patriots serving Israel's interests. The opposite is true. They are dangerous cranks. The crude censorship (sic) they use to shut up academics runs counter to the most cherished beliefs about freedom of speech in Western democracies. (Note — he considers direct citation to be "censorship" — SP.) They undermine Israel's status as a democracy.

Benjamin Pogrund is a South African-born journalist who learned about academic freedom as a student, fighting against the imposition of apartheid on universities.


Now, lest you get the impression that Haaretz and its conscripted writer are really on to something, below find a few important and interesting items from Isracampus.org.il

1. Ivory Towers of Critique: The Philosophy and Political Science
Departments at Tel Aviv University
By Seth Frantzman
Philosophy and Political Science: Interpreters of Ideas and the State
http://isracampus.org.il/Extra%20Files/IsraCampus.Org.il %20-%20Seth%20Frantzman%20-%20TAU%20Ivory%20Towers% 20of%20Critique.pdf

2. The Israeli Academy and the Gaza War
Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel March, 2009
http://isracampus.org.il/Extra%20Files/IsraCampus.Org %20-%20Seth%20Frantzman%20-%20Israeli%20Academy%20 in%20Gaza%20War.pdf

3. Grossly Biased: Prof. Gross (law school, Tel Aviv University) vs. the State of Israel
by Joel Amitai
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ Editorial%20-%20Joel%20Amitai%20-%20Aeyal%20Gross% 20-%20biased%20praise%20of%20Goldstone%20Report.htm

4. Kiryat Ono College of Law — Amir Paz-Fuchs uses "law" to bludgeon Israel
By Lee Kaplan, www.IsraCampus.org.il
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial% 20-%20Lee%20Kaplan%20-%20Amir%20Paz-Fuchs%20-%20 bravest%20Israelis.htm

5. Hebrew University — The Leftwing McCarthyism of Prof. Itzhak Galnoor (Dept of Political Science)
by Prof. Steven Plaut,
University of Haifa
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial%20- %20Steven%20Plaut%20-%20Itzhak%20Galnoor%20-%20The%20 Leftwing%20McCarthyism.htm

ADDENDUM October 23, 2009

I was just contacted by a leading Israeli columnist and journalist, who told me this about Pogrund (I cite his letter):

"Pogrand is a vigilante of the Left. He runs a Center for Social Concerns at Yakar, a Bet Knesset in Katamon (Jerusalem) which sponsors Left-wingers only (Yakar was headed by Rabbi Mickey Rosen, from London, who died last year) supported by various European NGO's and Left wing Jews. Pogrand has credentials because of his anti-Apartheid work in SA, but is also bigoted in his hatred for Jews who live in Yesha.

He arranged for Goldstone to speak at Yakar a a few weeks ago. The SA Jewish community here shuns him. I knew Rosen and know someone who had the honor of being kicked out of his shul because Rosen didn't like that person's political views. Pogrand, like Goldstone, is an ego-maniac, but utterly without substance."

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, October 23, 2009.

1. Jihad (Holy War) has been a cardinal feature of Islam since the 7th century. It constitutes a clear & present danger to Western democracies, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of Israel's policies and existence.

2. The most authoritative analysis of Jihad was published by the late Prof. Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins U. in War and Peace in the Law of Islam
(http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/ reports.asp?reportId=211429).

3. Hebrew University Prof. Moshe Sharon, a world renowned authority on Islam, sheds light on Jihad in Islam Against Israel and the West (2007): "Jihad is the strategy and, therefore, agreements are a [tactical] interlude in the war [against the infidel]...

"Islam came to being as a fighting religion. Mohammed imposed his authority by means of his military strength...Islam established empire before it crystallized as a systematic religion...The imperial and religious aspects of Islam are interconnected. Without an empire, Islam feels that it lacks a home. The empire expressed Islamic power, prominence and virility. Islam was born in order to rule, as is only fitting for the religion of Allah which is one and exclusive...Jews and Christians cannot claim that they possess true, holy scripture as all of the holy scriptures must be identical to the Qur'an...Islam is supreme... Anyone challenging this Muslim law of nature rebels against Allah and should not be allowed to exist...The establishment of a Jewish state on Islamic land is an open rebellion...insolent towards the Prophet and impudence towards Allah...

"Any territory that was ever Muslim becomes sacred to Islam [Waqf — sacred Islamic endowment]...If the territory is conquered by enemies of Islam, like Spain, Palestine and parts of Europe, it is incumbent upon Islam to do everything to restore it to Islamic rule...Islam has not recovered from the loss of Spain...Spain, which Arabs insist on calling Andalus, is regarded to be a lost Islamic territory, the recovery of which is a religious and political duty...The Jihad for the conquest of Europe already began a few decades ago...[Muslims migrants] are coming to Europe as masters and not as immigrants...Thousands of mosques have been established from Finland to France. Islamic version of history and thought is creeping into al the echelons of [European] political and intellectual life, affecting the educational system on all levels...

"The laws of Jihad...form the basis of the relations between the Muslim world and the West...The only possible relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are war or a limited ceasefire...Any sign of weakness is a clear call to renew Jihad...An agreement which contains anything beyond a limited armistice or ceasefire is null and void. The only agreement with non-believers that is permitted by Islamic law is one that enables Islam to strengthen itself, so that when the time comes it can resume Jihad in better conditions. An armistice/ceasefire is based on the postulation that the infidel enemy will mistake the agreement for peace, lower its defenses and slide into a slumber, thus turning itself into an easy target...

According to Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world's leading expert on Islamic history, "the Muslims believe that they had caused the fall of the Soviet Union [in Afghanistan]...Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans would be easier...The lessons of Vietnam and Beirut (1983) were confirmed by Mogadishu (1993). A murderous attack on Americans was followed by a prompt and complete withdrawal...This was the course of events leading to 9/11...

"The Muslims are now convinced that terror is the most effective weapon in their arsenal. They found out that they can kill civilians without being punished...that terror has become an acceptable phenomenon. Some western writers have even defined terror as 'the weapon of the weak'...Muslim terrorists are encouraged by 'experts,' who keep repeating: 'There's no military solution to terror.'

"In the Mideast, negotiations are a method to win time...Terrorists need time to arm themselves with more deadly missiles for more effective attacks on civilians..."

4. Israel is the West's First Yard Line of defense. A strong Israel deters Jihad; a weakened Israel fuels Jihad.

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

This article is archived as Jerusalem Cloakroom #228

To Go To Top

Posted by Roberta Dzubow, October 23, 2009.

Mytyl wrote, "This is an amazing project, and G-d willing will start reuniting long lost relatives very soon. Please circulate this to everybody that you know so that we can create an awareness of this program and we can get as many people as possible to participate. Check the website.

Thank you all.


As a further public service, we write to advise you about a very exciting project through which we may all be able to locate relatives previously unknown to us, because of the destruction of the Shoah. This voluntary group is in the process of amassing a wide scale data base of DNA samples from Jews throughout the world and will be matching up relatives you may not even know existed.

The particulars are:

The DNA Shoah Project is building a database of genetic material from Holocaust survivors and their immediate descendants in hopes of reuniting families disrupted by the Shoah ("Holocaust" in Hebrew). The Project aims to match displaced relatives, provide Shoah orphans and lost children with information about their biological families and, eventually, assist in the forensic identification of Holocaust-era remains.

DNA is the genetic material in our cells that makes us each unique. For the purposes of this project, it may be obtained from pre-war immigrants, survivors, and second and third generation family members via a painless cheek swab. The Project contains an educational component as well, employing current science and technology to teach the Holocaust in our schools.

This project stands at a unique confluence of technology and history: for the first time, the science necessary to make this effort a success is available, but we are losing aging Holocaust survivors at an alarming rate. The Project's goal is to use this window of opportunity to collect as many DNA samples as possible from living survivors and their family members around the globe.

Participants' anonymity is assured by the separation of genetic information from personal identifiers. At no time will information be shared with any unauthorized, non-forensic agency. Contributors will be part of the first-ever effort to construct a genetic testimony and legacy for victims of the Holocaust.

There is no fee to participate.

Uses for the DNA Database

Reunite families displaced by the Holocaust
Assist global orphan-placement organizations to identify siblings and close relatives separated during World War II
Eventually, when the database has reached sufficient size, assist European governments in Holocaust-era forensic identifications

You can get further information and request a DNA testing kit through the group's web site at

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 23, 2009.

Magnetic Fields

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. To see more of his graphic art, go to
http://nowthese.blogspot.com/ and

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, October 23, 2009.

If you haven't seen the movie Judgement at Nuremberg, you should. It was a movie of the trial of 16 Nazi Justices. One Judge in the dock, Schlegelberger, played by Burt Lancaster, was a good man who had reluctantly served the Nazi Regime until he resigned for reasons of conscience in 1942. He was found guilty. And in the end he agreed the verdict was a just one.

This case is referred to by Ayal Rosenberg in GOLDSTONE: A CRITIQUE OF SELF-APOTHEOSIS. He begins with this introduction of it,

The criminal culpability for crimes against humanity of judges enforcing law within an "organized system of injustice" was established in The Justice Case of the Nuremberg Trials

and quotes from the Judgement

"The prostitution of the judicial system for the accomplishment of criminal ends involves an element of evil to the State which is not found in frank atrocities which do not sully judicial robes"

"Schlegelberger resigned. The cruelties of the system which he helped to develop was too much for him, but he resigned too late. The damage was done. If the judiciary could slay their thousands, why couldn't the police slay their tens of thousands? The consequences which Schlegelberger feared were realized. The police, aided by Thierack, prevailed. Schlegelberger had failed. His hesitant injustices no longer satisfied the demands of the hour. He retired under fire"

"We are under no misapprehension. Schlegelberger is a tragic character. He loved the life of the intellect, the work of the scholar. We believe he loathed the evil he did, but he sold that intellect and that scholarship to Hitler for a mass of political pottage and for the vain hope of personal security. He is guilty under counts two and three of the indictment."

Then comments

The legal principles arising from the Nuremberg Justice Case were codified in the Rome Statute which is the founding document of the International Criminal Court. The culpability of a willing judge within an inherently unjust system is covered by the Statute's declaration that "individual criminal liability will be incurred in crimes against humanity and war crimes by a person...who knowingly aids, abets and otherwise assists, directly and substantially in commission of such a crime, including the means for its commission."

After pointing out how Goldstone is presented as a man of virtue, an eminent jurist etc, he condemns him as follows

Goldstone claims, over and over (the scale and frequency of self adulation in itself should set off alarm bells) that his report is all about accountability for crimes against humanity and the integrity of international humanitarian law. This is a subterfuge coming from a subtle and fraudulent apartheid judge. As far as Goldstone is concerned the report, as everything else in his life, is about self: self-conceit; self-aggrandizement; self-praise; self-righteousness; self-worth; self-adulation and, most importantly, self-promotion.

You see, Goldstone was one of those culpable judges, who served an evil regime, apartheid South Africa and now serves another evil regime, United Nations.

Need I say more.
Ted Belman

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dovid Avraham, October 23, 2009.

I hope the recent Jewish holiday season was exhilarating and uplifting for you. It was for me and my family. For the last days of the holiday season, Shemini Atzeret and Simchas Torah, we were away from her home spending it with friends and other family. It was very joyous; singing and dancing with the Torahs and celebrating with everyone.

Unbeknown to us, we were experiencing a home invasion. We didn't find out until we arrived home Sunday night after Simchas Torah.

Personal assets were taken. My family and I were not the only ones affected by this crime. Two Tzaddaka boxes were stolen; one was for the poor and the other was for a local Jewish day school.

We are not the only ones who experienced a home invasion. There was another home in the neighborhood that also was invaded that weekend.

Unbeknown to the Jewish people, we, too, are experiencing a home invasion. Israel, the home of our ancestors and promised for their descendants is being taken away by the other nations of this world. They claim that we have no rights to our home and are making all kinds of effort to wrest it from us. They are influencing Jews who have no or little knowledge of Jewish history and culture to believe that it does not belong to the Jews.

There are homes in Israel that were once homes to Jews who were forced to leave. The homes were taken over by the Arabs. There are homes where the doorposts were replaced so as not to reveal where the mezuzahs were located such as in Hebron. Evidence that supports a Jewish presense for centuries in Israel has been and is continuing to be destroyed.

When do we stand up for what is ours? Who will stand with me?
Dovid Avraham

Contact Dovid Avraham by email at lazo494@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, October 23, 2009.

Dear friends,

Omar Bargouti, (a Tel Aviv University MA student), will be visiting LA shortly. Among other things he will attempt to make the claim that Israel is depriving the Palestinians of water as a measure of ethnic cleansing.


This attempt must be countered vigorously and rebuffed assertively. The truth is that the Palestinians' hydro-situation improved dramatically — indeed beyond all recognition — under Israeli administration.

For example, the overall area under cultivation increased by 160%, while agricultural output increased 12-fold in the period 1967-1989 (just prior to the Oslo process). This was facilitated by the adoption of modern water-efficient irrigation techniques such as sprinklers and drip irrigation by Palestinian farmers, instead of open channel or rain-fed irrigation that were prevalent before Israeli administration in these areas.

Water experts such as Daniel Hillel, underscore this reality. In his wide-ranging study of the Middle East water resources, Rivers of Eden: The Struggle for Water and the Quest for Peace in the Middle East (Oxford University Press, 1994), a book generally empathetic toward the Arab world, Hillel makes the following observation:

The Israeli occupation changed local agriculture profoundly. It introduced modern technology, including mechanization, precision tillage, pest control, plastic covering of crops for temperature control, high yielding varieties, postharvest processing of produce, marketing, and export outlets. It also introduced efficient methods of irrigation, including sprinkler and especially drip irrigation. Consequently, output increased greatly, and farming was transformed from a subsistence enterprise to a commercial industry./

Moreover, of the roughly 450 towns and villages in Judea and Samaria only 50 were connected to a running water system in June 1967, whereas the number rose to 260 by October 1991. The overall per capita consumption of fresh water by the Palestinians rose by almost 17% in the period 1967-2009 (from 86 MCM to 100 MCM) while Israeli per capita consumption fell by almost 300% (!) from 508 MCM to 170 MCM — with much of agricultural cultivation being converted to use of recycled waste water. (MCM = Million Cubic Meter). SEE ATTACHMENT — slides excerpted from PowerPoint presentation provided by Israel's Water Authority (full presentation available on request).

So, is this a legitimate exercise of freedom of speech or unacceptable anti-Israeli/anti Jewish incitement? Is it conduct that can be considered compatible with, and protected by, academic freedom, which surely should be devoted to the pursuit of truth (however diverse the perceptions of it may be) or should it be judged a case of indefensible slander that is both demonstrably malevolence and mendacious?

Pls disseminate this information to as wide a circle of recipients as possible. If you have access to mailing lists/Jewish student organizations at USC, Layola, UCLA etc pls use them to inform people of the facts.

Just like Prevention, Preemption is better than Cure

Best wishes

Dr. Martin Sherman, Visiting Schusterman Israel Scholar — USC/HUC

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 22, 2009.

Although the 7 defensive wars that Israel has had to fight since 1948 have this artificial delineation of 7, the fact is that the Muslims have instigated one long interconnected war. Historians may very well point out that the religious war against the Jews started long before 1948. Nevertheless, for clarity, let us deal with the decision of the Arab and Muslim States that their religious leaders wished to complete the work of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and their European collaborators.

The Arab/Muslim leaders, prior to the U.N. vote November 29,1947, threatened mass murder of the Jews in a partitioned State. Many fatwahs were issued to the effect that destroying the Jews and the nascent Jewish State was a religious mandate or injunction. The Arab/Muslim leaders, in partnership with the religious Muslim Mullahs, contrived a document called a Charter, wherein the official policy was to deny the existence of a Jewish State and, under Koranic Law, there was to be a Ceaseless War until the Jews were destroyed or driven into the sea. The Arab world acted as a unified entity on the matter of warring against Israel, despite their separateness and distrust of each other.

After each successive war of aggression which was lost to the hated Jews, they each poured their nation's treasury into re-arming for the continuation for the War against Israel. The interludes of quiet were merely a continuation of war, under a different set of rules and objectives. Injunction of the Koran and Mohammed's war techniques, one of which was a "Hudna" (a temporary or false cessation of war through an agreement that was meant to be broken.

As Mohammed did with the Jewish Koraish tribes wherein he made the Hudabaiya peace treaty of 10 years, but returned in 2 years when he was militarily stronger to slaughter the men by decapitation and sell the women and children into slavery. Duplicitous agreements and lies were not to be shameful acts without honor but rather a mandate for Muslims when breaking agreements with non-believers.

Yassir Arafat bragged in Arabic after signing the Oslo Accords that it was merely a "Hudabaiya Treaty".

So, in the time between 1948, through the present and beyond there has been one ceaseless war. When the Arabs lost a war and were on the brink of total defeat, they could always count on the Europeans, Americans and Russia to save them from acknowledging defeat in a surrender with a formal document agreeing to cease any further wars. It's not that the Arab Muslims could be relied upon to keep formal agreements but, the nations mentioned did not want the Muslim Arabs to accept defeat and sue for peace.

From the business point of view the Arab Muslims could have continued to sell oil to the Europeans, America, Japan and later China. But, the nations of the Free World — for their own reasons — did not want Israel to succeed and possibly integrate into the Middle East because it would be especially damaging to the vaunted masculine Pride of the Muslim Arabs.

Imagine what the Muslim Arabs could have achieved with their unlimited treasure in partnership with the technological engine of Israel. But, there was the ancient plague of taught Jew hatred from the bowels of the Church that infected the world like a pandemic of religious hatred. Some equate the program of instituting hatred of Jews as the most successful Public Relations campaign ever undertaken — and it is still ongoing.

Besides it was imperative that the Arab Muslims felt compelled to spend their fortunes on armaments. Warring against Israel generated Trillions in profits for those who made platforms for war: Aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles and all the paraphernalia of war. Peace had no place in their calculations and Israel had to be kept sufficiently strong so it could not be overrun and thus remove the stimulus for the Arabs to continue their purchase of war materiél.

However, there were Jew-Haters in many governments who are still determined that Israel must be eliminated. One can find them in Europe, America, Russia working tirelessly as subversives while using the cover of patriotism to collude with others to one day, for some contrived reason, to gather and attack Israel, in unison with the Muslims.

It will be defined as a latter-day Crusade with the former enemies of European Christianity and the Muslims bound together in a temporary brotherhood to destroy the Jewish State and, perhaps, the remaining Jews around the world.

Should they achieve that goal, then they can turn on each other to prove their claims that one or the other will be G-d's Chosen on earth. Naturally, they would have to first find G-d and bind Him to force a new Covenant with the victor.

But, in the interim, the one war against the Jews must continue in all its iterations — War on the battlefield; War through Terror; War in man-made courts — each facet dedicated to diminish and then to destroy the Jewish State of Israel.

Then G-d would belong to them — without Jews casting a cloud over their claims and title to be 'Numero Uno' on earth.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 22, 2009.


Whenever the U.S. tries to make political inroads to rogue nations or their proxies by training them in weapons, guerilla warfare, explosives, intelligence — those so trained invariably use that training against America or America's Allies. This is especially true of Muslim Islamists who learn the fine points of killing and share it with their vast network of Terrorist nations and their proxies. [Hence the term, evil axis.]

We pretend to believe that Al Qaeda, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, all the many radical Muslim "Jihadis" groups, organizations, sleeper cells, etc. are seemingly separate movements and, in a way, they often have different agendas but, they are in reality, one inter-connected matrix when it comes to sharing methods on how best to kill Americans and Israelis.

America trained Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda in Afghanistan's War against the invading Soviet Army. When it was over and the Afghanis had beaten the Soviets with American training, weapons, funding 'et al', the trained Al Qaeda fighters split up and set up "sleeper cells" in the countries they infiltrated.

America tried to buy Yassir Arafat and his PLO Terrorist organization, but only succeed in expanding his Terrorist Army which threatened not only Israel but also Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon.

America is repeating the same global strategic mistake through Arafat's 40 year companion, partner and financier in Terror, a so-called moderate — Mahmoud Abbas, current President of the Palestinian Authority. This includes Fatah, Tanzim and the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade.

America thought she had recruited Faisal Husseini, Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashwari by paying them substantial monies and training them at the CIA's Headquarters in Langley, Virginia and Camp America. But, in the final analysis, they remained loyal Islamists after took everything the U.S. offered.

For years, the U.S. trained Yassir Arafat's Terrorist Palestinians — the PLO, Palestine Liberation Organization. What do you think they wanted to Liberate? Have they ever stopped?

Once Muslims gain "critical mass" in their host country, they attack to further their own Islamic agenda. Their common goal has always been to create a Global Caliphate for Islam. Those Sunnis who were trained by the U.S. in Iraq, along with the Shi'ites will, no doubt, bond with Iran and then Americans will end up fighting American-trained Iraqis (Winston Mideast Report & Analysis, 10/15, verbatim but not in its entirety).


Human Rights Watch (HRW) replied to its founder's denunciation of it "...we were saddened to see Robert L. Bernstein argue that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard than the rest of the world." It depicted his denunciation as claiming that it "should not be reporting on Israeli conduct because Israel is a democracy," but should report only on closed societies. Democracies can commit serious abuse, too (Jane Olson, Jonathan Fanton, Chair and former Chair, NY Times, A30, letter).

Critics Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz defended Mr. Bernstein. HRW was founded, they stated, to protect dissidents from oppressive regimes. Now HRW singles out Israel for condemnation "in a region dominated by regimes that violate human rights in horrendous ways" but to which HRW fails "to allocate proper resources." "...senior HRW officials even recently went to Riyadh to raise funds from people associated with the Saudi regime, emphasizing the group's work demonizing Israel while doing so." [I think they mean that the elicitation drew attention to HRW practice of pillorying Israel.]

Bernstein did not make clear his complex concept of HRW's proper role against evil regimes. Wiesel and Dershowitz explained it better but still inadequately. That left a loophole for HRW to misstate and mislead about Bernstein's proposed standards. HRW even contradicted itself, when it alleged that Bernstein wanted a different standard for Israel from the rest of the world, then stated that he wanted to treat democracies differently, which includes half the world.

Bernstein did not say that democracies should be exempt from human rights monitoring. It is a typical defense by organizations in the wrong to misstate, distort, or spin accusations against them. Wiesel and Dershowitz put it more as the main thrust should be against evil regimes that require a spotlight and moral pounding, and it may suffice to work with democracies capable of reform. On the Mideast, however, HRW specializes in spotlighting and pounding Israel but slapping the rest on the wrist. That is perverse. But even that misses most of the point, as my prior article discerned.

HRW is operating out of bias against Israel, hiring anti-Zionist activists. Like the UN, HRW uses faulty methods bound to yield faulty findings. It repeats those faults even after the errors of their methodology are brought to its attention. It uses incorrect definitions of international law and terrorism, relies on dubious witnesses unchecked, dismisses Israeli evidence, and misstates facts (and has had to retract), Therefore, it falsely accuses Israel. Israel does not commit war crimes. Therefore, HRW is guilty of defamation that benefits those who do. After years of having been criticized for practically ignoring jihadists, it issued some minor reports on them and now claims this shows objectivity. I think it shows damage-control.


Ezra Nawi has been convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, of drug offenses, and of illegally firing a weapon. He also is an activist for Arab "rights" near Hebron. He enjoys the support of Noam Chomsky.

He threatened police often or prevented them from carrying out their duties. He recently was convicted again, this time for assaulting police officers who were evacuating Arabs from illegal caravans in the Hebron Hills, in 2008. The judge said it is not a matter of ideology but of law and order. Nawi just was sentenced to one month in prison plus probation, and was fined about $150,000.

The Yesha Human Rights organization complained that the prison term was much less for Nawi than it is for Jews; it lets the unrepentant Nawi soon out to attack more Jews (www.imra.org.il, 10/21).

I guess that for Mr. Chomsky, it is a matter of ideology, never mind the violence.


A Jewish family was moving into an apartment house in eastern Jerusalem. Arabs and anarchists [presumably leftist Jews] had a protest tent opposite the community. Several of the protesters attacked a family member and beat him severely, while police just watched. Then they arrested four Jews.

A Member of Knesset said he had advised the police a few weeks earlier that Arabs were harassing Jews there (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/21).

I surmise that police waited for other Jews to come to the aid of the victim, who required medical treatment. For years, Arabs and leftist Jews have been getting away with violence against religious and nationalist Jews. The police usually side with them. Meanwhile, the Left and the media claim that religious and nationalist Jews had gotten away with violence against Arabs for years, but there were very few such attacks. The police often arrest Jews for self-defense, and not Arabs for assault. What do you suppose the result of that policy is? Hint: not a peace process.


Israel has developed a ground robot to act as a beast of burden on battlefields, a robotic patrol vehicle, and a semi-robotic airplane tower www.imra.org.il, 10/21).

That sort of technology used to be fiction for the future.


Why should Israeli officers fear prosecution if they travel abroad, while Hamas criminals do not? The IDF asked the Justice and Defense Ministries to press charges against Hamas terrorists for their crimes.

The Army could furnish sufficient evidence within a few days. Defense officials reportedly would make names, photographs, and other classified information available for suits for indictment of, and compensation from, "terrorists who hid in kindergartens, schools, hospitals and UN structures throughout the IDF's three-week offensive and in the eight years that preceded it, forcing Israeli troops to harm civilians in order to prevent the firing of rockets, close smuggling tunnels and purge terrorist activity from the area."

For example, Hamas made its "headquarters in the basement of Gaza's central Shifa Hospital." "...although Israel's intelligence community knew without a doubt that the hospital was housing terrorist headquarters, the IDF 'refrained from attacking the area so that the hospital staff and patients would not come to harm.'" [Why didn't the Goldstone report acknowledge that?]

IDF officials worry that, as terrorists extend the range of their missiles, the IDF would have to go further to stop their attacks, but how can it operate effectively if commanders have to keep consulting lawyers? International law, they say, should be modernized to deal specifically with terrorism.

Government officials see another side to lawfare. They don't want it applied to themselves, so they don't recognize foreign jurisdiction and they hesitate to use it against others (www.imra.org.il, 10/21).

The government may be right, but one difference is that the lawsuits against Israeli officers have no basis, but lawsuits against Hamas would come with proof. Actually, international law requires countries to pursue pirates, and terrorists are in the same category.


Maan News reports what Palestinian Authority officials told it, that Israel claims it won't let certain types of goods into Gaza for security. The report states that Israel has relented on coffee and tea.

"The list includes such apparently harmless items as notebooks, pens and pencils, and concrete for construction." (www.imra.org.il, 10/21).

Coffee and tea are harmless, but concrete is not. Massive quantities of it were imported by Hamas before the ban, for building bunkers for war. Since the report has that glaring misstatement, one wonders whether the rest of the report is correct. I think that the Arab officials call concrete harmless as a way of denigrating the boycott.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, October 22, 2009.

1) There is no such thing as a "chosen trauma"
Seth J. Frantzman
October 22, 2009

The idea of a "chosen trauma" is a recent development. It is to psychiatry what the "other" is to philosophy and is part and parcel of the post-humanist undermining of history and truth. People do not "choose" to have trauma, they actually have trauma when people commit genocide against them or deport them from their land. Caring about the trauma of the group is not "racist" because it "excludes" others. It is a natural human emotion.

In order to punish victims and attempt to destroy identity, post-humanism has created something called "chosen trauma". Describing what 'Chosen trauma' is Vamik Volkan in the publication Group Analysis (2001 University of Virginia) describes it thus "subjective experience of thousands or millions of people who are linked by a persistent sense of sameness." It is the "mental representation of a massive trauma that the group's ancestors suffered." But we also learn that this is inherently negative; "when a group regresses, its chosen trauma is reactivated in order to support the group's threatened identity. This reactivation may have dramatic and destructive consequences." Thus any sort of rememberance of suffering is negative in the eyes of post-humanism because it inevitably leads to group identification and causes the group to potentially mistreat others. At the very least it means that the group may identify with itself and thus be "racist".

Another description of the idea of "chosen trauma" can be found in an article by Ayse Karabat in The Daily Zaman in Istanbul. He describes it as "the mental representation of an event that causes a group to feel victimized. The group mythologizes an event and draws it into its identity, passing the mental representation, along with associated feelings and defenses, from generation to generation." In writing about the "chosen trauma" he was speaking about Armenians in Turkey and their preservation of their community and attempts by youth to free themselves from the cautious behavior of the "elders" who view themselves, according to the article, too often as victims.

H.D.S. Greenway of the New York Times uses the term to describe the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. He creates yet another definition; "to described the way nations, as well as individuals, can seize upon a wrong done to them to the exclusion of any wrongs committed by themselves."

The invention of the term "chosen trauma" is deeply connected to the Turks and Cyprus.

Greenway didn't bother to do the background research and missed the fact that Vamik Volkan, who invented the term, is a Turkis-Cypriot. Born in 1932 he moved the United States at some point. He has done much of his work on the psychology of conflict. Had he been involved in Philosophy he would have preached to us about the idea of the "other" but he has transferred this idea to his own work. In 1988 he spoke of the "need to have enemies and allies". He has written on "killing in the name of identity" and "from ethnic pride to ethnic terrorism". He has also written on homosexuality, cross breeding plan species, as well the "animal" and "primitive" instincts and psychological problems that exist within us. For Mr. Volkan it is obvious the experience of being a Turkish Cypriot (a Muslim group that complains of its own victimhood and at the same time has used that as an excuse to cleanse its portion of the island of minorities) lodged deeply in his mind and he has connected all human instincts that involve group identity, pride and dislike of others with being "primitive" and "animal." It reminds this author of a college textbook on anthropology that spoke of how "primitive people once identified themselves first with their group and were suspicious of outsiders."

But what about the revenge of the primitive? Post-humanism has tried to convince us that trauma can be "chosen" and that trauma is a "myth" and that its consequence is violence against the "other." The group "excludes" the things it does in order to remember what was done to it. This discussion therefore concludes that any rememberance of a trauma is not only wrong but that it is primarily mythological and therefore not based on truth. This is part and parcel of modernity's assault on history.

There are real traumas. When a community is partially destroyed, its women raped and its land stolen it is indeed a trauma. Modernity would tell us that there is no truth behind such events as the Armenians genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the Trail of Tears, the Great Trek, the Holocaust or any other event. It is merely a "chosen trauma". When the Jews describe the Holocaust as something that "happened to Jews" they are "excluding" the Gypsies and gays and Russians murdered by the Nazis. Thus in remembering their 'chosen trauma' they are racist. And, to take the argument one step further, the Jews then use the Holocaust as an excuse to abuse Palestinians, in the words of Avraham Burg they "manipulate the Holocaust."

This is why people speak of a chosen trauma. The brainwashing of individuals to have no attachment to the group is quite successful. At the Israeli university, which is one of the more liberal and self-hating in the world, the three or four Ethiopian Jewish students who are enrolled there are raised to believe that it is racist for them to take any special interest in their Ethiopian community. Instead they are convinced that the Arabs are the group, the "other", that they should work to help. Thus poor Ethiopians who live in tenements find themselves graduating with bachelors degrees in sociology and going out to give their free time and energy protesting "Ethiopian jewish racism against Arabs" and defending Muslim cemetaries in Israel. Such is the degree of communal destruction that the leftist post-human university can take people who are penniless and who suffered a terrible trauma coming to Israel (in which tens of thousands died of starvations and thousands were raped) and turn them into people who believe that loving their own community is "racist" and one must work tirelessly for the "other."

By describing history as "myth" the post-human ideology of "chosen trauma" deconstructs that history. Thus the murder of millions in the Holocaust becomes part of a "Jewish myth of suffering." Who speaks that way? No liberal would dare say that. But they say it about the Armenians. The Armenians have a "chosen trauma" and they should get over it.

The use of the word "chosen" in "chosen trauma" also degrades the existence of the trauma. The idea is that the individual should choose not to have a trauma. He should mature and become modern and throw off the shackles of the past, a past which involved memory and identity and exclusion. Modern man is just man, by himself, with no group. There is but one race: human.

The question that should be posed about "chosen trauma" is two-fold. Why do certain groups get to have their chosen trauma. African-Americans can never seem to forget the trauma of slavery and they are aided and abeted in this by the same liberal who tells the Armenians or others to forget their trauma. Black blame all their problems on slavery. Whether it is the fact that 80% of black American children are born out of wedlock (what people now glorify as "my baby daddy") or the fact that black women "relax" their hair, it is all due to slavery, even though it isn't. But no one tells the blacks to abandon their "chosen trauma" or that in having pride in being black that they are 'excluding' others. The same should be said of the Muslims, especially Palestinians. No one asks them to get rid of their chosen trauma of the "nakba" or for Muslims to forget the "crusades". Instead the west blames all of the problems in the Middle East on colonialism and "western oppression" and the "humiliation of the Crusades and the Israeli Occupation." So where is the complaints about the Palestinians "excluding" others or the consequences that their obsession with their trauma has on the peace process?

The other question that should be posed is whether or not the murder of leftists can be also described as a "chosen trauma". We often hear leftists whining when a few of them get suppressed. Whether it is the attempted bombing of Prof. Sternhell or the tyranny of Pinochet, one must always hear about the assault on a few leftists and "dissidents" here and there. But is that not also a "chosen trauma"? Is it not also part of a "myth"?

The last problem with the concept of the "chosen trauma" is that it implies there is no truth. Greenway tells us that in Cyprus the Turks and Greeks each have a "narrative" which excludes the suffering of the other. The Turks don't mention the expulsion of the Greeks and the importation of settlers. The Greeks don't mention the assaults on Turks the preceeded the Turkish invasion. Greenway and the promulgators of "chosen trauma" tell us that because the two communities disagree that therefore there is no truth, there is just a "chosen trauma." But this is an assault on fact and history.

If a hundred people are killed and one group says it was "revenge" and the other group says it was "spontaneous rioting" and another group says it was "freedom fighting" it doesn't mean that the 100 people did not die. It may be true that the Germans in Poland that were expelled in 1945 were expelled because they were "settlers" or to 'ensure peace' or because "it was war" but none of it means that there were millions of Germans living in Poland and the Czech Republic before 1945. People mistake the fact that different people interpret right and wrong differently in order to pretend there are no facts. Did the killers of Gandhi do it out of patriotism or evil, was the deed wrong or did it save a nation from the appeasement of Gandhi. Surely some say that the killing of Gandhi was a great and honorable deed. Most disagree and view it as abhorrent. But that doesn't mean Gandhi wasn't killed. In fact we even know why he was killed. Whether that killing was right or wrong cannot be determined, perhaps, but the motives of the killer can, in fact, be explored. When terrorists strike liberals like to say that the terrorist has his own motives and that because he uses the "weapon of the poor" or because he perceived himself as "humiliated" that his actions are justified. Those who disagree that people should blow themselves up and kill children do not define terrorism as "resistance". They condemn it as wrong. The fact that people disagree on interpreting an event doesn't mean it is part of a "myth". It is not a "chosen trauma" that the victims of terror want to commemorate being victims. They are actually victims. Liberalism murders the victim by saying he can "choose" to not have trauma. In fact some liberals do choose to not have humanity. Some victims of terror have sympathy for the terrorists. But that is not an example of the flexibility of victimhood, it is merely another example of the inhumanity of modernity. Modernity murders the soul of man. One more example of the murder of that soul is the idea of "chosen trauma". The real trauma we face is suffering through modernity until it can finally be destroyed so that we can all return to our "primitive" and "animal" past when we "mistakenly identified with the group and were suspicious of outsiders."

2) Why they hate us?
Seth J. Frantzman

The West is hated by two groups: Islam and Western women. Not all Muslims hate the West and neither do all Western women. However one can find, in the western female coddling of Islam and the belief that Islam is "exotic" or the feeling sorry for Muslim minorities and the conversion of western women to Islam that western women, freed by the west, desire nothing more than the slavery of Islam. The West fails in its granting of freedom to people and educating them because it educates contempt and its freedom fails when those who benefit the most have the most contempt for it.

There are two groups of people who hate Western Civilization, one is Islam and the other is Western Woman.

Consider the recent events in Israel. The riots in Nazareth in 2001 and at Yom Kippur in Acre in 2008 were both partially caused by pent up anger at Arabs harassing Jewish women. An attempted lynching of two Arabs in Pisgat Zeev in 2008 was for the same reason. The murderer of Dana Bennet and the murderers of Leonard Karp were both aided by Jewish women, in one case a Jewish soldier woman. There are now groups in Pisgat Zeev and Petah Tikva aimed at discouraging Jewish women from dating Arab men. The Ethiopian community is hosting a seminar on the issue. In Kiryat Gat a Jewish 15 year old dated Beoduin men, went to night clubs with them and was then taken by them, handcuffed to a pole and burned to death with gasoline. In the Galilee an Arab gang operated for three years raping Jewish women.

When all these incidents take place one must ask why. The usual explanation by women in Israel is that the Arab men give vulnerable young Jewish women presents and flatter them and that the women come from troubled homes with either absent fathers or abusive strict fathers. This always seems to be the "answer" and no one seems to ask more questions.

However the truth is much more complicated. Arab women also come from broken homes with abusive fathers and strict traditional cultures. Yet they don't rebel by going out with Jewish men. The excuse of the westerner to this observation is to say "well that's because their society would kill them." But this excuse isn't good enough. I've known Arab women, mostly from secular backgrounds, not so different backgrounds than the Sephardie and Ethiopian girls in 'vulnerable" neighbourhoods who are enticed so often by Arab men. These women don't mind hanging out with Jewish men and from time to time they are taken with the "exotic" idea of what it would be like to go out with them. But they generally hold themselves back from such behavior. Not because of the men in their society but because they believe they would be betraying their culture. No matter how liberal and open minded they are repelled by the idea. Now why is that? Why is it that the Arab Muslim culture, which beats women, which maligns them, which allows men to go out with all sorts of women, which gives men four wives, which puts women in headscarves and expects them to stay at home and beat children, why does that society, even at its most liberal, produce women who like it, honour it and are patriots for it. Even the women who hate the Hamas brand of the Muslim religion, even the women who find Arab men obnoxious in their behavior, even those women honour their culture and faith. Why? In short, why does the western culture fail when it comes to women?

What does the west not provide the women that she would make her stay part of her own culture and not love the "other" and find the "other" exotic? Is it because the western man is metro-sexy and gay and in touch with his feminine side? Is it because the Western man no longer provides? Or is it the western education system and feminism in general that produce women who hate themselves and their culture? Is it freedom, does freedom ensure that humans, women in this case, will beg for a return to slavery, their natural state? Is the western education system, the idea of freedom, and secularism, a failure?

We in the West condemn those religious groups among us that seem to produce women who actually like being part of the group. Consider the religious Jews. Their women don't find others "exotic". They don't want to learn the language, religion and culture of the "other". Yet we are told by secular society that they are prisoners, suppressed and beaten. But the secular man who would liberate them would liberate them only to find that they don't desire him but desire another repressive religious culture, such as that found among the Muslims. Isn't this a puzzle? The West liberates the woman, only to find that the woman hates the West and prefers other religions and cultures that reminds her of the way it used to be in the "bad old days" of the 1950s or the Victorian period. The same women that will condemn the "conservative, chauvinist" style of the 1950s is the same women that yearns to learn Arabic, to know the difference between the Eids and the various ins and outs of Islamic law. She is the same woman who takes the belly-dancing lessons and travels abroad alone to meet and marry foreign men, never returning home. In fact she yearns precisely for the 1950s culture, because is there any culture that is more like the 1950s in terms of its view of women than Arab culture, is there any culture that is more like Victorian England and its mores and dress codes than that of the Muslims?

This is the brutal truth about the Western world and its system and its promise and its future that few want to admit. The West can be summed up with one word: failure. It is a failure. It may appear a success from certain points of view such as economics or democracy. That is all well and good. We have rights to a free trial and such things like that. But the future of society depends on women and children. The long term future depends on these essential ingredients. In nations such as China and India they murder women in the womb (such is the benefit of that western science called abortion). The brilliant Chinese allow Muslims to have as many children as they want but restrict Han Chinese to one child. Most families abort female babies and have males as their one child. There is now a gender gap in China, with millions of missing women. Muslim countries by contrast happily give birth to women and marry them in the fours to men so as to increase their population. But in Russia and Japan and other highly secular country the birth rate is less than one child for every two people. They simply don't want children, lest the little brats ruin their pursuit of the secular life. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Yes, those societies are all failures.

Europe is a failure. Its women, and I see them from time to time, are butch, mannish, small breasted, unhappy, self-hating, short-haired, and if they are not, if they are pretty and friendly, then they are only interested in African or Muslim men. Such is the European male and his uselessness as a man that he spends his days pursuing things other than women, dressing like a homosexual and generally expressing no interest in personal responsibility, work or women. The European male is gay and the European women acts like a man. Both are objectionable.

The West failed its women completely and utterly. It's not a matter of women "getting taken advantage of" or "poor women who are vulnerable". We have been fed this for years. This was the excuse why half of all Ukrainian women have been trafficked as sex slaves abroad. Its not poverty that caused them to be trafficked. It was teaching them to read. Yes. Isn't that a sad commentary. They could read the adds for "housekeepers in Turkey" or whatever and they gave away their passports and allowed themselves to become slaves. It wasn't just teaching them to read but teaching them that they should hate their culture and spurn their men and that they were "independent". That "independence" led them to servitude. What independence it was! Poverty doesn't turn whole nations into brothels, like Moldova. No. Yemen is poor and the women are whores. Gaza is poor and the women aren't whores. The difference between the poor western woman and her Muslim counterpart is that the Muslim women wears a visible prison (the burka) and works as a slave for her husband. The poor trafficked Western women lives in a prison (the sex slave brothel wherever she has sold herself) and works as a sex slave for a dozen men a day. Lets be honest, there is no substantial difference between the position of the Muslim women in Gaza or the western women working as a slave in the UAE. Its not poverty that caused this or "the lure of fast money". It is independence, equal rights and freedom and the West. It is the western male and his useless impotent culture. It is the West and its culture.

A Story about Justice and the University in Israel
October 20, 2009
Seth J. Frantzman

The University in Israel speaks often of justice. But is it justice when that university protects its academics but those academics, who receive pay from the state, encourage terrorists to murder the students and destroy the state?

The University and all its humanism likes to talk about "justice" a lot. It likes to educate students about a "just" society of "equals". The University serves as a brainwashing tool to mint students who do not think. While the University claims to want people who "think critically" the actual affect of its program is to mint people who all think the same. It is no different in Israel. The Israeli university takes people from a variety of backgrounds and, at least in the social sciences and humanities, mints students who all hate the country they live in and desire to "challenge" its existence and support the Arabs.

The Israeli university system, in terms of the Humanities and Social Sciences, is primarily composed of group think and homogeneity. It is almost exclusively Ashkenazi and leftist and it is primarily male. It excels at signing petitions against the very country it exists in. In one such petition 358 university professors and lecturer signed a petition supporting Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the army.

But let us be honest about this. The University prides itself on justice. But let us discuss justice for a moment. Is it justice when a wealthy University professor who receives a huge salary from the government and drives a car home to his village every night supports those who refuse to serve in the army. Is it justice that a student from a poor background must go to the army or face jail time and that this student may die in his service? Is it justice that a student from a poor background ends up working security at the university and must ride the bus back and forth to his tiny apartment and because of riding the bus or working as a security guard that student may die at the hands of terrorism? Is it justice that the student from the poor background must die for the professor who receives his salary from the state and supports the very terrorist who murders the poor? What justice is it when the wealthy who receive the most and who work for the government are the ones who support the murder of the poor?

The wealthy in the states of old may have abused the poor but at least they didn't encourage those who murdered them? The question at the Israeli university is whether the academics deserve security? Do they deserve that the army should defend their "right" to free speech? When the right to free speech encourages those who murder the students, when the state actually pays those who encourage breaking the laws of the state then what does it say about the "right" of free speech?

One Professor at an Israeli University even told the terrorists who to target and who not to. He said they should murder only "settlers" but not good justice seekers from wealthy neighbourhoods such as himself. The army and the security guards at the university should heed the professors. The Universities in Israel operate on occupied Palestinian land, all of them are, in some way or another, involved in occupying the lands of former Arab villages. So, yes, the security guards should refuse to go to work at the University and the army should refuse to serve in any area near the university.

It is time for the professors to live the life that the rest of the nation has been forced to live. It is time for their neighbourhoods to have no security and no protection. They want to encourage the terrorists to "concentrate their attacks on the settlements". If the university wants justice the only real justice will be in stripping the professorial elite of their diamond protection plans, stripping them of their villages and their BMWs. Send the professors in Israel to the development towns, to Sderot, to Kiryat Gat, to Kiryat Malaki and Lod and Ramla. The intellectual elite in Israel dumped the immigrants to the country in these neighbhourood and now that same cultural elite encourages terrorists to murder those people who have so little. Those who have nothing and live in poor places are drafted into the army and go without question while the wealthy high school students, the children of the cultured elite, refuse to do their service and go abroad with their European passports. It is impossible to call it justice when the poor must die so that the rich can critique their country.

No, the country does not have justice. There is no justice when those paid salaries by the state encourage the murder of other members of the state. When those paid by the state are ensured security by a state they hate there is no justice.

Seth J. Frantzman is a graduate student in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, living in Jerusalem. Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website:
http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com This article is from Terra Incognita 99.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Ben-Ami, September 22, 2009.

This was written by Rabbi Stewart Weiss.


Dear Judge Goldstone:

They say you are a bright man. But did you not know that the United
Nations is prima facie unjust and unfair to Israel? That it
Investigates every burp made by an Israeli, while ignoring all the
Rest of the world's ills? Did you not see that?

They say you are a bright man. But did you not understand that your
Report would be used — gleefully, for the world's anti-Semites love
The "Jew vs. Jew" syndrome — to further isolate and demonize Israel,
As just another strategy for attempting to exterminate the Jewish People?

They say you are a bright man. But did you not see that the U.N.
Would completely ignore any criticism of Hamas — Israel's enemies,
After all, are automatically off limits — and focus exclusively on
Israel, which had the audacity to defend itself against a daily
Barrage of deadly missiles and barbaric, sub-human terrorists?

They say you are a bright man. But I hope you are not. Because if you
Are, if you cannot hide behind a shield of ignorance and naivete,
Then you did this deliberately, to add your influence to the voice of
The Nazi-like Arab bloc in a (vain) attempt to destroy Israel. You
Set out to hurt the most moral army in the world — perhaps in history
— for reasons only known to yourself.

In the end, Israel will survive. Flourish, even, despite your efforts
To harm us. But you, sir, will go down in infamy as a Jewish Benedict
Arnold, a traitor to his own people who now finds that, in truth, he
Has no country, no heritage, no future. You can no longer come to
Israel, the heartland of Judaism. You would rightly be run out of
Town. I suspect that your children — if they dared let it be known
Who their infamous father was — will also be persona non grata here.
We Israelis will be forced to visit the sin of the father upon the
Children, for some sins bring down a whole lineage, like a stone — a
Goldstone? — falling down a bottomless well.

And so you have now crossed over, sir, you have abandoned your
Ancestral house and cast your lot with the pack of murderous,
Irrational, justice-hating racists and terrorists who run amock in
This world. They used you like a rag and they, too, will soon cast
You into the trash bin.

In a very real sense, your crime carries with it its own
Self-inflicted punishment.

Rabbi Stewart Weiss
Father of fallen IDF soldier Sgt. Ari Weiss

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, October 22, 2009.

Police freed a nursing mother and resident of Samaria Wednesday evening after having snatched her from a vehicle and separated her from her four-month-old baby for approximately seven hours.

The woman was being driven by a friend to a court hearing for her husband, whom Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) officials arrested three weeks ago.

A gag order has been placed on the case and the name of the woman cannot be published at this time. Her husband has not been allowed to obtain a lawyer. He was arrested during the Sukkot holiday at an apartment in the center of Israel, according to the spokesman for the community where the family lives.

Police officers arrested her Wednesday afternoon, without explanation, and took her to Petach Tikva, where activists, including members of the Women in Green organization, protested what they called a "kidnapping" similar to an act of a "Third World nation."

Her friend took care of her baby girl and her three other children until police freed her, after ignoring her earlier pleas for release so she could feed her infant.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz-7. where this appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Elias Bejjani, October 22, 2009.

Lebanon has been hit by an actual devastating curse since it became an independent country within its current borders in 1920. This curse is embodied in the avarice, envy, detachment from reality and hatred arising from neighboring, Syria, many of whose politicians, rulers and intellectuals have failed to date to accept the solid reality of Lebanon's entity, distinguishable identity sovereignty and independence.

They have angrily and vengefully alleged for years — without any actual historical or geographical facts — that Lebanon is a part of their country. All Lebanon's major and shocking problems during the last 70 years have invariably stemmed from this Syrian falsehood, a delusion which they concocted. Syrian officials and politicians seek every opportunity to loudly and brazenly proclaim this false allegation.

The latest mockery in this ongoing Syrian soap opera appeared in the contents of a very sinister op-ed that was published in the Saudi daily, Al Riyadh, on 12/10/09 and then reproduced on 14/10/09 in the Syrian government-run mouthpiece, Al Wattan, in which the argument was made for re-uniting Syria and Lebanon into the romantic entity that many Arab nationalists have salivated over for decades.

The Saudi journalist apologized two days after the publication of his opinion in Al Wattan on the basis that he was mistaken in both perception and expression. Al Wattan did not publish his apology. In his opinion he had uttered what the Syrians have been rhetorically parroting since 1916: "that Lebanon was the creation of the Sikes-Picot Agreement of 1916 through which France and the UK with the assent of Russia stripped it from Syria."

It is really annoying and boring that we the Lebanese should live with this ongoing, shameful and deliberate Syrian twisting of the facts. They gave themselves a political historical identity that does not in reality exist and endeavor to impose their mockeries through propaganda that intends to stir emotions, but is devoid of all the required actual historical and geographical basis and facts.

A thorough review of the Sikes-Picot Agreement of 1916 that was reached between France and the UK with the approval of Russia negates all the Syrian allegations and unveils their lies. France and the UK which occupied most of the Middle Eastern countries in World War I divided among themselves the responsibilities and influence in these countries. Syria and Lebanon were among these countries. Their deal was known as the Sikes-Picot Agreement. Meanwhile, the League of Nations acknowledged the contents of this agreement in April 1922.

For the Syrians to reject the Sikes-Picot Agreement simply shows that they are actually rejecting the existence of their own state. One might comprehend from such a naive stance of rejection that the Syrians would prefer to go back to the Ottoman era and its provincial system.

That obsolete system offered as its top position a wali (local governor) instead of an Ottoman ruler. It also indicated that France and the UK dismantled certain existing Arab states to establish artificial ones, like the current Republic of Syria.

In fact, there was an Arabic plan to establish one big strong Arab State, but it did not take place for many reasons stemming from the will of both ruling powers at that time, France and the UK. This fact was taken into consideration when the borders of the current Middle East countries were decided on and demarcated.

The best response to the nonsensical false Syrian allegation would be through displaying historical facts according to their chronology in a bid to put an end to this bold Syrian forgery of history.

First fact: Lebanon, both the distinguishable political identity and people, has expressed itself in many forms. Without dwelling deeply into Lebanon's remote history, we know that it was an independent entity at least at the beginning of this century, more specifically, in 1517 at the beginning of the Ottoman era. During that era, Prince Faker Eddine, known as Sultan Al-Baer (the master of the land), established the well-known Lebanese Maani Emirate.

Second fact: The Maani Emirate enjoyed self-autonomy, had its own army, as well as its own foreign independent relations. This Lebanese prince cut numerous accords with foreign countries and fought the Ottoman authorities to maintain a kind of independence. Meanwhile, the entire surrounding area, including the current state of Syria, were divided into provinces ruled directly by an Ottoman governor (wali).

Third fact: Syria as it is known today has never been a politically independent entity. The name Syria was given by the Greeks to a geographical area located between the Dejla and Euphrates rivers and Phoenicia. Syria was not a name for a separate state.

Fourth fact: In year 1920 the Lebanese entity was recognized as an existing state, and not as a newly established one. At that time the existing borders of the Lebanese Emirate were taken into consideration when the current Lebanese State borders were demarcated. The Lebanese regions that were annexed to the neighboring provinces were returned to the State of Lebanon.

Fifth fact: During that era the current geographical Syria was divided into four small provinces: the Alawi province, the Druze province, the Damascus province and the province of Aleppo. The same status prevailed until 1925 when the province of Damascus was integrated with that of Aleppo and both were given the name of the State of Syria. The four provinces were joined together in 1939 and called the Syrian Republic. The UN recognized this newly established republic in 1941 after it was liberated from the French Vichy troops.

Sixth fact: The current Syrian Republic is a product of the Sikes-Picot Agreement, and with the French occupation and the League of Nations the current Syria would have remained divided into four provinces fighting each other.

Seventh fact: One doubts very much that Syrian Alawi Baathist officials are not fully aware of the French documents that exhibit plainly the Alawi's stance in calling for an independent Alawi State. These officials are definitely fully aware of the names of the Alawi leaders who signed the documents.

Accordingly, based on these facts we can conclude that Syria and not Lebanon is a fake country created by the Sikes-Picot Agreement. Meanwhile, Lebanon is a country deeply rooted in ancient history, the earliest documented records dating back at least 7000 years.

Three quotations from the Bible (Old Testament) show with no shred of a doubt that Lebanon was throughout all historical eras recognized as a distinguishable entity. Even its borders are mentioned:

*Judges 3:3: "...the five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath."

*Song of Solomon 4/7 &8: "You are all beautiful, my love. There is no spot in you. Come with me from Lebanon, my bride, with me from Lebanon. Look from the top of Amana, from the top of Senir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards."

*Joshua 13/5-7 "...and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrise, from Baal Gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath; all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth Maim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allocate it to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you. Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance to the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh."

The Syrians' objection and rejection of the outcome of the Sikes-Picot Agreement is a mere empty propaganda tactic, and in case they are not happy with it, the Syrian Baathist regime will have to revert to its previous system of four provinces and dismantle the current Syrian state.

The core of the problem with Syria lies in the fact that its Baathist regime is oppressing and impoverishing its own people and depriving them of democracy and all kinds of freedoms. By publicly airing such baseless emotional strife with its neighbors, this regime strives to cover up all its hardships and failures and attribute to the Sikes-Picot Agreement, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, etc... It blames everyone else, but never recognizes its disastrous self-inflicted failures in all domains.

The Syrian regime has drifted towards dictatorial rule and has been camouflaging its evil axis of conduct and practices with a fake national ideology which in reality is no more than a set of empty, deceptive rhetorical slogans, and the allegation that Lebanon is a part of Syria is one of them.

Click Here to read the Sikes-Picot Agreement.

Elias Bejjani is a Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist, journalist and political commentator. Email him at phoenicia@hotmail.com and visit his websites:
http://www.10452lccc.com & http://www.clhrf.com.

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, October 22, 2009.

This past week, the Obama administration marked the sixth anniversary of a Palestinian terror attack which deliberately targeted American diplomats in Gaza by reaffirming its determination to reward the Palestinians with a state.

Despite the fact that more than 50 American citizens have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists since the 1993 Oslo Accords, Washington is doing little to bring the perpetrators to justice. Instead, US taxpayer money continues to flow into Palestinian coffers.

As I suggest in the article below from the Jerusalem Post, it is high time for Obama to use some of Washington's leverage to ensure that Palestinian killers of Americans no longer roam free.

Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly at msfreund@netvision.net.il


This past week marked the sixth anniversary of one of the most brazen anti-American terror attacks to have occurred in the Middle East in the 21st century, yet hardly anyone in Washington seems to have noticed.

As a result, this horrific event, which took the lives of three brave Americans, has been all but forgotten, leaving the cause of justice unfulfilled.

On October 15, 2003, Palestinian terrorists assaulted an official US diplomatic convoy in Gaza, which was on its way to interview young Palestinian students hoping to study at American universities.

As the vehicles bearing diplomatic license plates passed near Beit Hanun, a roadside bomb went off, killing John Branchizio, 37, of Texas; Mark Parsons, 31, of New Jersey; and John Marin Linde, 30, of Missouri, all of whom were providing security.

At the time, Gaza was still under the control of the Palestinian Authority, but virtually nothing was done to hunt down the perpetrators, even though a senior Palestinian intelligence official later admitted that he knew who was behind the attack.

And there was little doubt that this was a premeditated act of murder. The visit had been coordinated in advance with Palestinian officials, and the US vehicles were traveling on a road that was closed to Israeli traffic, so this was not a case of "mistaken identity" on the part of the terrorists.

Moreover, the device used in the blast was remote-controlled, and it was activated only once the American "targets" were identified and in range. And prior to the attack, the Palestinian media was filled with anti-American incitement which seemed deliberately designed to stir up hatred and even violence against the US.

Astonishingly, however, the Bush administration showed little public interest in pursuing a thorough investigation or even pressing the Palestinians to punish the killers. Naturally, the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas was only too happy to oblige by dropping the matter entirely.

BUT THIS is a matter that cannot, and must not, be dropped. Branchizio, Parsons and Linde were among more than 50 American citizens who have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993.

Under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, US aid and support continued to flow into Palestinian coffers even though they did not shy away from taking the lives of American citizens nor hesitate to laugh off requests to arrest their killers. By all indications, President Barack Obama seems equally inclined to forgive the unforgivable.

On October 15, exactly six years to the day since the Beit Hanun attack, his national security adviser, Gen. James R. Jones, chose to attend a dinner hosted by an outfit called the American Task Force for Palestine. Instead of utilizing the opportunity to issue a clarion call to bring Palestinian killers of Americans to justice, Jones preferred to emphasize just how much his boss wants to reward the Palestinians with a state.

"President Obama's dedication to achieve these goals," he declared, "is unshaken, is committed, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of achieving them."

With all that energy and determination at his disposal, it's a shame that Obama isn't equally as "relentless" in trying to achieve a modicum of justice for the dozens of American families whose loved ones were taken from them by Palestinian terror.

One would think that an issue of this magnitude would cry out for resolution. But political considerations, and a fear of offending Palestinian sensibilities, apparently take precedence in the calculus of the Beltway.

Take, for example, the Rewards for Justice Web site run by the US State Department, the goal of which is "to bring international terrorists to justice." Located at www.rewardsforjustice.net, it lists a series of terror attacks against Americans dating back to the early 1980s.

Incredibly, in the section devoted to the 2003 attack in Gaza, the site does not identify those who carried out the bombing as Palestinian. Instead, it obliquely refers to them as "those responsible for this attack," as if their identity is something of a mystery.

But that, of course, is far from being the case. Last December, during the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, one of the ringleaders of the 2003 attack was reportedly killed by the IDF. His name was Muhammad al-Dusaqi, and he was a leader of the Palestinian Popular Resistance Committee.

Presumably, with just a little bit of simple intelligence work, it would not be too difficult to figure out who his accomplices were, or even to go out on a limb and deduce that they too were Palestinian terrorists.

Of course, now that Gaza is under Hamas control, it makes it that much harder to track down the Palestinian killers of Americans located in the area. But that doesn't excuse or justify the lack of effort on Obama's part.

Washington has plenty of leverage with the Palestinian leadership, and it is time that some of that influence be brought to bear so that killers of Americans can no longer roam free.

It was the American writer H.L. Mencken who once noted that "if you want peace, work for justice." Quite simply, the two must go hand in hand.

This appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256150020134& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, October 22, 2009.

This was written by J.J. Goldberg and it appeared in The Forward [NY] October 30, 2009.

"High-ranking sources say that it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff who urged the judge, through then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, to ignore the plea agreement and throw the book at Pollard. ... They wanted to send a message. ... Pollard is still in jail, these sources say, not because his crime merits his lengthy sentence — it doesn't — but because too many American Jews still haven't gotten the message."

So, writes JJ Goldberg in an article which appeared in the "LA Jewish Journal" more than a decade ago. ("Crime and Punishment," LA JJ — 04/03/98). Nevertheless, Goldberg does not let this previous burst of truthfulness get in the way of his distorted perception of the Pollard case in the essay below.

For that "sub-group" of Jewry who feel compelled to keep proving their American patriotism, "An Israel Espionage Drama, Sans Israel" will be reassuring. Its basic premise is, of course, utterly false, blaming Jonathan Pollard for the endemic and unrelenting anti-Semitism in the American intelligence community that Pollard himself was a victim of.

That notwithstanding, the essay does come to the conclusion that "after 20 years of trying and mostly failing to find more Israeli spies, the [FBI] decided to manufacture one." Could it be more obvious?

The median sentence for spying for an ally is 2 to 4 years. On November 21, 2009, Jonathan Pollard will enter his 25th year of a life sentence.


Fans of Israeli espionage melodrama are having a hard time digesting the latest episode, the October 19 arrest of scientist Stewart David Nozette on charges of trying to spy for Israel. From what's known so far, the case seems to defy traditional understandings of Israel as either victim or menace.

For that sub-group of Israel-boosters whose frame of reference is Jonathan Pollard, serving life in prison for giving American secrets to Israel, Nozette makes an awkward martyr. He offers no overt Jewish identity markers to rally around, no visible passion for Israel, indeed no evidence of having actually helped Israel in this affair. As the FBI admits, the whole gambit was the bureau's idea, not his.

Nor does the case help critics who view Israel as a threat to American security. His arrest, a sting operation with no links to Israel, appears anomalous. Israel is a bystander this time, a plot device in someone else's play.

In reality, this is a psychodrama about America's counterintelligence services and their bottomless fear of Israeli spies. The fear dates back to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, the civilian Naval Intelligence analyst caught passing classified information to Israel. Pollard traumatized the intelligence community, insiders say. Ever since, the feds have been haunted by fears that Pollard was only a cog in a larger but impenetrable Israeli spy machine.

But the trauma is deeper than that. Pollard left the intelligence community spooked, so to speak, by fears that Jewish religious devotion to Israel could create confused loyalties or worse. Few believe more than a tiny fraction of American Jews are confused. Still, if 3,000 American Jews currently work in sensitive defense jobs, a conservative estimate, then one-half of a percent could mean a dozen at-risk employees. The number sounds small, but in counterintelligence terms it's terrifying.

Since Pollard, traumatized feds have groped for a way to detect moles without the appearance of a witch-hunt. Over time several individuals have come under suspicion and several lives have been ruined, but nothing was ever proved. CIA analyst Adam Ciralsky was grilled in 1997 about family links to the United Jewish Appeal. Tank engineer David Tenenbaum was suspended that year and his home ransacked, apparently because of his yarmulke. Two staffers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a Pentagon analyst were caught up in 2004 in a sensational investigation that ended in a guilty plea for the analyst and a five-year legal ordeal for the other two. Charges were dismissed.

The closest the feds have come to catching an actual spook was the arrest last year of an octogenarian retired Army engineer, Ben-Ami Kadish, for spying linked to Pollard's handlers in the 1980s.

Now comes Nozette, perhaps the unlikeliest suspect of all. Nothing about him suggests pro-Israel zealotry. His passions are all about space science.

Nozette was raised in Chicago's heavily Jewish West Rogers Park section. His parents, Morris and Helen Nozette, were involved in the local Reform temple, according to their Chicago Tribune obituaries, but apparently had no major involvement with Israel. Son Stewart showed little interest in Jewish matters as an adult, various sources say. Negotiating with the undercover FBI agent supposedly recruiting him to Israeli intelligence, he tried to finagle an Israeli passport by describing his parents — not himself — as Jewish.

What he did absorb at home was a zeal for entrepreneurial science. His father, an engineer, had worked on the Manhattan Project developing the nuclear bomb. After the war he took his skills and launched a successful plastics firm.

Stewart Nozette followed his father, pursuing science, weaponry and commercialization of research. He's best known for his leadership in the search for water on the moon. Days before his arrest he was to address an advanced geophysics seminar at Mississippi State University. His topic was his latest project, a complex ballet of multiple spacecraft with the twin goals of mapping the moon's surface and searching for ice underneath.

Dual use, finding multiple applications for discoveries, is a recurring theme in Nozette's career. A scientist on the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative, he later led a Pentagon program to repurpose a missile-detecting SDI satellite as a lunar explorer. His best known publication is a 1987 book, "Commercializing SDI Technologies." For decades he's shuttled between government and the private sector, developing technologies for one and applying them to the other, often through his own nonprofit, the Alliance for Competitive Technology.

His alleged espionage venture looks like more dual-use and commercialization, but carried a step too far — trying to sell U.S. government secrets to a foreign country. According to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI in federal court October 16, Nozette was contacted by phone this past September by an undercover FBI operative posing as an agent of Israel's Mossad intelligence service. Nozette agreed to supply classified satellite and nuclear information on request, for a fee. Six weeks and two secret envelope drops later, he was arrested.

Why was Nozette picked for the sting? A government source told The Washington Post that suspicions arose during a 2006 investigation of his firm's billing practices. Feds noticed he had been consulting for a decade for an Israeli government-owned aerospace firm (identified in the Israeli press as Israel Aircraft Industries). In 2007 his home was raided. He told an associate that if he were arrested, he would flee to Israel or another country and "tell them everything" — hinting, the Post said, that his Israeli contract included spying.

But the FBI complaint says the flee-to-Israel remark was "based on an unrelated criminal offense," meaning the bureau saw no link between his firm's Israel Aircraft contract and the current espionage charges. The complaint also quotes Nozette telling his "recruiter" in September: "I thought I was working for you already. I mean that's what I always thought, [the foreign company] was just a front." If the Israelis were using him as a spy, he wasn't told.

Possibly the FBI knows much more about Nozette's Israel Aircraft consulting than it's saying. More likely, after 20 years of trying and mostly failing to find more Israeli spies, the bureau decided to manufacture one.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, October 21, 2009.
This below was written by Louis René Beres, Professor of International Law at Purdue. The author of several very early books on nuclear war and nuclear terrorism, he has lectured and published widely in Israel, Europe and the United States on current matters of strategy, jurisprudence and operational theories of conflict.


It's farewell to the drawing-room's civilized cry, The professor's sensible whereto and why,
The frock-coated diplomat's social aplomb,
Now matters are settled with gas and with bomb.
— W.H. Auden, Danse Macabre

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already indicated approval of a Palestinian state, subject, however, to some codified and verifiable forms of "demilitarization." Leaving aside the inherent infeasibility of this declared contingency — no Palestinian leader will ever accept a condition of fundamentally abridged sovereignty — there is also an overriding and antecedent policy question: Can any form of diplomacy with the Palestinians, Fatah and/or Hamas, prove reasonable and productive? Although, on the surface, such a stark and cynical question may appear distinctly odd or foolish or even needlessly bellicose, there may in fact be no clear benefits for Israel to proceed diplomatically.

From the start, from its imperiled beginnings in May 1948, and indeed, even before statehood, Israel sought desperately and courageously to negotiate with its enemies. Always, always — Jerusalem has preferred peace to war. Nonetheless, challenged by relentless and interminable Arab aggressions, diplomacy has generally failed Israel. This sad conclusion is pretty much incontestable. It follows that Mr. Netanyahu is now obligated to ask: What real chance is there that, somehow, this time, diplomacy might actually be productive?

Although ultimately settling upon Operation Cast Lead, previous Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had originally determined to seek Israel's basic security through diplomacy. Although there was assuredly nothing inherently wrong with such a conciliatory posture, especially as Israel had remained under constant pressure from Washington to negotiate, there was also very good reason for skepticism. From Oslo to the ironically twisted cartography of the present "Road Map," diplomacy over Israel's rights and obligations has always been a determinably asymmetrical process.

"Land for nothing!" In essence, this unspoken and suicidal mantra has been Israel's persistent "marching order" from the "civilized world." Now, after the Goldstone Report, Israel also hears that this world will not even allow the Jewish State elementary self-defense.

Ironically, Israel's principal enemies remain candid. On some things, they do not lie. On their irremediable intention to annihilate the "Zionist entity," they are sworn to truth.

The key disputing Palestinian factions (Fatah or Hamas, it makes little difference) and Iran will never accept anything less than Israel's removal. This is already obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention. They say this every day, either openly or obliquely. Moreover, in a corroborating cartography, every PA or Hamas or Iranian map already includes all of Israel within "Palestine."

Toward the end of his corrupted regime, prior Prime Minister Olmert released several hundred Palestinian terrorists as a "goodwill gesture." Together with then-U.S. President George W. Bush, he had decided to aid Fatah against Hamas with outright transfers of weapons and information. Soon after (surprise, surprise), the American and Israeli guns were turned against Israel. As for Mr. Olmert's graciously extended "goodwill," it had only served to elicit the next round of rocket fire. Matters were not helped at all by Washington's corollary support for a Palestinian state, a thoroughly misconceived support now extended by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Regarding Middle East diplomacy, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Rooted deeply in Jihadist interpretations of Islam, there is an obvious and enduring inequality of objectives between Israel and its principal enemies. For both Palestinian insurgents and Iran's president, conflict with Israel is always "zero-sum," routinely an all or nothing proposition. In this starkly polarizing view of incessant strife between "the world of war" and "the world of Islam," there can never be any proper place for authentic treaties or settlements with the Jewish State, save, of course, as a temporary tactical expedient.

For Israel, on the other hand, a negotiated peace with its Arab "neighbors" and Iran persists as an elusive but presumably plausible hope. This is true even when the prospect of Islamic reciprocity is plainly preposterous and historically unimaginable.

A truly fundamental inequality is evident in all expressions of the Middle East Peace Process. On the Palestinian and Iranian side, Oslo and "Road Map" expectations have never been seen as anything more than a cost-effective method of dismantling Israel. On the Israeli side, these expectations have generally been taken, quite differently, as a presumably indispensable way of averting further war and terror.

Mr. Netanyahu should take note: The core problem of Israel's life or death vulnerability lies in the Jewish State's ongoing assumptions on war and peace. While certain of Israel's regional enemies, state and nonstate, believe that any power gains for Israel represent a reciprocal power loss for them — that is, that they coexist with Israel in a condition of pure conflict — Israel assumes something else. For Mr. Netanyahu's several immediate predecessors, relations with certain Arab states, the Palestinian Authority/Hamas and Iran were not taken to be pure "zero-sum," but rather a mutual-dependence connection. In this optimistic view, conflict is always mixed with cooperation.

For no identifiable reason, it would seem, Israel may still believe that certain of its Arab enemies and Iran reject zero-sum assumptions about the strategy of conflict. Israel's enemies, however, do not make any such erroneous judgments about conformance with Israeli calculations. Further, these enemies know that Israel is wrong in its belief that certain Arab states, Iran and the Palestinians also reject the zero-sum assumption, but they shrewdly pretend otherwise. There has remained, therefore, a dramatic and consequential strategic disparity between Israel and certain of its frontline Islamic enemies.

Israel's strategy of conflict has, at least in part, been founded upon multiple theoretical miscalculations and upon an indifference to certain primary and flagrant enemy manipulations. The barbarous policies of Israel's enemies, on the other hand, have been and remain founded (a) upon correct calculations and assumptions; and (b) upon an astute awareness of Israel's strategic naiveté. This means that Israel's prime minister should now make certain far-reaching changes in the way that Israel conceptualizes the continuum of cooperation and conflict.

A "new Israel," ridding itself of injurious wishful thinking, should finally acknowledge the zero-sum calculations of its enemies, and thus begin to accept that the constant struggle must still be fought largely at the conflict end of the spectrum. Right now, this means, especially (and somewhat belatedly, in the particular case of Iran) attention to certain plausible preemption imperatives.

Left unchallenged by Mr. Netanyahu, Israel's mistaken assumptions, and the combining of these assumptions with correct premises of its enemies, could deeply undermine Israel's survival. These still-remediable Israeli errors have had the additional effect of creating an odd "alliance" between Israel and its enemies. This is surely not the sort of coalition that can ever help the Jewish State, but is rather a one-sided and unreciprocated "pact" in which Israel actively and inexcusably serves its enemies.

To be sure, Israel's prime minister should not become the best ally that Israel's Arab enemies and Iran could hope to have. Instead, he should now seek to serve Israel's long-term survival with real wisdom, supplanting the plainly false assumptions that stem from persistently misguided hopes with correct premises that are based upon sound reasoning. In the end, Mr. Netanyahu should understand, it is really all about logic.

What does this mean? In the language of formal logic, invalid forms of argument are fallacies. The basic problem with Israel's continuous search for "peace" through negotiated surrenders (Land for nothing) has been its persistent commission of fallacies.

Unlike simple instances of falsity, these arguments are insidious because they could involve a devastating policy outcome. Distinguishable from singular mistakes, these deviations from correct thinking ensure that all subsequent calculations will also result in error. This means that it is in the very process of strategic thinking, and not in the assessment of particular facts and issues, that Israeli policy changes are now most sorely needed. And without these changes, all matters will be settled "with gas and with bomb."

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, October 21, 2009.

On the surface, J Street seems just another group of Jewish self-haters, except that is not what is so toxic about the organization. It doesn't say 'I'm Jewish so I am allowed to be exclusively pro-Palestinian and not be called an anti-semite.' It says, "I'm Jewish and I support Israel. This is how to help Israel." Its advocacy is nothing of the sort. Saying that it supports Israel doesn't make it so. As a reader, Eli, commented "J Street is pro-Israel like Hamas is pro-Israel They share the same agenda." Isi Leibler provides us with the particulars.

Mr. Leibler has worked for human rights in general and for Soviet Jewry in particular. He held senior roles in the World Jewish Congress, including Chairman of the Governing Board and Senior Vice President. He writes a weekly column for the Jerusalem Post. Contact him at leibler@netvision.net.il

This article appeared October 21, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1256150020158&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


This weekend J Street is launching its first major convention at which it claims 160 members of Congress and a number of former Israeli left-wing politicians will participate. Only 18 months old, J Street already boasts of a $3 million budget which, while minuscule compared to AIPAC's $70 million, is nevertheless impressive. It also receives glowing liberal media coverage, especially from The New York Times.

American Jews take pride in being an open and pluralistic community. So why make a fuss about an organization, even if it does engage in activities that many would consider offensive? Besides, blackballing such a fringe group would lead to accusations of attempting to stifle freedom of expression and transform it into a martyr.

However, the fact is that no one is seeking to deny freedom of expression to J Street or other groups hostile to Israel. The issue is whether organizations should be able to exploit the Jewish community as launching pads to campaign against the Jewish state while presenting themselves as mainstream Jews.

Most Jews would concur that a red line should be drawn between legitimate criticism of Israel and concerted campaigns to pressure the US or any government to force the democratically elected government of Israel to make concessions which could imperil the lives of its citizens.

J Street has crossed that red line even though it continuously recites the mantra that it is "pro-Israel," insisting that while it "disagrees with certain Israeli government policies our bottom line is that we always support the State of Israel and its future as a democracy."

Or to quote executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami "we are trying to define what it means to be pro Israel... you don't have to adopt the party line."

Yet J Street has the chutzpa to openly campaign against Israel on the grounds that it possesses a superior understanding of what is best for Israelis. It obscenely spins this by likening itself to parents who are obliged to employ "tough love" with children who are drug addicts. It is surely unconscionable for Jews resident in America to lobby their government to pressure Israelis, contrary to their will, to take steps that could have life and death implications.

In fact, J Street's policies are more extreme than even their radical Israeli counterparts. During the conflict with Hamas, which was endorsed by all Jewish political parties in the Knesset, J Street proclaimed that Israel's "escalation in Gaza would be counterproductive" and was "disproportionate." It also alluded to a moral equivalency between the policies of Israel and Hamas, stating that it found difficulty in distinguishing "between who is right and who is wrong" and "picking a side."

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the US Reform movement (who inexplicably will now be participating in the J Street convention) then described J Street's views as "deeply distressing, morally deficient and profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and appallingly naïve."

J Street also "opposes the role of force by Israel or the United States" against Iran and even canvassed Congress to block a bipartisan resolution calling for tougher sanctions. It also urges the US and Israel to negotiate with Hamas. Despite President Barack Obama having done so, J Street chief Ben-Ami refused to endorse Israel as a "Jewish state" relating to it as a "Jewish democratic home in the State of Israel."

J Street also raises the issue of dual loyalties which has been resurrected by anti-Semites in recent times. Ben-Ami expresses concern about "the impact of Israeli policies on our interests as Americans and Jews," suggesting that continued "blind" support for Israel would lead to alienation from the American public which would conclude that Jews display greater loyalty to Israel than America.

J Street raised similar sentiments when it defended Obama's initial choice of Chas Freeman, the fiercely anti-Israeli former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Not coincidentally, Stephen Walt the coauthor of the viciously anti-Israeli The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy publicly hailed the emergence of J Street as "good news."

An even more ominous cause for concern was the recent disclosure that Arab and even pro Iranian elements were funding J Street. One donor and member of the organization's finance committee, Genevieve Lynch, was a participant of the National Iranian American Council. Judith Barnett, a former registered agent for Saudi Arabia, is a donor and serves on the J Street Advisory Council. Nancy Dutton, until 2008 an attorney for the Saudi Arabian Embassy, donates to J Street's political action committee which has been financing anti-Israeli congressional candidates.

IN SHORT, J Street has established a virtually consistent track record of hostility against Israel. One has yet to see it release a single statement backing Israel on any substantive issue. It vigorously campaigns to pressure the US government to be "tough" and force Israel to make unilateral concessions. It financially supports the election of anti-Israeli congressmen and raises the specter of dual loyalties. It continuously defames mainstream Jewish organizations, depicting them as extremists. It receives financial support and praise from Arabs and foes of Israel. To suggest that such an organization is "pro-Israel" is utterly preposterous.

Today Israel is undergoing a critical phase in its relationship with the US. The pressures on the Jewish state are not limited to calls to freeze settlements. In the aftermath of the toxic Goldstone report, Israelis travelling abroad may now face the threat of prosecution. Israel also faces the challenge of defining defensible borders and addressing the danger of a nuclear Iran. In these and other existential challenges, Israel is largely dependent on US support which J Street seeks to undermine.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of committed Jews are outraged by a Jewish organization whose principal raison d'être is to lobby the US to act harshly against Israel. The limited support J Street enjoys comes principally from those uninvolved in Jewish life. Indeed, Ben-Ami even told The New York Times that his members are comprised primarily of intermarried youngsters who attend "Buddhist Seders." That probably explains why J Street could endorse the staging of the contemporary anti-Semitic blood libel play Seven Jewish Children.

No one seeks to deny Israeli bashers freedom of expression. But there is a need to make the public aware that J Street represents an insignificant group of uncommitted Jews. It must be exposed as hostile to Israel and marginalized from the Jewish community. If Americans understand this, J Street's ability to undermine Israel will largely be neutralized.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 21, 2009.

The United States and Israel are today holding the biggest-ever joint missile defense drill ( the Juniper Cobra 10 exercise) that will take into account threats from Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. A thousand US military personnel will participate along with an equal number of Israelis; the Israeli Arrow 2 Theater Ballistic Missile Defense System and the American Navy's AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System will be tested, along with the US Patriot advanced capability anti-missile missiles.

This exercise has been in the planning for two years, and American military officials arrived months ago to help set things up. Radar stations — including the Israeli Green Pine and Super Green Pine systems and the US Forward Based X-Bank Tactical radar — have been erected around the country. Seventeen American navy ships are in Israel's territorial waters and air force planes will be involved.

Is this a panacea that protects us in a way that makes deterrence against Hezbollah and Syria unnecessary, or makes it irrelevant if Iran goes nuclear? Of course not.

Does it make me feel a good measure safer? Indeed it does. Iran has to know that we're not sitting ducks and that they very well might not have the advantage of a successful first strike.


Yesterday President Peres opened the "Facing Tomorrow Conference" here in Jerusalem. Present Obama sent a opening message to the conference via video. The US — Israel relations, he said, were "more than a strategic alliance."

He then pushed for an assumption of some measure of responsibility towards making peace happen now: "...our moment in history is filled with challenges that...invite pessimism...We can defer action...or we can meet the challenge..."


When the president refers to a situation that invites pessimism, he is, undoubtedly, speaking for himself as much as anyone else. He has confronted only frustration in what he naively imagined would be his speedy success in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian (Arab) conflict. In the course of what he has been dealing with, there is no question but that the tone he has adopted towards us has become less strident.


But, my friends, do not imagine that all is sweetness and light.

In today's edition of Yisrael Hayom (Israel Today), diplomatic correspondent Shlomo Tzesna reports that our government has rejected an American plan that would have called for a summit to be held in a month that would have been followed by intensive final status talks. Those talks would have been based on an Israeli commitment to reach an agreement for the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years, and would also have required us to commit to a massive withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

This is the stuff of nightmares. What matters most is the continuing capacity and will of our prime minister and his government to continue to say no.


A word about what's happening here: Obama has backed himself into a corner with the talk of a Palestinian state within two years. It's not just Obama, although he's been more strident in his approach. It was true of his predecessors as well. There's always a precipitous rush with regard to finalizing arrangements, always talk — ludicrous talk — about a limited "window of opportunity." Never is there straight talk about the Palestinians not being prepared for self-rule, not having infrastructure or civil agencies in place. No talk about building a genuine civil society over a generation or two, with cessation of incitement and renunciation of violence. There is simply, quick, quick!

Not only is this talk foolish, it's dangerous. Because once expectations are raised, the Palestinian Arab response, when those expectations aren't met, is violence. There is particular concern about that now, as the US is training PA security forces — forces that are being told that they are helping to build a state. Once they see they are not going to have their state within two years, against whom do you imagine they will turn their newly honed military skills?

There's a precedent for this: every time the CIA has trained PA forces, they ended up, in some measure or other, turning against us.


After Obama's message was delivered yesterday, Netanyahu spoke. He challenged Abbas to say publicly what is said behind closed doors: "...to say the truth about peace...and the true way to achieve it."

This is mere rhetoric. Netanyahu knows full well that Abbas is weak and running scared. He cannot speak truth and cannot moderate (see below) if he values his life.

And for now there will be no negotiations.


The Security Cabinet met yesterday. There was some interest within that body in debating the desirability of appointing a committee of inquiry to examine Goldstone Report charges. But it was never brought up, because Defense Minister Barak blocked the discussion. So, here we are again: I don't usually agree with him, but sometimes he is very right indeed.

Israel thoroughly investigated charges at the end of Operation Cast Lead. We conducted ourselves superbly and have no further need to justify ourselves.

What was determined was that a team — under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Ministry — would be established to fight the Goldstone charges. Preparation will be done for debate in the UN Security Council, should the report be brought there.


I'm finding, astonishingly, some shifting of attitudes in unlikely places:

One of the sources critical of Israel that Goldstone used in his report was Human Rights Watch. Now Robert Bernstein, who founded this organization, has written a stunning op-ed in the New York Times:

"...I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group's critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state...

"When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

"Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

"Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch's Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

"Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

"Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch's criticism..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/ 20bernstein.html?_r=1&emc=eta1


Then we have from the Guardian (UK), that bastion of anti-Israel opinion, a marvelous commentary by Harold Evans that speaks of the Goldstone Report as "a moral atrocity." ("Judge Goldstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel.")

"Aren't the British sickened by the moral confusions of their government? ...Now we have the sickening spectacle of Britain failing to stand by Israel, the only democracy with an independent judiciary in the entire region.

"It was to be expected that the usual suspects of the risible UN Human Rights Council would be eager to condemn Israel for war crimes in defending itself against Hamas. If you treat people as the Chinese do the Tibetans...or as the Russians eliminate Chechen dissidents; or as the Nigerians tolerate extrajudicial killings...or as the Egyptians get prisoners to talk (torture) and the Saudis suppress half their population ... well, go through the practices of all 25 states voting to refer Israel to the security council for the Gaza war, and you have to acknowledge they know a lot about the abuse of humans. Anything to divert attention from their own atrocities.

"...Britain didn't just abstain. It shirked voting at all...

"...No doubt there were blunders. A defensive war is still a war with all its suffering and destruction. But Hamas compounded its original war crime with another. It held its own people hostage. It used them as human shields. It regarded every (accidental) death as another bullet in the propaganda war. The Goldstone report won the gold standard of moral equivalence between the killer and the victim. Now Britain wins the silver. Who's cheering?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/ israel-goldstone-palestine-gaza-un

And so there is hope, my friends. Use these articles as broadly as you can. (I thank the many people who shared them with me.)


It's good news that Israel's Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, will not be attending the J Street conference, in spite of intense pressure on him by J Street to do so. A statement released by the embassy alluded to "concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel."

The embassy will be sending a lower level staffer not to "participate" but to "observe" what goes on.

Hopefully this decision will reflect upon the credibility of this organization and give pause to some US officials who were thinking of attending. A handful of Congresspersons who were listed as participants have already withdrawn because they said they hadn't been aware of the positions of the organization. Some said that the decisions to attend had been made at staff levels.

J Street has cancelled the poetry reading session of Josh Healey, whom I wrote about yesterday, because there has been publicity about his "poetry," which associated Gaza with Auschwitz, and spoke of "writing numbers on the wrists of babies born in the ghetto called Gaza."

A splendid example of how important it is to get the facts out and reveal the true (anti-Israel) face of matters.


You might want to see Lenny Ben David's latest piece, which directs some pointed questions at J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami.


And it would be in order to send PM Netanyahu a note of appreciation for his decision (for ultimately it was his decision) to keep Oren from attending.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)


PA president Abbas is now saying that if Hamas doesn't sign the reconciliation agreement very soon he's going to order elections for January 24, which is when elections are actually supposed to be held.

But without that "reconciliation" Hamas will not permit voting to take place in Gaza.


King Abdullah of Jordan has been a real disappointment for some time now. At the moment, he's in Italy and granted an interview to a paper there. What he said was:

"I've heard people in Washington talking about Iran, again Iran, always Iran. But I insist on, and keep insisting on the Palestinian question: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most serious threat to the stability of the region and the Mediterranean."

Not remotely do I believe he actually thinks this. So I ask what advantage this brings him, what forces he's chosen to align himself with.

Just the other day he released a statement regarding the need to protect the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount. My response: "Come on! Abdullah? Who surely knows this is nonsense?" Abdullah is aware that for many years after 1967 Jordan (not the PA) staffed the Wakf that managed the Temple Mount and found Israel ever "accommodating." He's not one of the crazies of the Islamic Movement. Or he hasn't been until now.


Perhaps Abdullah's current positions can be linked to what's happening in Turkey. A Post editorial on this subject offers this analysis:

"Turkey's turn against Israel is best understood in the context of its evolutionary transformation from the secular, nationalist and Western-oriented ethos of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to the dogmatic, radical, pan-Islamic and Middle Eastern attitudes of its current rulers. It is senseless for Israelis to ask ourselves what we did to cause Arab, Persian and now Turkish rulers to ascribe the most villainous of intentions to us — for example, conspiring to demolish Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount, or relishing the systematic murder of Arab children. Israel did not lose Turkey any more than it lost Iran or the "moderate" Palestinians.

"The Palestinian national movement under Mahmoud Abbas and Salaam Fayad has been outmaneuvered by Hamas. Any move Abbas now makes in the direction of moderation gets pounced upon as perfidy. This environment has led even a sensible man like Fayad to hold cabinet deliberations on whether Israeli soldiers are stealing the organs of Palestinian youths."


We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, of the movement towards democracy and human rights and freedoms in central Europe. A hopeful time, historically, when events suggested growing enlightenment.

But what a difference two decades has made. I cannot help but compare this with the opposite movement now within large parts of the Arab/Muslim world, away from enlightenment and human freedoms. A movement towards radicalism and repression.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 21, 2009.


Iranian President Ahmadinejad's latest about the Jewish people elaborates on his Holocaust denial. His new points: (1) The Jewish people instigated colonialism; (2) They fabricated a Holocaust 4-5 years after the end of WWII; and (3) The British helped them drive Arabs out of Israel (www.imra.org.il, 10/19).

During colonialism's early period, the Jewish people was persecuted in many countries and secure in none. What a silly point Ahmadinejad made!

Before WWII had ended, I saw a film of Gen. Eisenhower viewing the bodies and the Germans not denying the Holocaust. Another silly point by Ahmadinejad.

Actually, the British sided with the Arabs. They turned abandoned forts over to Palestinian Arabs. They armed Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan. They trained and led Jordan's Arab Legion against Israel. Their warplanes attacked Israel's. Ahmadinejad has a lot of imagination but no acknowledgment of history.


Turkey offered help, and the Revolutionary Guards vowed revenge, on the Sunni attacks on Iranian troops in Iran. Turkey and Iran called the attacks terrorism [but the guerrillas mostly attacked troops, not civilians].

Iran accuses the West and Pakistan of sponsoring the attacks (www.imra.org.il, 10/19). TURKEY RE-NEGOTIATING TO SELL ISRAEL WATER

Just as relations between Turkey and Israel were souring, the two countries are resuming negotiations for Turkey to sell water to Israel. Prior negotiations faltered over the price and technical problems (www.imra.org.il, 10/19).

Israelis question whether Israel should sell Turkey arms. Will those same voices question whether Israel should become dependent upon Turkey for water?


A condition for membership in the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) is to abandon trade boycott in favor of free trade. The U.S. approved W.T.O. membership when S. Arabia promised to end its boycott of Israel. That was four years ago. The Saudi boycott continues. Some members of Congress wrote a letter to Sec. of State Clinton demanding action against S. Arabia (www.imra.org.il, 9/21).

Oslo isn't enforced against the Arabs, either.


Robert L. Bernstein founded and long guided Human Rights Watch (HRW), but now denounces it. HRW was supposed to "open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms, and support dissenters." It used to distinguish between democratic societies open to reform, and dictatorial ones closed to reform. It used to head off those who would treat evil societies, such as the USSR, as morally equivalent to democratic ones with mere warts.

"But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state." It issues far more reports on Israel than on any other country in the region [probably more than on all other countries in the region, combined]. Israel has 7.4 million people, 80 human rights organizations, and a judiciary, media and a huge foreign press corps, and an academia, all of which freely criticize government action.

The Arabs and Iran have 350 million people. Most of their regimes "remain brutal, closed, and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. They need the help of HRW that they hardly are getting, as HRW diverts its resources to condemn Israel. HRW "has lost critical perspective."

Iran and its proxies seek to destroy Israel and murder Jews everywhere. "This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

"Leaders of HRW know that Hamas and Hizbullah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields....And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of HRW's criticism."

How does HRW know that Israel violated the laws of war in Gaza, "where there is no access to the battlefield or in the military and political leaders who move strategic decisions? It is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot verified and why may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation for their own rulers."

"Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the IDF in Gaza "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare." [Significantly, he ranks Israel's Army before his own and America's.]

HRW is severely undermining its credibility (NY Times, 10/20, Op.-Ed.)

I commend the HRW founder for expressing his pained conscience and the NY Times for giving space to what could be seen as critical of its similarly tendentious writing.

Mr. Bernstein emphasized the disproportionate HRW effort against Israel. Unfortunately, he only hinted at the main point. He hinted that the reports against Israel are not well founded. The main point is that HRW has become an ideological organization where Israel and its foes are concerned. It acts on its bias. It therefore ignores advice of how to be fair or accurate. Obviously, HRW strives to smear Israel. Israel does not commit war crimes, though its forces can make human error.


"Bernstein's op-ed follows publication of NGO Monitor's systematic report demonstrating HRW's blatant bias and lack of credibility on the Middle East. These findings have been amplified by the recent call from leading experts including Elie Wiesel, Prof Alan Dershowitz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey for HRW's board members to 'institute a full independent review and reform in the organization.'" [In other words, contrary to the Goldstein report's recommendation that Israel should have an independent review, HRW, on which Goldstein relied, needs the independent review!]

"HRW's moral failures, as denounced by Bernstein, were highlighted by the effort to solicit funds in Saudi Arabia, and exposure of the organization's Middle East division, dominated by anti-Israel activists Sarah Leah Whitson and Joe Stork." "During this time, HRW has played a leading role in lobbying intensively on behalf of the discredited Goldstone report. Richard Goldstone himself was an HRW board member until forced to resign when NGO Monitor noted the conflict of interest." (www.imra.org.il, 10/20 from NGO Monitor.)

Imagine, people who were anti-Israel activists direct HRW efforts against Israel, but HRW pretends it is objective!

My prior articles show that non-military people also are waging war on Israel, via media and diplomacy efforts. HRW is part of that war.

Since Goldstone was heavily involved in the anti-Israel HRW, didn't he still have a conflict of motive, when he resigned from HRW because of conflict of interest exposed by his appointment to the UN mission?

Incidentally, NGO Monitor mentions that HRW's senior military analyst is an obsessive collector of Nazi memorabilia. I am less sure of what that means than is NGO Monitor.


An American organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is the world's largest organization for breast cancer awareness. It scheduled a regional conference to be held in Egypt, with American participation.

At the last minute, Egypt's Minister of Health cancelled without explanation permission for the invited Israeli cancer doctors to attend. Nevertheless, Dr. Mohammed Shaalan of Egypt's Breast Cancer Foundation told Reuters, "The week's events are a demonstration of the cooperation between countries, governments, civil society, advocates, survivors, and the global community as a whole." "It shows that breast cancer has no boundaries and reveals the beauty of the world's unity in its fight against breast cancer." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7,10/20).

Israel has contributed much cancer research. Too bad Egypt puts prejudice before world health.


Israel has aligned itself with the U.S. in identifying a few dozen organizations as terrorist. Declaring them terrorist is a step toward blocking the movement of their funds. This was done at a meeting of the Committee On National Security.

The Committee also tasked the Minister of Justice with forming a unit to handle special foreign prosecution of Israelis (www.imra.org.il, 10/20).

This must be referring to "lawfare" cases, in which anti-Zionist groups waging war on Israel by means of trumped up prosecution abroad, seek to undermine Israel and inhibit Israeli officials from traveling abroad. I call it "trumped up" on the basis of the cases being so poor, that most are dismissed without trial and the rest all lost, despite the international prejudice against Israel.


J Street is a self-proclaimed pro-Israel but dissident organization formed by George Soros to cancel out AIPAC's influence. When donations to J Street by Arabs and Iranians were exposed, J Street head Jeremy Ben-Ami said there were only 5, and they provided only 3% of the funding. A check of the list of donors revealed more than 30, so Mr. Ben-Ami raised the estimate to 10%. That would amount to $300,000. Why do so many Arabs donate to an organization that calls itself pro-Israel?

Federal law requires J Street to list donors to its political action committee, which it did, but not to its over-all organization. Until it reveals those, suspicion remains.

Some contributors work for anti-Israel organizations. Rebecca Abou-Chedid, for example, recently was national political director at the Arab American Institute, where she "was responsible for formulating AAI's positions on foreign policy and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State." "Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation's Middle East Task Force."

"J Street co-founder and Advisory Council member Daniel Levy serves as Co-Director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, an institute that benefits from George Soros' largess and membership on its board."

"Heads of other pro-Arab organizations, such as AMIDEAST, and Arab foreign agents are contributors to the PAC. But Mr. Ben-Ami claims that no organizations or foreign governments contribute. They don't need do; their representatives do."

Ben-Ami was Fenton Communications' Senior Vice President, until he launched J Street in 2008. Early in 2009, Fenton contracted with "a Qatari foundation to lead an 18-month long anti-Israel campaign in the United States with a special focus on campuses. Contractual language: "An international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza." [Any such schools would have been made military targets by Hamas, by storing arms in them or attacking from them. The language really indicates the idea is to defame Israel, the way Goldstone did.]

Did Ben-Ami end his ties with Fenton, or do those ties influence J Street's refusal to condemn the Goldstone report on Gaza, which takes the Qatari view? Was Ben-Ami involved in the anti-Israel Qatari contract?

The Israeli speakers appearing at J Street's Conference: Ami Ayalon, Colette Avital, Amir Peretz, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Yuli Tamir, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. All lost electoral and party support [for their appeasement-mindedness], "so they take their messages to the U.S. and plead with the U.S. government to pressure Israel's government, make the Israelis do things that their citizens have already rejected. The tactic is patently anti-democratic."

J Street produced a film clip naming 11 prominent Israelis who "speak out in support of a two-state solution and J Street." In the clip, only 3, one of whom is an employee of J Street, mention J Street. Not much of an endorsement!

Again, who runs J Street, and how many of them are involved in other anti-Israel organizations? (www.imra.org.il, 10/20 from Lenny Ben-David, a former AIPAC and diplomat at the Israeli embassy.)

Questions were raised whether Ben-Ami retains ties to Fenton Communications and whether he helped it get an anti-Israel Qatari assignment. I would ask whether he was part of some Fenton bias against Israel, that he transferred to J Street.


U.S. civilian courts are unsuited for trying terrorists, argues Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney-General and judge in terrorism cases.

President Obama wants to put Guantanamo prisoners on civilian trial. Judge Mukasey believes that would be disastrous, in our war on terrorism.

In civilian courts, such trials would require a huge staff of guards, diverting resources from ordinary criminal cases. They may well attract terrorist attacks and lawyers seeking to mire the system in legal challenges over conditions of confinement and whether prisoners captured in combat must be released.

Terrorist convicts recruit in federal prisons and plan more attacks.

Civilian court rules suit civilian crimes. Defendants get access to information to help their defense without concern over national security and other outside issues. Those same rules would give terrorists on trial or at large valuable intelligence they could use against us. For example, when Mukasey tried Sheikh Rahman [involved in first bombing of World Trade Center], the government had to disclose identify of all known co-conspirators. One was Osama bin Laden. The disclosure was transmitted to bin Laden, who thus found out that he was a suspect and who else the government was watching.

During trial, defense lawyers can learn about methods of gathering evidence, not pertinent to their defense but useful in asking government witnesses to disclose confidential information or appear to be hiding something. [Imagine how such information in the hands of terrorists would dull our counter-terrorism!]

Military courts have a standard of "relevance and apparent reliability" for admissibility of evidence. Civilian courts would feature disputes over that and would require bringing to court the person who captured the prisoner.

Civilian courts require proof that may have to be publicly disclosed but would compromise sources and methods of intelligence gathering. The Guantanamo military commissions were designed to handle classified data more safely.

Then there is the problem of turning military prisoners over to civilian courts, where the Constitutional rule is speedy trials. Guantanamo held people without trials, beyond the deadline. They may have to be released. Then what would be the good of bringing them before civilian courts?

It seems that a major motive for switching to civilian courts is public relations. The price for that is enhanced terrorism, not worth it (Wall St. Journal, 10/19, A21).

When Pres. Bush proposed military trials, his opponents exerted sufficient pressure to stymie that, then complained that we held people without trial. We need to: (1) Exercise habeas corpus, to ascertain cases of mistaken identity; (2) Differentiate captured combatants from non-combatants, so as not to try combatants; if they are not terrorists, they are prisoners of war, but if they are violated the rules of war, they are not prisoners of war; (3) Devise proper standards for military trials for accused non-combatant terrorists.

I would hope that the politics-ridden U.S. would put aside partisanship on this issue of national security.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, October 21, 2009.

Arabs cursed and attacked Jews in an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood while police looked on, until they intervened by arresting Jews, eyewitnesses reported. The clash in the Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood began when a new Jewish family began unloading possessions for their new apartment home.

Arabs and anarchists, who have been maintaining a permanent presence at a protest tent opposite the community, wrestled with one young Jewish man in the group, according to Avichail Feld, a hero in the Yom Kippur War who witnessed the attack. He reported that police quietly stood by while the attackers brutally beat the victim, who required medical care. Feld called to police, who maintain a constant patrol in the neighborhood, to stop the assault, but they did nothing.

Officers eventually intervened and stopped the clash by arresting four Jews, who were taken into custody for questioning. Police spokesmen were unavailable for comment.

National Union Knesset Member Michael Ben-Ari, who arrived at the scene after being informed of the attack, told Arutz Sheva, "The handwriting was on the wall. I sent a letter to the police several weeks ago that Arabs were harassing Jews. I eventually received a letter from the police that they were dealing with the problem. Tonight's clash proves that this was not the right answer, to make an understatement."

He said his party intends to put an end to this "farce" where "the victim becomes the accused." He added, "I do not understand why the police allow the tent protest to remain when it has become a tent of incitement for violence against Jewish residents."

This appeared today in Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com)

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, October 21, 2009.

by Vic Alhadeff, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Australia.

"ISRAELI foreign minister Abba Eban once jested that if a resolution was tabled at the UN that the world is flat — and that Israel flattened it — it would pass by a majority of 170-5 with 17 abstentions.

" ...The UN is mandated with the moral authority to adjudicate on matters of international concern, yet an alarming number of its agencies are headed by countries whose human rights records range from questionable to appalling, including Libya, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Burma. The Human Rights Council has studiously avoided condemning the brutalities in Darfur, war in Congo, Chechnya and Sri Lanka, but has directed 26 out of 32 resolutions condemning human rights violations against Israel.

"There have been more than 400 anti-Israel resolutions in the General Assembly — more than against all other UN nations combined — and six emergency sessions on Israel... ." (Vic Alhadeff, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Australia Oct 23, 2009) Rocket Factory in the West Bank. A weapons lab containing explosives and pipes that were apparently meant to be used to assemble rockets was discovered in Abu Dis, near Jerusalem. The Shin Bet revealed in a report last year that Hamas terror operatives in the West Bank had increased efforts to obtain a rocket capability and to develop Kassam rockets that could be fired into central Israeli cities.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Similar Conflict Different International Response: Tamils waged a terror war against Sri Lanka illegitimately demanding, because they are non-indigenous migrants from India, independence from Sri Lanka. At the moment, some 300,000 Tamils are detained in concentration camps after the crude and bloody defeat of the Tamil Tigers by the Sri Lankan government. There are neither 'Goldstone reports' nor Human Rights outcries. Where are the International condemnations and UN hearings of real atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan government? The difference is: Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, Israel is the Jewish one!

Goldstone Backing Away from Report. In an interview with the Jewish Daily Forward, Goldstone denied that his group had conducted "an investigation." Instead, it was what he called a "fact-finding mission" based largely on the limited "material we had." Since this "material" was cherry-picked by Hamas guides and spokesmen, Goldstone acknowledged that "if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven." (Do you remember another infamous anti-Israel campaign — the Jenin 'massacre', instigated by the UN? There was heavy 'smoke', but the UN stopped short of initiating an investigation, to avoid embarrassment, because there was no 'fire'!)

What Palestinians, What Unity? Not long ago Abbas's Fatah party finally signed Egypt's plan for separate signings of a reconciliation deal with Hamas after the Islamist group balked at attending a unity ceremony. Hamas said it still had not decided whether to agree to the proposal put forward by Egyptian mediators, which was rejected and postponed many times by both sides. A powerful Palestinian Dughmoush clan has become split between pro-Al Qaida and pro-Hamas elements. Factions are being formed, and the clan no longer works as a unit. (How many Israel-hating terrorist splinter groups must Jews negotiate with?)

Rabbis Boycott Pope's Visit. Italian rabbis have decided to boycott the upcoming visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Rome's main synagogue on January 17th. The decision was made in protest of the revival of a prayer which calls for the conversion of Jews by the Church. (Finally, some rabbis have shown guts and self-respect! Reconciliation requires mutual respect and genuine confession of the sins of the past! Isn't this the main ritual of the Catholic Church?)

Abbad' Declaration of NO Peace. "There will be no Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty until the occupation of Jerusalem ends. We are determined to safeguard the Aksa Mosque and Jerusalem," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a speech in Ramallah last week. (There will be no peace until Arabs' occupation of Jewish land ends!)

IDF is Fighting Jewish Patriots. IDF Central District Commander Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni issued orders banning two prominent Land of Israel activists from returning to their homes, or anywhere in the Shomron (Samaria), for the next six months. MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) has condemned the issuing of administrative orders against Land of Israel activists without trial. "I find it strange that we only hear about such orders coming out against nationalist activists. Who has ever heard of administrative orders being issued against leftists..." At the same time, according to a senior IDF source, weapons are flowing freely into PA-controlled towns in Samaria thanks to the recent removal of IDF checkpoints.

Quote of the Week: "The real opponents of Zionism can never be placated by any diplomatic formula: their objection to the Jews is that the Jews exist, and in this particular case, they exist in Palestine." — Chaim Weizmann, Israel's first president.

Is Sensitivity Always Needed? After Turkey recently cancelled a joint air manoeuvre exercise with Israel due to the situation in Gaza, Industry and Trade Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said: "Israel has important strategic interests with Turkey and we must act with extra sensitivity to prevent dire predictions concerning our relations from materializing." (Strangely, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt have shown no "extra sensitivity" toward Israel. Must Israel be always nice to her enemies, especially to disguised as a friend ones?)

Is Turkey a NATO Member or Islamic Stooge? The U.S. and Italy pulled out of the multinational Anatolian Eagle drill after Ankara banned Israel, so forcing NATO to cancel the exercise.

Hamas Cowards Ran Away to Sinai. After weeks of absorbing criticism from Hamas, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas struck back, accusing the Gaza terror group's leadership of running away to Sinai during Operation Cast Lead this past January. "Hamas leaders escaped, leaving its people to die".

Jews Still Living in Mental Slavery. While support for Israel is important to U.S. Jews, a new survey by the National Jewish Democratic Council shows that they would vote Democrat even if the candidate was apathetic about supporting Israel. (Democracy means that people do have a freedom of choice and are not guided by redundant dogma!)

Normalization — Islamic Style. Following the historic accord normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia, Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that opening the border between the two countries is linked to the question of the enclave of Nagorno-Karbagh. This Christian Armenian enclave is located in Muslim Azerbaijan. (This accord worth nothing, as Turkey has still not accepted responsibility for the slaughter of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1916.)

Palestine Problem Hopeless? by Spengler

"The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable," declared United Sates President Barack Obama in his June 4 Cairo address. Really? Compared to what? Things are tough all over. The Palestinians are one of many groups displaced by the population exchanges that followed World War II, and the only ones whose great-grandchildren still have the legal status of refugees. Why are they still there? The simplest explanation is that they like it there, because they are much better off than people of similar capacities in other Arab countries.

The standard tables of gross domestic product (GDP) per capital show the West Bank and Gaza at US$1,700, just below Egyp's $1,900. &GDP per capita, moreover, does not reflect the spending power of ordinary people. Forty-four percent of Egyptians, for example, live on less than $2 a day. ...Literacy in the Palestinian Authority domain is 92.4%, equal to that of Singapore. That is far better than the 71.4% in Egypt, or 80.8% in Syria.

Without disputing Obama's claim that life for the Palestinians is intolerable, it is fair to ask: where is life not intolerable in the Arab world? When the first UN Arab Development Report appeared in 2002, it elicited comments such as this one: "With barely an exception, its autocratic rulers, whether presidents or kings, give up their authority only when they die; its elections are a sick joke; half its people are treated as lesser legal and economic beings, and more than half its young, burdened by joblessness and stifled by conservative religious tradition, are said to want to get out of the place as soon as they can."

Palestinian Arabs are highly literate, richer and healthier than people in most other Arab countries, thanks to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the blackmail payments of Western as well as Arab governments. As refugees, they live longer and better than their counterparts in adjacent Arab countries. It is not surprising that they do not want to be absorbed into other Arab countries and cease to be refugees.

Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 21, 2009.

Fall arrived late this year in Budapest, where I am visiting from Israel, and it is still very warm on Yom Kippur. The largest Orthodox Yom Kippur services in the city are being held in a downtown hotel. A plaque marking what had been the offices of controversial Judenrat leader Rudolf Kastner is on a building just a few steps away.

Below the hotel windows the Danube flows by, with the old Habsburg castle just across the river. The services are led by Chabadniks from Israel, and Hebrew is the official language used for prayer, stories and jokes. Most of the hundreds who attend are young Israelis studying medicine in Hungary. Entrance into Israeli medical schools is almost impossible for mortals; so many study in Hungary.

It is late in the day of Yom Kippur, when alertness is low and concentration difficult. My stomach is making angry hunger sounds and thoughts of food are sneaking into my consciousness between the makot.

I am sitting next to an older man with a Russian accent. In his late 70s, he has flashing grey eyes and comfortably reads the Hebrew in the prayer book. His face looks familiar. During one of the rare breaks in the prayers, we begin to talk. He tells me his name.

The name snaps me into alertness. The hunger pangs are instantly forgotten, along with the drowsiness. His name connects at once with that famous photo — the one that has become an iconic image of the suffering and plight of Soviet Jews in the era before communism collapsed.

Of course, the Josef Begun in that picture is a much younger man than the fellow in the tallit now praying alongside me. It was taken in his Siberian hellhole, a prison camp close to the Pacific, farther from Moscow than Moscow is from New York. In it he wears a thick black coat and hat, ice particles are clinging to his fierce black beard, his fiery eyes are glaring, and there is just the hint of a grin at the corners of his mouth.

"That photo was taken when it was 60 degrees below zero Centigrade," he tells me. The photo was later enlarged and is on display today at the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv.

The Josef Begun at my side is arguably the second most famous Jewish Prisoner of Zion from the darkest days of the Soviet empire. Natan Sharansky may be somewhat better known, but Begun's story is at least as fascinating. And Begun is "one up" on Sharansky in some things: he was arrested for the final time a week before Sharansky and liberated only after Sharansky had been freed. The two were held in the same prison for a while.

* * *

I continue my discussion with Begun the day after Yom Kippur.

He had grown up in Moscow and received the best scientific and mathematical training available in Russia. While the Soviet Union treated Jews as second-class inferiors and discriminated against them in almost everything, it was also desperate for the brainpower of well-trained engineers and scientists, even if the brains were lodged inside Jewish heads.

Begun finished his Ph.D. in engineering at a young age, and by the 1960s — when he was in his 30s — the lifestyle and perquisites of the Soviet scientific elite were wide open to him.

His parents had known some Yiddish but refused to speak it with him when he was a child, lest he suffer for being Jewish during the iron rule of Comrade Stalin. He was vaguely aware of being Jewish, in part because he had a fistfight with a neighbor's kid after the latter called him a zhid — a derogatory term for a Jew.

"Why do I have to be a Jew?" he asked his mother.

The young Begun saw that in the Soviet Union every other ethnic group had its own media, theaters, newspapers, literature.

"But there was nothing at all about or related to Jews," he tells me. "During the 'Khrushchev thaw' that followed the death of Stalin, there was just the first slight availability of some materials with a Jewish connection, mainly a Yiddish newspaper, largely containing political propaganda. I wanted to read it because it would occasionally carry items of Jewish cultural interest, like stories by Shalom Aleichem about the perils of Jewish life under the czar.

"I decided I wanted to learn Yiddish, but in all of Moscow I could not find a single textbook or tutor. I also searched for books about Jewish history or culture, and found that there were none in the entire city."

He occasionally went to the one remaining synagogue in Moscow, which was under constant KGB surveillance and where only a handful of elderly Jews dared attend services. There he met an old man who had been a yeshiva student back when the czar was still in power. The old man was desperately poor, living in a tiny one-room apartment and constantly harassed by anti-Semitic neighbors.

Begun asked the old man if he would teach him Yiddish.

"Why do you want to learn Yiddish?" the old man asked. "Why don't you learn Hebrew instead?"

"Hebrew?" Begun asked. "What is Hebrew?"

"Well," he responded, "it is the language spoken in Israel and it is the language of the Bible."

"Bible?" Begun asked. "What is that?"

Begun took lessons from the old man, at first just in Hebrew language, then later in Chumash. "And I felt my eyes and soul opening up," he tells me.

At the time he believed he was the only person in the entire Soviet Union who was studying Hebrew. He had a small grammar textbook he kept on his person at all times, afraid that someone — even his wife or friends — would see it.

Shortly after the Six-Day War, one of Begun's mathematics students mentioned to him that he was interested in studying Esperanto, an "international language" invented by mixing strands of existing languages.

"On a dangerous whim — I guess I decided he looked trustworthy, and maybe I was just trying to impress him that I was also studying a language — I took out my Hebrew textbook and showed it to him.

"To my amazement, he broke out in fluent flowing Hebrew. He was Karl Malkin, one of the early teachers in the underground Hebrew movement in Moscow, and one of the leading Moscow Zionists. He told me about scores of others studying Hebrew: a complete network of secret ulpan study groups.

"Even better, he had Jewish books, including a Russian translation of the book Exodus, the most prized possession for all members of the growing Soviet Jewish underground.

"The movement was centered around a group of refuseniks — young people who had applied for emigration visas and were turned down. It was amazing — they organized lectures with foreign and local speakers and classes on Judaism and Israel."

I smile. I tell him that in 1978 I gave a talk in Moscow on Israel's economic problems to one such group. It was the first public lecture in Hebrew I ever gave in my life. The host's Hebrew was better than my own.

* * *

In early 1971, having resigned from the military research institute at which he'd worked on radar technology and hoping his "sensitive worker" classification would be forgotten, Begun applied for an emigration visa for Israel.

Because of the growing outcry against the persecution of Soviet Jews, voiced especially in the United States, a slow but growing trickle of exit visas was being granted. But anyone deemed to have "secrets" or special skills was being turned down by the Soviet authorities. As one of the country's leading mathematicians and engineers, he was granted a thundering NYET.

Moreover, once he had applied for the visa, he became a political pariah, barred from any work in his professions. So he decided instead to become a fulltime Hebrew teacher. There was a large demand for such teachers in Moscow in those days.

One problem was that he had a limited Hebrew vocabulary and some of his students kept catching up with him. So he had to master new words and rules of grammar just to stay ahead of them.

Another, more pressing, problem was that the regime did not recognize Hebrew teaching as a legitimate profession but rather as "socially undesirable" behavior — along the same lines as prostitution. There were serious penalties against those not employed in jobs the regime regarded as "productive."

Begun petitioned the authorities to recognize "Hebrew teacher" as his profession and as a bona fide job. They refused. He even went to the tax offices in Moscow to declare his income as a Hebrew teacher and to pay income tax. Officials sent his money back, refusing to accept it.

Those were the days when the Helsinki Group of dissidents was formed in Russia, led by Andrei Sakharov, Alexander Ginzburg and Anatoly Sharansky, ostensibly to promote the Soviet Union's abiding by the Helsinki Accords to which it was a signatory. The Soviet leadership was not amused; it harassed and arrested dissidents. The political climate was changing for the worse

"I began to receive regular warnings that I was in danger of being indicted as a 'social parasite,' as someone not working," he recalls. "I responded to each warning by telling them of my full-time employment as a Hebrew teacher. After a year and a half the police indeed arrested me and I was charged with social parasitism.

"I defiantly wore a kippah in the courtroom. Students came to my 'trial' to testify that they had paid me for lessons and so I was employed. Nothing mattered. I was sentenced to nearly two years' exile in Siberia in the Kolimar region, 10,000 kilometers from Moscow."

The journey took 63 days. It was Begun's first introduction to the infamous Gulag Archipelago. He was ordered to live in a remote mining village where he worked as an electrical technician in a factory. It was here that the famous photo was taken. When he was finally released, he was prohibited from living or coming within 100 kilometers of Moscow. After all, he was now a released felon.

But he had a young son from his first wife living in Moscow, and he had adopted the son of his second wife. He would defy the ban and sneak into Moscow to visit them. He was stopped twice by the KGB while in Moscow and released with a warning. Under the Soviet version of a "three strikes" law, the third time he was caught they arrested him. While waiting for his trial in 1978 he went on a hunger strike.

The prison guards tried to force-feed him through a tube up his nose, but he resisted, and by the time he was dragged into a courtroom his hunger strike was 43 days old. Unable to stand, he passed out before he could give the speech he'd prepared. The judge cynically wrote in the protocols, "The accused refused to answer the questions he was asked." Begun was deported back to Siberia to serve a three-year sentence, shipped there in a cattle car with starving and violent common criminals.

He was eventually released, but it was still very much the pre-Gorbachev era and dissent was a risky undertaking. The 1980 Moscow Olympics were in the making and the regime wanted no protests or dissidents ruining its showcase festivities. Dr. Victor Brailovsky, a leading Moscow Jewish activist, was among those arrested. (He would later serve as a Knesset member and Israeli interior minister.)

But Begun refused to be cowed and published articles in the Western media on the plight of Soviet Jews. In one famous article he denounced the "cultural genocide" of Russian Jews being perpetrated by the regime, a slogan that came to be the rallying cry of the movement to free Soviet Jewry.

The KGB was not playing around. Begun was arrested in 1982 and indicted for "undermining the regime" and for "anti-Soviet activities," meaning treason, the Soviet catch-term for dissidence. Hebrew teachers were arrested by the score (one of those taken away was Yuli Edelstein, who today serves as Israel's diaspora affairs minister).

This was to be Begun's third conviction, making him the Soviet Union's version of a habitual criminal. While awaiting trial he was held in the infamous Vladimir prison — the same facility that had held Sharansky and Joseph Mendelevich. His beard was forcibly shaved off.

In 1983 he was sentenced to twelve years of prison and Siberian exile. He responded to the sentence by yelling "Am Yisrael Chai" at the judge.

He continued to study Judaism with a group of other Jews in prison and they celebrated every Jewish holiday. They called it their "prison ulpan." One prisoner made a menorah for Chanukah out of a dead tree. They sang Shlomo Carlebach melodies, especially the one about the Valley of the Shadow of Death. (After Begun's release, one of his most exciting visits was with Carlebach himself.)

Freed at last in 1987, Begun had become a legend and a household name among those in the movement to rescue Soviet Jewry. Mikhail Gorbachev was in power, and glasnost and perestroika were official policies. But, says Begun, it was President Ronald Reagan, who got him released.

"President Reagan kept a bracelet with my name on it in the White House, which he got from American Jewish leaders, and he gave it to me after my release," Begun recalls. "He kept it on his coffee table as long as I was in prison."

Today Begun lives in Jerusalem, where he runs a publishing house that brings important Jewish books to readers in Russian translation. He is in the process of publishing his memoirs. He speaks with Jewish students and other groups in the U.S., Russia, Israel, and even here in Hungary, where a film about his life, "Through Struggle You Will Gain your Rights," was screened between Yom Kippur and Sukkot this fall.

"I felt so happy yesterday in the Yom Kippur services with all the young people visiting from Israel," he says.

"I felt like I was seeing with my own eyes the coming of Torah out of Zion, here to Budapest."

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 20, 2009.

It is unfortunate that Israel, under a succession of incompetent Prime Ministers, has never been able to anticipate and act decisively before the U.N. and the Muslim Arab Palestinian Terrorists mounted a well-organized dis-information propaganda campaign against Israel — worldwide.

Has Israel's current Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu proven to be no different in pre-emptively defending Israel than his predecessors? First thoughts ask "What will the Goyim think?" Why do the Israeli leaders seem so unresponsive to imminent danger and unable to present their case of justice to the world bodies who consider themselves capable of deciding what is justice when Israel acts in righteous self-defense?

This below is from the October 17, 2009 DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis.


With friends like these...

The Netanyahu government's slow-moving, lackadaisical handling of the Goldstone Commission mandated for accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza, played into the hands of a coalition formed to strip the Israeli military of legitimacy as a defensive strike force against Iran's fast-moving nuclear weapons program and its Middle East allies' missile arsenals. Those missiles are poised to strike Israel's population centers if Iran is attacked.

Israel had — and still has — plenty of moral, diplomatic and strategic tools for defending itself. They were not applied and so this hostile coalition was allowed to strike Israel on three fronts in the last fortnight: Turkish prime minister Tayyep Recip Erdogan's unleashed an unbridled assault on the Jewish state; Muslim riots suddenly flared on Temple Mount; and the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas changed his mind and pushed for a special UN Human Rights Commission session Friday, Oct. 16, to endorse the Goldstone report, after first accepting its postponement to March.

This sequence of events came together inexorably in Geneva where a predictable majority of the UNHRC voted to refer Israel's alleged war crimes to the UN Security Council, while omitting to mention Hamas' culpability.

The motivation behind this run of events was verified by its sequel:

Saturday, Muslim and Arab media, notably London-based news organizations, "predicted" that Israel would react to its "growing diplomatic isolation" with a "crazy military adventure" that would inflame the entire Middle East.

Al the region's ills past and present were thus laid at Israel's door and its military discredited from that day on.

The British prime minister Gordon Brown and French president Nicolas Sarkozy played along with this trend, first by staying out of the vote and second by then writing a letter to the Israeli prime minister, which smoothly confirmed Israel's right to defend itself — calling it "an emotive issue" — without explaining why they failed to raise a finger against a UN motion denying this right.

In their letter, Brown and Sarkozy, who call themselves friends of Israel, expressed the hope that the international airing of the Gaza report would help promote peace negotiations because peace was the best safeguard for Israel's security. Thus, with typical European hypocrisy, the two leaders committed themselves to helping the hate-Israel ball to continue rolling through international bodies which everyone knows are permanently loaded against the Jewish state by a majority of human-rights violators and tyrants.

Israel's "emotiveness" was first invoked 39 years ago when Leila Khaled of the Palestinian Popular Liberation Front tried to hijack an El Al flight on Sept. 6, 1970, en route from Amsterdam to New York. Her accomplice was Patrick Arguella of Nicaragua, member of the Carlos international terrorist group, then backed by Russian intelligence.

The Israeli crew overpowered the two terrorists and the flight landed safely in London carrying Arguella's body, Khaled tied up and a planeload of relieved passengers.

Then too the Foreign Office found the pilot over-emotional. And 24 hours later, the British authorities coolly released the Palestinian terrorist without charge although she had been armed with two grenades ready to detonate in midair. That free British pass for a terrorist endangers international aviation up to the present day. Nothing else appears to have changed in London.

Yet the Israeli prime minister continued to believe that calling European leaders in person and a charm campaign among them would be enough to reduce the fallout from the Goldstone report.

After the event — and much too late — Netanyahu's office issued a determined statement Saturday: "We shall delegitimize all those who attack the legitimacy of our military. We'll be every place where anti-Israel and anti-Semite forces are active."

He vowed to mobilize all Israel's best resources for building a task team to combat the fallout from the UNHRC resolution and put its recommendations before a special cabinet meeting — a process that will consume several more wasted weeks.

So how will this change the attitudes of the British and French leaders and line Europe up against the anti-Israel resolution?

And how will the Israeli government protect its top officials and generals from prosecution in the countries who voted for it or abstained?

Those are good questions given the Netanyahu government's tame reaction to the crisis in Turkey's relations with Israel: "Not everyone in Turkey is like Erdogan" or "Relations must be restored to their normal track without delay."

They are dreaming. Erdogan's violent anti-Israel and borderline anti-Semitic attitude is no passing phase. Israel must reconcile itself to the loss of this valuable ally and forget the friendly ties between the two air forces because the Islamic party ruling Turkey has gone fishing in extremist waters.

Netanyahu must also stop calling on the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to sit down and discuss peace without preconditions. Abbas has lost the Gaza Strip and the support of half of his people. To win them back, he has embarked on a rejectionist course in competition with the extremist Islamic Hamas. Two of the most dangerous powder kegs simmering in the Middle East today are not located in Washington or Paris but in Ramallah, 10 kilometers north of Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip 78 kilometers to the south.

Israel has a boxful of powerful tools for dealing with the two Palestinian governments.

If sanctions are legitimate penalties for Iran, why not economic sanctions against the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah for setting the Human Rights Council loose against Israel and its military?

Why should Israeli soldiers, called "war criminals by Palestinians and copycat Israel Arabs, grant special passes for Palestinian VIPs to exit the West Bank at night and go partying in Israeli towns?

Why does the Netanyahu government continue to release INS 220 million (app. $50 million) every month to the Gaza Strip knowing that the Hamas uses the money to rebuild the smuggling tunnels Israel destroyed in its Cast Lead operation in January?

By charging customs duty on all smuggled goods funneled into Gaza through the tunnels, the Hamas regime has turned them into a going concern with the help of revenue from Israel. The same income also funds its military operations.

After Israel dismantled more than 100 West Bank roadblocks as requested by the Obama administration, the Palestinians proceeded to turn the Goldstone Report and the UN Human Rights Council into one large roadblock for Israeli travelers abroad. At the very least, put the roadblocks back.

But most all, the government headed by Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman is painfully slow-moving and cumbersome in the diplomatic-strategic arena.

The Goldstone report did not pop up this Friday. The panel started work on April 3, 2009 under a predetermined UNHRC mandate targeting Israel. The government had seven months at the very least prepare a counter-report documenting 10 years of murderous Palestinian campaigns specifically targeting Israeli civilians, women and children, and their consistent violation of every rule and standard of armed conflict and human rights.

This document should have been prepared in good time and handed in to the international court at The Hague with a list of the guilty Palestinian officials, some still in responsible positions with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.

The Palestinian delegate would then not have dared remark brazenly Saturday: "Anybody who kills children for no reason, or civilians should be prosecuted."

One reason why the Middle East suddenly finds itself on a hazardous course today harks back to one of Barack Obama's first acts as US president, which was to reach out to the Muslim world, including the Palestinians, in his June 4 speech at Cairo University. His conciliatory words planted high hopes in their minds that he was on their side and willing to squeeze Israel for gains which had eluded them in years of terror and military belligerence.

They misread his intentions: Obama sought to achieve peace for Israel with its Arab neighbors and the Palestinians, a tough call which all his predecessors in the White House had missed attaining, while the Arabs hoped to use Obama's goodwill to neutralize Israel's powerful military strength.

Feeling cheated of this hope, they proceeded to enlist the world, so far successfully, for disarming the IDF by having it discredited and criminalized.

The Palestinian-led campaign has nearly closed Israel's window of opportunity for striking Iran's nuclear weapons facilities; Netanyahu and his advisers were too slow off the mark. He will have to move fast and hit hard to turn the negative tide back.

His government may not be able to avoid establishing a credible panel of inquiry to rebut Goldstone's allegations for the sake of an US veto at the UN Security Council against the report's referral to the international war crimes tribunal. It could have been set up quietly without outside pressure months ago and validated the exhaustive probes carried out by the IDF of every single complaint arising from the Gaza offensive.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 20, 2009.

On several occasions bureaucrats of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) offices have on their own authority, requested to be removed from our E-mail List. Usually those requests came from dedicated Leftists. While the ADL purports to defend the Jewish people against anti-Semites, nevertheless, there are employees who have their own agenda.

Since we offer information which alerts pro-Jewish, pro-Israel people (including our Christian friends).

I wonder if the ADL has revised its agenda to accommodate the hostile Left or those in the U.S. Government whose agenda is supportive of Islamists, namely, Iran, Syria, Fatah, Hamas, Hezb'Allah....

You may wish to inquire of Debby Leinwand, Office Manager of the Jerusalem office of the ADL at — as to who else she has closed off from reaching a publically supported institution.

Of course, we will remove this ADL office from our opt-in/opt-out list. But, I wonder if Abe Foxman, who we and you should contact, knows what is being done in the Jerusalem ADL?

Gail & Emanuel A. Winston


Please remove us from your list.
Debby Leinwand, Office Manager
Anti Defamation League Israel
PH: 972-2-5667741
FAX: 972-2-5667742
MOBILE: 972-54-5312170

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, October 20, 2009.

For three long years, the United States, Britain, and France kept the secret while their intelligence services shared information they had been gathering on what appeared to be a top secret underground nuclear weapons plant near Qom.

At the very last minute, just four days before the allies planned to shock the world by revealing detailed information on the secret nuclear plant, the Iranian government sent a tersely worded letter acknowledging the existence of the site to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and pledged to open it for future inspections.

"Someone leaked," says Danielle Pletka, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, who works extensively on U.S. policy toward Iran. "Someone informed the Iranians that we knew about the plant, prompting them to write to the IAEA. "

The consequences of that leak may prove fatal to the effort by Western powers to curb Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions short of war. The leak allowed the Iranians to defuse a tense standoff with a Western alliance united as never before. [...]

Several Iranian sources with close ties to Western intelligence agencies believe that a defector from the IRGC named Brig. Gen. Ali Reza Asghari provided key information on the Qom facility. Asghari was debriefed by U.S. intelligence in the spring of 2007, and by French intelligence in late summer.

Read the full story here:
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_qom_/ 2009/10/20/274307.html

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a contributing editor for Newsmax Media and author of "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran." This article appeared today in Newsmax.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, October 20, 2009.

"What many could not understand was how an army which even some German generals considered the strongest in Europe could be defeated so quickly and easily. So staggering were the losses — 90,000 dead, 200,000 wounded, more than one and a half million taken prisoner — ..." This is the story of France in 1939 (as told by Don & Petie Kladstrup in 2002).

"The most important arena where we need to act ... is in the arena of public opinion, which is crucial in the democratic world. We must continue to debunk this lie that is spreading with the help of the Goldstone report." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

On Tuesday, October 20, 2009, a Ministerial Committee on National Security convened for the first time in Israel to discuss the implications of the Goldstone Report recently adopted by the UN Human Rights Council. A new unit will be established in the Ministry of Justice in coordination with the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor to handle legal proceedings taking place overseas against the State of Israel, or against its citizens, which require legal handling and special coordination.

A Jewish person headed the Goldstone Report and the investigation leading to its publication. The White House Chief of Staff is Jewish. He orchestrates the President's disengagement from Israel and the constant attacks by the Nobel Laureate (Peace, 2009) on Israel to "freeze settlements" and allow the creation of an enemy state from within, with Jerusalem as its capital.

When it is time to hit Israel again, more forceful than before, what better way than to use the Jews themselves to do the job? There is an army of willing participants, many standing ready to volunteer to badmouth Israel, subjugate the Jewish State to poison and administer death. They are of our own, aided and abated by true enemies of the Jewish State.

Two young Israeli women, age 18, objecting to military service, are on a speaking tour in the USA attacking Israel. The goal justifies the means, and their homeland can be sacrificed along the way. So eager they are to do the right thing, and yet so little did either one accomplished in her lifetime. Military service is mandatory in Israel, making a youth into a responsible young adult. The IDF is a melting pot, in which race, educational background, affluence and other factors disappear and are replaced by a common thread, yielding a proud Israeli citizen.

So what is wrong with the Goldstone Report or the UN decision? A vote was taken, and Israel is now accused of committing war crimes. Add this latest "substantiation of charges" by a dignified and reliable world body to blood libels raging on for many months and the recipe is now complete.

Israeli soldiers murdering children, the narrative created and filmed for television near the Western Wall by Turkish Television. Israeli soldiers harvesting organs from young Arab males for sale on the international black market as reported on Swedish leading newspaper (based on rumors and innuendos). These blood libels are a perfect tool used by the enemy, inflaming an already agitated world concerned that the root-cause of all things evil is Israel's settlements and the "occupation of Palestine. "

Much like a defendant of frivolous litigation, Israel needs to invest enormous resources to protect herself and her people, time and again, although her success rate exhibits fast-diminishing returns. The reason is not the fast-escalating intensity of the attacks, rather it is Israel persuading herself she is doing just fine and thus either excusing the enemy from within or doing little if anything to wage a true war against the baseless accusations and accusers.

The poison drips slowly into the patient's IV. The patient does not look delirious, on the contrary, she advocates increasing the rate of flow.

It was not that long ago when prominent members of Israel's own academia accused her of being an Apartheid state. They called for a boycott on Israel to be carried out by all thinking and responsible individuals, corporations and governments. I wrote at that time to a doctor who practices in Israel that one consequence of defending the "right" of an "out-fringe" to do what some of his colleagues are doing is making it his problem.

The issue will come back to haunt him, I warned. It is not unlikely that the doctor, a lieutenant colonel in the reserves, will soon be accused himself of committing war crimes. God only knows this is further from all possible truth.

The esteemed president of the university named after Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion sat here in Beverly Hills and essentially dismissed the whole affair. Her concern was with the continued flow of money from the Diaspora, and all means were acceptable, despite being short-lived, shortsighted and lacking in vision.

The day has arrived, requiring immediate corrective action, a new approach, a vision. Israel has no one to blame but herself. The Jewish Homeland is completely surrounded. Raging fires many stories high engulf her from all sides. For fires of such intensity and magnitude, special equipment is necessary, yet Israel has not fathomed the wisdom to counteract these fires or even obtain the necessary equipment.

It was during Operation Cast Lead that then leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister Netanyahu, invited the foreign press to tour the south. We went from 45-seconds-from-launch (the city of Ashdod) to 30-seconds-from-launch (the city of Ashkelon). As we arrived at each city we were greeted by a bombardment of rockets launched by peace-loving "Palestinians" living under the "siege of Gaza."

Our buses were not protected and we were not immune, but it seems that this field trip was to end well and we were soon to arrive back to the safety of the center of Israel.

I remember the time in the bus and later at the hospital, As Netanyahu and most other politicians came for photo-ops. Netanyahu answered very eloquently, as always. He was no longer "leader of the Opposition." Israel was all one. Honorable, but given a one-on-one discussion later in the bus with his top advisers, tired of yet another successful day, the truth was revealed: Israel was doing well!

The same sentiment was shared not only by Netanyahu's top advisers but others as well including the Foreign Minister and head of the ruling party, Livni. With the Foreign Ministry at her disposal (often used as the party's own PR firm), Livni failed to lead. The top echelon of the Ministry in a makeshift bunker at the front-line in Sderot, 15-seconds-from-launch, was telling tales of wonder, how well the country was doing, how magnificently they were faring internationally.

Given Israel's deep failures in 2006 during the Second War in Lebanon, Israel was indeed implementing basic improvements. Yet, the fact that the IDF Spokesperson's unit spoke in one voice, organized and orchestrated, did not amount to "victory" or even to "success."

The lack of dozens and hundreds of commentators from within the ranks of the IDF simply reminded one that an army needs to run like an army and military service is not made-for-TV. Starting to utilize social networks was not a great discovery either, just arriving to the right point of time on a timeline.

A minority sounded the alarm, claiming that Israel is failing in its public diplomacy efforts. Those who thought differently then and still believe Israel should not and cannot be held responsible should take a few steps aside and spend a few minutes reading the Goldstone Report. Dismissing it as well will not work this time around, the next stumbling block is a few feet ahead. As it was said in a previous war: "Gentleman, you are about to witness the most famous victory in history" (Hitler to his generals, May 9, 1940).

Among the minority calling for a change of direction was an image of the past, the "face of Israel" from the First Persian Gulf War. He knew from experience the importance of public diplomacy, and the signs of failure were evident all around. Unfortunately, he was busy running for the parliament, and although elected, the powers to be are the same Netanyahu top advisers who knew before we were doing well.

Once in power, the gang of advisers did not waste any time or other resources for nine months to plan and get ready. Act? Execute? Why bother when you have convinced yourself you are right and winning?

Twenty years ago Israel did not have a Home Command. The First Persian Gulf War and Saddam Hussein taught Israel a lesson the hard way. In 2009 Israel still does not have the proper Diplomacy Front. Indeed, there are numerous entities, from a huge bureaucratic Foreign Ministry to a new "Hasbara" (public diplomacy and information) Ministry to the IDF to a plethora of other NGOs and well-meaning individuals. The sum total of this effort — a total and utter failure — can be summarized in the Goldstone Report's astounding success: Blame Israel for defending herself.

Israel needs decisive action. Israel needs the courage to act, whatever the consequences. Most importantly, Israel needs a vision, a new direction and the strength to follow through. Lacking these, she may find herself facing a new exile, one she cannot afford.

In the series "Postcards from Israel," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel's on the ground, Zager's counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related — the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts — and so is this "point-counter-point" presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives. Feel free to share with others. Contact them at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 20, 2009.


Palestinian Arabs threw a firebomb at a passing Israeli, critically injuring him. The victim managed to get himself to a junction, where an ambulance fetched him. In two other attacks, Arabs threw rocks at Israeli cars, damaging the cars.

South of Hebron, Arabs threw rocks at a car with an Israeli license plate. The driver, an Israeli Arab, was treated by the Red Crescent and then transferred to Red Star of David

Same day, an injured Palestinian Arab came to an IDF base in the Jordan Valley. Israeli soldiers administered first aid, and then had an IDF helicopter transport him to an Israeli hospital,

Same day, four Israelis entered the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) city of Tulkarm, without permission. P.A. police turned them over to Israeli police (www.imra.org.il and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/18).

What slices of life do these incidents show?

1.By definition, the intended victims of terrorist attacks are civilians, but they are not always are the ones intended.

2. Israel needs bypass roads to protect Jewish motorists and needs checkpoints to keep terrorists away from Israelis and Israelis out of the P.A.;

3. The new IDF rule not to shoot fire-bombers except in the lower legs and only if they are about to attack, on the assumption that fire-bombing is not dangerous, is mistaken. It also is foolish — fire-bombers who escape may strike again.

4. The IDF treats injured Arabs humanely. The P.A. police treated Israelis humanely this time, but that probably is in the interest of short-term diplomacy, seeking a deal. At other times, they lynch them.

I have seen no condemnation of this terrorism by the usual anti-Zionists. One cannot take their assertion of humanitarian concern seriously.


The U.S. and Israel are about to hold joint exercises, after Turkey barred Israel from a multi-national exercise. The exercises may be done to lull Israeli skepticism of the U.S., especially regarding the grave decision whether to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, as President Obama bonds with Iran and caves in to Russia (Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary, 10/18).


Remember that national intelligence estimate that claimed that Iran had discontinued development of nuclear weapons. The estimate was known to be fraudulent, at the time. However, it succeeded in its purpose, to sabotage President' Bush's inclination to take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.

The latest information on this is that the U.S. intelligence agencies are considering re-writing the report to take into account the public knowledge that Iran had a secret, second, solely military reactor in operation.

The original estimate was subversive. The new estimate would be to cover up their subversion. It likely would be completed too late to stop Iran.

Will the President and his Congress investigate this subversion? (Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary, 10/18).

Were I the President, I would not tolerate subversion, even if it supported my opinion. We must not leave subversives in place. Unfortunately, Congress investigates little of import, these years. The government never investigated the subversion that Pollard encountered when it secretly withheld intelligence promised to Israel. The subversives successfully deflected all indignation onto Pollard, who merely reacted to their subversion.

Other aspects of the intelligence estimate have come out, making its deception even more underhanded. The subversives who wrote the estimate were sent in by the State Dept., which thereby imposed its policy on President Bush. Their report's details did not support their conclusion, but neither the President nor the media had the courage or intelligence to dismiss the report. The report was quietly refuted by several allied, foreign intelligence agencies, which had evidence to the contrary and which either had shared their evidence with the U.S. or would have if asked. If not asked, why not?

Most damning of all, U.S. intelligence agencies knew at the time about Iran's second reactor. Why aren't they prosecuted for lying about that? They kept the President from his duty to protect the United States of America, as he saw fit.


Hamas teaches children English, because it is the "language of our enemies," whom the children should learn to persuade. Hamas calls Hebrew "the Zionist enemy's language."

Hamas is regaining influence in Judea-Samaria, reports Israeli intelligence (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7).

Should the U.S. donate to the Palestinian Authority, which relays much of it to Hamas?


Who may buy land in Jerusalem? Wars are not the only way to dominate a country. Demographics abetted by land purchases, intimidation, and propaganda is another way. Here is the story.

Not only do Jewish organizations buy land for Jews to live in Jerusalem. Arab states and Arab non-profit organizations buy land for Arabs to live in Jerusalem and Jaffa. The Arabs complain that Jews are "Judaizing" Jerusalem, while they set out to "Islamize" Jerusalem. [The Temple Mount was built by Jews. Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for the past 150 years or longer. In this issue, the Arabs have yet another double standard.]

Now Arabs are going further, and asking President Obama to bar tax-exempt U.S. organizations from buying land in Jerusalem for Jews. That would leave tax-exempt U.S. organizations buying land in Jerusalem for Arabs, much of it to be built illegally. U.S.A.I.D. already is donating millions of dollars for illegal Arab building. Meanwhile, Obama incorrectly denounces Jewish building in Judea-Samaria and eastern Jerusalem as illegal.

Jerusalem Jewish activist Aryeh King suggests that since the Palestinian Authority and many Arab governments bar Jews from buying land there, Israel should bar foreign Arabs from financing land purchase in Israel (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/19).

People will say that Israel should not let the Arabs set the example and ethics for the Jews. True. But that is not the issue, here. The issue is that a country has a right to protect its culture from a society that intends to destroy it. Self-preservation against the intolerant pre-empts notions of futile tolerance toward intolerant, would-be conquerors.

I think that Israel should bar foreign funds destined for subversion. That would include Saudi land funds, U.S.A.I.D., and EU and New Israel Fund donations to subversive leftist or Arab organizations in Israel.

I grew up at a time when subversion was a serious issue. However, Americans seemed to have the luxury of not being under so great a threat of takeover that it had to have laws against subversive organizations. It had some such laws. The Feinberg Law requiring a loyalty oath in New York State failed to uproot Communists but got decent teachers, who opposed loyalty oaths on principle, fired. The U.S. maintained its standard of "clear and present danger" from incitement.

Israel is different. It has been under existential threat for decades. It faces a large Arab fifth column, terrorism, and heavily armed foreign foes. Arab blood libel so often leads to bloody assault, that it poses a "clear and present danger."


A Jew donated land to Hebrew University in eastern Jerusalem. Four years ago, Hebrew University sold the land to Arabs intending to have houses built for themselves there. Jewish nationalist activist, Aryeh King, said that such a sale was not the purpose of the donation (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/19).

As that situation is presented, Mr. King would be correct. Considering that the Arabs are bidding, again, to take over Israel, the sale was unethical.

In the U.S. we try not to base sales on ethnicity. But we have a similar problem of bequests. People have donated to universities for specified purposes, legal in the U.S.. Universities have accepted such funds under the specified conditions. But spend it on other purposes. A number of foundations and other donors are suing the universities for their violation of agreed-upon conditions.


The testimony of the half dozen Israelis before the Goldstone mission was omitted from its report (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/19).

Judge Goldstone complained that the UN Human Rights Council resolution approving the report omitted its condemnation of Hamas and included charges against Israel not founded on the report.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the UN warns that the report sets precedent for unjustifiably calling U.S. self-defense war crimes. He said that in for UN members, condemning Israel serves as a proxy for condemning the U.S..

This precedent and the unreasonable report confirm President Bush's decision to shun the so-called Human Rights Council. It shows the fallacy of President Obama's decision to "engage" the Council. The Obama administration excuse for the current fiasco is the prior American absence from the Council. But Obama couldn't do anything with the Council (Wall St. Journal, 10/19).

The Obama administration, like its campaign, made up bogeymen and excuses. That is a human temptation.

The Council sent off a mission not to find anything out but as a pretext for condemning Israel regardless of what the report contains and omits. It condemns Israel partly because Israel's enemies are in charge, and partly to set precedent for condemning the U.S.. There is a global strategy of aggrandizing international organizations at the expense of nations. This is dangerous for democracy and a boon for aggressors. The Obama administration would be wise to withdraw from the Council and its funding, and to turn on it.


Spain expelled the Israelis from an international university competition in solar construction being held in Spain. The team of architects and solar experts from the Ariel University Center of Samaria in Ariel were in the finals.

Ariel University Center of Samaria has 10,000 students, of whom about 500 are Arabs. [Its orientation is Jewish nationalist; it conducts itself with tolerance.]

The Israeli team had spent two years working with the Spanish government and the affair's management. The management awarded the team a 100,000 Euro grant to build a model house.

A group calling itself Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, involved with the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC) complained about the Israelis' presence. The Spanish government evicted them [the Israelis, not the censors], "based on the fact that the university is located in occupied territory in the West Bank." This boycott is not EU policy.

Ariel University responded. It "'rejects with disgust the one-sided announcement.' It claimed the decision 'contravenes international law and international charters on academic freedom.'"

What is Spain like about such matters? "In 2007, the Madrid municipality of Ciempozuelos cancelled its observance of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, preferring to highlight what it termed the 'genocide of the Palestinian people' by the Jews.'" [What genocide against that growing population?]

"In February 2009, El Mundo, a leading Spanish newspaper, published an openly anti-Semitic column by columnist Antonio Gala which identified 'Jewish greed' as the cause of the persecution of Jews throughout history." [A major cause of that persecution is gentile greed, for the persecution enables debtors to escape creditors and for Nazis and Arabs to wring billions of dollars from Jews.]

"This month, the same newspaper decided to publish an interview with the discredited British Holocaust denier David Irving, found by a British court to be 'anti-Semitic and racist,' as part of its coverage of the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War." [One infers that this coverage was positive.]

By contrast, "Ignacio Russell Cano, a Spanish journalist, wrote in 2007 that, 'In a country whose citizenship leaped into the streets to protest the Lebanon war, carrying swastikas to denounce Israel's existence as part of the [only] western government congratulated by [Hizballah chief Hassan] Nasrallah himself in one of his fatwa-speeches... no one in Spain — Osama, Chávez, Castro, Putin, and Ahmadinejad — is so heavily attacked by [the government] as Israel.'"

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) commented that any rationale to boycott the Jewish state and Israeli institutions is just a spurious pretext. One may judge by the fact that no one boycotts Chinese academics because of that country's genuine and frightening record of repression at home and brutal occupation of Tibet. This university boycott "is nothing other than part of a campaign to demonize Jews and the Jewish state of Israel, period." If Spain does not rescind its decision, people of goodwill should drop Spain from their itineraries (ZOA press release, 9/30).

Boycotts have their place. Instead of boycotting a tolerant university, why not boycott the universities of the Palestinian Authority, which are intolerant and indoctrinate in bigoted violence?

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Hana Levi Julian, October 20, 2009.

A former NASA scientist has been arrested on charges of attempting to spy for Israel, but there were no allegations that the Israeli government was involved. FBI agents arrested Stewart David Nozette, 52, a resident of Chevy Chase, Maryland, on Monday. He will be arraigned Tuesday in Washington.

The criminal complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice alleged that Nozette attempted to pass classified information to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence agent from the Mossad. The complaint charges that Nozette communicated, delivered and transmitted information tagged as Classified, Secret and Top Secret to an individual he believed to be a member of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency.

Nozette developed the Clementine bistatic radar experiment that was said to have discovered water on the south pole of the Earth's moon. He worked in a California laboratory for the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1999, and held a security clearance equivalent to top secret and critical nuclear weapon design information clearance at the Department of Defense. From 1989 to 1990, Nozette worked in various other jobs that included positions at the National Department of Aeronautics and Space, and in the National Space Council in the president's office. He also held a top position at the Alliance for Competitive Technology, which held agreements with the U.S. government to develop advanced technology.

The former scientist allegedly informed undercover FBI agent Leslie Martell on September 3, 2009 that in the past he had had top security clearance and had access to U.S. satellite information. According to an affidavit filed by Martell, Nozette allegedly said he would be willing to share this information in exchange for payment.

The affidavit further alleged that Nozette asked for an Israeli passport and said he would provide regular, continuing feeds of information.

On September 4, the agent met again with Nozette, who told him that he no longer had access to classified information but had it memorized. He also requested payments of under $10,000 in cash so that he would not have to report it to the Internal Revenue Service, reminding the agent, "They don't expect me to do this for free."

On September 10 undercover FBI agents dropped off a list of questions related to classified U.S. satellite information in a designated mail box at a post office, and a payment of $2,000 in cash. The serial numbers of the dollar bills were recorded by the FBI.

On September 16 Nozette was filmed by a hidden video camera depositing a sealed manila envelope into the post office box. When the agents picked up the envelope the next day, they found a one-page list of answers to their questions about the U.S. satellite information — including one secret item — an encrypted flash drive, and other items.

The next day FBI agents left another letter in the box with a second list of questions about U.S. satellite information, and a cash payment of $9,000. According to the affidavit, Nozette picked up the envelope the same day.

On October 1, Nozette was filmed allegedly dropping off the answers to the questions in a sealed manila envelope which he deposited in the post office box. These answers included Secret and Top Secret information. Among the information were items on early warning systems, communications intelligence, defense strategy, means of defense of retaliation against a large-scale attack and other information involving U.S. satellites.

Since the arrest and conviction of Jonathan Pollard on charges of spying for Israel more than 20 years ago, all Israeli officials have been instructed to avoid any activity that might be perceived as information gathering in the U.S. They have also been ordered to reject any approach by citizens — U.S. or others — who volunteer to provide intelligence or other information, or otherwise spy for Israel.

Hana Levi Julian writes for Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews)

To Go To Top

Posted by NGO Monitor, October 20, 2009.

Robert L. Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch, published a very important critique of the organization in the New York Times (October 20, 2009) called "Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast." In declaring his decision to "publicly join the group's critics," Bernstein endorses the conclusion that HRW has lost all credibility over the Middle East.

Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of Random House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.

Bernstein's op-ed follows publication of NGO Monitor's systematic report demonstrating HRW's blatant bias and lack of credibility on the Middle East. These findings have been amplified by the recent call from leading experts including Elie Wiesel, Prof Alan Dershowitz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey for HRW's board members to "institute a full independent review and reform in the organization."

HRW's moral failures, as denounced by Bernstein, were highlighted by the effort to solicit funds in Saudi Arabia, and exposure of the organization's Middle East division, dominated by anti-Israel activists Sarah Leah Whitson and Joe Stork. Meanwhile 'senior military analyst' Marc Garlasco, responsible for many claims used to condemn Israel, was revealed to be an obsessive collector of Nazi memorabilia.

During this time, HRW has played a leading role in lobbying intensively on behalf of the discredited Goldstone report. Richard Goldstone himself was an HRW board member until forced to resign when NGO Monitor noted the conflict of interest.


As the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group's critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China's laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch's Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch's criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

The NGO Monitor organization (www.ngo-monitor.org) promotes critical debate and accountability of human rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli Conflict.

Note that the original article contained dynamic

To Go To Top

Posted by David Ha'Ivri, October 20, 2009.

RHR encouraging Arab aggression against Jews in Samaria

In recent weeks an organization that calls itself Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) has been encouraging aggression against Jewish lives and property in the Shomron (Samaria). This organization that poses as a human rights watch is actually an aggressive provocation front that works to ignite violence between Jewish and Arabs in Yehuda and Shomron.

Recently the Shomron town Havat Gilad experienced an arson attack that destroyed two houses and sent several area residents to the hospital for treatment of smoke inhalation. This community has been repeatedly targeted by RHR's provocations.

At the same time, RHR has been aiding Arab propaganda efforts by claiming that Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria have been torching Arab olive groves. According to David Ha'Ivri, spokesman for the Shomron Liaison Office, this is a complete fabrication.

"If you follow news reports of supposed arson to olive groves, you would suppose that you would see ashes all over Samaria. The truth, however, is that there are no burnt trees to be seen. In the past, we have known of cases where Arabs have burnt their own trees in order to sue the government and to blame the Jews who returned to their ancestral homeland after the Arab aggression of 1967."

"After a time of relative 'quiet', there has been a rise in Arab rock throwing attacks and I would like to point a finger at groups like RHR foir provoking that violence and then to use the violence as a justification to raise funds to support their activties."

Recently, Arabs who were "harvesting their olives" were arrested after infiltrating the town of Itamar and taking pictures in preparation for a terror attack. Ironically RHR complain about this arrest in their own Harvest Journal.

Similarly, "olive pickers" entered the town of Tapuach West, 700 meters away from their fields, and were chased away by security forces. The Arabs were using the harvest as an excuse to infiltrate the town.

According to Israel National News, Arik Ascherman, the leader of RHR, "led Arabs and foreign activists in an effort to physically prevent thousands of Jewish schoolchildren in the B'nei Akiva youth movement from planting trees in honor of Tu B'Shvat, the Jewish 'New Year for trees.'"

Ascherman was arrested in 2008 for encouraging refusal of police orders by Arabs who were violently disrupting an archeological dig in East Jerusalem. "Rabbi" Ascherman also disrupted attempts to evacuate a Jewish resident of the neighborhood who had been injured during the confrontation.

Former member Rabbi Micha Odenheimer has spoken out against the organization.

"For a long time I'd been protesting that we weren't acting against the terror attacks to the same extent we were working for the Palestinians' rights. This changed us from a human rights organization — because after all, the Jews' right to live is also a part of human rights — into a Palestinian rights organization. The last straw was a paid announcement by the organization against the confiscation of lands in Hebron after the big terror attack [in which twelve Jews were murdered], which didn't say a word against the terror attack itself."

Since Rabbi Odenheimer's resignation, RHR has begun paying lip service to condemnation of Arab terror, while inciting Arabs to violence against Jewish revenants.

David Ha'ivri is with The Shomron Liaison Office. Visit the website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, October 20, 2009.

We turn in prayer towards it three times a day, plead for its speedy rebuilding, and even break a glass at weddings in memory of its grandeur.

But do we really care about Jerusalem? As we watch in silence, control over the Temple Mount has slowly slipped out of Jewish hands, as Israel's police regularly capitulate to threats of violence and terror by Palestinian radicals.

As I argue in the column below from the New York Jewish Press, recent events make clear that we need to translate our concern for Jerusalem into action, and do something to strengthen our collective hold on the Holy City.

Whether through prayer, or politics, or purchasing property, each of us must act to keep Jerusalem Jewish — before it slips through our hands once again.

I would welcome your comments and feedback. This article appeared October 14, 2009 in the New York Jewish Press



For a nation that swore an undying oath of loyalty to Jerusalem more than two millennia ago, we Jews sure have a funny way of showing it.

Indeed, more than four decades may have passed since Israeli soldiers bravely liberated the eastern part of the capital and reunited the city, but our control over its most sacred of sites has never seemed so precarious.

Take, for example, the events of last week. During the course of the Sukkot festival, Israel's police succumbed to threats of violence from Palestinian and Arab leaders and barred non-Muslims from setting foot on the Temple Mount. Muslim women, and men over 50, were of course permitted to ascend freely.

Consider the irony of this situation: the guardians of law and order in the Jewish state saw fit to allow the followers of Muhammad to pray where Solomon's Temple once stood, but not the followers of Moses.

Adding insult to injury was an astonishing, though highly predictable, decision by Israel's Supreme Court, which on October 8 rejected a petition filed against the police over their policy prohibiting Jews from visiting the site.

The petitioner, Yehuda Glick, made a simple and compelling argument to the justices: what about the basic and fundamental right of Jews to freedom of religion and worship?

Moreover, he pointed out, the police were trampling on the elementary principle of equality before the law by differentiating between Jews and Muslims.

But the august judges would have none of it. Tossing aside all those pesky "rights" and "principles," they preferred instead to accept the State attorney's claim that the police decision was based on the need "to preserve public order."

Now, you might be thinking: Isn't that as it should be? Who doesn't want "to preserve public order"?

But don't let such hogwash fool you.

If there is a threat to "public order," it emanates from the Arab rioters who gathered on the Mount on Yom Kippur and hurled stones at a group of French tourists visiting the site because they mistakenly thought they were Jews.

And if there is a real danger to public safety, it stems from the likes of the northern branch of Israel's Islamic Movement, whose leadership incited Arabs to "defend Al-Aksa mosque" knowing full well that violence would result.

But it most assuredly does not come from loyal, law-abiding Israeli Jews who merely wish to exercise their right to visit a holy site and commune with their Creator.

So if the police truly wish to preserve "public order," let them start by taking a stand in the face of the Palestinian rioters, thugs and hoodlums who resort to threats and violence to get their way.

Instead of blocking Jews from visiting the Mount, the police should escort them up there and arrest anyone who tries to prevent them from doing so.

It seems our leaders have yet to learn what Thomas Jefferson pointed out some two centuries ago — namely, "The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."

That means when one group — in this case, Palestinian Arabs — tries to block another group (Israeli Jews) from effectuating their rights, it is the responsibility of the powers that be to come to the defense of the latter, rather than capitulate to the former.

But all this, unfortunately, has become par for the course in Israel. For years we have tolerated the intolerable and watched in muted silence as the Temple Mount slowly slips out of Jewish control.

Tangible proof of this can be found just a few minutes outside the Old City, at the Tzurim Valley National Park at the foot of Mt. Scopus.

It is there that a group of volunteers each day sorts through mounds of rubble dug up illegally by the Muslim Wakf (Islamic religious trust) on the Temple Mount over the past decade.

In a deliberate attempt to tighten their grip on the Mount and erase any evidence of a Jewish presence there, the Wakf has systematically burrowed under the site where the Temple once stood, in the process destroying invaluable archaeological and historical relics.

The Wakf then proceeded to unceremoniously dump the tons of wreckage near the Kidron river valley, right under the noses of Israeli authorities.

Officially known as the Temple Mount Antiquities Salvage Operation, the volunteers sifting through the piles are valiantly looking to rescue whatever remains of our ancient past. The program is run by the City of David (or Ir David) Foundation, and it has recovered some incredible items dating back to the First Temple period and beyond.

These include coins and pendants, mosaic tiles and pottery, and even a seal bearing the name of a priestly family mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.

When I visited the project last week, I was overcome with emotion as we sorted through the mud and "got our hands dirty" trying to recoup what is rightfully ours.

A few minutes later, as we separated the soil and rocks, several pieces of bone became apparent, sending a shudder through us all.

The staff member present quickly examined the findings, and identified them as being from an animal, noting that the singe marks indicated they had probably been used in a sacrifice offered at the Temple.

Where else in the world, I wondered, can a Jew possibly connect in such a concrete and physical way with the glory of our magnificent heritage?

But amid all the excitement, there was something deeply unsettling about the whole experience.

After all, does it make any sense that in the sovereign Jewish state we are forced to pick through the refuse from our holiest site while foreigners defile it at will?

We may turn in prayer toward Jerusalem three times a day, plead for it to be speedily rebuilt, and even break a glass at weddings in memory of its grandeur. But if we really cared about Jerusalem, would we allow it to be sullied and despoiled so wantonly by our enemies?

The answer, of course, is no. We do love Jerusalem, and we do care for it, each of us in our own very personal way.

But as the events of recent weeks make clear, we need to start translating that concern into action, and do something to strengthen our collective hold on the Holy City.

So the next time you pray, add another plea for Jerusalem. Write your congressman and send a letter of protest to the White House. Make a donation to the City of David Foundation, or buy a home in Israel's capital.

Whatever it is, do something — now! — to keep Jerusalem Jewish. Before it slips through our hands once again.

Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, October 19, 2009.

Historian Shlomo Sand argues that 'Jewish peoplehood' is a myth

This was written by Evan R. Goldstein and it appeared October 13, 2009 in Tablet Magazine
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/18203/inventing-israel/. Evan R. Goldstein is an editor at the Chronicle of Higher Education.


The key assumptions about Israel and the Jews are indelible. Forced from Jerusalem into exile, the Jews dispersed throughout the world, always remaining attached to their ancient homeland. Psalmists wept when they remembered Zion. A people were sustained by an unflagging determination to return to their native soil. "Next year in Jerusalem!" The triumph of Zionism — the founding of Israel — is the fulfillment of that ancient vow. The Israeli Declaration of Independence states it plainly: "Eretz Yisrael was the birthplace of the Jewish people... After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom."

Now suppose that none of it is true.

That's the thesis of a new book, The Invention of the Jewish People, by Tel Aviv University historian Shlomo Sand, who argues that the Jews were not in fact exiled from Israel, and that the bulk of modern Jewry does not descend from the ancient Israelites Rather, he claims, they are the children of converts — North African Berbers and Turkic Khazars — and have no ancestral ties to the land of Israel. Zionism is not a return home, Sand writes, it is the tragic theft of another people's land. As such, Israel is not the political rebirth of the Jewish nation — it's a complete fabrication.

Predictably, The Invention of the Jewish People generated a torrent of controversy when it was published in Hebrew last year. Sand's arguments were hotly debated in newspaper columns and academic journals, with Tom Segev, the post-Zionist "new historian," acclaiming it as "one of the most fascinating and challenging books" to arrive in Israel in a long time, while Alexander Yakobson, a professor of history at the Hebrew University, called it a "pack of lies." In March, the French translation, which has sold 45,000 copies — a large number for an academic historian — received the prestigious Aujourd'hui Award, which is given to the year's best non-fiction book.

But for many — including Sand himself — the real test of the book's significance will take place October 19, when the left-wing publisher Verso Press brings out the English edition of The Invention of the Jewish People. Supporters and detractors alike are closely watching to see if the book becomes a mainstream publishing controversy or vanishes into the esoteric precincts of academe. "America will be the real battle," said Sand, who arrives on these shores this month for a series of appearances in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and elsewhere.

There is, perhaps, a precedent for this type of work. In 1976, the anti-Communist writer Arthur Koestler published The Thirteenth Tribe, a tendentious little book to which Sand owes a great intellectual debt. Koestler argued that the Jews of Eastern Europe are the descendants of Khazars, a Turkic people who dominated the Russian steppes from the mid-7th century to the beginning of the second millennium. Around 740, the ruling elite of Khazaria converted to Judaism. Koestler speculated that after the collapse of Khazaria those converts drifted westward into Poland, forming the nucleus of Eastern European Jewry. Lacerated by critics, Koestler's book was nonetheless propelled onto the best-seller list for a few weeks. "Today," Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic, told me, "The Thirteenth Tribe is a combination of discredited and forgotten."

But Koestler and the Khazar theory he advanced lives on in the fever swamps of the white nationalist movement, where Sand's ideas have already stirred some interest. "Sand is not publishing this book at a dignified conference in Bern at which scholars of the Middle East debate the origins of the Jews," said Goldberg, also a Tablet Magazine contributing editor. "He is dropping manufactured facts into a world that in many cases is ready, willing, and happy to believe the absolute worst conspiracy theories about Jews and to use those conspiracy theories to justify physically hurting Jews." Goldberg views The Invention of the Jewish People as part of a growing body of work designed not only to discredit the idea of Jewish nationalism, but also the idea of Jews themselves. "It is nothing new," he added, "We survived Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe; we can survive this."

In a recent interview, Sand acknowledged that his reinterpretation of Jewish history might serve the interests of anti-Semites and other enemies of the Jewish state. "But as a historian my commitment is foremost to what I believe is the truth," he told me.

But what is Sand's truth? In the late 19th century, he argues, Jewish intellectuals like Heinrich Graetz, Moses Hess, and Simon Dubnow refashioned Judaism — a diverse religious civilization — into a homogenous collective. Sand writes that they "imaginatively constructed a long, unbroken genealogy" for the Jews out of fragments of religious memories. Prior to that, "world Jewry had been a major religious culture, not a strange, wandering nation." This historical hoax was later embraced as a useful fiction by the Zionist movement: "To achieve their aims, the Zionists needed to erase existing ethnographic textures, forget specific histories, and take a flying leap backward to an ancient, mythological and religious past."

"Judaism," Sand said, "was a very important civilization, and still is in some ways. But the Jews are not a people because they are not bound together by a secular culture like other nations." Israeli culture, he noted, is secular but it is distinct from Jewish culture in other parts of the world. "Israel does not have a Jewish cinema, a Jewish theatre, or a Jewish literature; it has an Israeli cinema, an Israeli theater, and an Israeli literature," Sand said. Moreover, he thinks that few Jews living outside of Israel have a stake in Israeli culture, a disinterest amplified by their lack of Hebrew. "A nation is a people that want to be sovereign, but most Jews don't want to live under Jewish sovereignty." The idea that a cohesive national identity unites Jews in New York, Moscow, London, and Paris is what Sand called "an ethnocentric myth."

Born in Austria in 1946, Sand spent his first two years in a Displaced Persons camp in Germany. His parents, Polish Holocaust survivors, immigrated to Jaffa in 1948. "My parents did not come to Israel by choice," he said. "For them it was a tragedy. All their life, they couldn't accept it. And I don't blame them. Most of the people who came to Israel did not choose to do so; they were not Zionists." Sand describes himself as a post-Zionist, but his politics are eclectic. "I am not a Zionist because I am a liberal democrat," he said. "It is not possible to have a Jewish and a democratic state. It would be like America defining itself as a Protestant state. It makes no sense."

In the late 1960s, Sand joined Matzpen, a now defunct radical group that advocated the de-Zionization of the Israeli state. He left when the party line drifted from challenging Israel's identity as a Jewish state to questioning whether Israel should exist at all. The experience impressed upon Sand the importance of tempering his politics with pragmatism. "Unlike a lot of other leftists I am not in favor of a one-state solution," he said referring to the proposed incorporation of Palestinians and Jews into a single state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. When pushed, Sand will admit that he is not "morally opposed" to one-state but that it is merely a "dream," not a serious political project. "To have one state for the two societies you need the consensus of both societies, and right now most Israelis don't want that," he said. The Invention of the Jewish People is dedicated to the "memory of the refugees who reached this soil and those who were forced to leave." But Sand opposes anything more substantial than a token right of return for Palestinian refugees. "You cannot recognize Israel's right to exist and recognize the right of return for six million Palestinians. It is an oxymoron," he said.

While Sand is quick — and arguably disingenuous — to portray his personal politics as "very moderate," he doesn't flinch from describing his work on Jewish historiography and Israel as "radical" and "courageous." Verso has used adjectives like "bold" and "ambitious" to promote his book. But Hebrew University historian Israel Bartal, among others, has pointed out that Sand's politics have undermined the credibility of his scholarship. "Sand's desire for Israel to become a state 'representing all its citizens' is certainly worthy of a serious discussion," Bartal wrote in Haaretz, "but the manner in which he attempts to connect a political platform with the history of the Jewish people from its very beginnings to the present day is bizarre and incoherent." Some of Sand's natural sympathizers fear that the inherent shock value of The Invention of the Jewish People will cause the American media to sensationalize Sand's thesis. New York University historian Tony Judt, a proponent of the one-state solution who has battled vociferously with critics in the United States, worries that Sand's book will be received here as just another polemic. "It's a much more reasoned and thoughtful book than that," Judt said in an interview. He credits Sand with "blowing open" the "core guiding myth of Zionism." By demonstrating that Jews are in fact a complete ethnographic and national hodgepodge, Judt argued, Sand's work normalizes Jewish history. "I hope the book will remove from serious conversation any mention of ancient rights, ancient privileges, or who was given what land by which authority — whether God or King David," Judt said, adding that an understanding of Jewish history must give way to an honest accounting of contemporary Israeli problems. Such a possibility, Judt added, "is surely good news for everyone."

But in the Israeli academy Sand's book has not been received as good news. Yakobson, the Hebrew University professor, said that Sand's interpretation of Jewish history "gives a bad name to flimsiness." To him, even if Sand had made a compelling argument about Jewish origins, it would have no bearing on whether the Jews can be considered a nation. "In order to be a people in the modern sense you do not have to be a descent group," Yakobson said. "What makes a people is their self-determination to regard themselves as a people." Israel Bartal charged Sand with "intellectual superficiality" and "twisting the rules governing the work of professional historians." Sand's alleged sins include the use of misleading citations, disrespect for historical details, and a slippery tendency to present extreme theories as though they reflect the scholarly consensus. Anita Shapira, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, wrote what many believe was the definitive take-down review of Sand's book for The Journal of Israeli History. In it, Shapira wrote that she found something "warped and objectionable in the assumption that for Jews to integrate into the Middle East they, and they alone of all the peoples in the region, must shed their national identity and historical memories and reconstruct themselves in a way that may (perhaps) find favor with Israeli-Palestinians."

Yet this barrage of criticism has done little to dampen interest in The Invention of the Jewish People. Translations are underway in a dozen languages, including German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Russian. Sand signed a contract with a Palestinian publisher to release an Arabic-language edition, but the translation was so sloppy that Sand halted publication. "I am very depressed about it," he said. "I want to write in the preface that I am waiting for an Arab historian to have the courage to write about Arab history in the same way that I wrote Jewish history."

But at the moment, Sand has his eyes set on America. "I know there are a lot of organized Zionists that cannot accept the sort of criticism I can voice in Israel," he said. "But I want you to know I am not afraid of Alan Dershowitz."

Contact Israel Academia Monitor at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arnie Barnie, October 19, 2009.

This was written by Tom Barrett, and is called "World War III." It was published on the Conservative Truth website.


Anyone who does not realize that we are fighting World War III has his head in the sand. And anyone who does not realize that we are doing a poor job in the war is in denial. Yes, we are "taking the war to the terrorists", but we are doing nothing to stop the terrorists from bringing the war to us. As the British learned recently, allowing the enemy to freely immigrate is the equivalent of national suicide. And the United States he been no less foolish in this regard than Great Britain.

There are many things that we could do to prevent domestic terrorism, and we are doing a few of them (however tentatively and timidly). But we, along with our allies in Great Britain have failed to do what all nations at war have always done. We have failed to close our borders.

I'm not talking about "immigration reform." And I'm not talking about reducing the number of immigrants. I'm talking about completely cutting off all immigration. We are in a national crisis, and drastic measures are needed. We have too quickly forgotten the lessons of September 11, 2001. The murder of innocent civilians by Islamic terrorists in London and Madrid was a wakeup call not only for Great Britain and Spain, but also for the United States and all freedom-loving nations.

During World War II, no one in the United States or Great Britain would have suggested continuing to allow Japanese and German citizens to immigrate into our countries. But following 911, very few in our government had the courage to suggest that we stop allowing people from Arab and Muslim nations to immigrate. And those who did have the courage to make such a sensible suggestion were shouted down by their politically correct colleagues in the Congress.

People from other nations do not have a right to immigrate to our nation, although liberal one-worlders would have you believe the opposite. But we as a nation do have a right, and a responsibility, to protect ourselves from those who wish to harm us.

I am not suggesting that we deport Arabs and Muslims who are US citizens. However unwise our national leaders were to allow so many people from nations who hate us to immigrate here, those who are citizens have the same rights as every other citizen. But we should realize that many of their mosques are centers for terrorism, and that their religious leaders regularly call for the destruction of the United States and the murder of all Jews and all Christians. And our law enforcement community should not allow political correctness or fear of being accused of profiling from investigating any citizen suspected of terrorism.

However, there is absolutely no reason why we should continue to allow open immigration in a time of war. Forget all the garbage the liberals throw out whenever immigration is discussed. We do not need immigrants to fill jobs in the United States. Ask all the unemployed factory workers if we need more people to take the few jobs that are available. And we do not need immigrants to keep our economy going. Since a huge percentage of immigrants end up on welfare, our economy would be much better off without that drain on its resources.

I believe that we should immediately halt all immigration until such time as the threat has become manageable. We will never completely eradicate the fear of terrorism, but there are steps we can take to greatly reduce the threat. Closing our borders would be an important first step.

Of course, the Leftists have managed to portray the Japanese internment of World War II as some sort of domestic holocaust, rather than a reasonable exercise in prudence. They neglect to mention that the Japanese in US camps were well fed and well treated, in contrast to the American civilians who were starved, tortured and murdered in Japanese camps. Nonetheless, the Democrats and the Socialists will undoubtedly bring up the internment in an attempt to use misplaced guilt to disable America from protecting itself against its enemies now.

Some will say, "If the immigrants from Islamic and Arab nations are the major threat, why cut off all immigration?" If faced with a choice of totally closing our borders, or closing them only to Moslems and Arabs, I would prefer the former, but would settle for the latter. My reasoning is that there are many Jihadists living in nations that are friends to the United States. Just ask the British, whose most recent Islamic terrorists were British citizens. These radicals bent on killing Americans could slip in among others from friendly nations.

By the way, the Muslims who live in the West should be grateful that we do not follow their religion. If we did, thousands of them would have been slaughtered here in the United States following 911. Think what would have happened to Americans living in Saudi Arabia, for instance, if 19 American citizens had crashed planes there and killed 3,000 Saudis.

"But Tom, all Moslems are not terrorists. Why punish all of them?" First, not allowing them to immigrate here is not "punishment". As I mentioned earlier, no one has a right to come here. Second, even if they are not terrorists themselves, most are terror sympathizers by the very nature of their twisted religion. Remember the thousands of "non-terrorists" in Arab and Islamic countries who cheered and danced in the streets after they heard about the attacks on the World Trade Center?

However, the purpose of keeping as many Islamists and Arabs out of our country is not that they sympathize with the terrorists. It is that the terrorists hide among them. Muslims living in the West are well-known for keeping quiet about the terrorists among them, even those who are citizens of their adopted countries. And with the modern techniques of mass destruction that are available to them, it only takes a few terrorists to bring a nation to its knees.

Islam has long been associated with Nazis. Many Arabs and Moslems consider Hitler to be a hero. The fact that a handful of Nazis took over Germany is not lost on the Jihadists, whose stated goal is to force the entire world to bow down to Islam. Less than 2% of the Russian people were members of the Communist Party when that nation was taken over by the Communists.

History has shown us that a few dedicated, ruthless men and a complacent, foolish population are a recipe for disaster. Our nation has survived too much to be taken down by militant Islamists who believe they are doing Allah a favor by murdering our women and children. We must stop inviting murderers into our midst.

Contact ArnyBarnie by email at ArnyBarnie@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, October 19, 2009.

This was written by M. Lal Goel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, www.uwf.edu/lgoel.


Pro-Islamic and anti-Hindu mindset known as dhimmitude (described more fully later) is prevalent in sections of the American academy. The case in point is the recent book by Dr. Wendy Doniger [1], The Hindus: An Alternative History, The Penguin Press, 2009.

Doniger's 779-page tome is laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays. She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories. She often narrates the most damning mythical story — Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular — to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism. After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. Why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here.

This review focuses on Doniger's discussion of Islamic incursions into India. Islam entered south India in the 7th Century with Arab merchants and traders. This was peaceful Islam. Later, Islam came to India as a predatory and a conquering force. Mohammad bin Qasim ravaged Sindh in 712. Mahmud Ghazni pillaged, looted and destroyed numerous Hindu temples around 1000 AD, but did not stay to rule. The Muslim rule begins with the Delhi Sultanate, approximately 1201 to 1526. The Sultanate gave place to the Mughal Empire, 1526-1707. Doniger makes the following dubious points regarding the Muslim imperial rule in India (1201-1707).

Muslims marauders destroyed some Hindu temples, not many.

Temple destruction was a long-standing Indian tradition. Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain stupas and rival Hindu temples and built upon the destroyed sites.

Muslim invaders looted and destroyed Hindu temples because they had the power to do so. If Hindus had the power, they would do the same in reverse.

The Jizya — the Muslim tax on non-Muslims — was for Hindu protection and a substitute for military service.

Hindu "megalomania" for temple building in the Middle Ages was a positive result of Muslim demolition of some Hindu temples.

The Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara Empire double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi who had deputed them to secure the South.

Hindus want Muslims and Christians to leave India for Hindustan is only for Hindus.

Let us take each point in turn to examine Doniger's mistaken views.

Muslim invaders beginning with Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 CE looted, pillaged and destroyed not few but many Hindu and Buddhist temples. Muslim chroniclers describe the humiliation and utter desolation wrought by the Muslims on the kafirs (unbelievers). Alberuni, the Muslim scholar who accompanied Mahmud to India, describes one such event: "Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included 'five of red gold, each five yards high,' with eyes formed of priceless jewels. . . The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground. Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India." [2]

At the destruction of another temple, Somnath, it is estimated that 50,000 were massacred. The fabulous booty of gold, women and children was divided according to Islamic tradition--the Sultan getting the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist shrines were destroyed.

Dr. Doniger asserts that Hindus too persecuted minority Jain and Buddhist religions and destroyed their shrines. She narrates the now discarded story about the impaling of Jains at the hands of Hindu rulers in the Tamil country. Then she says that "there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, other than the story." (p 365). Then why narrate the story? Hindu sectarian violence pales in comparison to what happened either in Europe or in the Middle East. The truth is that both Jainism and Buddhism were integrated into Hinduism's pluralistic tradition. The Buddha is accepted as one of the Hindu Avatars (God in human form). Exquisite Jain temples at Mt Abu at the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan built around 1000 CE survive in the region dominated by Hindu Rajput rulers, falsifying notions of Hindu carnage of Jain temples.

Doniger says that Hindus would do the same to Muslims if they had the power to do so. Hindus did come to power after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, when the Mughal rule rapidly declined. The Marathas were the strongest power in Western and Southern India in the 18th and 19th centuries, as the Sikhs were in North India. There is no account of large scale demolition and looting of Muslim places of worship either by the Marathas or the Sikhs. If a copy of the Quran fell into the hands of Maharaja Shivaji during a campaign, the same would be passed on to a Muslim rather than being burned.

Contrary to what Doniger says, Jizya is a long held Muslim tradition. It was levied to begin with on the defeated Christians and Jews, the People of the Book, as a price for the cessation of Jihad. Hindus, not being one of the People of the Book, did not deserve to live by paying the special tax. If defeated in battle, their only option was Islam or death. This was the position taken by the Islamic clergy. Unlike the clergy, however, the Muslim governors were practical men. If they had killed the Hindus en masse for failing to adopt Islam, who would build their palaces, fill their harems, cut their wood and hue their water? [3]

Doniger argues that Hindu 'megalomania' for temple building resulted from Muslim destruction of some Hindu temples. In other words, because the Muslims destroyed some of the Hindu temples, the Hindus went on a building spree. If Doniger's argument is accepted, Hindus should thank Islamic marauders for looting and desecrating their shrines. The truth is that in northern India which experienced 500 years of Islamic rule (1201-1707), few historical temples of any beauty remain. In contrast, temple architecture of some beauty does survive in southern India, the region that escaped long Muslim occupation.

That the Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara dynasty in the South double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi is one among the innumerable editorial negative portrayal of Hindu character. One may ask: why wouldn't a slave double cross his oppressor?

The view that Muslims and Christians should leave India is not one held by most Hindus, only by a small minority on the extreme fringes. Muslim population has increased in India from about 9 percent at the time of Independence to about 13 percent now (1947-2009). In contrast, in Pakistan, Hindu population has declined and now constitutes less than one percent. In Muslim Bangladesh in the same period the Hindu population has declined from 29 percent to less than 10 percent. Muslims hold important positions in government and business in contemporary India, which is 83 pct Hindu. The richest person in India has been a Muslim, Premji; the most popular film stars are Muslim; Christian and Muslim chief ministers and governors head several of the states. The single most important leader in India is an Italian-born woman Sonya Gandhi and the Prime Minister is a Sikh, Dr. Manmohan Singh. The past President APJ Kalam was a Muslim and before that K R Narayanan, a lower caste. In Federal and State civil service, 50 percent of the jobs are reserved for backward classes and Untouchable, in order to compensate for past discrimination. India has moved.

Let us look more closely. Doniger describes the invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim as follows:

Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. "Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law." Qasim "kept his promises." The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their "protection." He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent. (paraphrased)

From Doniger's assessment, Qasim should be regarded as a blessing. Contrast Doniger's description with that written by Andrew Bostom in "The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India." [4]

The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. . . . Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair. . . Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and "700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured."

Distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar describes the capture of the royal Fort and its tragic outcome:

Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama. Cited in Bostom.

Doniger extensively footnotes Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and A. K. Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, providing an impression of meticulous scholarship. Missing are works of the distinguished historians: Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, A. L. Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup.

Doniger writes at page 458: when Muslim royal women first came to India, they did not rigidly keep to purdah (the veiling and seclusion of women). They picked the more strict form of purdah from contact with the Hindu Rajput women. Doniger finds much to praise in Muslim women during this period: some knew several languages; others wrote poetry; some managed vast estates; others set up "feminist" republics within female quarters (harems); some debated fine points on religion; some even joined in drinking parties (chapters 16, 20). Such descriptions are patently negated by distinguished historians. See The Mughal Harem (1988) by K S Lal, available free on the Internet.

If Hinduism is the source of strict purdah among Muslim women, as Doniger contends, how does one explain the strict veiling of women in the Middle East, a region far removed from Hindu influence? Or, the absence of it in southern India, a region that escaped Islamic domination?

Doniger writes at page 627, "the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition." And, Gandhi's nonviolence succeeded against the British. But it failed against the tenaciously held Hindu ideal of violence that had grip on the real emotions of the masses.

What is one to make of these weighty pronouncements uttered in all seriousness by the author? These are an expression of the hurt feelings on the part of a scholar. While discussing the Hindu epic Ramayana in London in 2003, Doniger put forth her usual gloss: that Lakshman had the hots for his brother Rama's wife Sita, and that sexually-charged Sita reciprocated these feelings. An irate Hindu threw an egg at her and conveniently missed it. This incident is her cause célèbre.


Doniger's uncritical review of the Islamic marauding raids in India (712-1200) and later the Islamic empire (1201-1707) suggests dhimmitude. The concepts of dhimmi and dhimmitude were developed by the Egyptian born Jewish woman writer, Bat Ye'or (Daughter of the Nile), who fled Egypt in 1958 in the wake of Jewish persecution following the Suez Canal crisis. Her meticulous research puts to rest the myth of peaceful expansion of Islamic power in the countries of Middle East and Eastern Europe. [5]

Dhimmitude is a state of fear and insecurity on the part of infidels who are required to accept a condition of humiliation. It is characterized by the victim's siding with his oppressors, by the moral justification the victim provides for his oppressors' hateful behavior. The Dhimmi loses the possibility of revolt because revolt arises from a sense of injustice. He loathes himself in order to praise his oppressors. Dhimmis lived under some 20 disabilities. Dhimmis were prohibited to build new places of worship, to ring church bells or take out processions, to ride horses or camels (they could ride donkeys), to marry a Muslim woman, to wear decorative clothing, to own a Muslim as a slave or to testify against a Muslim in a court of law.

Ye'or believes that the dhimmi condition can only be understood in the context of Jihad. Jihad embodies all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. She believes that dhimmitude was once the attribute of defeated Christian and Jewish communities under Islam. Now it is a feature of much of the Western world, Europe and America. Her theory of dhimmitude applies to many Hindus in India. Whereas dhimmitude in previous centuries resulted from real-life powerlessness and humiliation, modern dhimmi syndrome results from some combination of the following.

The corrupting power of oil money to influence think tanks, lobbyists and academic institutions.
De-Christianizing of Europe. It is now also happening in the U.S. See Pew research reports.
Guilt feelings in the West on account of the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land (1095-1291).
Multiculturalism: the belief that all cultural practices and ways of life are equally valid.
Violence by radical Muslims is on account of being poor and exploited by colonial hegemony.
Islam provided the West its basis for advancement in math and science.
The rising number of Muslim populations in Europe and America.
The rising level of alienation from one's own culture in the West.

Doniger's inflammatory book on the Hindus makes sense only in the light of a larger global trend — a trend that seeks to re-package Islamic history as a force for tolerance and progress. Doniger is not alone in holding such views. Dhimmi attitudes of subservience have entered the Western academy, and from there into journalism, school textbooks and political discourse. One must not criticize Islam. For, to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash. See, http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

The field of Middle East Studies in the U.S. is now controlled by pro-Middle East professors, according to Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle Eastern Quarterly. "The crucial turning point occurred in the late 1970s when Middle East studies centers, under /Edward/ Said's influence, began to show a preference for ideology over empirical fact and, fearing the taint of the 'orientalist' bias, began to prefer academic appointments of native-born Middle Easterners over qualified Western-born students," contends Kramer. The book is summarized at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989239/.

In contrast, the field of Hinduism studies is controlled by non-Hindus and anti-Hindus, with some notable exceptions of course. Hindu gods and goddesses are lampooned and denigrated. Hindu saints are described as sexual perverts and India in danger of being run over by Hindu fundamentalists. In these portrayals, Doniger is joined by Martha Nussbaum, Paul Courtright, Jeffrey Kripal, Sarah Caldwell, Stanley Kurtz, to name a few of the leading academicians. For a critique of the American academy, see Rajiv Malhotra at www.sulekha.com, and a 2007 book titled, Invading the Sacred. [6]

Doniger is quite harsh on the British record in India (1757-1947). She compares the British argument that they brought trains and drains to India to Hitler's argument that he built the Autobahn in Germany (p. 583). Censuring Britain and giving a pass to the more draconian Islamic imperialism in India fits with the dhimmi attitude that I have described. Consequently, attitudes of concession and appeasement are on the rise. A reversal of language occurs. Jihad is called 'struggle within' or struggle for liberation. Dhimmitude is called tolerance. Jizya is called protection. Tony Blair declares Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are not real Muslims. Parts of London have been ceded to the control of radical mullahs. Sharia arbitration courts are now part of the British legal system. Melanie Phillips tells that London is becoming Londonistan. [7] Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. The destruction of life and property caused by Islamic extremists in the last thirty years is simply horrendous. Of course, distinction must be made between moderate Muslims and radicals who wish to bring back the 7th century version of Islam.

The British helped abolish the horrible practice of Suttee (widow burning) in India in the 19th century. At its peak in the 19th century, the practice of Suttee claimed the lives of 500 to 600 women a year in India. The honor killing of women, genital mutilation, and the caning of girls for minor sexual impropriety raises only a limited protest in the 21st century. Amid the rising level of alienation, multiculturalism and the feelings of guilt in the West, the moral compass has been lost.  

Footnotes [1] Dr. Wendy Doniger is a distinguished professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago. She has written some 30 books, several dealing negatively with Hinduism. Her writing has been described as "rude, crude and very lewd" by the BBC.

[2] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Delhi, 1981, pp. 207-08. Smith derives his account of Mahmud's raids from the account written by Alberuni, the Islamic scholar who traveled with Sultan Mahmud to India.

[3] See Ram Swarup's Hindu View of Christianity and Islam, 1992. And, Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, 2005, at: http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/.

[4] Published in 2005 in the American Thinker by Andrew Bostom and available at:

[5] Bat Ye'or's writings include: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005.

[6] Krishnan Ramaswamy; Antonio de Nicolas; Aditi Banerjee ed. Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America, Rupa and Co., Delhi, 2007.

[7] Phillips, Melanie, Londonistan: How Britain is creating a terror state within, Encounter Books, 2006. See summary at:

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 19, 2009.


New York Times reporter David Rohde reported from the region for 7 years. He even won a Pulitzer Prize. But it was only after he was held as a prisoner for 7 months by the Taliban in Afghanistan that he finally figured out who he was dealing with. Below, Mr. Rohde's new insight. Duh.

"During our time as hostages, I tried to reason with our captors. I told them we were journalists who had come to hear the Taliban's side of the story. I told them that I had recently married and that Tahir and Asad had nine young children between them. I wept, hoping it would create sympathy, and begged them to release us. All of my efforts proved pointless. Over those months, I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of "Al Qaeda lite," a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan.

Living side by side with the Haqqanis' followers, I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious. Contact with foreign militants in the tribal areas appeared to have deeply affected many young Taliban fighters. They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, October 19, 2009.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg.


Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It is my sad duty to inform you that your prime ministers cannot face and tell you the ugly truth. It was only after she was no longer in office that Golda Meir published the truth about your enemies. Here is what she said:

I have never doubted for an instant that the true aim of the Arab states has always been, and still is, the total destruction of the State of Israel, or that even if we had gone back far beyond the 1967 lines to some miniature enclave, they would not still have tried to eradicate it and us.... It is our duty to realize this truth ... We need to [face] this truth in all its gravity, so that we may continue to mobilize from among ourselves and the Jewish people all the resources necessary to overcome our enemies.

Contrary to what Golda said, Israel's greatest enemies are not the Arabs. More deadly are Israel's own prime ministers who have made an art form of concealing the truth, especially since the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993. Concealment is typical of dictatorships, even if adorned, like Israel, in the apparel of a democracy. Hence I must also inform you that your country, driven by the remorseless logic of Oslo, is in the grips of a democratically elected dictatorship at war with you and your homeland.

I have already told you how former prime minister, Ariel Sharon, nullified the February 2003 election, and foisted on you, without public or Knesset debate, the policy of disengagement from Gaza. And now, without public or Knesset debate, your prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in his speech at Bar-Ilan University, has extended Sharon's policy to Judea and Samaria. Yes, he has renounced your biblical right to Judea and Samaria, a right sanctioned by international law since the San Remo Convention of 1922. Mr. Netanyahu has thus joined the ranks of prime ministers arguably guilty of treason! No wonder the word "treason" has been forbidden for public use in Israel since Oslo!

Is it too late to face the ugly truth? Perhaps. For the record, however, let it be known that your prime ministers have been consorting with your grave-diggers for more than sixteen years since Oslo. Yet none had the guts to abrogate an agreement that has already resulted in the murder or maiming of thousands of your loved ones. And now they warn us of the "third intifada".

Our prime-ministers know, as did Golda, that the destruction of our country is inscribed in the PLO's Constitution. In fact, without any prompting from Ahmadinejad, Israel has been wiped off the maps of the PLO and of Egypt. This spells politicide. Yet your prime ministers have consorted with Yasser Arafat, hobnobbed with Mahmoud Abbas, and kissed the derriere of Hosni Mubarak! The collusion of your prime ministers has been buried by transparent lies, by a nation of opinion-makers that fear the truth — including the truth about your prime ministers!

Consider Menachem Begin. When Begin signed the Camp David Accords in September 1978, and followed this up by signing the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 1979, he initiated Israel's inane strategy, "land for peace." But only a fool surrenders land won in a war of self-defense to the aggressor — surrenders land for what Anwar Sadat mockingly called "a piece of paper."

Without firing a shot, Sadat won the greatest military or diplomatic victory in history. From an adversary superior in arms he regained the entire Sinai, including its strategic air bases built by Israel, and oil fields which Israel had made productive. Begin surrendered a twelve billion dollar infrastructure for verbiage!

Sadat also manipulated Begin into abandoning the Jewish town of Yamit. If this wasn't enough, Sadat conned Begin into signing the first international agreement referring to Judea and Samaria as the "West Bank." Hence he was the first PM to recognize Arab rights to Israel's heartland.

Let's face the truth: Say what you will about Begin's virtues, he didn't really know what he was doing at Camp David. This pretty much sums up the story of his successors. Connect the dots: from Begin at Camp David to Bibi at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University, where Netanyahu renounced your people's right to Judea and Samaria.

The State of Israel has been led by losers since the IDF's miraculous victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. It had to be miraculous, since it was achieved without any intention of incorporating Judea and Samaria into the State! In fact, this strategic as well as faith-based idea was opposed by Israel's timid secular leaders. No wonder they ceded control of Israel's holiest site, the Temple Mount, to the Arabs — who were stunned by this gesture of the conquerors.

The word "gesture" tells it all. Israel's ruling elites think they can obtain peace through "gestures," like yielding strategic assets for parchment — nay, for less than parchment, as witness the hero who retreated from Gaza for nothing. Let's face it: Using a term coined by Lenin, we have to admit that for more than four decades this country has been ruled by "useful idiots," whose behavior was facilitated by Israel's idiotic system of government — a system that allowed Ariel Sharon to nullify the 2003 Knesset elections and become Labor's surrogate prime minister!

Let's stop the pseudo-sophistication, the obscurantism: It's not the Arabs but Jewish prime ministers that have laid the foundations for a Palestinian state.

If this is provocative, let me try a more gentle tack. When Bibi was a cabinet minister in the Sharon government, he voted for the expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria. And now, by saying yes to a Palestinian state, he has endorsed the expulsion of 300,000 more Jews from Judea and Samaria. Sacrificing Jews for "peace" has become the idolatry of Israeli prime ministers. But perhaps this idolatry is nothing more than self-aggrandizement? It seems to me, ladies and gentlemen, that your prime ministers have been playing the "politics of peace" — a charade to gain or retain POWER. If this is still too harsh for the tender hearted, let me try another approach.

Ladies and gentlemen, Arab leaders have loudly declared that "peace" means the destruction of Israel. It seems, however, that your prime ministers, if they are not brain dead, suffer from impaired hearing. On the other hand, if they are unaware of the obvious fact that the policy of land-for-peace arouses Arab contempt for Jews and incites Arab violence, we must then conclude that your prime ministers are indeed brain dead.

Whatever the case, it's safe to say that your political leaders are not prepared for total war — and total war is on the horizon to judge from US appeasement of Iran, the stockpiling of arms by Hezbollah, and the billions of foreign aid America and Western Europe — champions of democracy — have pledged to Hamas.

Can such a war be averted? Not by a government headed by a prime minister who has been deceiving the public year after year with the mantra of "reciprocity" — as if the Arabs can give Israel something equivalent to land!

Since I don't expect a coup d'état, let's say a few words about what needs to be done. First, the Israel Air Force will have to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons development program and simultaneously destroy Syria's missile facilities.

Second, Israel's ground forces, aided by air strikes, will have to cripple Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Third, the IDF will have to eliminate the Palestinian Authority and its entire terrorist network. But what am I saying? Netanyahu — and this applies to his successors — needs the Palestinian Authority. He needs a negotiating partner with which to display his diplomatic skills, his ingenious policy of "reciprocity"!

Ladies and gentlemen, Bibi is not going to pacify an Arab leader garbed in a suit and a tie, no more than Obama is going to pacify a Muslim leader adorned in a suit without a tie.


This is the edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, October 19, 2009.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 19, 2009.


The Goldstone UN controversy is an example of how diplomacy and reporting is done.

From the 10/17 NY Times (Neil MacFarquhar, A4):

1. The UN Human Rights Council vote was done partly to press Israel and Hamas to "conduct their own credible investigations."

2. "China and Russia voted for the measure, although the Russian ambassador's speech detailed what he considered its many flaws."

From the 10/17 Wall St. Journal (Charles Levinson, A9):

3. The British Foreign Office said that "British PM Brown conditioned a 'no' vote against the UN report on Israel's agreeing to setup an independent commission to investigate the Gaza war, granting improved access for humanitarian supplies into Gaza, and implementing a settlement freeze." PM Netanyahu objected strenuously. Britain did not vote at all.


1. Don't Mr. MacFarquhar and the UN know that Israel has and is conducting investigations, more credible than UN ones?

2. Russia knows the Goldstone report and the Council resolution have many flaws. President Obama referred to its having many flaws. Nevertheless, Russia votes for it. You see the hand of international politics here?

3. Britain did not approve of the resolution, but it would have voted against it if Israel gave in on matters outside of Gaza. That is not resolving issues by negotiation on their merits. That is an attempt to extort an adverse decision.


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) applied for full membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). Its stated purpose is to be able to bring up charges against Israel. It submitted documents alleging Israeli war crimes before the war in Gaza.

Members must be states (www.imra.org.il, 10/17), which the P.A. is not.

The P.A. did not suggest that the ICC prosecute Hamas for war crimes. Change the organization's name, now, to Court of International Criminals! Next thing you know, Hamas and Hizbullah will apply. International moral fiber has become more flaccid than ever.


Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, found President Obama's September speech to the UN a reversal of U.S. policy on Israel. It reinforces the concern by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) that Obama is the President most hostile to Israel ever.

Was Obama's speech accurate, fair, and the whole truth?


Obama seemed to reduce the U.S. commitment to Israeli security to dependency upon Israel fulfilling the "claims and rights" of the Palestinian Arabs. He did not define their "claims and rights." [As the Arabs define their rights, they are not compatible with Israeli security. The Arabs claim a right to inject millions of hostile Arabs into Israel. They claim territory that would leave Israel with insecure borders.] Obama is pressing for what obviously would become a terrorist state, considering that in all these years, the PLO has continued promoting terrorism despite peace agreements to eradicate it.

ZOA: "Quite apart from the moral bankruptcy and cynicism of this statement, it reveals President Obama to have been insincere when he spoke about an unbreakable U.S. bond to Israel and unshakable commitment to its security." [This poor result shows the evil of talking even-handedly between aggressor and victim.]


No context accompanied Obama's call to end 'the occupation that began in 1967.' Obama made Israel's presence in the Territories seem improper. Actually, "...the Arabs started the 1967 war by throwing the UN peace-keeping force out of Sinai, sending in a hundred thousand Egyptian troops into formerly demilitarized [areas], and closing the straits of Tiran, thereby blockading Israel's port of Eilat. Those are acts of war. [They give Israel the right to annex territory for security.]

Obama went on to declare Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and even annexed eastern Jerusalem illegal. Calling them illegal is much more extreme than saying he hopes Israel would exchange some for peace.

Obama has adopted the apartheid Arab position that Jews may not live in an area he has arrogated to Arab control [and that Arabs must be allowed to live in Israel]. First he made the racist demand that no more Jews have houses in Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem. Now he demands the removal of the existing ones. ZOA: "...we are speaking of the religious, historical and legal homeland of the Jewish people."

Talking about illegality, Obama omitted Palestinian Authority (P.A.) violations of all their signed agreements. Thus he ignored P.A. "...promotion of terrorism, refusal to arrest terrorists or make a major ...issue out of continuing Palestinian incitement to hatred and murder against Israel, and their naming schools, streets, and sports teams after terrorists...He also ignored the Mahmoud Abbas' recent Fatah conference, which praised terrorists by name and promoted terrorism."


The obstacle to peace is Arab refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty anywhere. The Arabs make war over it. Obama overlooks this obstacle undermining his idealistic vision of a peaceful new Arab neighbor state.

"By demanding contiguity for this proposed Palestinian state, President Obama conveniently ignores the point that such a state would break up Israeli contiguity. It justifies former U.S. ambassador" John Bolton's comment that President Obama's speech has the effect of making himself the Palestinian Arabs' lawyer.


"... all of us — must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we will only lend it lip service"

"[ZOA: This is an appalling piece of inaccuracy and moral equivalence. After recognizing the terrorist Yasser Arafat and his PLO, setting up the Palestinian Authority, ceding half of Judea and Samaria and all of Gaza to Palestinian control, as well as assets, funds and even arms, and even offering Palestinian statehood in 2000, only to receive terrorism and blood-curdling hatred in return, President Obama has the gall to suggest that Israel may be a party lacking in seriousness about making peace. He has thereby placed Israel on the same moral level as the Palestinian leadership, which has, only recently at its Fatah conference in Ramallah, reaffirmed its refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state. It also glorified terrorists and the 'armed struggle,' insisting on the so-called 'right of return,' and rejecting an end of claims in any future peace agreement with Israel. About this blatant demonstration of Palestinian extremism and hostility to Israel's existence, let alone to making peace with it, President Obama had precisely nothing to say.]"

Obama said that the price of war is "...paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own."

"President Obama engages here in false moral equivalence." The failure of the PA, or now Hamas in Gaza, to maintain water works and sewage plants, despite the world's highest per capita infusion of humanitarian aid, has nothing to do with the absence of peace except in the negative sense: the Palestinian leadership is much more interested in acquiring weaponry and building luxury apartments for themselves than in serving their people. In contrast, the thousands of rockets fired into southern Israeli towns like Sderot are all the direct result of Palestinian aggression and willingness to terrorize Israelis. It also ignores the fact that the absence of a Palestinian state is directly the result of a Palestinian refusal to accept the 2000 Clinton peace parameters that would have resulted in an eight year old Palestinian state today. Morally, there is simply no analogy between an Israeli girl fearing that a rocket fired deliberately by a Palestinian terrorist might land on her house and kill her and her family and a Palestinian boy lacking clean water or a Palestinian state.]"


"Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world ... The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law enforcement and protect our people"

"[ZOA: President Obama, as is his practice, never identified these 'violent extremists' as Islamist terrorists, murdering in the name of their conception of Islam. Accordingly, he conveyed a message, both at home and abroad, of fear, weakness and lack of purpose, seeing he is unwilling to even candidly identify the foe who, he admits, are so dangerous.]"

"Nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security"

Again, "...the offending parties — Islamist terrorists, rogue regimes like Syria — are never mentioned by name. This suggests that President Obama is merely paying lip-service to these matters, while not incorporating them into his foreign policy. "


"We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel" "

[ZOA: We welcome the fact that President Obama called for an end to Palestinian incitement. Unfortunately, however, this call is devoid of content that would have made it powerful and meaningful."

"First, President Obama did not even briefly describe 'incitement' — the systematic inculcation of hatred and vitriol against Jews and Israel and encouragement to suicide terrorism and other forms of violence that permeates the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps. But left as a mere word, 'incitement' doesn't tell anyone much. Incitement to what?"

"Second, President Obama, who has been so outspoken and focused on making an end to Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria a precondition for diplomatic progress, did not make an actual end to Palestinian incitement a precondition for progress, though this is nothing other than a prerequisite for peace...In addition to being a prerequisite for a genuine peace, ending incitement is a signed Palestinian obligation under previous agreements and the 2003 Roadmap, so President Obama, had he demanded compliance of Palestinians, would be merely insisting on fulfillment of a pre-existing commitment, not creating new demands, as he has with respect to Israel on the issue of Jewish construction."

"Regarding the other outstanding Palestinian obligation — to disarm and arrest terrorists — President Obama said nothing at all. President Obama spoke only of Palestinian improving 'security' which is vague and may not even refer to anti-Israel terrorism so much as to effective PA control in particular areas. The fact that the PA still promotes terrorism, pays terrorists and maintains the very militias that carry out terrorist attacks against Israel — like the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — would be completely lost on anyone dependent for their knowledge on President Obama's speech.]"

Ironically, by introducing a new demand upon Israel, settlement freeze, Obama gave the Arabs a reason for deferring the negotiations that Obama wants.

Asked, "Do you think [Obama] could sit in a church with someone who is as anti-Semitic as Reverend Jeremiah Wright is and not come away with anti-Semitic views,?" Bolton answered, "At a minimum, Obama was either asleep for 20 years or we need an explanation which we never got during the Campaign." (ZOA press release, 9/29.)

I have seen Obama making serially contradictory promises, breaking his main promises on campaign finance, barring lobbyists, his medical insurance program, etc., I think he has absorbed many radical ideas an ability to state generalities without understanding the issues, and an inability to stake stances except on Israel.


Some of President Obama's critics must use a microscope to find fault with him. They behave like the politically correct "police," who scour the media to find offense, however private, minute, non-existent, or unintended.

An example is a recent greeting from Obama to Muslims celebrating their holy month. As is diplomats' custom, the language of that greeting, was so oily it gives my mind indigestion. One learns to take the oil with a grain of salt.

Thus some of Obama's critics denounced him for greeting the Muslims and not the Jews. I disapproved of the criticism.

I just came across Obama's greeting to the Jewish people celebrating their calendar's New Year. He stressed the positive. The criticism of him was premature.

The New Greeting was filled with sentiment. The question is, how does that sentiment translate into policy? His policies favor or coddle elements of Islamic jihad. Those policies endanger civilization. That is not a petty matter, like objection to his greeting on Ramadan.

There is enough real fault with Obama, that a critic does not have to make up faults.


I, Enemy Combatant wrote, "Israel makes me proud to be an atheist antisemite. God likes Jews best — God needs His ass kicked... Israelis should stand trial over war crimes [link] In light of the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki calls for legal..." (Internet newsgroup, Soc.Culture.Israel, 10/18.)

Can't accuse me of calling him an antisemite merely for criticizing Israel. He boasts that he is. He gets his pride in atheism by what Israel does, as if the government of Israel were clerical, which it is not. He doesn't know that? Antisemites make up assumptions and treat them as facts. And then he quotes an official of Iran, which is a theocracy. What happened to his atheism that condemns one country he mistakenly thinks is a theocracy when he quotes another, that is a theocracy?

People should pride themselves on what they do, not on what others are alleged to do. I think the proper standard is not to insult people because they are theists or atheists, but to reprove people who are unethical.

Who said, "God likes Jews best?" Jews don't. Enemy Combatant is misinformed about the Judaism he hates. That's the way most antisemites are. Ignorance underlies their rancor.

Goldstone slaps together calumnies, critics find it full of holes
(http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m10d16-More-detailed-critique-of-Goldsstone-Report), but since it accuses the Jewish state, antisemites accept it without considering its flaws. Since when does the lynch mob consider the case for the defense?

Enemy Combatant professes shock at the (false) allegations against Israel, but quotes the Foreign Minister of Iran, which sent hundreds of children over Iraqi landmines to explode them before the mines might take out their troops. His hatred is hypocritical, because it is unthinking and has blinders on.

What would antisemites do without the double standard, selective morality, and defamation?


What has the world come to, when an Egyptian journalist's meeting with the Israeli ambassador generates headlines? Hala Mustafa, editor of a government magazine, had the ambassador in her office to discuss a planned symposium for Egyptians, Israelis, and Americans. What could be more normal?

Egypt's union of journalists considers it abnormal to normalize. It is investigating whether to expel Mustafa. Mustafa said that an organized boycott is improper, since the two countries have a peace treaty (www.imra.org.il, 10/17).

In Egypt and in Jordan, Islamists control the professional unions. They refuse to normalize relations with Israel, despite their countries' treaties that promise to do so. Maybe negotiations and treaties do not accomplish much.


The Pentagon notified Congress of Egypt's intent to buy 24 F-16s from U.S. companies. The notice calls Egypt a "major non-NATO ally," said it needs the weapons to upgrade its aging air force so as to be a more integrated ally and better able to defend itself, and "The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region."

The sale would cost $3.2 billion. [That is about a year and-a-half worth of U.S. military subsidy to Egypt. It is a taxpayer subsidy of the U.S. defense industry.]

Dr. Aaron Lerner points out that the advanced weaponry could have a serious military effect. The assurance not to alter the military balance involved no study; it is a formality. Therefore, it did not suffice for Congress to stipulate in the statute that U.S. military sales should not alter regional military balance. Congress has to follow up to determine whether it does (www.imra.org.il, 19/17).

The same is true of provisions that subsidy of the PLO must not go to terrorism. Congress made that stipulation, but leaves it to the President to determine whether the terms are being met. The President and his officials certify what they must to do what they want. This is an unfortunate breakdown of the U.S. constitutional separation of powers. Congress is supposed to make the law, and the Executive branch is supposed to enforce it. Instead, the Executive breaks it.

Where does the military balance turn? The Pentagon doesn't ask. It approves all sales, however unfriendly the recipient. Even if the balance were not exceeded, Egypt, which has been an aggressor but is waiting for the peace process to soften Israel up for it, could inflict such heavy casualties on Israel, that the sale is irresponsible. How sane is it for the U.S. to arm both sides?


Why Turkey was lost to the West is the current topic. For me it is an old one. Turkey's Islamist political party claimed to have moderated. The democratic, secular parties persisted in corruption. Naturally the Islamists won an election. The fundamentalist hinterland now has a greater population than the more urbane capital. The end of Turkey's secular democracy was foreseeable.

Now Caroline Glick, deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post summarizes the issue in perspective. The U.S., Israel, and the EU made excuses for the Islamists and coddled them, during all of Turkey Islamist steps and insults. Turkey's stated alliance with Syria and Iran puts into the Evil Axis. As she put it, "What made Turkey's behavior this week different from its behavior in recent months and years is that its attacks were concentrated, unequivocal and undeniable for everyone outside of Israel's scandalously imbecilic and flagellant media." She should call for a more vigorous review of the media and for a more mentally balanced media.

Here are Turkey's Islamist steps and insults:

2/2006: PM Erdogan initiated international hospitality toward Hamas leaders. Israel's excuse for it: Turkey supported Gaza democracy.

2006: During Israel's war with Hizbullah, Turkey let Iranian arms convoys pass through into Lebanon.

During the war in Gaza, Turkey supported Hamas and called for the UN to expel Israel.

Turkey supports Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Turkey boosted trade with Iran and Syria.

Turkey works with al-Qaida financiers.

Turkey barred Israel from a multi-national aerial exercise. Israeli leaders nevertheless claimed that Turkey remains Israel's strategic ally.

PM Erdogan said that Turks should learn how to make money, as Jews so. That the old money-antisemitism.

He accused Israel of deliberately killing children in Gaza. His government-owned TV broadcast a film with made-up scenes of Israeli troops doing that.

Erdogan moved to "end press freedom in Turkey; purge the Turkish military of its secular leaders and end its constitutional mandate to preserve Turkey's secular character; intimidate and disenfranchise secular business leaders and diplomats; and stack the Turkish courts with Islamists."

Turkey's democrats warned of an Islamist takeover. However, both the Bush and Obama administrations and the EU called Erdogan a moderate. They claimed that the West has no problem with political Islam. The West acted as if democracy means only elections, not what happens afterwards. For the same flawed reasoning, Pres. Bush pressed Israel to allow Hamas to field a political party and Egypt to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to run for parliament.

"As for the Obama administration, since entering office in January it has abandoned US support for democracy activists throughout the world, in favor of a policy of pure appeasement of US adversaries at the expense of US allies." The West demoralized Turkish democrats. [We see the same blunder over Honduras, whose institutions constitutionally ejected a would-be dictator, only to be sanctioned unless it returns him to abuse of power. This punishment is in the name of democracy!]

The EU frustrated Turkey's application for membership by constantly demanding "democratic reform," but insisting that Turkey's military not overthrow the Islamists who were ending democracy there. Naturally, Turks turned toward Islam.

There are two lessons in this for Israel. One is to expect change, not to take existing conditions [and balances of power and the Egyptian non-aggression treaty] for granted. The other is to favor imperfect but allied regimes over a perfect ideal that leads to a worse and hostile regime (www.imra.org.il, 10/18).

The last point is good advice, but should be tempered. Sometimes the U.S. favors a corrupt and even authoritarian regime when there is a strong democratic opposition that should be favored.

When Turkey confronted Syria, Netanyahu, then Prime Minister, ostentatiously moved Israeli troops back from the border. He showed that Israel would not get involved. I think that helped sour relations with Turkey. What kind of an ally behaves as Israel did? If Israel did nothing, it wouldn't have been as much of a slap. If Netanyahu had moved Israeli troops toward the border, and had he privately assured Turkey that Turkey could count on it if needed, he would have sweetened relations. Syria would have backed down even faster.


22. Demand that a particular Internet journalist be censored, but object if your own slurs against him are deleted, because that violates freedom of press.

23. No matter how much U.S. pressure is exerted on Israel, declare the U.S. totally pro-Israel.

24. Claim that all arguments against Israel are dismissed as antisemitic.

25. When an article that makes specific points, reply with a condemnation of Israel and/ or the article's author.

26. Jews who refer to "the Jews" as the cause of the Palestinian Arabs' woe.

27. Boycott Israel or Israelis in the Territories, not foreign oppressors or holy warriors.

28. Make up assumptions against Israel, and treat them as fact.

29. Equate the Jewish state with all Jews, and hold foreign Jews just as responsible for the Jewish state that they don't control as Israelis.

30. Have a full repertoire of distorted notions of Judaism.

31. Accept UN and Human Rights Watch reports against Israel, regardless of how much bias the reports and organizations are shown to have, and approve the UN's adoption of the Goldstone report without hearing much from those who identified its errors. This is not necessarily antisemitic, inasmuch as many people accept what the Establishment proposes without thinking about it. Antisemites who accept it would wonder about how the world that they also think Israel controls, nevertheless constantly condemns its supposed Jewish masters, if those antisemites had critical faculties.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, October 18, 2009.

The United Nations Council for Human Rights on Friday approved the Goldstone Report, which falsely accuses Israel of targeting civilians during the December-January war in Gaza. While the move has been accurately described as a naked attempt to demonize Israel, it was also a distinct failure for President Barack Obama in the Middle East.

When the Goldstone Report was first released in September, the White House reportedly signaled to Israel that it would die quietly in Geneva. Jerusalem, in turn, signaled it would continue to cooperate with Obama's peace team, led by George Mitchell.

Obama then went to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and requested that the Palestinian Authority drop pursuit of the report. Abbas reluctantly acquiesced.

"After studying the situation and in order to ensure the largest possible support, we agreed to delay the vote till the next session of the council (in March 2010)," Abbas said in a speech on Palestinian television.

Abbas, however, faced an intense backlash on the Palestinian street. Throngs of angry Palestinians relished the possibility that the report could reach the International Criminal Court (ICC). In short order, Abbas flipped positions and snubbed Obama's request.

As a result, the U.N. Human Rights Council approved the report today in Geneva by a vote of 25-6. Douglas M. Griffiths, the U.S. representative to the council, merely registered "disappointment at the outcome of this resolution."

Apart from his inability to hold Abbas to his word, Obama failed to appeal to the sensibilities of U.S. allies on the council such as Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, who voted in favor of the report. This confirms that the Arab world is still more interested in vilifying Israel than negotiating with it — despite Obama's attempts to engender good will in the Arab world by exacting concessions from Israel.

More importantly, Obama has conveyed to the Israelis that he lacks sway with the Palestinians. This bodes poorly for future negotiations.

The Goldstone is not just a black eye for the United Nations. Obama has demonstrated that his diplomatic efforts in the Middle East have thus far failed.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. Treasury, is deputy executive director for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave Macmillan).

This article appeared today as a Jewish Policy Center article. It is archived at
www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1473/goldstone-report-marks- another-obama-failure The original article has live links to additional material.

To Go To Top

Posted by Adelson Institute, October 18, 2009.

This was written by David Keyes, Coordinator for Programs in Democracy at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies. He writes about the fate of a Syrian freedom fighter and the mistakes of an American Administration. This article is archived at
http://www.adelsoninstitute.org.il/PointOfView.aspx?id=65. Read also in Point of View on Why Russia is Not Afraid of an Iranian Bomb by Boris Morozov and The Goldstone Factor by Yossi Klein Halevi.


When Syrian deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad visited Washington in early October, he became the highest-ranking Syrian to visit America in half a decade. During his visit, Mekdad lavishly praised President Obama and his dialogue-based approach towards the Middle East. Nothing could be better proof that Washington is pursuing failed policies in the region. When the senior representatives of a ruthless dictatorship praise you, chances are you are doing something very wrong.

Mekdad, and his boss Bashar al-Assad, are clearly relieved that President Obama loosened sanctions on Syria this past July. They know that America is determined to pry Syria away from the Iran-Hezbollah axis and they are playing it for all it's worth. While Americans rejoice at every step in this process, the Assad dictatorship remains as oppressive as ever. Only two and a half weeks prior to the deputy Foreign Minister's sycophantic gushing over President Obama in Washington, his government was sentencing bloggers to prison for the unthinkable "crime" of voicing dissent.

Consider the case of Kareem Arabji, a 31 year old business consultant who helps manage the online youth forum www.akhawia.net. Kareem supervised Al Mabar Al Hur, a section within akhawia.net dedicated to free ideas, and wrote numerous articles under a pseudonym criticizing corruption and dictatorship in Syria. On June 7, 2007 Arabji was arrested by Syrian security forces and held incommunicado at the Palestine Branch of Military Intelligence in Damascus. He was charged with, "broadcasting false or exaggerated news which would affect the morale of the country."

Just what outrageous, unforgivable words did Kareem utter that so threatened the Syrian nation? "The press is a very important mechanism to struggle against the corruption, there should not be any restrictions or obstacles to it," he wrote in Akhawia. Or perhaps it was his skepticism of the Syria-Hamas alliance: "Since I was a kid in school we were always taught that the Muslim Brotherhood is a criminal gang, and I agree. And now we proudly consider Hamas, which is a Muslim Brotherhood proxy, as an ally!!!?" On September 13, 2009, Arabji was sentenced by a Syrian court to three years in prison.

Did President Obama raise Arabji's imprisonment while his tormentor toured Washington? No. To do so would be to jeopardize "peace," "diplomacy" or some other fiction masquerading as prudence which in actuality prolongs a hideous tyranny. Mekdad's visit was a golden opportunity to make Arabji's name as famous as Havel, Bukovsky and Sharansky once were. Instead, the most powerful nation in history remained silent.

In theory, President Obama's approach makes perfect sense. Encourage Syria to moderate its policies and tilt Westward instead of Iran-ward. But as the idiom goes: In theory there is no difference between theory and reality, but in reality there is. Not only is America feeding an alligator hoping to be eaten last, but the Obama administration does not grasp that true peace and lasting regional stability cannot be purchased at the expense of human liberty. If Syria cuts its ties with Iran, but remains a fearful, impoverished, repressive and conspiratorial society, the West — let alone the Syrian people — are no better off. America's goal should be to terrorize the Syrian dictator more than he terrorizes his bloggers. Sakharov and Sharansky's brilliant dictum is simple enough: A nation can only be trusted as much as its leaders trust their own citizens. By this standard, America should be isolating and punishing Syria, rather than appeasing and rewarding it.

Despite a sustained public relations campaign in the West, Syria remains one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East. Those who voice dissent are regularly intimidated, arrested, tortured and imprisoned. In September 2009 the Jordanian Business Magazine reported that Syria blocks at least "160 web sites, including Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, and the popular online-telephone service, Skype." Cyberdissidents such as Arabji face regular harassment from security forces. Ironically, article 38 of the Syrian constitution allows "the right to freely express one's opinions by spoken word, in writing or in any other medium." But this is little more than hollow rhetoric. The same article also states that expression must be in a "manner that safeguards the soundness of the domestic and nationalist structure and strengthens the socialist system." This clause effectively guts any true form of freedom of expression in Syria.

What kind of regime tortures bloggers and shuts down Facebook? Only one that is terrified of truth and free thinking. This, ultimately, is a sign of deep insecurity, not strength. The good news is that although political repression can work for a time,

Contact the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies by email at adelson-editor@shalem.org.il This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, October 18, 2009.

It seems that things are beginning to move in Europe.

The writer of the article below, Fiamma Nirenstein, was born in Florence. She has lived in GILO (Jerusalem) and is married to Offer Eshed. She is a member of Berlusconi's party. She is a journalist and is a new Member of the Italian Parliament who is outspoken on Israel's behalf. She writes below that there is increasing understanding of what Israel is facing in its current war against Hamas.

Subject: What happened in Italy last night (no media coverage)


Dear Friends,

We didn't expect what you see in this picture. This is the square of the Italian Parliament in Rome, Piazza Montecitorio: You can see the Palace on top of the square, and in front a lot of Israeli flags. That was last night from 6,30 to 9,30 pm. What you cannot see here, is the extraordinary number of members of Parliament, about 100 from all political sides, that took the stage during this time: for about three hours we were speaking about the role of Israel, its right to self defense, its moral height, its fight on behalf of us all, of our civilization and values, against the wild hate of the Islamic jihad represented by Hamas.

It seems to me that for the first time in the too long history of the Arab/Israeli conflict, apart from a minority of crazy leftists and fascists that took the street with anti-Semitic slogans, we have achieved a huge consensus on one critical point: this is not a local conflict, there is nothing in it that reminds us of a peace theme that has characterized the Palestinian issue. This is an attack against the western world, and Iran is behind it.

The change of attitude is great: the terrorist and religious nature of Hamas and the democratic, civilized nature of Israel are seen face to face for what they really are at least by the European elite at large, dead and wounded notwithstanding, and there rises an identification with Israel against a regime that uses human shields and promises slaughter of Jews in its charter.

What happens today, at least in Italy, is the defeat and fall of the leftist ideologies: ideology that has allowed justification of all the most violent crimes and most disgusting verbal attacks. If Arafat launched the terrorist Intifada, if he promoted the martyrdom of children in public speeches, the ideologists were ready to justify him with the issues of occupation, the Palestinian misery and loss of any hope. Not so with Hamas.

History, in Italy, has brought to a profound crisis the ideology of revolution and the justification of any cruel attack against a so-called unjust imperialist order. That time is over, nobody will see Hamas as the resolution of the problem and not even as the problem itself. I think that the word "peace" has lost that healing meaning that it once had. The new non-ideological point of view sees that there is no peace when one of the contenders doesn't want it, and that even if the world in the short run asks for a truce, in the long run it hopes for the defeat of Hamas.

Last night, many people, Ministers and Members of Parliament, composed a very new, interesting mix of opinions. I think that when you are not overwhelmed by exotic thirdworldism, the images of children educated as hate machines, the speeches of jihad leaders, from Ahmadinejad to Nasrallah, to Hanje, that deny the holocaust and promise death to Jewish and Christians alike, you are left only with disgust. Westerners, thank God, can still be disgusted by uncivilized levels of political speech.

But most of all, in the Parliament square, many of the Parliament Members said: "I love Israel".

You can't imagine how many.
Fiamma Nirenstein

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at rachelschildren@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 18, 2009.

The Wall St. Journal of October 16, published a significant article by Siobhan Gorman and Jay Solomon entitled: "U.S. Considers a New Assessment of Iran Threat" which speaks about a retraction of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) that Iran stopped its nuclear development in 2003.

This re-do of a deliberately false report is not surprising, now that the subversive damage has been done. Now the perps wish to cover-up and exonerate themselves from a situation that borders on Treason. The perps that should be prosecuted for deliberately misleading both the American President and the American people are the Arabist State Department and some of America's 16 Intel Agencies, especially the CIA.

I and others have written about this "Shadow Government" who wished to stop President Bush from taking out Iran's growing Nuclear capability. But, there was this cabal that was high enough in Government affairs which felt that they knew best and set about sabotaging Government policy with respect to the growing Iranian Nuclear threat to the Middle East region — even to the world.

Iran remains a high level threat as a Terrorist nation, linked to other Terrorist nations and their Terrorist proxies. By subverting plans to protect America and her allies from Nuclear domination by Iran, those involved chose Treason. They had Intelligence on Iran's progress which was confirmed by Germany, England, France, Israel and even U.S. Intel.

But, this rogue group decided to feed disinformation into the NIE run by Director Dennis Blair. Now that this rogue group can no longer hide behind their subversive disinformation, they wish to save themselves (according to the Wall St. Journal report) by starting a new investigation now that other underground Nuclear facility at Qom (a city considered sacred to Islam) has been exposed.

Keep in mind that most Intel Services, including the U.S., knew of this installation two years prior to the public exposé. Now the cover-up will be paraded as "merely a mistake in analyzing the available Intel". The investigation of the cover-up will, of course, take months — which will coincide with President Barack Hussein Obama's foot-dragging where additional sanctions were to be imposed on Iran, knowing that Russia and China will veto any sanctions of consequence.

This "Shadow Government" will compound their subversion by extending the time long past any theatrical cut-off to the time when Iran will have completed or closed the nuclear loop. Then Iran will have both their Nukes and their Missiles (Long and Shorter Range) to mount their Nukes.

Somehow Obama has bonded with Russia who supplies Iran with the fissile material, the technology to build the Bushwehr Nuclear Plant and then the Russians' SS300 protection system to protect all the scattered Nuclear R&D facilities around Iran.

I cannot help but wonder if the Democratically-controlled Congress will hold Hearings on the 2007 NIE Dis-Information Report and the entire mechanism for what appears to be a "Shadow Government" which knowingly undermined U.S. Security in part, for Iranian Sweet Crude Oil.

Here the fellow travelers of the Protect-Iran-Plan would be the executives of the oil companies who colluded with and influenced the U.S. State Department. Although I have written for years about the "Shadow Government" that influences Washington, the Congress never bothered to investigate who was controlling America's foreign policy behind the Curtain.

Speaking of the non-elected, a book entitled "Shadow Government", targeting Obama's Czars, has just been published.

P.S. Please review the National Geographic August 2008 edition with their map of Iran and its Nuclear Facilities on the map by name and function.

Below, is the article by Siobhan Gorman and Jay Solomon. It appeared October 16, 2009 in the Wall St. Journal and is archived at


WASHINGTON — U.S. spy agencies are considering whether to rewrite a controversial 2007 intelligence report that asserted Tehran halted its efforts to build nuclear weapons in 2003, current and former U.S. intelligence officials say. The intelligence agencies' rethink comes as pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill, and among U.S. allies, for the Obama administration to redo the 2007 assessment, after a string of recent revelations about Tehran's nuclear program.

German, French and British intelligence agencies have all disputed the conclusions of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, in recent months, according to European officials briefed on the exchanges.

Intelligence on the state of Iran's nuclear capabilities has for years been politically fraught within Washington and among U.S. allies and international institutions like the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rewriting an NIE is a major undertaking because it is the most comprehensive of U.S. intelligence reports and reflects the combined judgment of all 16 American intelligence bodies.

The 2007 report created a political headache for the Bush administration when Republicans and some allied governments such as Israel criticized the broad public conclusion that Iran was backing off its nuclear ambitions. The report reversed earlier findings that Iran was pursuing a nuclear-weapons program. It found with "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and with "moderate confidence" that it hadn't been restarted as of mid-2007. So far, intelligence officials are not "ready to declare that invalid," a senior U.S. intelligence official said, emphasizing that the judgment covered the 2003-2007 time frame only. That leaves room for a reassessment of the period since the December 2007 report was completed, the official suggested.

The spy agencies "have a lot more information since we last did" a national intelligence estimate, the official said. Some of it "tracks precisely with what we've seen before," while other information "causes us to reassess what we've seen before," the official added.

If undertaken, a new NIE likely wouldn't be available for months. The U.S. and its allies have imposed an informal December deadline for Iran to comply with Western demands that it cease enriching uranium or face fresh economic sanctions.

A shift in the U.S. intelligence community's official stance — concluding Iran restarted its nuclear weapons work or that Iran's ambitions have ramped up — could significantly affect President Barack Obama's efforts to use diplomacy to contain Tehran's capabilities.

Any timeline for negotiations could be shortened if a new NIE concludes Tehran has restarted its atomic-weapons work, said officials involved in the diplomacy. But the White House could also use the new report to galvanize wider international support for sanctions against Tehran.

"Countries would no longer be able to hide behind the NIE," said a European official working on Iran.

U.S. intelligence officials have been discussing whether to update the 2007 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities, though no decision has been made yet on whether to proceed, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "At some point in the near future, our analytic community is going to want to press the reset button on our judgments on intent and weaponization in light of Qom and other information we're receiving," the senior intelligence official said, referring to Mr. Obama's recent revelation that Tehran was secretly assembling a uranium-enrichment facility at a military base outside the holy city of Qom.

Intelligence analysts have been plying the White House with shorter two- or three-page analyses on Iran, and Vice President Joe Biden's office and National Security Council officials have expressed interest in a new estimate, according to a person familiar with the matter. Representatives for the director of national intelligence, the vice president and the NSC declined to comment.

In addition to the Qom disclosure, European intelligence services and United Nations inspectors have gathered new information pointing to a resumption of Iran's weapons work.

Germany's intelligence service, the BND, publicly challenged the U.S. NIE by disclosing information during a court case this year that pointed to ongoing Iranian nuclear-weapons work. The BND gave specifics on Iranian purchases of high-speed cameras and radiation detectors that could be used in testing atomic detonations.

A working paper composed by the IAEA, meanwhile, detailed evidence that Iran was continuing to experiment with nuclear warhead designs, according to people who have viewed it.

"The U.S. is being directly challenged by its closest allies" on Iran's weapons work, said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who heads Washington's Institute for Science and International Security and has viewed portions of the IAEA paper.

In the U.S., lawmakers in both parties are calling for new assessments. "We need a much better intelligence picture of Iran," said California Rep. Jane Harman, who chairs the intelligence subcommittee on the House Homeland Security Committee and was the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel. Rep. Harman said intelligence officials should assume that the latest revelation of a secret enrichment facility may not be the only one, until they can disprove that assumption.

Threat Assessments

1993: The CIA says Iran is 8-10 years aways from acquiring nuclear weapons.
March 1998: The CIA reports Iran is attempting to a quire fissile material and technology for weapons development.
October 2000: The director of the CIA's Non-proliferation Center testifies that Iran is attempting to produce plutonium and enriched uranium.
August 2002: Iranian opposition group reveals existence of a nuclear facility at Natanz and a heavy-water facility at Arak.
November 2004: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says the U.S. has information suggesting Iran is working on making a nuclear warhead for a missile.
May 2005: A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate assesses with 'high confidence that Iran has determined to develop nuclear weapons.
December 2007: New U.S. NIE assesses with 'high confidence' that Iran halted nuclear-weapons work in 2003.
September 2009: President outlines intelligence charging Iran with developing a uranium-enrichment facility.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Norma Zager, October 18, 2009.

In the series "Postcards from Israel," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel's on the ground, Zager's counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related — the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts — and so is this "point-counter-point" presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives. Feel free to share with others. Contact them at aribussel@gmail.com


Watching a series about World War II, I remain haunted by one story. A soldier was relating an attack and the death of a friend in combat. He described the horrifying scene as life poured out of his buddy as he screamed for his mother. My heart wept for every mother who lost a son or daughter in battle or in life, for a young innocent boy caught up in the web of evil.

It is long past the time for women to speak up and demand an end to this painful exercise of war. Our silence has been deafening.

Let the Lipstick Revolution begin. The battle can be won: No force on earth is stronger than a mother defending her child.

Iran's stall tactics are no accident. Adolph Hitler successfully appeased the allies before World War II by assuring them his arms buildup was no more than an attempt to restore Germany's ability to defend itself following the devastating impact of World War I.

The German leader was betting on the world's stupidity, and he won. Despite Hitler's direct defiance of the Treaty at Versailles, European leaders like Neville Chamberlain continued to adopt a policy of appeasement. When they realized their folly, it was too late.

The situation in Iran is no different than Germany before World War II. Had Chamberlain's England been the only country to suffer for his imprudent decisions, we could chalk it off as too bad for Great Britain, they elected such an obtuse man.

Unfortunately, when countries make a deal with the devil, the entire world winds up paying the price.

Iran's egregious defiance of some kind of fantasy international community of nations is blatant and calculated. They have no fear of anyone aligning against them.

This corrupt mindset is based on a simple truth: good people will not act badly until provoked past their limit. A bully will continue to beat up a docile child until that child pushes back. Iran banks on the countries of the world taking a beating, and it is correct.

In the past few years as every world leader went about pointing a finger and repeating "bad, bad Iran play nice," Iran continued refining and creating the technology to invite Armageddon.

Watching carefully as the same techniques were used against North Korea, Iran is certain no one would stand in their way. Aided by the usual suspects of evil, Russia, Syria and China, Iran played the world for fools, and laughed as one weak leader after another ignored their terrorist activities and buildup of nuclear capability.

Had Israel not destroyed Syria's reactor, we may be facing an even worse dilemma than at present.

The nations criticized and clucked their tongues saying "bad Israel" in public. Then, as always, they walked behind closed doors and thanked God Israel had dealt with the problem and they need not become involved.

In recent years Russia has regularly shipped nuclear material to Iran through Azerbaijan who notified the US of these shipment. The United States instructed Azerbaijan leaders to do what they wished with the shipments.

This feigned world surprise is no more than a charade. The US and others have been well aware of Iran's activities, and Israel has validated the progress regularly through reports from Mossad.

Once again the world has ignored a bad seed until it is too late for any amount of fertilizer to neutralize what has become a giant Oak.

Now only the blood of innocents can remove this sick tree from the international landscape.

Had the most severe sanctions been implemented years ago, Iran would have new leadership today.

The saddest of all sadness is man's inability to heed past lessons.

Iran's desire to destroy Israel and the Jews is not a claim the world hasn't heard many times before.

Unfortunately, as Netanyahu warned that band of lower intellects that comprise the UN, when evil sets its sights on destruction of the Jewish people, the world pays the ultimate price.

Leaders of countries like Iran are a cancer on the body of the world. If ignored, it will spread quickly to destroy whatever good cells and organs it passes through.

What is so distressful about the situation we face now is that a group of evil men were allowed to laugh and mock the world. Our leaders have been impotent and blind. Now it is not they who must put their lives on the front lines to battle evil once more, it is the children.

This time the price will be higher.

The world is larger, the evil greater and the cost in human life will be beyond comprehension.

Had any leader had the courage to stand against this evil empire and its minions, the world would be safer. None has, so the world is not secure and may never be again.

Nuclear engagement will leave a devastating scar on earth, far greater than World War II.

Shame on the politicians.

Not a single country has cared enough about its people to stand up to Iran's wicked regime and protect lives.

What can the citizenry do when we suffer for the fools we empower? Nothing. We have learned nothing from past folly. Man has proven himself to be no more than an animal roaming the planet until, as so many species before, we are extinct. Iran is rushing us toward that extinction and our so-called leaders are marching in step.

The time has come for women to take the reins and protect our children from evil.

Watching the women of Iran murdered in the streets of Tehran with no whisper of an outcry from women of the world was unimaginable to me.

Where was the outrage of Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton or the First Lady? What happened to us, have we become so complacent we care nothing for our children or our own embattled gender? Is the women's movement the one-trick-pony pro-choice pitiful joke it appears?

Women are not the weaker sex, but the smarter and bolder one.

When will we unite and use our power for good?

Women are being stoned and malevolence is allowed to wander unfettered, plotting its murderous intent. Where are our voices? Why are we mute? Too many sons and daughters have died already as we cowered in the shadows.

As we who are complacent enough to suffer these fools of history and allow them to lead us into slaughter again, are fully aware this war may be humankind's last.

Let the Lipstick Revolution begin and let us honor all dying soldiers crying out for their mothers. Women must hear and act to save our children now. Fight for our sisters — for our world — and pray it is not already too late!

To Go To Top

Posted by Roberta Dzubow, October 18, 2009.

ISLAM ATTACKS: Is Temple University Canceling Geert Wilders and Caving into Muslims' Attack on Free Speech?

In a stunning act of cowardice and dhimmitude, Temple University may be caving to the demands of the student jihad at Temple University to cancel Geert Wilders.

From the Muslim Students Association (MSA): "We strongly urge that his invitation be rescinded immediately in order to foster appreciation of free speech that is not based on hatred and discrimination".

Muslim fascism. What incredible evil. Censor Wilders immediately in order to "appreciate free speech". Here is the latest by David Horowitz in the Philadelphia Bulletin: "Temple Muslim Students Association Attempts To Shut Down Wilders Event."

The Temple Muslim Students Association (MSA) has issued a call to the Temple University administration to censor the forthcoming campus appearance of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders on the 20th of October, which is sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Temple administration should reject this attack on the First Amendment rights of all members of the Temple community.

It is not surprising that the Muslim Students Association would seek to shut down the free speech of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders who has been an outspoken critic of Islamic terrorists and Islamic attacks on Jews and other religions. Assaults on the First Amendment and efforts to censor critics of radical Islam are, in fact, typical of the tactics used by the Muslim Students Association, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society, all groups which support the jihad against the west and are part of the network created by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of the terrorist groups al-Qaeda and Hamas. The faculty advisor for Temple MSA is presently a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Muslim Students Association to accuse Geert Wilders of spreading hate or anyone of being a hate group. Chapters of MSA at UC Irvine and Ohio State have raised money for the terrorist group Hamas whose goal — as stated in its official charter — is the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews. Speakers sponsored by the MSA have called for the execution of homosexuals, war against the United States and the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews. Every year, on the day commemorating the birth of the Jewish state, the MSA sponsors nationwide campus protests against the existence of the Jewish state calling its creation the "nakba" — the catastrophe. This is an act of genocidal hate.

The scum of the earth, Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, are lauded, welcomed, revered even on these same campuses.

Here is the attack on America's unalienable human right from the Muslims:

Temple MSA deplores the decision made by Temple College Republicans, The David Horowitz Freedom Center, Temple University Purpose, Temple Student Activities, and Temple University as an institution of higher learning, for welcoming Geert Wilders when so many have found his speech to be repugnant to society as a whole. We condemn Temple University for being the first university in the United States to allow Mr. Wilders to address their population and hope that the administration realizes the reputation and ideologies they are fostering not only to the Temple community, but to the world. The decision to allow Mr. Wilders to share his viewpoints is a danger not only for the public safety of Muslims and the honor of the core principles of Islam, but also for academic integrity and objectivity on campus.

We strongly urge that his invitation be rescinded immediately in order to foster appreciation of free speech that is not based on hatred and discrimination.

No one, no institution, no official has the right to tamper with our basic individual rights. FIGHT THIS SCOURGE. FIGHT THE ENEMY WITHIN. CALL TEMPLE.

Ann Weaver Hart, President
Temple University
1801 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA

Phone: (215) 204-7405
Fax: (215) 204-5600
E-mail: president@temple.edu



Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament.

"America as the last man standing"

'In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?'

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the 'Facing Jihad Conference' in Jerusalem. (sent in by Aryeh Zelasko):

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system..Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization. A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages — at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning... It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything.So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America — as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 18, 2009.

(I use the term "West Bank," in headings that Google is more likely to refer readers to.)

The Israeli Defense Forces exiled 3 Jewish nationalists, Akiva HaCohen, 25, Ariel Groner, 24 and Eliav Eliyahu, 19, from their homes in the Samarian community of Yitzhar and from all of Judea-Samaria, for half a year. The government neither charged them with a crime nor fully explained. It just issued "administrative expulsion orders" on the grounds that "information was received of their involvement in violent and illegal activity and in light of the genuine danger foreseen from them to security and the public order." If the "violent and illegal activity" were real, why no criminal indictment and why not defined?

Police told the men vaguely that the order is related to clashes between Arabs and Jews and to the government drive to demolish outposts. This happened to Mr. Groner, before.

They have 3 days to appeal the order, without knowing the underlying specifics.

Similar orders had been issued to local Jews earlier, preceding the Arab olive harvest. Not the case here. Harvest done.

The Land of Israel Faithful Movement condemned the government for undemocratic methods and anti-Zionist measures despite supposedly being a nationalist regime (www.imra.org.il, 10/14).

Obviously the Netanyahu regime is not really a nationalist or right-wing, regardless of his media-assigned label.

Why are drastic orders given to right-wing Jews before the Arab olive harvest, and not to the Arabs who have used the harvest as an opportunity to destroy Jews' crops, and also not to the left-wing Jews who egg the Arabs on? If Jews and Arabs claim the same land, adjudicate the cases, do not single out Jews!

How does one prepare to appeal an accusation not stated in detail? The men are activists whom the government suspects would resist demolition of outposts. In the U.S. we do not punish for suspicion of future action. Punishment it is. If the men don't obey, they go to jail. If they obey, they may not be able to work for months. I think that is one of the purposes of the order.

Most of the demolition is on weak legal grounds and worse ethical ones. The government gave permits to Jewish communities to build, but was slow to complete the final permits. The residents fulfilled their legal obligations, but the government procrastinated. Then for political reasons, the government calls communities "illegal. As for outposts, has the government a moral right to forbid people from building houses within their own towns?


A draft resolution submitted by the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) asks the UN Human Relations Council to endorse the Goldstone report, and it condemns what it calls human rights violations by Israel in eastern Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The draft "was shepherded through the Council by Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan and Nigeria."

Israel warned that if the resolution passes, NATO troops in Afghanistan would be accused of war crimes, too, and then other states. This would be how dictatorial imperialists crimp democracies' self-defense. [A sharp tool for jihad.]

The Council's Commissioner denounced Israel for the security measure of barring young Muslim men from the Temple Mount after violent Muslim riots there [which their leaders instigated on false grounds]. The Commissioner made this seem like discrimination rather than a security measure, and did not mention that Jews and Christians were barred, too. She did not condemn the Muslim Arab agitators, who manipulated and endangered their people, nor the rioters, themselves. Her double standard is not humanitarian but biased.

She also accused Israel of violating international law of barring some goods from Gaza (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/16).

Israel bars war goods. Why not, Hamas is at war with it. Not many countries sell goods to a declared enemy. Why is Israel asked to, and condemned if it doesn't? Egypt officially bars trade with Gaza, too, for mixed reasons, one of which is its perception of Hamas as a threat to it. But Egypt is not condemned.

Was S. Africa's more severe blockade a violation of international law?

The UN ignores the crimes and problems created by the Muslim Arabs. The UN acts in complicity with the rioters. It encourages them, knowing that the more they riot against Israel, the more Israel is condemned as if it mistreats the Arabs.

Egypt has a non-aggression and normalization treaty with Israel. However, Egypt leads the diplomatic offensive against Israel. The many examples of this, combined, show that the supposed peace is breached by the Arabs.

The P.A. is taking unfair advantage of the confusion and the animus to bring to a vote other charges that did not even go through the motions of a study that the Goldstone report did. A vote on that part of the resolution would be purely political and religious. It has not the semblance of being factual.

Ironically, the P.A., Pakistan, and Egypt are grave human rights violators.


Illegal immigrants pose a serious problem to Israel. They are building an eventual demagogic threat. A small state cannot preserve its culture or national security if swamped by aliens.

Whereas Europe is learning to bar, intern, and expel illegal aliens, the Left in Israel welcomes them. It doesn't care about having a Jewish state, but most Israelis do — they know their lives depend on it. The Left calls the newcomers Darfur refugees, but really they simply are immigrants. Some are diseased. Many are Muslims, some of whom might be [or become] terrorists. Since Oslo, about 250,000 Arabs immigrated, many illegally (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/16).

The ones admitted in legally mostly were for marriage and family reunification. Many of those marriages were casual or fraudulent. An attempt to be liberal with an enemy population in these times of jihad is not liberal but foolish.


Israeli security forces found a rocket laboratory in Abu Dis, in Judea-Samaria (or what Google calls "West Bank"). Abu Dis is adjacent to Maale Adumim.

Hamas has been trying to set up facilities in Judea-Samaria for firing rockets into Israeli cities (www.imra.org.il, 10/16). The UN doesn't care.

Abu Dis also is alongside Jerusalem. There was talk that if the Palestinian Authority got a state without any part of Jerusalem, it would make its capital there.

Suppose Israeli troops pulled out of Judea-Samaria. How soon Hamas or Fatah would turn it into another rocket-launching, terrorist base as both did to Gaza!


How does Iran protect its election results in Germany? Iranian expatriates in Germany have been protesting against the fraudulent election in Iran. Circulating among them, according to German intelligence, are agents of the Iranian government. Iran's agents film the protestors, send them threatening letters, and have them arrested if they visit family in Iran (www.imra.org.il, 10/16).

Why doesn't Germany prosecute or expel criminal Iranian agents? The West should not allow jihadist agents to intimidate people in the West. I remember when Libya and Syria were notorious for oppressing their ex-patriates in Europe.


Friday's NY Times reports that the UN is about to vote on the Goldstone report on Gaza. Internet sources indicate that it just did.

The UN operates much like Congress and Knesset. Whether the report or bill is 500 pages or thousands, these bodies endorse it with minimal or no debate and before most of the delegates have had time to read it.

The time elapsed between the proposal to vote and the vote hardly sufficed for point-by-point refutation by Israel and various experts. There was little discussion of the facts. Facts are not the point in an organization desirous of condemning or appeasing. So long as the proposal or bill favors their side, they vote for it. Many readers assume that the proposal or bill was carefully vetted and debated. Not so. U.S. legislation is drafted so poorly, that many disputes arise over what it means. Legislators who voted for bills express surprise later over what they turn out to mean or turn out to have been mistaken.


The film on Turkish public TV defamed Israel, among other ways, by depicting an Israeli soldier deliberately shooting a Palestinian Arab baby. Israeli troops don't do that. Palestinian Arab terrorists have done it to Jews. [Ma'alot and Hebron.]

Criticized for the program, producer Selcuk Cobanoglu claimed that his characters did not represent Israelis. "The Turkish and American military have uniforms like that as well. We love the people in Israel. We love the Israelis."

The TV website described the program as "a heartfelt display of the events in Palestine, which was occupied in 1948." (NY Times, 10/16, A10.)

It is amazing how much Middle Easterners can mix up in so few words. Turkish and U.S. troops are not in Judea-Samaria. Israeli troops are. What a poor excuse the producer has! He is no more truthful than the Goldstone report.

Arabs shoot at dissidents, Israelis shoot at terrorists, neither try for Arab babies.

What does he mean, Palestine was occupied in 1948? Israel declared independence, offered the Arabs peace and citizens' rights. Egypt and Jordan, among other aggressors against Israel, seized the Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Does the website mean that Egypt and Jordan occupied of part of Palestine? Although they occupied the Territories militarily, they did not occupy them in a legal sense, since they were not part of a sovereign state. The Palestinian Authority considers Israel "occupied." They want to take it away.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 18, 2009.

An outrage, an act devoid of justice and morality, but not unexpected:

On Friday, the UN Human Rights Council, meeting in Geneva, endorsed the endorsed the Goldstone Commission's findings.

Specifically, it condemned ("the occupying power") Israel for not cooperating with the investigation; welcomed the report of the "International Fact Finding Mission;" endorsed its findings; and recommended that the General Assembly consider it during its (current) 64th session.


How bad was this resolution? Bad enough so that Goldstone himself criticized it. While his commission's findings were severely imbalanced and did not genuinely examine Hamas's war crimes or Israel's right to self-defense, they contained some reference to Hamas.

Before the vote was taken, Goldstone, who was in Bern for a conference, told a Swiss paper, "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel. There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report."


The vote:

25 nations in favor: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia.

11 nations abstained: Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and Uruguay.

Five nations opposed: Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine, and the US.

Five nations did not vote: Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola.


Several comments here. Primary among them is my grievous disappointment with Britain and France for declining to vote. Netanyahu had made the point very clearly to Britain that it was in danger of being charged in similar fashion because of its military operations in Afghanistan. It fell on deaf ears.

There was a good deal of justification offered by the two nations for their position, but I'm not buying.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that Britain and France chose not to vote because it would upset negotiations to restart peace talks. And France's envoy Francois Zimeray, told the Post that his country opted not to participate "to express our strong disagreement" with the fact that the vote was taken so precipitously: "As you know we wanted to improve the text, to enter into true and serious negotiations."

The Post reports that the enjoys in Geneva of both nations said they took seriously the report's allegations against Israel of war crimes. This is the bottom line and what kept them from vetoing the resolution.

What British Premier Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy did after making the decision not to vote is send a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu saying they recognized Israel's right to defend herself, and knew that this was a "sensitive issue," but remained convinced that "peace would guarantee Israel's security best."

Then they put the onus squarely on us, urging "an independent and transparent investigation of the events in Gaza," the facilitation of "increased access to Gaza," a "halt to settlement activity in occupied territories," and "the resumption of negotiations on the basis of parameters recalled by President Obama in his speech to the UN."

The fancy diplomatic footwork and the positive spin aside, these nations are not with us.


With this comes relief that the US stood opposed. If this comes before the Security Council, we will be depending on a US veto (see more on this below).

It's instructive to note the positions of various other nations. I've long felt that our future is with alliances in eastern Europe, western Europe to a large extent having been lost. Eastern European nations largely "get it" in a way the west has failed to do, and as our foreign ministry courts them this is to the good. See that Hungary, Slovakia, and the Ukraine were opposed, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, and Uruguay abstained.

Also important given the shifting climate of international diplomatic relations (and the critical need for us to find alliances beyond our connection with a weakened US) is our courting of African nations. This Lieberman has also been doing. And see that Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Gabon abstained.

Lastly, I am surprised that India, with which I thought we had a reasonably warm relationship of shared concerns, voted for.


I share here a link to a video of Col. Richard Kemp — former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and a military man with tremendous credentials — who addressed the Human Rights Council on Friday. You will also see the text of his remarks, but I urge you to see the short — three minute — video.

The Goldstone Commission declined to hear Col. Kemp. UN Watch, an NGO that monitors UN activity, arranged for him to address the Council.

The good colonel's message: "the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

That their own military man so defended Israel makes even more unconscionable Britain's failure to vote against.

Please, share this link very broadly, including with your Senators and Congresspeople, who should all see it.


Netanyahu has put together a special forum to contend with the vote of the HRC. "We are now setting out to delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us. We will not tolerate it and we will respond on a case by case basis," he declared.

Among those to be involved are: Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman, and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog and Minister Benny Begin. Senior officials from the prime minister's office Uzi Arad and Ron Dermer and Foreign Ministry Director General Yossi Gal will also be participating. (No Ya'alon?)

A long, hard and very necessary fight.


What will happen now remains a bit vague.

According to the Post, Palestinian envoy to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi, says they are seeking ways to send the report directly to the International Criminal Court, which would charge individual Israeli leaders with war crimes.

More likely is that it will get to the General Assembly, which might send it to the International Court of Justice — possibly for an advisory ruling. Then it may well go to the Security Council. But it's a good bet that the US would veto any proposed SC action, because American interests lie in a different direction. The Americans know full well that even debate on the subject will interferes the "peace process," and Obama is eager to get on with those negotiations. In fact, Britain and France think along the same lines.

The fact that the Human Rights Council accepted the findings of the Goldstone Commission has already had a chilling effect on that "process." Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders warned about this: We are going to be considerably less willing to "take chances" for "peace" if we may be blocked in our right to defend ourselves. What has happened, additionally, is that terrorist organizations — reasonably assured that there will be no serious international repercussions to their actions — have been given a green light.


Jonathan Schanzer of the Jewish Policy Center says that the vote in the Human Rights Council marks a "distinct" failure for Obama policy in the Middle East. He had reportedly indicated to Jerusalem, when the Goldstone Report was first released, that it would die a quiet death in the Council, which enabled him to secure a greater measure of cooperation from Israel with regard to willingness to enter negotiations.

But, in the turn of events that has been thoroughly examined here, he was unable to keep Abbas in line on this.

"Apart from his inability to hold Abbas to his word, Obama failed to appeal to the sensibilities of U.S. allies on the council such as Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, who voted in favor of the report. This confirms that the Arab world is still more interested in vilifying Israel than negotiating with it — despite Obama's attempts to engender good will in the Arab world by exacting concessions from Israel.

"More importantly, Obama has conveyed to the Israelis that he lacks sway with the Palestinians. This bodes poorly for future negotiations. "


Word is that FL Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Boca Raton area) is about to resign from Congress and become director of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, in Washington DC.

No loss to the Congressional world, although I suppose he will have to be monitored with regard to his new position. Wexler was an early, and enthusiastic supporter of Obama. When he was here this past summer he referred to a freeze on settlement activity by Israel as no more than a "tiny tiny gesture."


Wexler has also been a major supporter of J Street, which, as it happens, is planning its first major conference next week in Washington DC.

J Street, headed by Jeremy Ben-Ami, defines itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement." But those terms, used so blithely, themselves must be examined. Pro-peace? Pro-Israel? By whose lights?

Ben-Ami represents his "progressive" group as being the alternative to AIPAC, and the organization that most genuinely speaks for American Jews today. He has stated that "We're trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel."


A couple of months ago, Lawrence W. White wrote a critique of J Street that is biting and incisive — and worthy of serious note:

"Court Jews were so named because they were Jews who did favors for noblemen in exchange for prestige, social influence, and various privileges not available to other Jews. They were often more concerned with preserving their status and fortunes than in promoting the welfare of their less fortunate co-religionists...

"In the widening divide between American and Israeli Jews over concern for the future of Israel, there are many American Jews who have taken positions harmful to the security of the Jewish state. Some Jews for a variety of reasons wish to establish themselves as 'progressives', with a universalist rather than particularist world view...

"Barack Obama has also needed court Jews. The President, clearly committed to liberal-left solutions to our national problems, campaigned as a strong advocate for Israel...His eloquence and apparent sincerity in speaking of his concern for Israel played a major role in his winning a stunning 78% of the Jewish vote.

"Once he was elected Barak Obama found governing to be more difficult than campaigning. The choices that he has made have led to erosion of support, especially among centrists who had supported him. To be successful Obama needed to retain his base...

"Obama's view of the conflict in the Middle East has been shaped by those with an imperfect understanding of Middle East history and culture...Those around him, including many Jews, encourage this ahistoric and simplistic thinking.

"But the President needs to be sure that in the process of leaning on Israel, he does not lose the American Jewish community. They were needed last year to ensure an electoral majority and will continue to be needed in the future. Having campaigned on a strong pro-Israel platform, and having assured many prominent and well-connected Jews that he was committed to the security and welfare of Israel, he needed a credible way to validate that impression in order to prevent any erosion in support. This is where Jeremy Ben-Ami, the director of the new organization J Street, comes in. Ben-Ami has become the very model of the 'court Jew'.

"...Along with others, including George Soros, Ben-Ami founded J Street last year as an organization that was 'both pro-peace and pro-Israel'. A key feature of J Street's strategy was to establish themselves as a centrist force. To achieve this they needed to do two things. First, market themselves as moderate and as authentic representatives of the American Jewish community, and secondly break the influence of AIPAC and other Jewish organizations by re-labeling them as right wing, and not sufficiently committed to the peace process.


"During its short history, J Street has built up an extensive list of positions detrimental to Israel. With respect to Iran, they have defended Iran's nuclear weapons program, and lobbied Congress not to place new sanctions on Iran...They have urged ending sanctions against Syria also, and have favored pressuring Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syrian control,

"They have lobbied Congress to oppose an initiative calling on Obama to pressure Arab governments to normalize relations with Israel, They favor negotiating with Hamas...And when the President awarded the Medal of Freedom to the Durban anti-Semitic ringmaster Mary Robinson, it was J Street that was tasked with defending the indefensible.

"But their most controversial action relates to Operation Cast Lead. Last December, after several months of deadly rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, Israel finally took military action against Hamas to defend its citizens. J Street opposed this action, calling for an immediate cease fire on the first day, claiming that Israel's actions were contrary to the interests of peace...

"J Street's strategy is deceptively simple. No matter how damaging to Israel a particular position might be, they follow with the mantra "and we are pro-Israel". That J Street takes positions inimical to Israel's welfare should be obvious, but it disguises its anti-Israel bias behind repeated declarations of support for the State of Israel...

"The claim by J Street that they are pro-Israel is one of the largest con jobs ever perpetrated on the American Jewish community...

"...J Street permits [Obama] to create the illusion that he has the support of the American Jewish community, that he is maintaining his promise to be a friend to Israel, and by doing exactly what a pro-Israel Jewish organization is recommending, he is acting in Israel's best interests...

...As soon as the [organized Jewish] community sees through J Street's claim of being pro-Israel, the game will end. At present however, J Street is an unofficial adjunct of the Obama administration. Its allegiance is to Barack Obama, not to the American Jewish community and certainly not to Israel."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/ obamas_court_jews_the_rise_of.html


Earlier this month, commentator Lenny Ben David took a close look at some major J Street supporters:

"In August, the Jerusalem Post revealed that J Street's political action committee received contributions from Arab-Iranian-, and Muslim Americans. State Department officials, a Palestinian billionaire, and board members of the discredited Human Rights Watch and the Iranian lobby were also listed in the files of the Federal Election Commission. Faced with the evidence, J Street's director Jeremy Ben-Ami responded, 'I think it is a terrific thing for Israel for us to be able to expand the tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel and willing to support Israel through J Street, he said.

"Give me a break. That tent may have come directly from the Saudi king's compound in Riyadh or Jedda. Research into J Street's backers indicates a Washington cadre of paid Saudi agents, sycophants, and factotums. There are not many in that bunch who would be 'willing to be considered pro-Israel.'"
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-does-j-street-attract- the-friends-of-saudi-arabia/?print=1

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 18, 2009.

Friends, on October 14, I got the following message from listmember Moshe Dann:

Dear Naomi,

On Sunday (October 11) Akiva (my daughter Ayelet's husband) was given orders expelling him from his home and Judea and Samaria for 6 months. Two other individuals and their families were given similar expulsion orders. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133807)

There were no specific charges.

Ayelet is 6 months pregnant, with three little ones at home. A similar order was given to them a year ago, which expelled them for 3 months. During the period of expulsion they have to find and pay for a place to live, and employment. At the present time, Akiva is working as a contractor building homes in the area of Yitzhar, where they live and grinding wheat and selling the flour. This will no longer be possible.

If Akiva has violated the law, why isn't he charged and brought into court? Why are the reasons for his expulsion secret?

Friends, this whole thing has the distinct odor of 'thought police.' It is intolerable.

You can read more about it in the article below. But if this makes your blood boil, as it does mine, please get involved.

Please contact every Israeli politician you know, especially Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense: (dover@mod.gov.il) fax: 011 972- 2-649-6545; Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: memshala@it.pmo.gov.il, Fax: 011 972-2-563-2580; the Israeli embassy in Washington: Tel: 202-364-5500; Deputy Chief of Mission: Dan Arbell, Fax: (202) 364-5560; Defense and Armed Forces Attaché Major General Benjamin Gantz Tel: (202) 364-5403 Fax: (202) 364-5503.

You can also write letters to the Jerusalem Post: letters@jpost.com

And you can ask your Congressional Representative to inquire, since Akiva is also an American citizen.

This below is called "Army Bans Land of Israel Activists From Home" and it appeared 12 October 2009 in Arutz-7. It was written by by Hillel Fendel, senior news analyst at Arutz-7.


(Israelnationalnews.com) In response to the abrupt announcement that three activists may not return to their homes in Samaria for six months, residents say leftists have taken over the army's Central Command. Early Monday morning, IDF Central District Commander Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni issued orders banning two prominent Land of Israel activists from returning to their homes, or anywhere in the Shomron (Samaria), for the next six months. The two are Ariel Gruner and Akiva HaCohen, both fathers of four children and residents of Yitzhar in the Shomron.

This is not the first time for either of them: In July 2006, Gruner — whose youngest son is now ten days old — was placed in prison for seven weeks under administrative detention orders generally employed against Arab terrorists. He was then placed under "caravan arrest" in a small Jordan Valley community for three months, followed by a three-month ban on entering Judea and Samaria. In August 2008, HaCohen was banned from the Shomron, where he lives, for four months.

A Third Expellee

Several hours later, Shamni issued similar orders against a third Yitzhar resident, Eliav Eliyahu, 19, who has been married for less than a year. The official explanation for the latest orders: "Information has been received of their involvement in violent and illegal activity... and in light of the genuine danger foreseen from them to security and public order." The Shomron Residents Committee responded, "This decision by Gen. Shamni to distance two young men from their families for six months with the weak excuse of 'danger' is an evil, arbitrary, cruel and brutal move. The radical left has taken over the top brass of the Central Command, making intolerable use of their authority and power, and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet ministers of the nationalist camp must put an end to this phenomenon." Worse Conditions than Prisoners David Ha'ivri, Director of the Shomron Liaison Office, said: "The forced banishment of men who are providers for their families causes unfair damage to their income and disrupts their families' well-being... If there is credible evidence of any wrongdoing, let a trial take place; extrajudicial moves have no place in Israel's legal system. Moreover, we demand that all expenses such as loss of livelihood, etc., be covered by the State."

Yitzhar spokesman Yigal Amitai noted that jailed prisoners are provided with room and board, and their families are also provided for in some form, whereas "in this case, it appears that as far as the State is concerned, these activists can simply evaporate; there is no provision for alternative housing or sustenance."

Undemocratic Tools

The Land of Israel Faithful Movement stated: "We sharply and unambiguously condemn these distancing orders. We demand that the Government of Israel — a nationalist government — put an immediate halt to this wrongful use of these non-democratic tools that are reminiscent of dark periods in our history." MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) criticized what he called the "thought police," and asked why it is that pro-Arab activists and anarchists in the Bil'in and Naalin protests "who throw rocks at soldiers" never receive such orders.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanford Aranoff, October 17, 2009.

WONDERFUL! I have known these things for years!

Why don't Israelis know the truth of the evil of their Palestinean neighbors?

We must focus on building education institutions that teach do not murder. Killing is okay. It is okay to kill in self defense, such as in war. But murder must be stopped by education!

9/11 IS KORAN TEACHING 9:111 Read Why — 9/11 is Koran Teaching 9:111. The murder of 2,973 human beings on 9/11 is not a crime in Islam but a holy, divine act guaranteeing accession to a Paradise filled with lustrous eyed, full breasted virgins. Kafirs (nonMuslims) are sub-humans to Muslims possessing absolutely no humanity. The killing of 2,973 meant no more to Muslims then stepping on 2,973 ants.

This below was written by Jake Neuman, author of "Islam. Evil in the Name of God."



To access front page, back page, etc., GO here.

Israelis fighting for its national existence not only from Iran but from a book called the Koran. I m totally shocked that given the seriousness of the situation and the very grave danger all Israelis face that there is no Israeli leader who understands Islam/Koran/Muhammad.

ALL Muslims believe that the Koran is the divine, timeless word of God that God personally wrote EVERY word of the Koran. The instructions from God are very clear Muslim men must conquer all nations of the world, and force all mankind to convert to Islam or submit to Islam and pay a jizya tax if they are Peoples of the Book i.e, Jews/Christians or be murdered if they refuse.

Islam divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). It is this dispensation that the world lived under in Muhammad's time, and that it lives under today. Then as now, Islam's message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered, convert or be killed. The choice is your free democratic choice. If you decide to reject Islam then your death is your own doing.


The only guarantee for a Muslim to enter Paradise is to die in a Jihad. Sura 9:111 God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. And if you are slain, or die in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass. (Surah 3:157 Al-Imran 3:157)

These are not teachings that are historical niceties that can be ignored. They are Israel's reality. Israel is on the front line of Global Jihad. The Koran is a spear aimed at the heart of Israel just as much as Iranian nukes.

Israel has in the United States a President who is determined to throw Israel under the bus to guarantee his own historical greatness by forcing Israel to make a peace agreement that will lay the foundation for Israel's destruction.


There can be no peace with Palestinians without destroying the Koran. Israel will be surrendering land for war not land for peace. Israel needs to make the Koran the centre of any peace agreement. The Koran is Islam's Mein Kampf.



These conditions are explained in Chapter 34. Following is a short listing:

1. Islam is a 7th century ideology whose prime directive is the extermination of ALL kafirs from face of the earth. All Muslims believe that the Koran was written by God — that every word was written by God and can never be changed. Palestinians must declare that the Koran is NOT the divine, timeless word of God.

1. Palestinians must declare that only a God of Moral Perfection is God and sign the Declaration of a God of Moral Perfection (See Chapter 1)

3 Bring to an end the 1400 year old war against the kafirs. This means the renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran the close to 1000 fascist teachings of violence, terror, war, death and destruction, violent jihad, murder. 4. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of the oppression, subjugation and repression of women.

5. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of raping of kafir women.

6. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of slavery.

7. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of looting and pillaging and sharing the profit received from selling looted property and slaves with God.

8. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of brutality.

9. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of hate, inequality and racism

10. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran (and Islam) all teachings of murdering Apostates of Islam. The total and complete right of Muslims to leave Islam.

11. Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of polygamy.

12. The complete eradication of the sexually depraved Islamic Paradise of virgins who are to service the Men of Allah for all eternity.

13 The total and complete destruction of Sharia Law and its replacement by separation of religion and state and democracy and freedom.

14 The complete implementation of the Golden Rule in Islam and applying the Ten Commandments to kafirs.

15. Only 10% of Islam has anything to do with religion — the other 90% is political. Palestinians must eradicate political Islam and change Islam into a true religion of peace in which Muslims pray 5 times a day, observe Ramadan, go on pilgrimages, abstain from alcohol and women wear headscarfs of their own free will. And that's it.

16 Renouncing, denouncing and removing from the Koran all teachings of honour killing. Murdering one's child is murdering all mankind.

17. Establishment of the rule of law including: a. All humanity is created equal. b. Women are equal to men. c. Kafirs are equal to Muslims. d. All humanity regardless of race or colour is equal each to the other

If the Koran is not made an integral part of any agreement then Israel will be committing national suicide. The fate of Western Civilization hangs in the balance. Make no mistake the stakes are that high. The world will be absolutely shocked by these conditions. The destruction of the Koran is absolutely essential to the survival of Israel. Each of these 17 conditions must contain the actual teachings from the Koran that Israel wants removed. There are close to 1000 fascist teachings or 65% of the Koran. The future of Israel and Western Civilization are at stake.

Contact Dr. Sanford Aranoff at aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, October 17, 2009.

Bil'in and Yassin v. Green Park International Ltd.: Quebec Court Acknowledges War Crimes as Potential Basis for Civil Liability, Claim Ultimately Fails on Forum Non Conveniens

This ws written by James Yap, 3rd year JD program. This appeared in THE COURT,


On September 18, the Superior Court of Quebec released its decision in the novel and intriguing case of Bil'in (Village Council) v. Green Park International Ltd., 2009 QCCS 4151. The plaintiffs sought to claim against a Quebec corporation and its sole director for participating in war crimes allegedly committed in the West Bank. However, Superior Court judge Louis-Paul Cullen exercised his discretion to decline jurisdiction on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs will likely appeal the stay.

The Claim

The corporate defendant, Green Park International Ltd., is a Quebec-registered corporation that has been involved in constructing and developing settlements for Israelis on occupied land in the West Bank. The land in question falls within the territory of the village of Bil'in. The plaintiffs are the Village Council of Bil'in, as well as Ahmed Yassin, now deceased, who claimed to own part of the land in dispute.

The structure of the claim is somewhat intricate. The plaintiffs allege that the corporate defendants are engaged in constructing residential buildings intended for Israeli civilians on village land, in furtherance of an Israeli state policy of inducing its civilian population to settle occupied territory with the ultimate objective of facilitating the eventual assimilation of these lands into its own territory.

The West Bank is not part of Israel but has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. Thus, it falls squarely within the purview of the Geneva Conventions, which set out much of the international law with respect to military occupation. Under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is illegal for an occupying state to "transfer parts of its own civilian population onto the territory it occupies" (the same prohibition is also set out in Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). The plaintiffs allege that Israel is in breach of this law, and that the defendants are assisting in this breach.

Under international law, it so happens that a breach of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention is classified as a war crime. The term "war crime" has no clear, universally accepted definition, but essentially war crimes are those violations of the laws of war so grave that they have been specially designated by the international community as an extraordinary class of offence whose reprehensible nature would "shock the conscience of all right-thinking people" (to use the words of Cory J. in R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701). Laws against war crimes are generally aimed at atrocities against civilians, prisoners of war, and other non-combatants.

A war crime, to put it succinctly, is a very serious matter. Further, it is easy to see why the offence in question falls into this special category. Article 49(6) is essentially a law to prevent colonialism. One need look no further than the current condition of the indigenous peoples whose domain once spanned the entire expansive breadth of this continent to appreciate the gravity of the consequences territorial dispossession can inflict upon a population. Most war crimes deal with offences against individuals or groups of individuals, but the offence in Article 49(6) is one that threatens the integrity of an entire people. It clearly qualifies as an exceptional offence of higher order that is of grave concern to the global community as a whole.

The plaintiffs' allegation that the defendants are participating in war crimes is not only very serious but highly politically charged. Thus, although the Geneva Conventions Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-3, and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24, confers on Canadian courts criminal jurisdiction over war crimes committed anywhere in the world, a prosecution of the Bil'in defendants would never proceed in Canada. Under the Canadian legislation, it would require the personal consent of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, which, due to such political considerations, would be next to impossible to obtain. However, the plaintiffs have framed participating in war crimes as a civil wrong, invoking the standards of conduct articulated in the Geneva Conventions Act and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act to argue that the defendants are liable in tort under Article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec, R.S.Q., c. C-25, which sets out the basic principle of extra-contractual civil liability under Quebec civil law:

1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct which lie upon him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another.

In bringing this claim, the plaintiffs have become the first in Canada to institute a civil claim for war crimes since a failed attempt by the family of Shidane Arone to bring a civil claim in Ontario courts for Arone's torture-death at the hands of Canadian peacekeeping soldiers in Somalia (which was dismissed in an unreported judgment).

The defendants, not to be outmatched in creativity, filed in response a series of motions to dismiss, pleading no cause of action, state immunity, lack of standing, forum non conveniens, and even res judicata.

The Judgment

Cullen J. dismissed most of these motions either in whole or in part. Notably, he also accepted, for the first time in Canada, that the commission of a war crime constitutes a civil wrong:

[175] A war crime is an indictable offence. As such, it is an imperative rule of conduct that implicitly circumscribes an elementary norm of prudence, the violation of which constitutes a civil fault pursuant to art. 1457 C.C.Q.

He further accepted that a person may also commit a civil wrong by knowingly participating in a war crime:

[176] In theory, a person would therefore commit a civil fault pursuant to art. 1457 C.C.Q. by knowingly participating in a foreign country in the unlawful transfer by an occupying power of a portion of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, in violation of an international instrument which the occupying power has ratified. Such a person would thus be knowingly assisting the occupying power in the violation of the latter's obligations and would also become a party to a war crime, thereby violating an elementary norm of prudence.

However, the good news for the plaintiffs ends there. Despite delivering the not altogether stunning ruling that the commission of a war crime does, indeed, constitute a civil wrong in Canada, Cullen J. nevertheless exercised his discretion under CCQ Article 3135 to decline jurisdiction on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

In some ways this result is unsurprising. The doctrine of forum non conveniens has long been a staunch ally to Canadian corporations beset by human rights claims launched from abroad. However, the plaintiffs here put up a vigorous legal resistance which was innovative and not without appeal.

One of the relevant factors in the forum non conveniens analysis in Quebec, as in common law Canada, is the law governing the dispute. In Quebec, as in the rest of Canada, the law to be applied in a tort action is the lex loci delicti — the law of the place where the tortious act occurred. However, CCQ Article 3081 provides that "[t]he provisions of the law of a foreign country do not apply if their application would be manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations" (this is roughly analogous to the public policy exception in common law conflict of laws). The plaintiffs argued that the legality of settlements with respect to the Geneva Conventions is not justiciable in Israeli courts. The law as applied by Israeli courts would fail to take account of the Geneva Conventions and, insofar as it would condone the commission of a war crime recognized under both domestic and international law, would be "manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations." Accordingly, sending the claim for disposition to Israel would lead to a result that would offend this notion of "public order."

Furthermore, it is questionable whether Israel can even be considered an available forum, let alone an appropriate one. Insofar as the Israeli courts are effectively unable to hear the action framed as it is in terms of war crimes, it could be said that this claim is not one that is even capable of being tried in Israel. Declining jurisdiction in favour of the Israeli courts would leave the plaintiffs with no viable alternative forum in which to pursue their claim, which would plainly not be in the interests of justice.

Either analysis presents a compelling argument. It would plainly be unjust to send a civil suit for war crimes to the forum whose state is allegedly responsible for those war crimes, particularly where the legality of state action with respect to war crimes is not a justiciable issue. To support their position, the plaintiffs filed the affidavit of Orna Ben-Naftali, a professor of international law whose expertise lies chiefly in the field of international humanitarian law. Prof. Ben-Naftali explained how it is the judicial policy of Israeli courts to decline to review the legality of settlements with respect to international humanitarian law. The defendants, for their part, filed the affidavit of Israeli attorney Renato Jarach, which was substantially in agreement on the fact that Israeli courts would not review the legality of settlements with respect to war crimes, but pointed out that it was not for lack of legal tools to give judgment, but rather because a judicial determination with such broad political aspects should defer to the political process. At trial, counsel for the defendants pleaded respect for the principle of judicial deference to executive action in areas of government policy.

Cullen J. rejected the plaintiff's argument by rejecting the evidence of Prof. Ben-Naftali — although, as we shall see, not in a way that entirely prefers Mr. Jarach's evidence either. Embarking on his own interpretations of the Israeli case law, he concluded that it is not for political reasons that Israeli courts refrain from applying international humanitarian law to disputes respecting individual rights, but because the 1949 Geneva Conventions do not form part of domestic statute law in Israel. Furthermore, when the Israeli High Court of Justice was ruling on this question in the 1970s, it did not consider the 1949 Geneva Conventions to be rules of customary international law (which are automatically incorporated into the domestic law of all developed nations). In other words, Israeli courts do not apply the Geneva Conventions simply because they are not incorporated into Israeli law. Noting that "[a] similar requirement exists in Canada, where international instruments require legislative action to form part of Canadian domestic law," he concluded that this requirement was not "manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations" within the meaning of CCQ Article 3081. Accordingly, the juridical advantage that the plaintiffs sought is not the advantage of being able to plead the Geneva Conventions, but rather the merely procedural advantage of not having to argue to an Israeli court that the Geneva Conventions have, since the 1970s, become part of customary international law (and therefore part of Israeli law). This minor juridical advantage, he found, is not enough to justify asserting jurisdiction, in light of the other connecting factors which, he concluded, pointed to Israel as the more appropriate forum.


With respect, I am unable to agree with the reasoning of Cullen J. For the present purpose, I assert no position as to the legality of Israeli settlements under international law, or the commission of war crimes by Israel, or the state of Israeli law. However, I do agree with the basic reasoning that war crimes, by virtue of their nature, are a special category of higher-order wrongful conduct that would "shock the conscience of all right-thinking people," and are consequently of deep concern to the global community as a whole. Given the grave and universally condemned nature of the acts alleged — acts which undoubtedly offend "public order as understood in international relations" — I feel that Cullen J.'s reasoning fails to disclose an adequate basis for declining jurisdiction — jurisdiction which the Quebec court, by virtue of the defendants' domicile, is legally entitled to assert. I call attention, on this point, to the SCC's citation in Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 205, 2002 SCC 78 of the principle of forum non conveniens that in Quebec, "the plaintiff's choice of forum should only be declined exceptionally, when the defendant would be exposed to great injustice as a result."

I have some reservations, first of all, with the manner in which Cullen J. arrives at his determinations on Israeli law. The content of foreign law is not a question of law but a question of fact, which must be proven by expert evidence. A judge cannot simply disregard the pleadings of the parties and interpret the foreign law as he or she sees fit, as would be the case with domestic law (for example, SCC jurisprudence). Yet there is a strong argument to be made that this is exactly what Cullen J. did. The defence expert, Mr. Jarach, did not argue the point that Cullen J. ultimately relied on — namely, that the Geneva Conventions are non-justiciable merely because they are not considered customary international law. By embarking on his own analysis of Israeli case law and substituting his own legal interpretations of the judgments, and thereby arriving at factual conclusions that were not advanced in the testimony of any of the relevant experts, Cullen J. seems to skirt dangerously close to the limits of his judicial authority.

That said, I profess to having no expertise as to the proper interpretation of Israeli law and would not presume to challenge such a conclusion. Assuming, therefore, that Cullen J. properly came to the correct factual determination, and that the Geneva Conventions are indeed non-justiciable in Israel merely because they are not considered customary international law, I still fail to perceive the deductive progression between such a factual determination and the legal conclusions reached by Cullen J.

The plaintiffs' argument, as I understand it, is that the failure of Israeli courts to apply the Geneva Conventions would in and of itself lead to a result "manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations," insofar as it would condone the commission of a war crime. The reason behind the failure to apply such law — be it legal or political — is irrelevant. Rather, the relevant question is whether war crimes — prohibited as they are under international humanitarian and international criminal law and as indictable criminal offences under our own domestic penal law — are themselves acts that are "manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations." If the answer is in the affirmative, then sending the claim to an Israeli court would lead to the application of a law that is "manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations," regardless of the reasoning behind this law.

For this reason, I believe Cullen J. misses the point entirely by characterizing the question of whether the Fourth Geneva Convention is customary international law as "central to the dispute." Although I happen to believe there is a very strong case to be made that, notwithstanding the Israel High Court of Justice's opinion, the relevant norms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are indeed part of customary international law, I am of the opinion that this question is not central, but is, at best, peripherally relevant to the dispute.

I am further unconvinced by Cullen J.'s argument that, since 30 years have passed since the Israeli High Court of Justice pronounced in 1979 that the 1949 Geneva Conventions had not yet become part of customary international law, it is now open for the plaintiffs to argue before an Israeli court that since that time, the Geneva Conventions have indeed crystallized into customary international law. It seems only logical that a domestic plaintiff pleading that the application of a foreign law would lead to an unjust result ought to be entitled to presume that the foreign court will apply the law as it currently stands. It seems unreasonable to require the plaintiff to ask the foreign court to change the law on the strength of abstract speculation, wholly unsupported by evidence, that the foreign court may be receptive to such a change now that the current state of the law is 30 years old.

International Humanitarian Law There is a further passage in the judgment where Cullen J. issues some remarks on the topic of international humanitarian law that raise interesting questions. After qualifying Prof. Ben-Naftali as an expert in "International Humanitarian Law," Cullen J. offers the following commentary on her area of expertise:

[248] Professor Ben-Naftali refers to "International Humanitarian Law". According to Sir Ian Bownlie [sic] the similar expression of "International Human Rights Law" is a convenient but perhaps confusing category of reference devoid of intrinsic substance:
Many lawyers in academic life refer to an entity described as "International Human Rights Law" which is assumed to be a separate body of norms. While this is a convenient category of reference, it is also a source of confusion. Human rights problems occur in specific legal contexts. The issues may arise in domestic law, or within the framework of a standard-setting convention, or within general international law. There is thus the law of a particular State, or the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the relevant principles of general international law. In the real world of practice and procedure, there is no such entity as "International Human Rights Law".

There is a key difference, however, between "international human rights law" and Prof. Ben-Naftali's actual words, "international humanitarian law." International humanitarian law is, of course, the field of law governing the rules of armed conflict between nations. Otherwise known as the laws of war or the law of armed conflict, it is the specific field of law that governs, inter alia, the commission of war crimes. The term "international human rights law" may very well be a "confusing category of reference devoid of intrinsic substance" (more on this contentious point below). International humanitarian law, however, is undoubtedly a well-defined and highly specialized field of law, and moreover the precise field of law that is implicated in this dispute.

It is puzzling why Cullen J. would conflate two decidedly distinct entities in such a manner. With the greatest respect to Cullen J., who for the most part delivered a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion on a highly complex matter, the most likely reason seems to be that the judge, a specialist in civil and commercial litigation, simply failed to apprehend the distinction between international humanitarian law and international human rights law.[emphasis added]

A careful examination of the rest of the decision seems to bear this explanation out. Other public international law concepts discussed in the judgment, such as customary international law, are duly defined and explained, but mysteriously there is no explanation of international humanitarian law anywhere in the judgment, outside of the confusing comparison with international human rights law. In fact, the term first appears placed inside quotation marks, as if the judge questions its universality or value. Nowhere is there any evidence to positively establish an affirmative awareness of the specialized meaning of the term.

Upon consideration, it is not inconceivable how a civil and commercial litigation specialist could develop such an impression. The precise meaning of the term "international humanitarian law" is not evident on the face of the words themselves, and the name does bear a potentially confusing similarity to the term "international human rights law."

On its face, then, erroneously equating international humanitarian law with international human rights law appears to be merely a minor flaw in the judgment that does not affect the integrity of the decision as a whole. While it must no doubt be of no small consternation to the plaintiffs for the judge to be unaware of the name of the very field of law centrally implicated in this dispute, the judge in ruling on this motion made very little in the way of legal determinations concretely engaging international humanitarian law.

On closer consideration, however, this seemingly benign mistake does raise concerns that are serious enough to compromise the broader integrity of the decision. It raises an apprehension that every time the phrase arose in oral argument, in written submissions, or in relevant treatises that were consulted during the course of deliberations, there is a chance that the precise message may have been lost on the judge.

More significant, however, are this error's implications on the judge's assessment of the credibility of Prof. Ben-Naftali. An examination of the context of the passage quoted above makes it clear that Cullen J.'s purpose is to weaken Prof. Ben-Naftali's credibility as a reliable expert and the weight of her evidence by erroneously finding that her testimony is plagued with terms that are "confusing" and "devoid of intrinsic substance."

Further, as mentioned above, Cullen J. explicitly qualified Prof. Ben-Naftali as an expert in international humanitarian law. Accordingly, he deemed her to be an expert in a "confusing category of reference devoid of intrinsic substance," of which "there is no such entity" — essentially, not much of a real expert in anything at all. Under this mistaken impression, he would then have assigned to her evidence a corresponding degree of weight.

It is unclear what conclusion Cullen J. may have reached with respect to the expert evidence before him had he been properly cognizant of the fact that, actually, Prof. Ben-Naftali was an expert in precisely the highly specialized and concretely defined field of international law that is squarely implicated in the dispute. Had he not mischaracterized her expertise, he may not have been so quick to substitute his own interpretation of Israeli law for hers. Whatever the case, it is clear that Cullen J.'s accidental conflation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law may have given rise to broader misconceptions that could have affected the final outcome.

International Law in Domestic Courts

The passage quoted above is not the only place where Cullen J.'s relative inexperience with respect to public international law is exposed. Later in the judgment, Cullen J. makes reference to "Israel's absolute immunity to any judicial proceedings [in Canada]" [Emphasis added].

The term "absolute immunity" ordinarily refers to the conception of state immunity that confers on a state complete and total immunity, with no exception, from the jurisdiction of the domestic courts of another state. The doctrine of absolute immunity has been essentially defunct, at least in Canada, since at least 1982 when the federal government enacted the State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, which codified the developing common law theory of restrictive immunity. In contrast to absolute immunity, the latter theory allows a number of exceptions to state immunity; for example, exceptions relating to commercial or criminal activity.

It is thus incorrect, and has been for some time now, to speak of Israel or any foreign state as enjoying "absolute immunity" in Canada. One expects that a judge with a stronger background in public international law would have avoided such wording, conflicting as it does with an established term of art — although given the many exceptions contained in the State Immunity Act, it is difficult to see how it could be said that Israel enjoys "absolute immunity" in either the doctrinal or the literal sense.

Further, Cullen J.'s dismissal of the term "international human rights law," and his assumption that a sub-field of international law characterized by common subject-matter is "devoid of intrinsic substance" simply because it admits of many different sources, fundamentally misapprehends what is almost by necessary implication an intrinsic characteristic of many fields of international law. On this reasoning, there cannot be any sub-field of international law, whether "international human rights law," "international environmental law," "private international law," "international trade law," and so on.

If I were an international lawyer, I might point to these mistakes as a reflection of the generally ambivalent attitude towards public international law within the Canadian legal profession. To be sure, Canadian courts have also come out with some expertly written decisions on both state immunity and international humanitarian law. However, there are also many decisions such as Cullen J.'s where it is apparent that the judge is grappling with new and unfamiliar issues, often with unfortunate results. These kinds of issues will only arise more frequently in the future, as increasing international economic integration continues to produce more transnational litigation.


The plaintiffs have not yet filed an appeal, although one is expected. If Bil'in does find its way before the Court of Appeal, however, the plaintiffs certainly have a strong case to have the trial judge's decision overturned. For the reasons outlined above, I am not convinced that Cullen J. properly identified and assessed the relevant considerations in his forum non conveniens analysis. He failed to properly assess the plaintiffs' argument with respect to the non-justiciability of the legality of settlements under international humanitarian law in Israeli courts, and anchored his finding in an irrelevant consideration, i.e. the question of whether the reasoning behind this policy is legal or political. Further, he seriously mischaracterized Prof. Ben-Naftali's expert evidence and qualifications and called her credibility into question on a faulty basis.

Ultimately, however, perhaps my strongest objection to this decision is what can only be characterized as its fundamental failure to give due consideration to the gravity of that special class of human rights abuses known as war crimes. Sending a civil claim for war crimes, over which the domestic courts lawfully have jurisdiction, to the courts of the same country alleged to have committed them is a proposition that ought to be suspect on its face, and to which domestic courts ought to accede only with extreme caution. Under no circumstances, in particular, should such jurisdiction be declined where, as the trial judge admitted here, war crimes are not justiciable in the courts of that country. This would lead to the grossly unjust result of leaving the plaintiff absolutely no forum in which to pursue the claim. Cullen J.'s claim that the refusal to adjudicate the commission of war crimes due not to their politically sensitive nature but because they are not customary international law essentially reduces international prohibitions against war crimes to the same status as any common treaty between nations: of no legal force in domestic courts until it is incorporated into domestic law by legislative enactment. It is a finding inconsistent with an awareness that war crimes are grave offences, not simply by virtue of their status as international law, but because they are in and of themselves serious and universally condemned violations of human rights, elevated to such exceptional status by broad international consensus — a consensus endorsed in Canada through such legislative enactments as the Geneva Conventions Act and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

Cullen J. does not so much as acknowledge the difficulty this fact poses for his ultimate finding in his discussion of the "interests of justice" factor in forum non conveniens. Instead, he demurs to such factors as the plaintiffs' failure to join any current owners or occupiers of the settlements (as if the issue concerned a mundane property dispute and not a war crime) and, incredibly enough, the need to conserve judicial resources. The non-justiciability of war crimes in Israel, meanwhile, is dismissed as akin to any mere difference between the laws of Israel and the laws of Quebec. Throughout the discussion, he seems blithely unaware of any reason why one might consider the non-justiciability of war crimes normatively problematic beyond the mere fact of simple divergence with the law of Quebec. Even on its most generous interpretation, such reasoning demonstrates nothing short of a complete failure to apprehend the exceptional character of the matters at stake in this litigation.

Such a ruling ought to trouble any observer, regardless of where on the spectrum he or she may fall with respect to the broader political context of this dispute. The issue at stake here is whether a civil claim for war crimes against a Canadian corporation can be heard in Canada, and not (at this stage) whether such war crimes were actually committed. The narrow and restrictive approach that Cullen J. took to the plaintiff's arguments on justiciability and the failure to give effect to the exceptional level of censure that the international community has chosen to attach to war crimes could set a dangerous precedent that any observer measurably disturbed by the commission of war crimes in any form would be quick to condemn.

As authorities such as Binnie J. have noted, "[t]he enforcement mechanisms for human rights have lagged... [Y]ou cannot have a functioning global economy with a dysfunctional global legal system: there has to be somewhere, somehow, that people who feel that their rights have been trampled on can attempt redress." In order to facilitate the introduction of such enforcement mechanisms, Canadian courts must act to significantly curb their current proclivity towards the liberal application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in such cases. Especially since the 1999 forum non conveniens stay in the Cambior case in Quebec (alongside a costs order against a Quebec NGO bringing a claim on behalf of Guyanese citizens that alleged health and other harms from a cyanide spill by a subsidiary of a Canadian gold mining company), Canadian courts have attracted — and often affirmed — a reputation as weak and ineffective when it comes to transnational corporate accountability. For example, when Sudanese citizens sought to sue Canadian company Talisman Energy, they went to US courts, arguing that the receptivity of Canadian courts to allowing a claim against a Canadian company was at best unclear, notwithstanding the fact that it was palpably clear Sudanese courts offered no viable alternative.

As it stands, the Bil'in judgment is a setback in the fight against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and human rights violations everywhere. If the reasoning stands, Canadian corporations will continue to successfully take shelter behind forum non conveniens regardless of the gravity of the allegations against them or the capacity of the foreign court to adjudicate the claim.

The author attended the hearing of Bil'in (Village Council) v. Green Park International Ltd. in Montreal in June with the assistance of the Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security. He has also provided legal research support and feedback to counsel for the plaintiffs.

[filed: Bil'in and Yassin v. Green Park International Ltd. (2009) Civil Code Conflict of laws Finta (1994) Forum non conveniens Human rights International Criminal Law International Humanitarian Law International law Israel Spar Aerospace (2002) Torts]

Contact Israel Academia Monitor at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard A. Shulman, October 17, 2009.


Many factors determine whether the U.S. wins a serious war. One of them is close attention by the commander-in-chief. President Bush talked with commanders in Iraq every couple of weeks, for years. He learned the issues and could assess commanders' credibility. He was able to find a winning formula. [Since then, other policies have emerged, and Obama has come up with a losing formula, premature withdrawal.]

President Obama has talked with the commander in Afghanistan once since June. Obama's way of operating is to delegate policy-making. Thus he left the stimulus package to Congress. He let his Attorney-General decide whether to investigate CIA interrogators. He discussed medial payment in general terms, but did not produce a plan. [Americans are confused; reform is stifled; lobbyists shape the legislation.]

Obama seems to be leaving Afghanistan to V.P. Biden. Biden has espoused a number of policies that had or would have had ill consequences. He opposed the winning "surge" in Iraq. He opposed the first Gulf War, apparently willing to let Saddam take over Kuwait [and possibly S. Arabia]. He helped cut off aid to S. Vietnam, thereby letting the Communists take over and murder millions.

Biden's view is to withdraw most troops from Afghanistan and just fire missiles at enemy leaders there and in Pakistan. What would result?

We would not get the intelligence needed to target those enemy leaders. The government of Afghanistan probably would collapse. Tribal leaders and Pakistani leaders would feel abandoned. [Pakistani leaders already have warned about this.] They would cut deals putting the Taliban more in charge. Radical Islam would gain a victory. Foreign leaders would not trust the U.S. (Karl Rove, Wall St. Journal, 10/1, A21). Israel is learning not to.

President Lincoln kept on top of his commanders. As a result, he finally found a winning combination for the Civil War.

Karl Rove's policy is not as feasible as he makes it sound. The U.S. lacks resources [as the government expends them on what lobbies want subsidized]. Perhaps we cannot conquer and rebuild foreign countries. Perhaps we can assist reform movements to overthrow dangerous regimes, defeat their armies sufficiently to destroy their ships, missiles, warplanes, weapons of mass-destruction, the scientists who design them, and arms factories. Leave. Then return a few years later to repeat, until the people, themselves, change regimes.

It may not be fair to cite Biden's errors, without citing his full record over many eyas. However, neither Rove nor Biden seem to have a policy for ending the indoctrination in terrorism by S. Arabia. We must defeat Radical Islamic ideology. Fortunately, signs are that the Radicals increasingly alienate their fellow Muslims.


Interesting people pass through New York — there I interviewed a former U.S. special operations officer who saw much action. Some of the theatres of war were undeclared. At least they were trying to protect us.

My source had experience in the two leading military questions of the day. One is whether we need an army in Afghanistan. In his opinion, we don't. Those who disagree contend that we need an army to protect the population, which then furnishes intelligence. The intelligence enables us to capture enemies and ambush or thwart their attacks. A ground presence also builds up self-defense.

My source thinks that our trained personnel can go in and ferret out the necessary intelligence. He did. Whether that would suffice now, I do not know. He thinks it would keep the enemy from developing from within the countries they control the means to attack our allies and ourselves.

The other question of the day is how to conduct interrogation. My source specialized in that. In his own training, he was waterboarded. He did not find it as oppressive as depicted, but would not inflict it on others.

In fact, he interrogated successfully by not hurting prisoners. Consideration and even kindness worked well for him. Consider his Cuban prisoners. He asked them whether they had relatives in Miami. They said yes. He told them, you are not our enemies, you just got put into a difficult position. Let's telephone your relatives in Miami. After that, the Cubans cooperated.

He also has learned that many Muslim fighters are not really our enemies. They are illiterate. They have been manipulated by their Radical Muslim leaders into indoctrination in the most extreme ideology as a religious imperative. Our side taught them to read and gave them the Koran. They found that it does not require what they were taught. Feeling deceived, they abandoned their cause.

Another time, the special operations officer entered a cell to begin interrogation, and found a Marine beating up the prisoner. He decided not to press charges against the Marine, but knocked him out with his rifle butt. Through the interpreter, he told the rescued prisoner to clean up the Marine, left a threat that since this is what he can do to his own man who does the wrong thing, imagine what he would do to the prisoner, left a list of questions, and said he'd be back in an hour for the answers. Upon his return, the answers were awaiting him.

One time, a special operations force spotted Osama Bin Laden in a valley where they could get him. They radioed headquarters and asked for orders. Anticipating 40% casualties if they attacked, the general told them not to. They had been willing to. My source would have. He said, that is "our job," in the sense of national duty. He makes public discussions seem remote from reality.


On the heels of barring Israel from joining it in an international military drill, Turkey, a secularist state, announced it would hold a military drill with Syria.

Turkey's stated reason is Israel's use of airplanes in the Gaza war (www.imra.org.il, 10/14).

Now, "Zamanonline, a Turkish news web site, reported Wednesday that the failure of Israel to deliver UAVs to help Turkey fight terror was the reason behind the cancellation of the aerial exercise with Israel." Israeli engineers said the Turkish payload is heavier than expected, requiring technical revisions (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/14).

Stated reasons often are poor excuses. Israel's airplanes were able to limit casualties and destruction, compared with artillery. Turkey is friendly with Hamas, which definitely committed war crimes against Israel and against fellow Muslims in Gaza. (Using them as human shields, booby-trapping their houses, firing from mosques and beside schools, etc..)

I think the news brief should let go of its obsolete characterization of Turkey as a secularist state. It is an Islamist state in formation. The regime is Islamist. It has taken many steps to subvert its secularist constitution. The EU pressures the Turkish military not to overthrow the creeping Islamist dictatorship, in the name of democracy. That's as foolish as Obama, in the name of democracy, punishing Honduras for overthrowing constitutionally the budding leftist dictatorship.

Syria, is not Islamist, just Islamic. But Syria is allied with Islamist Iran and is part of the evil axis that Turkey seems about to join. It makes a poor candidate for the European Union, where it might topple the balance and destroy European civilization. Too bad! I still have the photo of my Uncle, a cute little boy, wearing a fez in Istanbul.


An arms dump exploded in the house of a senior Hizbullah man, in southern Lebanon. Most of its arms, money, and training comes from Iran and Syria [hear that, Turkey?]. By UN Resolution, Hizbullah is barred from military emplacements there. Hizbullah men sealed off the area and removed the evidence by trucks. The Foreign Ministry of Israel has a video of that.

A similar explosion occurred three months ago. The Foreign Ministry tries to show the world that Hizbullah, with the complicity of the Lebanese government and army, is violating UN Resolution 1701 and preparing for another war. This again would be a war committed by Hizbullah war crime, as by storing arms and gun platforms in civilian villages. Hizbullah endangers the civilians [but when they are killed in the war, Israel would be blamed].

In August, civilians from the southern Lebanese village of Marawhain protested violently against Hizbullah stockpiling of weapons there (www.imra.org.il, 10/14).


A Turkish public TV series depicts Israeli troops in the Territories as seeking old Arabs to beat up and children to shoot. The producer denies that he meant to stereotype Israeli troops, whom he admires.

Turkish troops arrested dozens of terrorists who plotted attacks on Israeli, NATO, and U.S. regional facilities. The confiscated computers link those terrorists to al-Qaeda (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/15).

Which Israeli troops? What such crimes? Non-existent. The producer's excuse about intending a limited portrayal nevertheless defames them. And his audience would extrapolate from the depiction. I've heard of other alarmist reports in the Turkish media.


A leading Ultra-Orthodox rabbi in Jerusalem demands non-violence by Ultra-Orthodox protestors. This came after some Ultra-Orthodox youth severely attacked an Arab. The protests usually are over government actions contrary to Judaism, such as compulsory autopsies. The autopsy at the time was of a Jew whom the autopsy was murdered by an Arab.

Other Ultra-Orthodox rabbis have denounced the violence by what they call "wayward youth." They refer to youths raised Ultra-Orthodox but who no longer are within the religious community or its rules
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 10/15).


Will the government of Israel extend the temporary settlement freeze?

The government conditioned extension upon Arab states making gestures of normalization and the Palestinian Authority doing something about incitement to bigotry and terrorism. Those conditions are not measurable, the government admits. They are subject to judgment. This means that if the government wants to extend the freeze, it would interpret minor foreign gestures favorably, as happened before. The government made agreements with the Arabs and the U.S. that stated vaguely worded conditions (www.imra.org.il, 8/11).

Oslo had no penalties for non-compliance. Road Map conditions are too general to be meaningful. I think the government is deceiving its people, based on the regime's having denied there was a freeze when it secretly started out with one.


The critique is by CAMERA, from Winston Mideast Report & Analysis, 10/16.

The Report often exonerates Palestinian terror groups by claiming that "The Mission found no evidence" supporting particular allegations about their misconduct. In many cases, this claim is simply not credible in the face of clear evidence supporting those allegations. The false assertions in Palestinian testimony given to the commissioners are also highly significant, since the Goldstone Report's conclusions about purported Israeli crimes are based almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence by residents of the Gaza Strip. It is clear that in a number of cases, the Commission's determination that such evidence was "credible and reliable" is not warranted.


REPORT: There is no evidence of Palestinian fighters using civilian clothes.
FACT: Journalists and eyewitnesses repeatedly noted the use of civilian clothes by Hamas fighters.

REPORT: There is no evidence of armed groups directing civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or forcing them to remain in the vicinity of attacks.
FACT: Palestinian witnesses and video evidence reveal that fighters did direct civilians to areas where attacks were being launched.

REPORT: There is no evidence that hospitals or ambulances were used for military activities.
FACT: Eyewitnesses describe Palestinian firing from hospitals and use of ambulances.

REPORT: The mission could not determine whether mosques were used for military purposes.
FACT: There is video evidence of weaponry stored in a mosque, and of secondary explosions of mosques consistent with the storage of explosives.

REPORT: The amount of aid allowed into Gaza by Israel decreased after the end of the fighting.
FACT: If not false, the assertion is at best disingenuous. The average weekly number of humanitarian shipments increased in the months after the war.


The Zeitoun area is pacifist and had no militant groups or rocket fire.

REPORT: The Report deemed that this witness is credible and reliable, and there is no reason to doubt his testimony.
FACT: There are many documented cases of Palestinian militants being killed in armed clashes in the neighborhood.
TESTIMONY: The al Fakhoura area was not used to fire at Israel, and no combatants were killed in the Fakhoura incident.

REPORT: The Report was based in part on three interviews with the Hamas official who made the above claim, and did not cast doubt on his testimony.
FACT: Palestinian eyewitnesses and Israel note that the area was used to fire at Israel, and that combatants were killed in the Israeli strike.


Even more so than its factual problems, it is the Report's double standards that contributed to a distorted and one-sided document.

Acceptance of Evidence: The Report tends to base its acceptance of evidence less on the source of that evidence, and more on its target. That is, evidence damning Israel is normally deemed credible, where as evidence exonerating Israel or damning Palestinians is explicitly or quietly dismissed.

  • When an NGO asserted that one Palestinian fighter denied using human shields and others admitted to it, the Report in effect dismissed the admission and accepted the denial.

  • Similarly, information by other NGOs are given weight when they suggest Israeli culpability, but are ignored or minimized when they suggest Palestinian guilt.

  • Purported contradictions and and falsehoods by Israel were deemed a blow to Israeli credibility, while the same by Palestinian and pro-Palestinian sources were dismissed or ignored.
  • Assertions by Palestinian political leaders are said not to constitute evidence, whereas assertions by Israeli political leaders are used as evidence.

Photographic Evidence:

Closely related to the above is the Report's clear double standard with regard to its consideration specifically of photographic evidence. Although the Goldstone Commission purported to review 1,200 photographs, it is about Israeli photographs alone that it concludes "it is not reasonably possible to determine whether those photographs show what is alleged." On the other hand, no doubt is cast on photographs provided by Palestinians.


The Report freely attributes nefarious motives to Israeli actions in order to justify accusing the country of war crimes. On the other hand, it tends to avoid attributing intent to Palestinian misdeeds, and thus avoids charging Hamas and other Palestinian groups with violating international law.

Discrimination Against Women:

The Report levels the absurd charge that Israel violated the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women because it struck elements of Gaza's food and water infrastructure. Based on the Report's own loose criteria, it should have also charged the Palestinians with violating the convention. It did not.


Language Bias

A footnote to paragraph 180, which refers to Ariel Sharon's "controversial visit to the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem," employs biased language that has the effect of minimizing the Jewish connection to the site. Specifically, the passage notes that the site is "the third most sacred place in Islam," but ignores the fact that it is the holiest site in Judaism.

When describing Israel's barrier, which the country notes was built to protect its citizens from suicide bombings and other terror attacks, the Report tends to opt for terminology preferred by Palestinians and other opponents of the structure. It uses the term "Wall" almost 50 times. It uses "barrier" roughly three times. And although an overwhelming majority of the structure is a fence as opposed to a wall, the Report does not use the term fence even once to describe the barrier.

Hamas's Nonexistent "Implicit Recognition"of Israel

Despite Hamas's own clarifications to the contrary, the Report supports the disingenuous claim that the so-called Prisoners' Document — a document designed to unify Palestinian factions — amounts to "implicit recognition of Israel" by Hamas.

But it should be clear to the authors of the Report, and to anyone else purporting expertise on the Middle East, that it is possible to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip without accepting Israel's right to exist outside. In 1974, for example, the Palestinian National Council passed a resolution, widely known as the "phased plan," that resolved to accept any part of the land controlled by Israel as a step towards destroying all of Israel. Hamas leaders have made clear that they feel the same way about the Prisoners' Document.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, for example, clarified that "By saying '1967 land,' it was never meant to be recognizing Israel" (Christian Science Monitor, June 12, 2006). Hamas leader Khalil Abu Leila said of the document: "Fatah wants from us more than what is in this document. They want Hamas to recognize Israel and be a copy of Fatah, something that will not happen.... We will never recognize Israel" (Boston Globe, June 29, 2006). Salah Bardaweel, the leader of the Hamas faction in parliament, said: "We accept a state in [territory occupied] in 1967, but we did not say we accept two states" (Chicago Tribune, June 29, 2006). And Palestinian minister Abdel Rahman Zeidan told the BBC that "the Hamas-Fatah document did not in any way recognise the state of Israel" (June 28, 2009).

See also http://www.goldstonereport.org/ for a useful discussion of the report.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 17, 2009.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. To see more of his graphic art, go to
http://nowthese.blogspot.com/ and

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, October 17, 2009.

Gideon Levy, when you were was asked by Robert Hirschfield in an interview on September 9 whether you agree that your articles are proof that Israel, for all its faults, has a free, aggressive press, you answered "We are under no pressure from the government. Journalists are free to write what they want."

Israel is justifiably proud of its free press, but I ask in all seriousness whether you have interpreted that freedom as a licence to discard sound journalistic ethics of fairness and objectivity as well as sound investigative procedures and judgments. I refer to your consistent broadcasting to the world, your subjective accusations that Israel has committed the most dreadful war crimes and crimes against humanity, with no attempt at balance or even placing events in their context. You have in effect set yourselves up as prosecutors and judges.

For example, no sooner had the Cast Lead operation begun, than you, Gideon, wrote in Haaretz on 29/12/2008, "Once again, Israel's violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom".

And you too, Larry Derfner, in the Jerusalem Post on September 16 assumed the role of judge. You wrote "Before, during and since the war with Gaza, Israel has been overwhelmingly the victimizer, not the victim".

No matter how unqualified or unjustified they may be, your views have been eagerly used by anti-Israel journalists worldwide as proof of Israel's wickedness. After all, if Israelis say these terrible things about Israel, they must be true and there can be no doubt that you have made a substantial contribution to the pervading anti-Israel prejudice among sincere persons. Please don't misunderstand me. I do not for one moment suggest that Israel is above criticism. On the contrary while I advocate that abuses of human rights by the IDF must be punished, I strongly deprecate irresponsible damaging accusations and generalizations based on preconceived opinions. And the above two examples are nothing more than the expression of your prejudiced opinions stated as facts.

The important question is why we should take your judgments on the Cast Lead operation, with your known subjective agendae of seeking out and emphasizing every Israeli wart, whether real or imaginary, more seriously than the views of an independent outsider expert who has experience of warfare as a commander under circumstances similar to those we encountered in Gaza. I refer to Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, whose military credentials are exemplary.

This is what he said at the UNHRC meeting on October 16, "During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population. Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents."

I believe fair minded people will consider Colonel Kemp's assessment far more credible than your strident but less qualified views and I strongly recommend that you read and listen to the full text of his address at
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c= bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409

This open letter is being publicized and I look forward to your considered response which will be similarly publicized.

Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il
and visit his website: http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, October 17, 2009.

Anyone claiming that Jews are doomed to become a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is either dramatically mistaken or outrageously misleading. Below is my article "Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative, The Case For Demographic Optimism." It was published yesterday (Oct. 16, 2009) by the Jewish Week of New York,
(http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a16935/ Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html) and it is archived at

It documents:

*A significant rise in Israel's Jewish fertility;
*A sharp dive in Arab fertility;
*A 66% distortion in the number of Judea & Samaria Arabs;
*A 67% solid Jewish majority over 98.5% of the land west of the Jordan River;
*Israel's challenge is not a "demographic time bomb," but rather a demographic "scare crow."

Additional documents are posted at The Ettinger Report,

Shabbat Shalom and have a nice weekend,


The all time record of daily Jewish births at Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital, set on September 21, 2009, reflects the substantial rise in Israel's Jewish fertility. Delivery rooms function at 100% capacity.

Anyone claiming that Jews are doomed to become a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is either dramatically mistaken or outrageously misleading.

An audit of Palestinian and Israeli documentation of births, deaths, school and voter registration and migration certifies a solid 67% Jewish majority over 98.5% of the land west of the Jordan River (without Gaza), compared with a 33% and an 8% Jewish minority in 1947 and 1900, respectively, west of the Jordan River.

The audit exposes a 66% distortion in the current number of Judea & Samaria Arabs — 1.55 million and not 2.5 million, as claimed by the Palestinian Authority. In 2006, the World Bank exposed a 32% bend in the number of Palestinian births. Inflated numbers have provided the Palestinians with inflated international foreign aid and inflated water supply by Israel. It has also afflicted Israeli policy-makers and public opinion molders with fatalism and erroneous demographic assumptions, which have impacted Israel's national security policy.

Refuting demographic fatalism, the robust growth of Israel's Jewish fertility (number of births per woman) has been sustained during the last 15 years, while Arab fertility and population growth rate (birth, death and migration rates) experiences a sharp dive.

The number of Jewish births during the first half of 2009 accounted for 76% of all births, compared with 75% in 2008 and 69% in 1995. Unlike all other developed societies, the number of annual Jewish births has grown by 45% from 1995 (80,400) to 2008 (117,000), while the annual number of "Green Line" Arab births has stabilized around 39,000. The secular, rather than the religious, sector has been chiefly responsible for the Jewish growth. For example, the Olim (immigrants) from the USSR arrived to Israel with a typical Russian fertility rate of one birth per woman; today, those women are giving birth to two to three children, the typical secular Israeli Jewish rate. Moreover, the Arab-Jewish fertility gap shrunk from 6 births per woman in 1969 to 0.7 births in 2008 (3.5:2.8), converging toward 3 births.

Arab fertility rate in Judea & Samaria declines rapidly (toward 3.5 births), as has been the case in all Muslim countries except Afghanistan and Yemen: Jordan (twin-sister of Judea & Samaria)) — 3, Syria — 3.5, Egypt — 2.5, Saudi Arabia — 4, Algeria — 1.8 and Iran — 1.7 births per woman.

The swift decline in "Green Line" Arab fertility rate reflects the impressive Arab integration into Israel's infrastructure of employment, education, health, trade, finance, politics, sports and culture.

The sharp decrease in Judea & Samaria Arab fertility rate is the outcome of modernity. A 70% rural majority in 1967 has been transformed into a 70% urban majority in 2009, burdened by civil war, terrorism and severe unemployment. Elementary and higher Education have expanded dramatically, especially among women. Median wedding age and divorce rate are at an all time high. In addition, Judea & Samaria Arabs have experienced a high emigration rate since 1950, further eroding population growth rate.

The current 67% Jewish majority west of the Jordan River (without Gaza) could expand to 80% by 2035, leveraging the aforementioned Jewish demographic tailwind and the potential Aliya resulting from the global economic meltdown and the rise in anti-Semitism (e.g. half a million Olim during the next ten years from the former USSR).

Baseless demographic fatalism has played a key role in shaping Israel's state of mind and national security policy. It has eroded the level of confidence in the future of the Jewish State. However, well-documented demographic optimism now confirms that there is no demographic machete at the throat of the Jewish State, that demographic scare tactics are hollow and that Israel's challenge is not a "demographic time bomb," but rather a demographic "scare crow."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, October 16, 2009.

(JTA) — The U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva sent the Goldstone report to the U.N. Security Council, while Richard Goldstone condemned the council for ignoring his findings on Hamas war crimes.

The Human Rights Council voted 25 to 6 on Thursday to endorse the report and recommend that other U.N. bodies heed its recommendations.

The report recommends that Israel and authorities in the Gaza Strip prosecute fighters for alleged war crimes committed during last winter's Gaza war and, should that not happen within six months, for the U.N. Security Council pursue such prosecutions. The Human Rights Council resolution cites only Israel.

Goldstone, who agreed to lead the fact-finding mission only if he could investigate Hamas as well, said he was "saddened" by the resolution. "There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report," Goldstone was quoted as saying by AFP, the French press agency.

Among those voting against were the United States, Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. Those voting to recommend it included Russia, China, Argentina and Egypt. Israel rejectes the report, saying its original mandate predetermined bias.

Contact Sheridan Neimark at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bob Kunst, October 16, 2009.

Dear "Chosen" Activists:

Shabbat Shalom--

Yesterday was Shalom International's 150th Rally/event and 1031 news interviews since Oct. 2007. Many thanks to Natasha and Alex and wife and 2 students who showed with signs to counter 150 Muslims and Lefties at U. of Chicago, when Olmert was there to speak. While we opposed Olmert at "Annapolis" and all events since, we were there to get media attention for our side of the issues and Natasha and others did get 4 media and some are below in the enclosed story. Our point always, is that if we show up, we will also get the attention.

This brings us to two major opportunities in D.C. that are coming up with 2 key organizations behind Obama's efforts to Divide Jerusalem and Israel. JEWS WHO ARE AGAINST A JEWISH STATE, is what these groups are, who met with Obama on July 13, to try to push Jewish support for this outrageous and aggregious attack upon Israel and the Jewish people, which has already backfired.

We must respond to the Jews who are against a Jewish State, a Jewish nation and being "Jews", and are with Obama who wants to divide Jerusalem and Israel and who is catering to the very forces who want "Death to America" as much as "Death to Israel". We must speak up.

We have two opportunities for media to tell our side of the story.


DATE: 10/21/09
TIME: 9:00 AM,
PLACE: Jewish Democratic Council Convention, Hilton Hotel
1919 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Washington., D.C.  


DATE: 10/26/09
TIME: 10:00 AM,
PLACE: "J Street" Convention, Grand Hyatt Hotel,
1000 H Street, N.W., Washington., D.C.

South Florida WFTL Talk Radio Personality, Joyce Kaufman, will also be joining with us at this event against "J Street ".

If we can get at least a dozen for this rally, we'll be joined by folks from Toronto, JDL Canada. Please let us know immediately. Yours in Shalom, Bob Kunst President, Shalom International 305-864-5110 www.defendjerusalem.net

Report on Olmert at University of Chicago Thursday evening.

Tight security. No packages or other stuff allowed to bring in. Show photo ID to match against invite list. Go through metal detector. Wrist band put on by staff. No in and out privileges.

Audience was 50/50 Arabs & Leftists versus Jewish & American supporters. Original University web site called for 3:30 PM program. Did not start until 4:15 PM.

All Jewish & American supporters were respectful. Arabs disrupted program continuously. One interruption every 3 or 4 minutes. Lots of Chicago and University police both inside the Hall and parked on surrounding streets. No parking restriction for block around building.

Arabs made lots of shouting. Fist fights and scuffling between Arabs and police once every 4 minutes. Police dragged lots of Arabs out.

Olmert's speech was choppy due to all the interruptions. Presentation was bland. Told historical attempts for peace in the past. No new program for today or tomorrow.

Reported in Chicago Tribune and Red Eye. No coverage in Sun Times.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ chi-u-of-c-protest-16-oct16,0,3480279.story

Zero in and today.

Two stories from Chicago Maroon.
http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/10/16/ jeers-stifle-olmerts-speech
http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/10/16/ bolton-calls-obamas-foreign-policy-post-american

We can expect the Arabs and Leftist to behave the same way at Friends of Israel Defense Forces dinner (Wednesday October 21); and Chicago Festival of Israeli Cinema (Thursday October 29).

By comparison when I attend a Jewish Federation event; and quietly hand out leaflets on the sidewalk outside the building; the Federation gets the Chicago Police to threaten to arrest me if I continue handing out leaflets. Which support Israel.

Bob Kunst is President of Shalom International. Contact them at 305-864-5110 or at the website: http://www.defendjerusalem.net. Email: shalominternational@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, October 16, 2009.

Juan Cole, the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, produces a steady stream of writings that downplays the threat radical Islam poses to America and the West. His opinions are at odds with the beliefs of most Americans. Now, through a project designed to foster an understanding of America in the Arab world, he appears to be at odds with himself.

Cole is one of the most politically driven Middle East studies professors in the U.S. From his perch in Ann Arbor, he tried to explain away Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats to "wipe Israel off the map" by claiming — inaccurately — that it was a mistranslation. He has also attempted to whitewash Americans' views of the Saudis and their radical strain of Islam known as Wahhabism. Last year, in a statement that further soiled his academic reputation, he compared Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

In spite of this record, however, Cole has embarked on a laudatory project that could, in effect, repair some of the harm wrought by his earlier writings.

Together with several University of Michigan colleagues, including Near Eastern Studies professors Michael Bonner, Raji Rammuny, and Marcia Inhorn — who has since moved on to Yale and found herself under fire — Cole created a non-profit called the Global Americana Institute (GAI).

The project is surprisingly patriotic. GAI is designed to encourage a better understanding of the American political system in the Arabic-speaking world through the translation of key American political works into Arabic. If successful, it could help America win the "battle for hearts and minds" — the ongoing effort to foster an appreciation for democracy and a rejection of radicalism in the Muslim world.

According to its website, GAI began with a "selected set of passages and essays by Thomas Jefferson on constitutional and governmental issues such as freedom of religion, the separation of powers, inalienable rights, the sovereignty of the people, and so forth."

GAI, according to the site, also intends to "have all the founding fathers translated — Madison, Franklin, Washington, Paine, and so on." It also seeks to produce Arabic translations of the "major speeches and letters of Martin Luther King or of the works of Susan B. Anthony," and to even translate a "good solid book" about the history of the American Jewish community.

Cole's group asks for contributions to fund qualified Arab translators and to disseminate these works around the Arab world, mostly in paperback. This is a critically important task. Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf and the anti-Semitic tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion currently rank among the bestsellers at bookstores and street vendors throughout Arabic-speaking lands. GAI could help change that.

From this laudatory start, however, Cole's non-profit takes a potentially dangerous turn. The GAI website says that if it finds enough funding, it also seeks to "subsidize courses on American studies at Arab universities or even to endow some chairs." Are Cole (president and treasurer), Inhorn (secretary), and the other professors of Middle Eastern studies on the GAI board eyeing new pulpits? If Cole delivered the same message to Arab students that he delivers to Americans, he would effectively undercut the good work of his nonprofit.

For the near term, the prospect of endowing a GAI chair appears slim. According to its tax filings in 2005, when GAI was founded, the nonprofit had some $3,000 in net assets. Its resources had grown to $21,000 by 2007 and just under $30,000 by 2008 — sufficient to fund some translation projects, but far short of the amount needed to accomplish Cole's grander plans.

And that's a good thing. When he is not working to expose the Muslim world to the morality of the American democratic system, Cole continues to spew invective on his ironically named blog "Informed Comment," and advocate positions antithetical to America's interests. In recent weeks, for example, he has dismissed the dangers of a nuclear Iran under Ahmadinejad, and tried to explain why the United States should accept defeat in its war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In light of his track record, it is unclear what drove Cole to create the Global Americana Institute. This patriotic project puts him squarely at odds with himself. After all, one cannot truly embrace the messages of both Madison and the Mullahs.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at jschanzer@jewishpolicycenter.org. This article is archived at
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1471/ juan-cole-between-madison-and-the-mullahs The original text has live links to additional material.

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, October 16, 2009.

This was received from Joy Wolfe (joywol@gmail.com) who received it from Hillel Neuer of UN Watch (alert@unwatch.org)


Urge World Leaders to Vote No on U.N.'s Biased Goldstone Report

Click here to take action

Urge World Leaders to Vote No on Biased Goldstone Report

Say NO to rewarding terrorists who attack civilians while seeking shelter behind the language of human rights.

Dear Joy,

I'm here at the emergency session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, facing a draft resolution by the Arab and Islamic blocs that seeks to endorse the biased Goldstone Report — a 500-page document that falsely accuses Israel of "deliberate attacks" against civilians during its defensive war against Hamas rocket attacks last January. (For details, see www.unwatch.org/goldstone.)

Adoption of this dangerous text will trigger proceedings toward the indictment and prosecution of Israeli leaders and officers in the International Criminal Court. What's at stake is the very survival of democratic societies under the assault of terrorists — enemies of human rights who cynically invoke its protective cover.

The debate began yesterday and reaches its climax today. UN Watch will be there to address the assembled delegates. Representing us will be none other than Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, an expert in military strategy, and a hero of our time. Col. Kemp will tell the U.N. exactly what he told the BBC: "During Operation Cast Lead, the Israel Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

Then comes the critical vote. We need your help. The U.S. will oppose the resolution, but the influential European Union votes — UK, Germany, France — are still undecided.

Act now:
Click here to take action and urge E.U. leaders to Vote No. I thank all of you around the world who have already done so.

Thank you for helping to make a difference —

Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director

Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il
and visit his website: http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 16, 2009.


This miniseries discusses more how the UN paper is presented and commented on to the public, than the contents of the report. The elements here: reporting by the NY Times and Wall St. Journal, comments by the U.S. President and Ambassador to the UN, and criticism of the UN paper and praise for the U.S. by the Zionist Organization of America. They make for an interesting combination. How satisfactory is our media? Does the press perform its watchdog role, or is it a dog that needs watching? Is the public informed?

From this exercise, it will become apparent which sources are reliable, and what the issues really are. What is really going on? How does one judge?

In order to critique the journalism, I take up some substantive issues.


The NY Times of 10/15 devoted almost half a page to adding the news of the Palestinian Arab demand that the UN rule on the Goldstone report to another rehash of its summary about the Goldstone report. Incidentally, my Israeli sources usually report such matters one or two days earlier.

Within the news article are two photographs, one of the Israeli ambassador entering the Security Council, and the other of Gaza. The caption under the first photo describes the entree. The caption under the second photo did not describe the photo. The caption stated, "A UN report detailed evidence of war crimes by Israeli forces and armed Palestinian groups in the Gaza fighting." I infer that this is a gratuitous way to use a photo to rub Israel's reputation raw, inasmuch as everybody knows that the world has no intent of doing anything about Hamas. The UN is so unjust, that it lets evil get away with crimes, and so perverse that it condemns the innocent. "Armed Palestinian groups" are mentioned both by the newspaper and the UN as lip service to appear even-handed. Being even-handed is unethical, when it distorts the truth to promote bias, which by definition is not even-handed. UN reforms or solutions are corrupted by the same politics that incubate the problems.

Palestinian Authority head Abbas is a "relatively moderate leader whom the US and Israel have tried to bolster in the face of popular gains by Hamas..." [Hamas gains — what does that say about him, his people, and the prospect for peace?]

The Israeli Ambassador found the UN report one-sided. She said it "favors and legitimizes terrorism" and impedes the peace process. She said Israel can't take further risks for peace unless the world recognizes its right to self-defense [which the UN report and everyone else are trying to repress in the name of morality. That is about as immoral a way to deal with Arab aggression as one can].

Israel's Foreign Minister called the UN report "false, distorted, tendentious, and encouraged terrorism." The newspaper did not elaborate. How can readers decide whether those general accusations are correct? What value is journalism that summarizes two sides' accusations, without their bases and reasons?

A Jerusalem official would deem it a moral victory for Israel if at least the reasonable minority of governments in the UN Human Rights Council would vote against the Goldstone report. What does that tell you about the human rights record of the Council and of the value of the UN? (The "reasonable" minority of governments prefer the Arabs and their oil to Jews.)

On what basis, does the NY Times call Abbas moderate? That is an editorial comment. The judgment about him is the pretext for U.S. pressure on Israel to deal with him. My earlier articles prove him a jihadist. Why do the Times and U.S. studiously ignore those facts? Because they want concessions from Israel, the pretense of peace, and no consideration of the ill consequences of making grave concessions to a leader who, himself, appeases Hamas extremism. What good is he to civilization, when he appeases its enemies? Besides, he shares Hamas' vicious goal.

The journalists attribute to Hamas' pressure Abbas' new demand for UN review of the report, after deferring it. As I stated, Abbas appeases Hamas, and Hamas knows it need not fear the UN! Those considerations also elude the Times.

Omitted from this summary is the reason for Abbas' original deferral of the UN report. His reason was to let Israel feel secure enough to make concessions. It is a sound reason for jihadists. Hamas criticism of him is unfair.

Delegates are circulating draft amendments to the Report to demand that Israel allow all Muslims entry to the Temple Mount and that Israel stop excavation under it. Israelis do not excavate under or even near the mosque, but Muslims do and have weakened the Mount. The Muslim critics of Israel ignore that, because they really do not care about the Mount. They criticize Israel to weaken its sovereignty there. They criticize Israel as part of their making war on it.

When Muslims are called to the Mount to riot, Israel acts sensibly in limiting attendance to those not likely to riot. Those coming to riot are not coming out of a need to worship there. The draft amendment would encourage rioting. Why not demand that Palestinian Arab leaders cease calling for riots? Isn't peace supposed to be the UN goal?

Note that these irrelevant draft amendments, like riders to Congressional bills, cannot be said to have been studied in the Goldstone report. They are solely political. A political vote does not determine truth.

A Brazilian resolution and Human Rights Watch want both sides to investigate themselves for war crimes (Sharon Otterman and Neil MackFarquhar, A16). War crimes are Hamas' basic method of fighting. What could one expect of its investigation? As for Israel, it does investigate allegations seriously. I call for a genuine report to replace the careless but tendentious Goldstone report. Earlier articles of mine showed that Human Rights Watch follows the same biased methodology as did Goldstone, who basically copied previous defective reports like those of Human Rights Watch.


On the same day as the NY Times article, the Wall St. Journal summarized the same news in a tenth of a page.

"A U.N. report concluding that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes in Gaza would block the Mideast peace process if it's enacted, Israel said Wednesday, while the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) called it essential to peace in the region."

Unlike the Times, the Journal's lead paragraph puts it as what the UN report concluded, rather than that it found evidence. Most of the Wall St. journal coverage sticks to what the parties stated, and does not inject subtle editorializing. So far, so good.

A report discussing the means of war, and which proposes to limit defense against aggression, cannot logically be "essential to peace."

The UN investigation "concluded that 'Israeli operations were carefully planned in all their phases as a disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize" civilians in Gaza..." "The commission accused authorities in Gaza of firing 8,000 rockets since 2001, indiscriminately at Israeli civilians. Israel says it launched its effort to stop the rocket fire that killed three Israeli civilians."

The low Israeli casualties make the Israeli incursion seem unjustified, though the small number of casualties was like a miracle that cannot last. Unmentioned was the extensive property damage and trauma and the cessation of community life and much residency in one or more targeted Israeli towns. Also unmentioned was the Hamas drive for weapons of greater range, explosiveness, and accuracy. The Israeli idea was to root out the menace before it grew. Also not mentioned was the encouragement to such Arab aggression by not responding.

The Wall St. Journal did not inject tendentious statements, as did the Times. However, like the Times, it simply restated the overall positions of the parties involved. It, too, did not provide a basis for readers to evaluate the overall positions. Accusation and counter-accusation, but no examples? What is the point of such journalism?


ZOA National President Morton A. Klein praised President Obama and his UN representative for criticizing both the content and recommendations of the UN report on Gaza. "As ZOA has argued in depth, the Goldstone Report represents a perversion of international legal norms and whitewash of a genocidal terrorist movement, Hamas."

"Among its many unconscionable flaws, the Goldstone Report proceeded on the entirely false basis and contrary to Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that Israel is still occupying Gaza and thus legally responsible for a number of functions it has not discharged since completely withdrawing from that territory in 2005. It used as evidence the tainted and unproved testimony used by a host of anti-Israel NGOs; ignored evidence that contradicted a predetermined conclusion of Israeli wrong-doing, such as the routine use of human shields and perfidy, both war crimes, by Hamas; and treated terrorists as civilians and thus protected persons wrongfully targeted by Israel."

Michael Posner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, told the UN Human Rights Council:

"...we believe that the document is deeply flawed and disagree sharply with its methodology and many of its recommendations, including their extraordinarily broad scope ...

"In engaging in discussions over this report, we must step back and take issue with the grossly disproportionate attention the Council pays to one country, Israel. When the United States decided to seek a seat on the Council, we stated our clear intention to address this lack of balance in the Council's proceedings. We urge our fellow members to join us in firmly rejecting this double standard. This is a high priority for us, one which we believe needs to be addressed now. Israel is the only country that has its own agenda item at this Council. In the past 5 years, the Council and its predecessor organization, the UN Commission on Human Rights, have commissioned more than 20 reports on Israel, far more than [upon] any other country in the world. Since the Council was created in 2006, it has passed 20 resolutions on Israel, more than the number of resolutions for all 191 other UN members combined. The Council also has held 11 special sessions, 5 focused exclusively on Israel. This is unfair, and it prevents the Council from devoting adequate time and attention to many other situations around the world that deserve our attention. We hope that Council members will join us in approaching the important work of this Council in a new, constructive spirit that does not seek to vilify any particular UN member nation.

"Second, we are guided by our commitment to the universal application of international law, including humanitarian law and human rights law, in assessing the findings and recommendations of this report, but that cannot be understood to imply a moral equivalence between Israel, a democratic state with the right of self-defense, and the terrorist group Hamas, that responded to Israel's pull-out of Gaza by terrorizing civilians in southern Israel ... Hamas, a terrorist group that has seized control of a territory, has neither democratic structures, nor an independent judiciary, nor willingness to examine its own violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Nevertheless, this body should certainly demand from Hamas that it do so, as well as demand an end to Hamas' deliberate targeting of civilians and its use of its own population as human shields...

"Third, a genuine commitment to the truth should compel this body to discuss the weaknesses of the report. Those weaknesses will appear clearer to those who actually have read the full report and understood its implications. The report makes extraordinarily negative inferences about the intentions of Israeli military commanders, senior political leaders, and the entire Israeli criminal justice system on the basis of a limited factual record and from those inferences draws condemnatory conclusions of law, treating accusations and inferences as fact. One example is the report's call for UNGA to establish an escrow account to which only Palestinians could make compensation claims and which only Israel is required to fund. The report further calls on Israel to undertake a moratorium on the use of certain munitions; it makes no such demand of Hamas with regard to its use of indiscriminate rockets. These unbalanced recommendations taint many of the report's suggestions for international action.

"Another significant problem with the report is its failure to deal adequately with the asymmetrical nature of this conflict or assign appropriate responsibility to Hamas for its decision to base itself and its military operations in heavily civilian-populated urban areas. The conflict in Gaza is emblematic of a new kind of conflict in our world, where some of those engaged in combat use civilian spaces — schools, hospitals and religious institutions — to store weapons and as staging grounds for rocket attacks and armed combat. National militaries engaged in asymmetrical warfare must remain bound by humanitarian law, but it is a stark and tragic reality that terrorists systematically ignore these laws. Actions by terrorist groups that have the effect of employing civilians as human shields put enormous pressures on militaries that are trying to protect civilians and their own soldiers, an issue faced by many militaries today. Although the Goldstone report deals briefly with these issues, its findings of fact and law are tentative and equivocating.

"We also have very serious concerns about the recommendations spelled out in this report, especially that these allegations be taken up by the UN Security Council and then possibly referred to the International Criminal Court..." ('U.S. Response to the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict: Statement by Michael Posner United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor,' September 2009).

The U.S. representative called the UN Human Rights Council unfair for devoting most of its time to Israel. I would say it is unfair in its findings about Israel. The over-balance in time reflects its informal role as a theater of jihadist warfare against Israel, and the dictatorship member countries disinterest in opposing human rights violations, their stock in trade.

The UN so distorts the issues in its bias, as to call its value on international security into question.

Notice how much substance is in the quotations provided by the ZOA! Comparing those quotations with the NY Times article makes evident how unsatisfactory and misleading the newspaper report is.

In the ZOA presentation, one learns that the U.S. government found grave fault with the UN report. One then wonders why the media failed to inform fellow Americans of that. ZOA also mentions its having "argued in depth" its rejection of the UN report. Check its website for details, but there are details to back up its points (From a 10/14 press release by ZOA, an organization to which, in the interest of full disclosure, I acknowledge membership in.)

The ZOA fulfills a needed role here. The regular media does not suffice. The Wall St. Journal is not a watchdog about such issues, but the NY Times is a dog that needs watching. Summary reports on controversial issues must be supplemented by deeper analysis.

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 15, 2009.

As the "People of the Book", let us confirm the ugly history of those Israeli governments who used Leftist Courts and dictatorial methods to attack Jews. We are truly in a Civil War in Israel when some Jews can evict good Jews from their homes.

Today I regret to say that Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ehud Barak allow Rogue Leftist Police like Maj.Gen. Gadi Shamni (known for his animosity toward Land of Israel lovers) to issue expulsion orders to Jews who object to Government policy regarding the abandonment of the Jewish Land G-d gave to the Jewish people in perpetuity. This is why the first Torah reading of the Jewish New Year is this Shabbat with Beresheit. G-d created the Land and He can give it to whomever He chooses. He chose us!

Complying with the demands of the Arabist U.S. State Department and that of President Barack Hussein Obama's regime is an act (or an ongoing series of vile acts) of treachery and treason even as the "Jihadists" (warriors for Islam) wage war against Jews — all over the world.

Never forgive and never forget all those Government officials, Police or IDF who assault the body of the Jewish nation as committed Leftists subverting the Jewish nation and its soul.

Perhaps Jews who attack their own should be restrained in hospitals or jails with what should now be called the "Goldstone Syndrome".

David Bedein writes

"Israeli Government Denial Of Due Process To Jews "

Read the following news stories about the Israeli government whisking away Jews from their families in Samaria, without indictments and without trial.

Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria do not yet have civil liberties and human rights since these areas have not been annexed by Israel.

The government acts as if Israel's basic law, which protects civil liberties and human rights, simply does not apply beyond the green line.

Such a precedent was established in August 2005, with the Israeli government demolition of all of Katif and four communities in the Shomron.

Orders in this regard are issued by the office of the Prime Minister.

Orders in this regard are carried out by the Defense Minister.

If you object to the orders of the PM to expel Jews from their homes, without trial, express your feedback to the PM cabinet sec'y, Atty. Zvi Hauser, 02-6705532 (dir.)02-5632580 (fax)or e-mail memshala@it.pmo.gov.il

The Israeli government is particularly sensitive about bad feedback from outside of the country. That is why the lobbyists for foreign workers are working the international media to stop their expulsions.

Get friends and relatives to send in letters to the PM office and to local consulates and embassies abroad to protest the Israeli gov't denial of due process to Israeli citizens.

The Israeli government assumes that you will act with passivity and turn the other cheek. You have a choice.

1. Make sure that the Prime Minister of Israel hears strong feedback or wait until it is your turn to have your human rights and civil liberties abused.

2. Go into denial and live a normal life.


Israeljustice.com www.israeljustice.com/news2.asp?key=173

JERUSALEM — Israel's military has served administrative expulsion orders to three Jewish residents of the West Bank community of Yitzhar. Israeli Army Central District Commander Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni signed administrative orders to evict three Jews from their homes in the northern Samarian community of Yitzhar and to distance them from Judea and Samaria for six months.

The three, Akiva HaCohen, 25, Ariel Groner, 24 and Eliav Eliyahu, 19, haven't been charged with any crime. Army officials said the administrative orders were issued after "information was received of their involvement in violent and illegal activity and in light of the genuine danger foreseen from them to security and the public order. "This is not connected to the olive harvest," HaCohen said. "They [the police] said this is connected to confrontations between Jews and Arabs and the eviction from and destruction of outposts."

HaCohen, a father of four together with his wife, Ayelet Hashachar, who is in her ninth month, said that he had not yet decided how he was going to respond to the order. HaCohen said he drove to the central Israeli city of Petah Tikva on the morning of October 11 to purchase building materials. As he got out of his car to pay the parking, he was surrounded by four police officers who served him the administrative expulsion order. Another eight police officers remained in the police vehicles.

The order allows three days for HaCohen to appeal and one week to leave his home for six months or face imprisonment. "This is anti-democratic and is discrimination against Jews," HaCohen said. "What about the left-wing and the Arabs?"

HaCohen and Groner, also a father of four with a newborn, are not newcomers to this scenario. HaCohen was expelled from his home in Yitzhar in October 2006 for over three months after sitting in jail for attempting to enter the now destroyed Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip in August 2005.

In August 2007, Groner was jailed for two months for breaking an administrative expulsion order from Yitzhar and was then ordered to live under house arrest in a mobile home in the scorching Beit Shean valley without air conditioning for three months. He was then forbidden from returning to Judea and Samaria for another three months. In previous years, security forces said they served the administrative orders during the Palestinian olive harvest to prevent confrontations between Jews and Arabs but by October, the harvest is almost complete. "It's not connected to the olives," Daniella Weiss, one of the leaders of the Land of Israel Faithful Movement said. "It's connected to the eviction of outposts and to [Defense Minister Ehud Barak] who wants to destroy them."

The Land of Israel Faithful Movement issued a statement criticizing the government for its use of undemocratic tools and for failing to tell HaCohen, Groner or Eliyahu why they were expelled from their homes. "We sharply and unambiguously condemn these expulsion orders," the statement said. "We demand that the Government of Israel, a nationalist government, immediately stop the erroneous use of these undemocratic tools that are reminiscent of dark periods in our history."

Date added: 10/14/2009

JERUSALEM — An Israeli court reversed a decision to release a Jewish dissident after the state prosecution petitioned to appeal the release in a higher court.

On October 14, Jerusalem Magistrate Ram Vinograd ordered Elhanan Groner distanced from the home of Deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan until the end of judicial proceedings against him. Immediately, the state prosecution requested an order delaying the judge's decision and asked that Groner remain in custody pending an appeal to the Jerusalem District Court.

Several hours later, the state prosecution rushed through an indictment for offending a civil servant, punishable by six months in prison. The law, introduced by the British Mandate before the founding of the Jewish state, was reintroduced prior to the government's destruction of the Gush Katif block in Gaza in August 2005. Nitzan, who was instrumental in devising and implementing special guidelines to prosecute opponents of the government's policy in 2005, including minors who were first-time offenders, has relentlessly appealed all acquittals of anti-government protesters.

Groner, 19, is the younger brother of Ariel Groner who, on October 11, was served an administrative expulsion order from his home in the Jewish community in Yitzhar in northern Samaria and from the West Bank for six months. Groner is charged with insulting Nitzan on the evening of October 13. Groner, who is married and lives in Yitzhar, was visiting his parents who are neighbors of Nitzan in a Jerusalem neighborhood. He allegedly went to the state prosecutor's home and told him he should be ashamed of himself for the latest administrative expulsion orders. Groner is also charged with telling Nitzan's children, aged eight and 11 that they should be ashamed of their father. Groner has denied the charges.

Groner was immediately arrested and investigated by police in Nitzan's home. He was then taken to Jerusalem's Russian Compound jail where he remains in custody despite the magistrate's decision to release him.

"This was a good decision for them [the state prosecution]," Shmuel Meidad, head of the Honenu Legal Aid Organization, said. "But they want him held until the end of judicial proceedings. They also arrested his wife and she is being investigated."

Groner, then 18, was distanced from Judea and Samaria in November 2008 for three months on the eve of the army's eviction of Jews from the peace house in Hebron also by an administrative expulsion order signed by Israeli Army Central District Commander Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni. Meidad said that the three young men, Ariel Groner, Akiva HaCohen and Eliav Eliahu, who just received administrative expulsion orders from Judea and Samaria for six months have not yet decided how they will respond. Non-compliance with the order results in imprisonment.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 15, 2009.

Khaled Abu Toameh writes in the Post today about the "forced marriage" between Fatah and Hamas — the reconciliation being shoved down their throats by Egypt.

These two parties — who "abhor" each other — are being pushed into a reconciliation of sorts. I know of no serious analyst who thinks this will really become a stable situation.

Fatah, which has signed the agreement, found itself in a position of more or less having to do this as a result of the uproar that followed Abbas's withdrawal of the demand that the Human Rights Council pursue the Goldstone Report (which withdrawal he has since reversed, but not before he had promoted enormous ill will for himself and his party).

We're still waiting on Hamas's formal acceptance.


A little glimpse into how volatile and hostile the situation is:

I shared in the last few days the fact that Hamas condemned Fatah for withdrawing its demand regarding the report, and that Abbas then lashed out at Hamas for lashing out at Fatah.

But here is a new wrinkle. According to the Ma'an (Palestinian) news agency on Tuesday: "Abbas accused Hamas leaders of fleeing to Sinai Peninsula in ambulances when the Gaza strip was under Israeli fire last winter..."

This is startling.

The Goldstone Report says, "Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that... ambulances were used to transport combatants..." (Paragraph 485). The exceedingly dubious point being that there was no justification for Israel to have stopped or gone after ambulances. And now Abbas says otherwise, thereby undercutting the reliability of what was said in the report (the very report he has now decided to promote vigorously again). He was undoubtedly too angry at Hamas people, too busy trying to make them look like cowards, to consider the broader ramifications of what he said.

Will Hamas let this pass? Arab pride should never be discounted.

Today Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas wants to prosecute Abbas:

"A day will come when Abu Mazen [Abbas] will have to answer for his smear campaign against us...in a special court...We demand Abu Mazen name those he claims hid. I want him to say exactly where he thinks we ran to. This man must stop trying to spread his lies."


And in this Middle Eastern soap opera there is even more. When Abbas began to promote the report, Israel was very angry, and released a statement saying that Abbas had originally urged us not to stop fighting until Hamas was completely defeated. Needless to say, this does not sit well with Hamas either.

But any minute now sweetness and light will break forth and there will be unity between Fatah and Hamas.


And here's another piece of the Goldstone story: Alan Dershowitz has written an article in which he maintains that Goldstone is backing down.

"In an interview with Jewish Forward, Goldstone denied that his group had conducted 'an investigation.' Instead, it was what he called a 'fact-finding mission' based largely on the limited 'material we had.' ...Goldstone acknowledged that 'if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.' He emphasized to the Forward that the report was no more than 'a road map' for...investigators and that it contained no actual 'evidence' of wrongdoing by Israel."
http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/10/goldstone-backs-away- from-report-the-two-faces-of-an-international-poseur.php


Things are heating up in the north.

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida, Syria, reluctant to take on Israel directly, is supplying Hezbollah with arms instead. Reportedly, Syria transferred one quarter of its arsenal of middle- and long-range missiles to Hezbollah, and every part of Israel can now be hit. The paper cites Israeli security forces as the source of its information.

While senior Israeli defense officials, in more direct statements, are now saying that thousands of weapons caches have been placed in civilian homes scattered in 160 villages in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah possession of weapons south of the Litani River represents a violation of SC Resolution 1701, which has been largely ignored.

Having the weapons in the south makes it easier for Hezbollah to access them and increases their reach into Israel. The fact that they are in homes raises the whole specter of human shields again.

Much must be made of this now, it seems to me, with all possible evidence provided, so that when we ultimately go after those caches of weapons, we are not again accused of "war crimes."

This entire issue was in the news this past week because of an explosion of a stockpile of weapons in a home in a village near Tyre.


Turkey's behavior — with regard to its relationship with Israel — is moving on a path of serious deterioration. Following the cancellation of joint military maneuvers with us, the Turks announced that they would hold maneuvers with Syria.

Following this a highly inflammatory and inciteful program was aired on government-controlled TV. The first program this week, in what is planned as a series about a Palestinian family in the West Bank, shows IDF soldiers killing a baby and a young girl, and lining up people for execution.

Calling this "the gravest form of incitement," Foreign Minister Lieberman said that the Turkish envoy (the previous Turkish ambassador to Israel has left and has not yet been replaced) would be summoned in protest.


"The Good News Corner"

In June, 2002, Boaz Shabo lost his wife and three of their children in a terrorist attack. In the midst of a week of murderous attacks, a terrorist, shooting wildly, infiltrated the community of Itamar, in Samaria, and entered the Shabo home.

Boaz moved with his remaining four children to Kedumim, to be near relatives. Two years ago, he was married again; his new wife, Hila, brought her five children with her into the family.

At the beginning of this year, Hila became pregnant. She delivered over the Sukkot holiday: TRIPLETS.

Said Boaz, "it was a total surprise — something so symbolic that only G-d can understand or explain it. Though it's impossible to forget those who were killed, this is a very joyous occasion for all of us.

"The way to rebuild is by getting married again... There cannot be a 100% recovery from something like what happened to us; we are always shadowed by the loss of a mother and three children. But with love and with faith, a decision like this brings much joy... Our house is now full of children and life.

"[Our enemies] should know that they will not be able to defeat us. As the Torah says, the more they oppress us, the more we will prosper."

As to dealing with three infants, Boaz said, "It won't be easy — but a lot of things have not been easy over the past few years. I tried to look at everything from the positive, optimistic side, and put the difficulties aside; I think that 50% of the problems are psychological. If a person says that it will be hard, then it will be hard. But if you decide to try to get up in the morning with a smile, and know you are headed in the right direction, then it will be much easier for you. You can't let the obstacles stop you; put them aside.

"I just want to emphasize: Never give in to despair. There is always a light at the top, even if it might involve a hard climb. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel, at which can be found light, happiness, faith, and all of our goals."

And this, I think, is the answer to all of the heavy news reported above and on so many days. The people of Israel have breathtaking resilience, founded in love and faith. And our enemies will not be able to defeat us.

(My thanks to my daughter Sharon R. for calling my attention to this from Arutz Sheva.)

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, October 15, 2009.

1751 Second Ave, New York, NY 10128
Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717; afsi@rcn.com; www.afsi.org
Contact: Helen Freedman, Executive Director
October 15, 2009

Letter to Israeli Ministers and the Israeli Embassy


We are appalled to learn that AKIVA HACOHEN, ARIEL GRUNER and ELIAV ELIYAHU, all residents of Yitzhar, have been given orders, signed by Maj-Gen Gadi Shamni, expelling them from their homes for a minimum of six months. Each young man has a wife, children, or is expecting a child, and earns his living working in the community.

Shockingly, there were no specific charges to the expulsion orders and the only explanation given was that the men "are a danger for the public order." Is this the thought police in action? What danger is expected? Why are these young men singled out for what is thought their intentions might be? Doesn't this sound more like it is happening in Orwell's 1984 than in democratic Israel? Where are the instruments of justice?

In addition to these intolerable expulsion orders is the fact that during the period of forced expulsion there are no provisions made to compensate the expellees for the cost of an apartment, the move which must take place in a few days time, and for the loss of their income from employment. How cruel and inhumane can a government order be? Even prisoners are given more consideration. This is outrageous.

As Americans who are very aware and concerned about events in Israel, and who spend a great deal of time and energy working to ensure a safe Israel, we plead with those in charge to cancel the expulsion orders against Akiva, Ariel and Eliav.

Please contact us at afsi@rcn.com or 212-828-2424 to inform us of positive action in this urgent matter.

Thank you
Helen Freedman

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 15, 2009.

Whenever the U.S. tries to make political inroads to Rogue Nations or their proxies by training them in weapons, guerilla warfare, explosives, intelligence — those so trained invariably use that training against America or America's Allies. This is especially true of Muslim Islamists who learn the fine points of killing and share it with their vast network of Terrorist nations and their proxies.

We pretend to believe that Al Qaeda, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, all the many radical Muslim "Jihadis" groups, organizations, sleeper cells, etc. are seemingly separate movements and, in a way, they often have different agendas but, they are in reality, one inter-connected matrix when it comes to sharing methods on how best to kill Americans and Israelis.

America trained Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda in Afghanistan's War against the invading Soviet Army. When it was over and the Afghanis had beaten the Soviets with American training, weapons, funding 'et al', the trained Al Qaeda fighters split up and set up "sleeper cells" in the countries they infiltrated.

America tried to buy Yassir Arafat and his PLO Terrorist organization but, only succeed in expanding his Terrorist Army which threatened not only Israel but also Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon.

America is repeating the same global strategic mistake through Arafat's 40 year companion, partner and financier in Terror, a so-called moderate — Mahmoud Abbas, current President of the Palestinian Authority. This includes Fatah, Tanzim and the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade.

America thought she had recruited Faisal Husseini, Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashwari by paying them substantial monies and training them at the CIA's Headquarters in Langley, Virginia and Camp America. But, in the final analysis, they remained loyal Islamists after took everything the U.S. offered.

For years, the U.S. trained Yassir Arafat's Terrorist Palestinians — the PLO, Palestine Liberation Organization. What do you think they wanted to Liberate? Have they ever stopped?


But, America trained the Arafat's Terrorists to act as policemen for the Palestinians but, they remained thugs and dedicated Terrorists against Israel — much the same as they did in Lebanon. From 1970 to 1982 — after Arafat was kicked out of Jordan for trying to take over the Jordanian Kingdom. That action by King Hussein was called "Black September" but, it took months in 1970.

Then Arafat escaped with most of his Terrorist gang and tried to take over Lebanon. He ran a 12 year Civil War in Lebanon in which 100,000 Muslims and Christians killed each other — brutally.

Once Muslims gain "critical mass" in their host country, they attack to further their own Islamic agenda. Their common goal has always been to create a Global Caliphate for Islam. Those Sunnis who were trained by the U.S. in Iraq, along with the Shi'ites will, no doubt, bond with Iran and then Americans will end up fighting American-trained Iraqis.

Mahmoud Abbas, current President of the Palestinian Authority, also runs Fatah — a major Terrorist organization, now playing the role of a "moderate" organization. But, there is also the Tanzim, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades and probably a few more unnamed. Fatah will one day join Hamas and turn their U.S. training against the U.S. and Israel — which has already happened.

This article below was written by Charles Levinson and it appeared yesterday in The Wall Street Journal


QALQILYA, West Bank — Commanders of the U.S.-trained Palestinian security forces who have been locking up criminals and battling Hamas militants here for nearly two years have maintained morale in the ranks with a single promise: They will one day be the anchor of security for an independent Palestinian state.

The lack of progress toward that goal is starting to sap Palestinian public support for the forces and erode morale among troops, even as they win praise and fresh funding from Washington for their accomplishments.

Gen. Dayton's Army: Palestinian Security Forces train in the West Bank city of Nablus in August.

* More photos and interactive graphics are available at WSJ. Also View Slideshow [SB125061013698440291 Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP]

Meanwhile, the more the Palestinian Authority Security Forces cooperate with the U.S. and Israel to suppress Hamas, the more they threaten to undermine popular support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — who is key to Washington's Mideast peace effort.

Popular anger at Mr. Abbas has already boiled over because of a series of concessions he made to Israel, under U.S. pressure, including his decision to withdraw support for a United Nations report that alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Mr. Abbas later reversed the decision, and supported the report. Israel has denied its forces acted improperly.

Many Palestinians applaud the PASF's success in boosting security in the once-lawless West Bank, which is dominated by Mr. Abbas's Fatah party.

Dov Schwartz, an aide to U.S. Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who is overseeing the PASF training program, says "the Palestinians have undertaken a serious and sustained effort to return the rule of law to the West Bank. People now feel safe."

Gen. Dayton has graduated about 2,100 paramilitaries in the nearly two years his training program has been under way. Recruits are trained in Jordan by Jordanian police, under the supervision of American, Canadian and British officers. The trainees stand out from the West Bank's often poorly equipped and disheveled security services. They sport crisp olive uniforms and carry well-maintained AK-47s supplied by other countries, including Jordan and Egypt.

Gen. Dayton said he hopes to eventually train over 5,000 men, out of a total West Bank security force of roughly 25,000.

The forces won exceptional praise from Israeli officers for their effectiveness keeping a check on protests in the West Bank during the December-January Gaza War. Since then, day-to-day cooperation between Palestinian and Israeli security officials has improved dramatically, Israeli military officials say.

"They won the battle for public order, but I am concerned they may not have won the battle of public opinion, and were seen as protecting the Israeli army," says Paul Kernaghan, who leads the European Union team training Palestinian police officers.


In an incident last fall, Palestinian forces swept into a West Bank town on the heels of the Israeli army — only to be chased out by angry residents. An internal memo distributed among the Gen. Dayton's training team after the incident warned: "There are growing signs that the local population are increasingly losing respect for the PASF."

In Qalqilyah, on May 31, the PASF engaged in an all-night shootout with Hamas, leaving two Hamas militants, three PASF members and a bystander dead. After the shootout, hundreds of angry Palestinians took to the streets. "Dayton's Army serves the Jews," Subea Abu Yussuf, a 24-year-old law student, shouted at a PASF officer.

The confrontation put the PASF on the defensive. As dusk settled, a Palestinian major tried to buck up his troops. "We didn't join the Palestinian security forces to fight Hamas or train with the Americans," he said. "We came here to serve our homeland and build our state." His subordinates quietly nodded.

Today's Palestinian security forces were born out of the Palestine Liberation Organization's guerrilla army, founded 45 years ago to fight Israel. After the Oslo Peace Accords in 1994, thousands of exiled fighters returned to the Palestinian territories and formed the nucleus of a nascent, often-unwieldy security apparatus.

Under Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, founder of the Fatah party, the forces included at least 13 independent branches. In the years after Oslo, the Arafat-commanded forces launched crackdowns on Hamas and other militant groups that opposed the peace process.

"At first, everyone was highly motivated," says Col. Said Najjar, a PASF commander who in the 1990s was a lieutenant. "I slept in my shoes and worked constantly to make Palestine safe, because we had been promised an independent state within five years in return."

Throughout the latter half of the 1990s, as an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal looked increasingly remote, Col. Najjar says his soldiers grew disillusioned. Operations against Hamas and other anti-Israel groups appeared at odds with a Palestinian public that increasingly viewed him and his men as doing Israel's bidding and getting little in return.

After the failure of the Camp David peace talks in 2000, the second Intifada, or Palestinian uprising, erupted. Many members of the security services turned their guns on Israel.

One of Col. Najjar's soldiers, Sgt. Jihad Qabaha, went to Israeli prison in 1999 for throwing a Molotov cocktail at an Israeli jeep. He says he gave up fighting Israel after he was released from prison in 2002, and joined the PASF.

In January, Sgt. Qabaha, who is now 31 years old, graduated from Gen. Dayton's training camp beaming with pride. His trainers told trainees they were at the vanguard of efforts to build a Palestinian state.

Since then, family members and friends have asked dispiriting questions about his loyalties. While he was on leave recently, his 21-year-old sister criticized the PASF for arresting Palestinians. "People say the security forces are working for the Israelis," she said disapprovingly.

"I know that Palestinian statehood will only come by serving this way, not with force, but it's hard when the people you love question what you're doing," says Sgt. Qabaha.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, October 15, 2009.
The Elder of Ziyon website has run an extensive analysis of the Goldstone report through September and into October. This is Part 16 and it was posted September 28, 2009. This article is archived at
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/09/ goldstone-report-inaccuracies-part-16.html

The Goldstone Report includes these pieces of information:

397. While it appears that all the policemen killed in this location were taking part in a training course, there is conflicting information on the details. Most reports by NGOs are to the effect that these were police "cadets" in the midst of a graduation ceremony. The Gaza police spokesperson, however, told the Mission that they were serving policemen, who had been taking a three-week course and who were, at the time of the strike, doing "morning sport exercise".255

400. A second police training course targeted was reportedly attended by around 50 policemen. Twenty-eight of them were killed in the strike. According to the police spokesperson, the training course was designed to instruct police officers on how to deal with police officers who abused their power as well as on cultural and economic issues relevant to police work.258

414. On 1 January 2009, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, the police spokesperson, Mr. Islam Shahwan, informed the media that the police commanders had managed to hold three meetings at secret locations since the beginning of the armed operations. He added that "an action plan has been put forward, and we have conducted an assessment of the situation and a general alert has been declared by the police and among the security forces in case of any emergency or a ground invasion. Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded."278 Confirming to the Mission that he had been correctly quoted, Mr. Shahwan stated that the instructions given at that meeting were to the effect that in the event of a ground invasion, and particularly if the Israeli armed forces were to enter urban settlements in Gaza, the police was to continue its work of ensuring that basic food stuffs reached the population, of directing the population to safe places, and of upholding public order in the face of the invasion. Mr. Shahwan further stated that not a single policeman had been killed in combat during the armed operations, proving that the instructions had been strictly obeyed by the policemen.

All three paragraphs have something in common — they all rely on the testimony of Gaza police spokesman Islam Shahwan. There is no indication of any skepticism in Shahwan's testimony to the Goldstone Commission.

But this past summer, right around the same time that Shahwan was being listened to by the sober representatives of the United Nations Human Rights Council, he was making headlines for another reason: he was accusing Israel of distributing chewing gum that increases one's sex drive:

A Hamas police spokesman in the Gaza Strip Islam Shahwan claimed Monday that Israeli intelligence operatives are attempting to "destroy" the young generation by distributing such materials in the coastal enclave.

Shahwan said that the police got their hands on gum that increases sexual desire that, according to him, reaches merchants in the Strip by way of the border crossings. According to him, a Palestinian drug dealer admitted that he sold products that increase sex drive. The dealer said that he received the materials from Israeli sources by way of the Karni crossing.

A number of suspects have been arrested.

The affair was exposed when a Palestinian filed a complaint that his daughter chewed the aforementioned gum and experienced the dubious side effects.

Shahwan even claimed that Israeli intelligence operatives encourage dealers in Gaza to distribute the gum for free.

"The Israelis seek to destroy the Palestinians' social infrastructure with these products and to hurt the young generation by distributing drugs and sex stimulants," said Shahwan.

Now, there's a reliable witness! (h/t Shira)

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, October 15, 2009.

This was written by Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent. It appeared today in Haaretz


The indefatigable Palestinian foreign minister, Riyad al-Malki, was sent Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council in New York to explain to the world the importance of the Goldstone report and to argue that the Palestinian Authority's decision two weeks ago not to bring it up for debate in the United Nations was a mistake.

Despite his enthusiastic denunciation of crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, however, it was difficult not to sense that the speech was aimed primarily at Palestinian public opinion. That was in fact the reason for the U-turn by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on discussion of the report in the UN. While Abbas would be happy to see the Israel's cabinet and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suffer political damage, the decision to approach the UN Human Rights Council is intended first and foremost to hurt Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinian public and to save Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) from more harsh criticism.

The PA's campaign in the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, as reported Thursday on these pages, is based on the familiar "save Abbas" scenario. That is, if the council does not agree to submit the report to the Security Council, Abbas' hold on power will be in jeopardy. But Abbas and Fatah have made two significant moves in the past few days that may simultaneously rehabilitate him and marginalize Hamas. The first is the decision to raise the issue of the Goldstone report again. This is embarrassing for Hamas, after it said that Abbas' previous decision not to raise it bordered on treason and thus it could not sign a reconciliation agreement with Fatah. What can Hamas say now that the PA has reversed itself?

The second move is Fatah's signing of the reconciliation agreement and the threat that if Hamas does not follow Abbas will declare presidential and parliamentary elections as early as January 2010. Fatah's decision to sign further undermines the Hamas' image. It would be difficult to find even one senior PA official who really believes that Hamas wants national unity. By agreeing to the Egyptian-brokered accord, Fatah can present Hamas as the intransigent party, seeking excuses to refuse unity.

Meanwhile, Abbas has raised the tenor of his anti-Israel declarations, and that should come as no surprise. It is the tried-and-true way to gain sympathy in the Palestinian street: Whenever you are accused of collaboration, lash out against Israel.

Hamas' claims that senior PA officials, including Abbas, refused to have the Goldstone report raised for discussion in the UN out of unpatriotic motives (having to do with broadcast frequencies for a mobile phone company owned by Abbas' son), are among the reasons for the increased verbal assaults by the PA focusing regarding Jerusalem and Israeli actions in Gaza. In this case, however, it seems there is some substance to Hamas' claims against Fatah. Abbas, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's cabinet — everyone, in short — is blasting Israel over Operation Cast Lead. But their own hands are far from clean in this regard. Quite a few senior Fatah officials, including ones close to Abbas, urged Israel to intensify its attacks on Hamas during the operation. Now they are accusing Israel of war crimes.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 14, 2009.


Fallen fruit: plums lay on the ground in the Judean Mountains

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.


Street photographers have a knack for extracting beauty from urban clutter and man's inhumanity to manmade things. Graffiti, peeling paint, and even garbage are fodder for their art. I have never been drawn to this genre, but occasionally nature's dark side calls to me. Strong color and dynamic composition will entice viewers, but nothing makes people think like a photograph featuring death and decay.

This scene of rotting plums caught my eye as I traversed the Derech Avot (Path of our Forefathers) near my home in Gush Etzion. The multitude of fruit plus their stark color set against the pale stones and shriveled leaves sent one of those creative signals to my brain that here was one of life's great paradoxes: beauty in dying. I held the camera directly overhead and shot straight down at the ground, careful to keep the plane of the sensor (or back of the camera) completely parallel to the ground to ensure edge to edge sharpness. Fall is slowly coming to life in Israel, as nature makes one final roar before acceding to the cycle of seasonal renewal.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 14, 2009.


Foreign government forces joined Libyan ones on parade in celebration of Qadhafi's 40 years of rule. Human Rights Watch did not celebrate with him.

"The New York-based group Human Rights Watch on Tuesday(1 Sept) called on Qadhafi to mark the anniversary "by wiping repressive laws off the books and freeing political prisoners"..."Forty years later, Libyans are still waiting for their rights." (www.imra.org.il, 9/2).

I remember King Idris' mistake. He left the country; Qadhafi pounced. Now Qadhafi oppresses the people. That did not inhibit the African Union from making him titular head. So much oppression in the world! Not wanting notoriety over it, the oppressors pick on Israel. Antisemites and governments doing business with them join them, as a safe form of oppression. Some of my readers become indignant against Israel without realizing they are being manipulated. Instead, they contend that "the Jews" are manipulating, but the Jews don't manipulate them or the UN majority that constantly condemns Israel.


PM Netanyahu of Israel warned that if the UN adopts its Goldstone report on Gaza, Israel will feel its right to self-defense threatened. Its ability to take risks for peace would be impaired. There would be no point to negotiating further. The Palestinian Arabs asked the UN to suspend review of the Goldstone report, so as not to deter or impede negotiations, and then the UN could get Israel later.

"The report — produced by a panel of investigators led by an internationally respected jurist, Richard Goldstone — found extensive evidence that both Israel and Palestinian militant groups took actions amounting to war crimes during the Gaza war last winter." (Neil McFarquhar, NY Times, 10/2, A4.)

I wrote a series exposing the panel. To start reviewing it, go here. The panel did not find evidence, much less extensive evidence. The UN formed a biased panel for a mission mandated to be one-sided. The panel ignored Israeli evidence and explanations. It sought little evidence on its own, accepting Arab statements without verification and contrary to logic and facts. It borrowed alleged evidence from other organizations whose methods have been exposed as biased, careless, and fraudulent. The mission fabricated simple-minded and unjust notions of international law and made false assertions about Israel.

The NY Times, therefore, was not reporting, when it stated the biased report's assertion as if a fact, that evidence was found indicating that the two sides committed war crimes. It was giving credence to the mission. That is editorializing. When describing Israel's position, the Times cautiously writes that an Israeli spokesman "said." Now that the Times has taken a position, one can ask more urgently, why didn't the Times include the kind of factual and analytical explanations that the mission's critics did.


"As one looks out from Rimonim, the most telling fact is what one does not see. Over the miles of rolling hills that unfold across the landscape, there is not a village, building, home, or even a herd of sheep to be seen. The scene is the same as other Jewish settlements as well."

"Palestinian propaganda machines have for years purveyed the myth of Israeli settlements choking Palestinian communities the way commerce and residential developments have encroached upon rural America. Yet, in reality, nothing like this exists in the largely unsettled expanses of the W. Bank."

"Even the pro-Palestinian group Peace Now concedes that Israeli settlements — mostly bedroom communities of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv — occupy less than 3% of the W. Bank. More than 98% of Palestinians already live under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and there is no shortage of land there for Palestinian expansion."

"Nor are Jewish settlements the result of Israeli colonial aspirations. Most represent the return of the Jewish people to the cities of their ancestors. As [Mark] Train painstakingly reported, Jews have lived here since time immemorial, and a drive through these territories highlights the Jewish history — cities, tombs and other landmarks — rooted in this land."

"Yet it is not just ancient history that speaks to the great Jewish legacy. The Jewish presence has been a constant right up to modern times. While many bristle at the terms 'Judea' and "Samaria,' dismissing them as propaganda invented by extremist 'settlers' for political ends, maps, photographs, travel guides and other books have throughout history described these territories by those time-honored names. Even UN resolutions — including, notably the 1947 Partition resolution — used those terms."

"Given this history, the rights of the Jewish people in these lands are rich, historic, and firmly enshrined. While negotiations about sharing this land may be necessary for the sake of peace, they cannot proceed from a premise that these are "Palestinian lands' or 'occupied Palestinian territory.' They are at most 'disputed territories.'" (Aron U. Raskas, Jewish Political Chronicle, summer 2009, p.39 from Baltimore Sun, 6/7)

That is the Zionist narrative. It basically is correct, but one may quibble. Some estimates of the extent of land encompassed by Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria are about 5%. In some areas, Arabs have built, usually illegally, around Jewish communities. This means that it is they, sometimes under a strategic plan, who are choking off the other ethnic group's natural development. Considering that Arabs often attack Jews there, the that Jews almost never attack Arabs except in rare retaliation and only after realizing that the government hardly protects Jews, the notion that Arabs chock off Jewish communities is serious. There were many checkpoints, but they are a reaction to Arab terrorism. The Arabs have no legitimate cause to complain about them.


President Obama spends time with dictators and ignores their democratic-minded movements. Excuse: the U.S. cannot impose democracy abroad.

Poor excuse. Since Bush left office, the U.S. has not tried to impose democracy. What struggling movements for democracy would like is U.S. recognition and encouragement. That is being withheld now.

Worse, Obama fails to condemn fraudulent foreign elections. That aloofness encourages more dictatorship. Obama even punishes Honduras for ousting constitutionally a would-be dictator. [He does it in the name of democracy.]

The more democratic countries become, the likelier they will reform, become more peaceable, and trade more with the U.S.. [The U.S. doesn't reform much, these days.] President Obama, however, does not sign free trade agreements with democracies, which would facilitate all that. He placates dictators.

The U.S. Democrats receive major campaign donations from labor unions [and trial lawyers]. Unions consider foreign workers competitors (Daniel Heninger, Wall St. Journal, 10/1, A21).

Shouldn't American unions those countries to democratize, gaining right to form unions and raise wages, making them less competitive?

Obama has sided with the Chavez ally in Honduras, who tried unconstitutionally to keep himself in office, was found in violation by the Supreme Court, and was ousted by the legislature according to established procedure. He imposed sanctions against the democrats who tried to stop that prospective dictatorship.


The U.S. has been giving military aid to the Lebanese Army. Should it?

"The Lebanese military, in its own words, regards Israel as its 'primary antagonist and enemy,' while maintaining Hizbullah's right to 'resist,' despite the military's official role in ensuring that the organization does not rearm south of the Litani River."

Unconfirmed reports state that Iran will provide Lebanon with anti-aircraft weapons. Israel considers that a deterioration in the strategic balance (www.imra.org.il, 9/3).

Hizbullah "resists" mostly from south of the Litani River. That means the Lebanese Army is allied with Hizbullah. Anti-aircraft weapons would imperil Israeli over-flights monitoring Hizbullah build-ups in forbidden southern Lebanon. Israel can't depend on UNIFIL to stop Hizbullah, so it needs intelligence useful for when it has to stop Hizbullah. Therefore, the U.S. is spending the military aid to Lebanon in behalf of terrorism.


Jonathan Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Israel has inspired a petition in Israel against prisoner swaps.

The petition was started by a right-wing activist, Moshe Feiglin. He hopes to get Israeli soldiers to sign it. The petitioners ask that if they are captured by the enemy, their government not exchange them for convicted Arab terrorists.

Jonathan Pollard set the example. Whenever his release was proposed as part of a prisoner exchange, he for Arabs, he rejected the proposal at the outset. He did not want to be responsible for the new murders and kidnapping that a sizeable proportion of the released Arab terrorists no doubt would attempt. He wants to be released out of clemency, being in poor health largely because of deliberately poor U.S. medical treatment, and having served far more years than anyone else convicted of his crime (www.imra.org.il, 10/11).

The U.S. promised his release before, in exchange for Israeli territorial concession. However, the U.S., not Israel, reneged. It owes him his freedom

The U.S. intelligence agencies objected to the agreed-upon release. At that time, they believed that Pollard had done damage to the U.S.. Caspar Weinberger, instrumental in getting the disproportionate sentence for Pollard, since then has admitted that the suspicions were mistaken and the indignation against Pollard overdone.

One of President Clinton's Jewish advisors suggested that the U.S. renege, so as to hold Pollard as a "bargaining chip" for further concessions. That makes Pollard a political prisoner of the U.S..

I don't agree with the petition as drafted. An equal prisoner exchange is acceptable. The usual exchanges now proposed are very few Israeli prisoners for very many Arab ones. The proposed trade would result in more innocent deaths because so many terrorists would be released.

In Judaism, redemption of captives is an imperative, provided that the ransom is not extortionate. The proposed deals are extortionate.


Turkey's recent decision to bar Israel from a multilateral air force exercise, coming after much other hostility, prompted Israeli strategists to reconsider their military assistance to Turkey (www.imra.org.il, 10/11).

Israel devises much technical innovation that it has been selling to Turkey. The Turkish military has been friendly to Israel. The military, however, under foreign pressure, has not defended its democratic republic from the creeping Islamist takeover. TWO-YEAR PLAN FOR PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD

Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Prime Minister Fayad announced his plan to declare de facto statehood on the other side of the 1967 armistice line, preceded by an economic build-up in the Territories, including in Area C. His stated strategy is to build an infrastructure that would lead to pressure for de jure statehood.

Western and UN leaders like the plan, which does not call for armed struggle. They started abetting it. Here are the problems with it.

PM Fayad is a technocrat lacking independent political support. He was not elected to the PLO executive committee. Nevertheless, he proposed this plan without consulting the elected leaders. They openly resent that. They also see his plan, which snubs Fatah, as a challenge to the Fatah organization and position they espouse. The Fatah conference voted that if they didn't get statehood by negotiation, they would seize it and Israel.

The plan demands uniting the P.A.'s two parts, so Hamas would have to submit to elections that could lose its base in Gaza. Hamas is not likely to approve.

Being unilateral, his plan violates UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for negotiations before territorial resolution. It also violates the Oslo Accords, in which the PLO pledged not to change the legal status of the Territories before a final status resolution. [When Jews build in the Territories, they are accused of changing the status, but building does not do that. Here is a plan that calls for changing the legal status, and instead of objecting, the same leaders who mistakenly oppose Jewish building approve Arab usurpation of authority.]

Fayad also unilaterally would extensively develop Area C, which Oslo placed under Israeli civil and security control. "Israel's requirement of 'defensible borders' involves its continuing control in Area C, including the strategically vital Jordan Valley and the high ground surrounding Jerusalem and overlooking Israel's vulnerable cities along the Mediterranean coast." Israel faces enough rockets from Gaza and Lebanon, without enabling more alongside Israel's cities.

The plan includes "building an airport in the Jordan Valley, taking control of Atarot airport in Jerusalem, establishing new rail links to neighboring states, and water installation projects near Tulkarm and Kalkilya, close to the pre-1967 Green Line. Israeli security echelons firmly oppose Palestinian airport development plans near Jerusalem and in the Jordan Valley. [Ports would enable the P.A. to bring in heavy weapons.]

If the P.A. takes such unilateral action, then Israel would be released from its Oslo obligations. Otherwise, Israel, thinking peace would become likelier, would help the P.A. build itself up (www.imra.org.il, 10/11 from Jerusalem Post).

Israel is taking a great risk now, in helping to build up the economy of an enemy.

As for nullifying Oslo, the P.A. has so thoroughly violated it, Israel could declare Oslo void at any time. The wonder is that it didn't. But, you see, Israel does not adopt a Zionist plan for the Territories.

To see the difficulties of working with, and trusting, Palestinian Arab leaders, go here
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m10d12-Abbas-promises-nonviolence-but-threatens-violence

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 14, 2009.

Over the past decade the University of California at Irvine has become a center of Israel hatred and Jew bashing. It hosts countless radical Islamist events, many openly supportive of terror and jihad. Its chapter of the Muslim Student Union may be the most openly jihadi and pro-terror in the country. Its anti-Israel and anti-Jewish events have included a conference on the "Holocaust," the one its organizers claim Israel is perpetrating against Palestinians. UCI holds regular events in which anti-Semitic speakers call for Israel's annihilation. Moslem students walk about campus with signs that read: "Death to Infidels. Death to Israel." Faculty and students attend UCI rallies that openly support the Hamas. Anti-Semitism at UCI has been so blatant that it was the subject of an official investigation by the US Office for Civil Rights. The atmosphere at UCI is so rancid that few eyebrows were raised when an impersonator of a Holocaust Survivor brought in to bash Israel.

And right in the center of all this is UCI Professor Mark LeVine, who claims to be an expert in Middle East history. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I myself taught at UCI for a while in the late 1990s. Back then UCI was a calm apolitical campus consisting of students, with a large percentage of Asian-Americans, mainly interested in advancing their careers. But in the years since, UCI has become a den of Islamist extremism, a development in which LeVine has been deeply implicated.

Mark LeVine was made full professor by UCI in record time, in an unprecedented rush after he finished his PhD at NYU in 1999 and then did a post-doc at Cornell. He was hired in large part on the basis of publications that would not be considered bona fide research at many institutions. Some of his writings about the Middle East should be shelved in the library's fiction section. Others are just plain wacky, like his book and articles claiming that Heavy Metal rock and roll music is in the process of converting Moslem civilization into peace loving societies.

LeVine's "academic record" consists largely of churning out Bash-Israel books and articles, together with numerous Bash-America and Bash-Capitalism diatribes. Many of these have been mocked savagely by serious Middle East scholars. Martin Kramer dismisses LeVine as little more than a fringe figure.

While hardly the only Israel-hating extremist at UCI, LeVine has built an academic career on it in a way that others have not. There are few anti-Israel or pro-jihad events at UCI in which he is not somehow involved. LeVine regularly addresses the anti-Semitic Hate Rallies at UCI organized by the student supporters of Hezb'Allah and al-Qaeda, in which Jews are denounced as "Zio-nazis." LeVine rationalizes and defends the UCI intifada, and blames violence and tensions at the UCI campus on the malevolent Zionist Lobby. The local Orange County Register cites his view that "The only thing that would satisfy the critics now would be if they expelled every Muslim student and painted stars of David on all the buildings."

For LeVine Israel is entirely to blame for ALL of the violence in the Middle East conflict. Israel also constitutes a "belligerent," "autocratic," and "violent" regime that should receive no support at all from the West. LeVine is a leading voice in the call for a so-called "One State Solution," in which Israel will cease to exist altogether and will be enfolded within a larger Arab Islamic Palestinian state. LeVine has not only led the movement to boycott and divest from Israel, but has insisted that it does not go far enough. Unsurprisingly, LeVine insists that he takes his positions for Israel's own good.

When not turning out anti-Israel propaganda, misrepresented as academic research, LeVine plays his electric guitar He named his own home web page (and we are not making this up!) www.culturejamming.org. Years ago he rearranged his family name, Levine, into the pseudo-French "LeVine," evidently because he is ashamed at being a descendent of the Biblical tribe of Levi. His "scholarly" writings include all the fringe venues that combine 60s hippy nonsense with far-left politics, and so they range from Mother Jones to ZNET to Tikkun Magazine. He has published in the Journal of Palestine Studies, which is a propaganda magazine controlled by the PLO. In his bio he claims that he "lived next door to Hamas mosques, stood against bulldozers, dodged terrorist bombs, and uncovered damning files in dusty archives. He knows the history, politics, religions and most important, the peoples of the region as a friend, but with a highly critical eye."

LeVine is a proud groupie of Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. Scholar Robert Spencer describes him as being "guilty of the very crime that his revered Said leveled so devastatingly against the genuine scholars he smeared as racist "Orientalists": he sees America and the West as the only real actor on the world stage, and discounts or overlooks altogether (even as he chats with them in their native tongues) what the indigenous peoples are saying — except insofar as it confirms the Leftist caricature of America victimizing the world for its economic benefit." LeVine's sources in his "research" consist in large part of citations from other anti-Israel hate propagandists, including radical anti-Israel academics from Israel, whom LeVine routinely celebrates. This is a bit like doing research on United States history and politics that consists entirely of citations from Ward Churchill and Michael Moore.

LeVine routinely organizes anti-Israel "scholarly conferences" at UCI, which are little more than anti-Israel indoctrination camps. No dissident pro-Israel opinion may be expressed in them. The standard LeVine format is to include Arab haters of Israel alongside Israeli far-leftist anti-Israel radicals, and then present the invariable bashing of Israel as the consensus position of both Jews and Arabs seeking peace. Among the Israelis who have been included in LeVine "panels" have been Oren Yiftachel, a geographer and fanatic anti-Zionist from Ben Gurion University, best known for his endless rants against Israeli "apartheid," and Yoav Peled, a hard-core Stalinist Israeli professor of Political Science from Tel Aviv University.

For LeVine, Israel is a vicious fascist monstrosity that randomly beats and murders people, and not just Palestinians. He writes, "Not just Palestinian activists, but foreign peace activists and even Israelis are routinely beaten, arrested, deported, or even killed by the IDF, with little fear that the Government of Israel would pay a political price for crushing non-violent resistance with violent means."

LeVine compares Israel's military defense of its civilians from Palestinian rockets to the German demolition of the Warsaw Ghetto. LeVine has even discovered concentration camps in the Middle East run by Israel. He writes in Aljazeera: "The Gaza ghetto is a `concentration camp' — as Cardinal Renato Martino, the Vatican's justice and peace minister, termed it — intended to force Palestinians to accept a rump state with a few trappings of sovereignty, bisected by huge Jewish settlement blocs, severed from East Jerusalem, and without hope for returning anything but a miniscule percentage of refugees to their homeland." He claims that Israel conducts a "slave trade" and one of his graduate students (Vanessa Zuabi) composed an entire dissertation devoted to that theme under LeVine's careful direction.

Not surprisingly, Levine's books have been mocked savagely by serious Middle East scholars. Writing in the Middle East Quarterly, Prof. Fred M. Gottheil says that LeVine got just about everything wrong in his book, "Overthrowing Geography." He adds: "LeVine, ... believes that Arab peasants in 1920s Palestine had it good until the Zionists sneaked in, bringing with them modern technology and loads of cash. The end result was the destruction of Arab economic well-being. LeVine does not mince words: In the setting of Jaffa and Tel-Aviv, Zionists 'pulverized' the Arabs with 'the power of penetrating modernity.' The founding of Tel Aviv, he claims, 'erased' numerous surrounding villages. He provides maps, tables, figures, posters, poems, drawings, and archival excerpts to make the point. Except that he fails to make his point. The maps he offers, in fact, undermine his contention."

In his pseudo-history of Tel Aviv written for Aljazeera.net, LeVine writes, "Despite its image of diversity and vibrancy, Tel Aviv has long been a site of significant intercommunal violence. The first major Jewish-Palestinian riots erupted along the border between the two towns in 1921, as did the Arab Revolt of 1936-39." Leave it to LeVine to obfuscate about the fact that those riots were Arab pogroms against Jews, and not Jewish violence against Arabs. Elsewhere, LeVine describes the 1929 pogroms against Jews as "riots" caused by the racist evil of Jews, who dared to pray at the Western Wall: "An attempt by Jewish worshippers to change religious protocol at the Western or Wailing Wall was the spark for the `riots' of 1929. The underlying cause for the conflict was, however, the increasing competition for land between the burgeoning Zionist population and Palestinian peasants."

Dozens of LeVine diatribes against Israel and against the United States have been published on the pro-jihad pro-terror Aljazeera.net web sit. In one, LeVine calls for an international indictment of President Bush before the International Criminal Court alongside Sudan's genocidal president. In others he denounces the United States for an endless list of "war crimes" and human rights abuses. In LeVine's words:

"While the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis — for which Bush, and along with him, the American people who twice elected him, are responsible — is tragic, it should not be understated that the invasion itself was a crime against humanity. The war and invasion were in clear breach of the UN charter, which prohibits invading other countries except when an attack on one's sovereign territory is about to occur or has just occurred. Add to that US torturing of prisoners, illegal secret renditions, and a host of other human rights abuses, and you have a long list of actions that are prohibited and outlawed by US federal law."

It is not surprising that LeVine is a charter member of Iraq Occupation Watch. In the Huffington Post he let readers know what he thinks about Americans in his review of the Borat movie: "It's that he reveals to Americans just how brutish and ugly we can be underneath our veneer of civility and hospitality. Of course, Iraqis have already discovered this the hard way, while the rest of the world has looked on in disgust. Let's hope Americans get the message." In yet another recent "cultural" diatribe, LeVine attacks the Toronto Film Festival in which films about Tel Aviv were screened. Evidently LeVine considers Tel Aviv to be occupied Palestinian territory, and so its very existence is a war crime against Arabs, unworthy of being celebrated in Toronto. He writes, "The festival narrative of Tel Aviv will make it harder for attendees to begin the much-needed conversations — within themselves as much as with others — about why Israel is rushing headlong into a future of full-blown apartheid that other former settler colonial societies have worked hard to escape." Naturally, he routinely refers to Israel's security barrier, built to keep Palestinian suicide bombers and other mass murderers away from Israeli civilians, as Israel's "Apartheid Wall." Intifada violence and terrorism are "symbolic" and little more than a muscular form of protest in LeVine's view.

LeVine defends his own Marxism-in-the-classroom thus: "As for teaching Marx, I've been known to do it on occasion, but so do most business schools." He is addicted to infantile theories about cabals of capitalists plotting to control the world: "War and occupation are wonderful opportunities for corporations to make billions of dollars in profits, unchecked by the laws and regulations that hamper their profitability in peace time." As Tzvi Kahn pointed out in Frontpage Magazine: "Not surprisingly, in many of his writings, LeVine deliberately places "war on terrorism" in quotation marks — the evil of airplanes destroying skyscrapers can hardly compare with the evil of capitalism destroying, well, communism."

Soon after 9-11, LeVine's expressed his real concern that the attacks might lead the United States to defend rather than blame itself. He wrote on the ultra-Marxist ZNET that he feared that "Americans would never face the causes of the extreme violence perpetrated against us by those whose oppression we have supported and even enforced, and engage in the honest introspection of what our role has been in generating the kind of hatred that turns commuter jets into cruise missiles."

LeVine's Muslims justly despise America because it is a criminal nation, but at the same time they do not dislike the Christian West or the United States at all, according his book Why They Don't Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil published by the obscure Oneworld Publications. There he argues that Muslims mainly don't like globalization, just as he himself does not. Remember those subway train bombing in London? They were protests against globalization also, insists LeVine. He adds:

"Most Americans have never experienced globalization physically, materially, and spiritually, in the way that the majority of citizens of the developing — and especially Muslim — world have felt its effects. Globalization's consequences for Muslims — massive politically and economically motivated population migrations, economic marginalization of the Muslim world, and intense cultural penetration and even military occupation by the forces of globalization in their home countries — all have created a potentially poisonous brew of alienation and rootlessness that groups like Al Qaeda expertly exploit to recruit new followers."

Moreover, in bombing London al-Qaeda was just adopting and copying what large corporations do: "As a brand with its own 'lifestyle' and image attached to it, Al Qaeda is using the strategy developed by many of the biggest corporations in the global era. While in the 20th century, major industrial corporations such as General Motors or General Electric actually made the products they sold in their own factories, today, global corporations such as Nike or Microsoft are primarily brand-producers, engaging in research and development of products that are manufactured by others (mostly subcontractors in the developing world)."

In 2003, LeVine called for the United States to end its "war" against radical Islamofascism: "It is time for the United States to declare a truce with the Muslim world, and radical Islam in particular." He frequently denounces the United States as a "criminal nation."

LeVine is a supporter of the pro-terror "International Solidarity Movement" or ISM, which openly advocates Palestinian "armed resistance." Writing in the far-left anti-Israel "Jewish" magazine Tikkun, he joined the lobby of disinformation after ISM terrorist-supporter Rachel Corrie committed suicide by diving in front of an Israeli bulldozer destroying terrorist smuggling tunnels: "She and the other human shields, like their colleagues in Iraq, are true soldiers of peace." LeVine has endorsed the shallow wacky "Politics of Meaning" invented by Tikkun's pseudo-rabbi editor Michael Lerner.

For LeVine, Hamas is simply misunderstood and its leaders are actually interested only in peace: "The claim that Hamas will never accept the existence of Israel has proved equally misinformed, as Hamas leaders explicitly announce their intention to do just that in the pages of the Los Angeles Times or to any international leader or journalist who will meet with them."

For this "scholar," the enemy of his enemies (Israel and the U.S.) is always a friend.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

This article appeared in Front Page Magazine
frontpagemag.com/2009/10/14/collaborators-in-the-campus- war-against-israel-and-the-jews-mark-levine- %e2%80%93-by-steven-plaut/. The original has live links to additional text.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yardena, October 14, 2009.

This was written by David Bedein and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255204781394& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

David Bedein is the Middle East correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin, directs Israel Resource News Agency and the Center for Near East Policy Research at Beit Agron Press Center


In a Jerusalem Post article "In the land of miracles, let's get real"(September 29), Gershon Baskin describes the Salaam Fayad plan as "one of the most positive and optimistic developments of recent times".

However, a reading of Fayad's plan, entitled "Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State: Program of the Thirteenth Government — August 2009" would seem to belie Baskin's postulation.

While the preface to Fayad's paper introduces a Palestinian state that would strive for "peace, security and stability in our region on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with east Jerusalem as its capital," Fayad's 38-page position paper reads like a declaration of war, not of peace.

Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem" will be the Palestinian capital of the Palestinian state — not east Jerusalem.

In case anyone was wondering if Fayad had made a typographical error by not mentioning "east" Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, he repeats — 10 times — that he means Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem. He leaves nothing to the imagination, and writes that the Palestinian state will "protect Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state," because he asserts that "Jerusalem is our people's religious, cultural, economic and political center. It is the Flower of Cities and Capital of Capitals. It cannot be anything but the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state. Jerusalem."

FAYAD GOES on to claim that Jerusalem "is under threat" and that "the occupying authority is implementing a systematic plan to alter the city's landmarks and its geographical and demographic character in order to forcibly create facts on the ground, ultimately separating it from its Palestinian surroundings and eradicating its Arab Palestinian heritage." Fayad further claims that "Palestinian life in Jerusalem is under daily attack through systematic violations perpetrated by the occupation regime" and that "it is the right and the duty of all Palestinians to protect their land, reject the occupation and defy its measures," adding that the Palestinian state "bears special responsibility for nurturing our people's ability to persevere and protect their homeland."

He adds that the Palestinian government will maintain its "unreserved commitment to defending the Arab character and status of Jerusalem.... The government will continue to do all that is possible to achieve this goal. The government will work with all organizations to preserve the landmarks of Jerusalem and its Arab Palestinian heritage, develop the city, and secure its contiguity with its Palestinian surroundings."

Fayad frames Jerusalem as an illegal settlement, postulating that "the occupying authority is pursuing its intensive settlement policy in and around Jerusalem.... The occupation regime has shut down our national institutions, neglected the development of Palestinian life, continued to demolish and evacuate Palestinian homes, and restricted access to sacred Christian and Islamic sites."

He goes so far as to present a practical plan to Arabize Jerusalem: Maintaining Jerusalem as a top priority on the government's agenda and· "highlighting its predicament in the media. Launching programs to promote the steadfastness of Jerusalemites, including: Strengthen Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, providing financial support to help them deliver services to citizens."

He reassures his readers that a future Palestinian state would not be satisfied with Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as the national home for Palestinians, and says that the Palestinian government will continue to advocate for "Palestinian refugees in accordance with relevant international resolutions, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in particular," which mandates that Palestinian refugees and their descendents have a right to return to the homes and villages that Palestinians left during the 1948 war and its aftermath.

Fayad reminds Palestinians that "the refugee issue will remain under the jurisdiction of the PLO, through its Department of Refugees' Affairs ... in a manner that does not exempt the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from its responsibilities." In Fayad's view, UNRWA will therefore continue to confine Palestinian refugees and their descendants to the indignity of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return."

MEANWHILE, FAYAD expresses full support for Palestinians who have been convicted of murder and attempted murder, saying that "the state also has an enduring obligation to care and provide for the martyrs, prisoners, orphans and all those harmed in the Palestinian struggle for independence." He simply cannot understand why Palestinians convicted of capital crimes should be jailed.

He proclaims that "the continued detention of thousands of Palestinian detainees and prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention camps in violation of international law and basic human rights, is of great concern to all Palestinians," and declares that "securing the freedom of all these heroic prisoners is an utmost Palestinian priority and it is a fundamental duty all Palestinians feel to honor their great sacrifices and end their suffering," and demands the "freedom of all Palestinian detainees and prisoners and will continue to strive to secure their liberty."

He further declares that the Palestinian state will be an Islamic state and "promote awareness and understanding of the Islamic religion and culture and disseminate the concept of tolerance in the religion through developing and implementing programs of Shari'a education as derived from the science of the Holy Koran and Prophet's heritage."

In sum, the Palestinian prime minister concludes with a demand for a Palestinian state in the next two years, along the parameters that he has outlined — Jerusalem as the capital of an Islamic Shari'a state that will campaign for all convicts to be freed, for all refugees to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948.

It would be instructive to know whether Baskin even bothered to read the plan before calling it a 'postive development.'

Contact Yardena by email at yardena3@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 14, 2009.

Daniel Pipes has written an article — "Peace Process or War Process?" — in the fall issue of Middle East Quarterly that is brilliant in its conceptual understanding of what is going on with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It doesn't matter what Obama does to advance "peace" here, says Pipes, it doesn't matter how his approach differs from that of the two Bushes or Clinton — he is doomed to failure. For, in spite of the differences in the policies of the aforementioned presidents, there is an essential way in which all of their approaches share a common vision: That the conflict might be solved via goodwill. War would be "finessed" as steps were taken towards peace.


This, says Pipes, has been the predominant Israeli attitude since the disaster of Oslo in 1993:

"...the ultimate mistake lay in Yitzhak Rabin's misunderstanding of how war ends, as revealed by his catch-phrase, 'One does not make peace with one's friends. One makes peace with one's enemy.' The Israeli prime minister expected war to be concluded through goodwill, conciliation, mediation, flexibility, restraint, generosity, and compromise, topped off with signatures on official documents. In this spirit, his government and those of his three successors — Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak — initiated an array of concessions, hoping and expecting the Palestinians to reciprocate.

"They did not. In fact, Israeli concessions inflamed Palestinian hostility. Palestinians interpreted Israeli efforts to 'make peace' as signals of demoralization and weakness. 'Painful concessions' reduced the Palestinian awe of Israel, made the Jewish state appear vulnerable, and incited irredentist dreams of annihilation. Each Oslo-negotiated gesture by Israel further exhilarated, radicalized, and mobilized the Palestinian body politic to war. The quiet hope of 1993 to eliminate Israel gained traction, becoming a deafening demand by 2000. Venomous speech and violent actions soared. Polls and votes in recent years suggest that a mere 20 percent of Palestinians accept the existence of a Jewish state.

"Rabin's mistake was simple and profound: One cannot 'make peace with one's enemy,' as he imagined. Rather, one makes peace with one's former enemy. Peace nearly always requires one side in a conflict to be defeated and thus give up its goals.

"Wars end not through good will but victory." (Emphasis added)

"...Since 1993, in brief, the Arabs have sought victory while Israelis sought compromise.

"...But who does not win, loses. To survive, Israelis eventually must return to their pre-1993 policy of establishing that Israel is strong, tough, and permanent. That is achieved through deterrence — the tedious task of convincing Palestinians and others that the Jewish state will endure and that dreams of elimination must fail." (Emphasis added)


Says Pipes,

"This process may be seen through a simple prism. Any development that encourages Palestinians to think they can eliminate Israel is negative, any that encourages them to give up that goal is positive.

"The Palestinians' defeat will be recognizable when, over a protracted period and with complete consistency, they prove that they have accepted Israel. This does not mean loving Zion, but it does mean permanently accepting it — overhauling the educational system to take out the demonization of Jews and Israel, telling the truth about Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and accepting normal commercial, cultural, and human relations with Israelis."


America has a role to play here, Pipes tells us.

"...Americans face a stark choice: Endorse the Palestinian goal of eliminating Israel or endorse Israel's goal of winning its neighbors' acceptance.

"To state the choice makes clear that there is no choice — the first is barbaric, the second civilized. No decent person can endorse the Palestinians' genocidal goal of eliminating their neighbor...the U.S. government must stand with Israel in its drive to win acceptance.

"Not only is this an obvious moral choice, but Israel's win, ironically, would be the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinians. Compelling them finally to give up on their irredentist dream would liberate them to focus on their own polity, economy, society, and culture. Palestinians need to experience the crucible of defeat to become a normal people — one whose parents stop celebrating their children becoming suicide terrorists, whose obsession with Zionist rejectionism collapses. There is no shortcut.

"This analysis implies a radically different approach for the U.S. government from the current one. On the negative side, it puts Palestinians on notice that benefits will flow to them only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then — no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons.

"On the positive side, the U. S. administration should work with Israel, the Arab states, and others to induce the Palestinians to accept Israel's existence by convincing them that they have lost. This means impressing on the Israeli government the need not just to defend itself but to take steps to demonstrate to Palestinians the hopelessness of their cause. That requires not episodic shows of force...but a sustained and systematic effort to deflate a bellicose mentality."


The bellicose, non-compromising, nature of the PA is evident once again. This time it's a memo put out by Fatah, which was obtained by the Associated Press. It says:

"All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated, [as Obama] couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace."

Of course, Obama set himself up for this, with the demands he originally made, leading the PA to think he was going to deliver Israel on a silver platter. This runs completely contrary to what Pipes recommends. Palestinian hopes that Israel can be defeated have only been strengthened via Obama's posturing.

Abbas stated, once again, that he would not sit at the negotiating table with Israel until all settlement building had been frozen, including in the occupied territory of Jerusalem.


Words matter a great deal and often not enough attention is paid to them. There is, instead, interpretation based on wishful thinking — or a desire to look the other way.

It had made the news that the US State Department says that any unity government forged by the Palestinians must be based on Quartet principles:
"Commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel, acceptance of previous agreements and obligations."

I acknowledge readily enough that there is no way that Hamas will even pretend to commit to non-violence. (Fatah pretends.) As to previous agreements, Hamas has spoken about "respecting" them, which is diplomatic word play — and I don't know if the U.S. would accept that.

But what leaped out at me is "recognition of Israel." There have been Hamas leaders who have said, "Recognize Israel? Of course. It's here. We acknowledge that it's here."

What's missing from this formulation is the need to recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist as a Jewish state. That, my friends, is something else all together.


Will there be reconciliation? That depends on the day of the week, and the hour of the day.

Today in Ramallah Fatah signed the Egyptian generated agreement for reconciliation. According to the Palestinian Ma'an News Service, Hamas is in favor but has not said so publicly yet. Egypt is requesting a final answer by tomorrow.


The very ugly saga of the Goldstone Report continues...

Today the Security Council will be meeting in special session, at the request of Libya, to debate the issue. Israel has been hard at work in diplomatic circles, communicating to Western nations the need to take a stand here, lest sanction be given to terrorism.

This session is not, however, expected to end with a recommendation that the report be sent to the International Criminal Court. Founded in 2002, the Court prosecutes individuals charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, and the like.


Tomorrow, however, the UN Human Rights Council will meet in special session, at the behest of the PA (which has observer status in the UN).

I stop right here for a moment, however, because I accessed the UN announcement about this and found that it says that the request was made by "Palestine." Whoa! There IS no Palestine. And yet, as I've been learning in discussions with a lawyer here, the UN is perilously close to acting as if the PA indeed is a state.

(Should we be surprised, then, that UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon praised Abbas's involvement in pushing this issue forward?)


At any rate, the request was co-sponsored by the following members of the Council: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Senegal.

Discussions in this forum are expected to last for more than a day, and there is speculation that it may send the report to the General Assembly which might send it to the Security Council (GA actions not being binding), which might yet send it to the International Court of Justice, which is the judicial arm of the UN and adjudicates in issues between states.

It is not clear to me, and I have not yet been able to learn enough about the presumed process (such as it may be) to gain understanding as to why two different courts are being discussed and what would determine in which direction the report might be sent. In his recent statement on the matter, Netanyahu referred to the Criminal Court, when he said it was ludicrous and he would not permit trial of any Israelis within that court.

None of it will do us any good. But I point out that as the Court of Justice adjudicates between states, there is a legal problem, as Gaza is not a state and is controlled by a terror organization. But the UN is not likely to let this stand in its way.

I also mention here the fact that process seems to requires the report to come into the hands of the GA first, but that the real action would be in the SC.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Kopts Moures, October 14, 2009.

This was written by Morris Sadek, President, National American Coptic Assembly, Washington, DC. Visit http://www.nationalamericancopticassembly.webs.com/, http://nacopticas1.blogspot.com/ and http://nacopts1.blogspot.com/. The article appeared in Bikya Masr http://bikyamasr.com/


The word Copts comes from the Greek word "Egyptos", which means Egyptian. According to a lecture delivered by a Coptic Bishop at the Hudson Institute, located in Washington DC, the Arab invasion of Egypt in 639 A.D. has altered the identity of Egypt through Arabization and forced conversion to Islam. This Bishop added that "The Copts have been always focused on Egypt; it is our identity, it is our nation, it is our land, it is our language, it is our culture. But when some of the Egyptians converted to Islam, their focus changed away from looking to their own language and culture. They started to look at the Arabians, and Arabia became the main focus."

Unfortunately, the process of Arabization and Islamization are still active working until now upon Copts. It is clearly manifested during the history that the Egyptian culture has been taken from the Copts and attributed to the Arabs. For Instance, Christian children has to study the history of the victorious Islamic invaders and how Islamic armies coming from Arabia saved Egypt from the Romans. The Egyptian government forgot to teach the Egyptian children that their great great grand fathers were Christians and they choose to convert to Islam.

During the rise of pan-Arab nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s, the economically prosperous Copts, who then represented 20 percent of the population but held more than 50 percent of the nations's wealth, saw their businesses and factories nationalized under the socialist government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Many of them left as a result.

Critics argue that a Pan Arabist will always support Arab unity and "Islam" at the expense of non-Arab and non-Moslem peoples. one would direct and manipulate the Western taste for self criticism, and all that does is deflect the world's attention from Arab and Muslem atrocities committed against Christians, Kurds, Jews, Israelis, Coptic Christians, non-Arab Sudanese, etc.

Though, current actively Anti Copt attacks stems more often from Islamism, especially by Islamic groups.

In conclusion, I share my opinion with many Copts in Egypt that we are not Arabs but Egyptians. I am very happy to call myself a Coptic Egyptian despite the fact that I speak Arabic. I will also call upon the Egyptian government to allow the Coptic language to be taught in public schools like English, French and German languages.

Contact Kopts Moures by email at kopts.moures@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Brother Shane, October 13, 2009.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg


In the wake of the Orwellian Goldstone Report of the UN Human Rights Council, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warns that "Israel's right to self-defense is under attack."

Good morning Mr. Prime Minister! Please be advised that Israel's right to self-defense was under attack by the United Nations while you were Israel's ambassador to that anti-Semitic organization. Were you asleep while the UN's General Assembly and Security Council were passing resolution after resolution denouncing Israel for defending itself against the PLO? Let me tell you what happened while you were away or dozing Mr. Van Winkle.

The UN's official attack on Israel's right to defend itself began at least as early as 1975 when the General Assembly equated Zionism with "racism."

Here are the facts..

On November 7, 1975, Kurt Waldheim, who had successfully concealed his former Nazi affiliation, was secretary-general of the United Nations.* On that momentous day, the Palestine Liberation Organization, a consortium of terrorists, was given observer status at the UN General Assembly and in other international conferences held under UN auspices.

Three days later, that is, on November 10, 1975 — the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) — the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3376, establishing a Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the (fictitious) Palestinian People. On that same day, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), which states that "Zionism is Racism."

The resolution also severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this "racist and imperialist ideology." Thus commenced a worldwide campaign to deJudaize and delegitimize Israel. In fact, the PLO had adopted the Arab line that the Jews do not constitute a nation but a religion and therefore are not entitled to statehood.

The resolution was adopted despite strong opposition by Israel's supporters, most notably the United States delegation under the leadership of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Moynihan believed that the resolution would revive anti-Semitism: "A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-Semitism ... has been given the appearance of international sanction."

John Bolton, then Assistant U.S Secretary of State for International Operations, went further: "In the UN, words take on a life of their own.. To declare as 'racist' the historical and cultural underpinnings of a state is tantamount to branding that state an international criminal, for racism is a crime enumerated in the Genocide Convention and numerous other instruments accepted under international law."

Jeanne J. Kilpatrick, who succeeded Moynihan at the UN, fearfully observed that a racist state has "no rights at all, not even the right to defend itself." Kilpatrick's remark anticipated and clarifies the shameless Goldstone Report of September 2009.

Alex Grobman of Hebrew University has pointed out that the UN, by passing Resolution 3379, "maliciously" and "deliberately branded Israel as illegitimate on the same day it recognized the legitimacy of the Palestine Liberation Organization" and thus made Israel "fair game for armed 'liberation.'"

What did Israel's government do to counter UN Resolution 3379? And what will it do now to counter the logical consequence of that resolution — the Goldstone Report?

Let me go to the heart of the issue. Why has Israel's government made it a policy of remaining on the defensive, of suffering the indignities of the United Nations? Why does it remain in this conceptually absurd, this corrupt, this criminal, this shameless, this obviously anti-Semitic organization? Why does it remain in and therefore dignify an organization dominated by cruel and repressive Arab-Islamic and other dictatorship? What good has it served for Israel to have a forum in this ignominious organization whose very name is belied by the anarchy of international politics?

Can you answer his question Bibi? Can you muster the candor and courage to say more than the obvious banality that Israel's right to self-defense is under attack?

Contact Brother Shane at wisevirgin_777@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, October 13, 2009.

Peace Now has asked the Israel High Court (Bagatz) to order 8 Israeli homes to be razed in a small Shomron community called Harasha. These are the first 8 stone houses (as opposed to caravans) to be built in Harasha. Haresha is an Israeli outpost, which was recognized as legal by the Prime Minister's office years ago — here's the actual document:

More than 40 children and babies will be homeless and penniless if these 8 homes are razed. Worse, Peace Now will use this as a precedent to try to deport the 7000 Israelis — almost as many as resided in Gush Katif! — residing in outposts today.

Kindly write to Israel's cabinet ministers, and to Coalition Chairman MK Zeev Elkin. For example (feel free to change this — or write your own!!):

Subject line: 40 Israeli children and babies in Harasha need help!

Email message:


I was so sorry to learn that Peace Now is yet again harassing 8 Israeli families, totaling more than 40 children and babies, for no reason. Please, Mr. Minister, can you take charge by contacting Prime Minister Netanyahu, Cabinet Secretary Gidon Hauser and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman and urging them to deal with this vital issue immediately. Enough of the "legal" attacks on any Israeli or Jew who dares to do anything (build a home, defend his children) that some terror group somewhere does not like.

Please notify ZIMRA, a woman who was expelled with her family from Gush Katif, set up residence in Harasha, and now is faced with the destruction of the homes there, at — Zimra@neto.net.il — that you have responded to her plea. She and AFSI would also love to see you raise this issue in the media, defending the brave, tiny, peaceable community of Harasha and urging more neighborhoods to be built there. Send us copies of anything you send out.

Here are the email Addresses for the Ministers — copy all these email addresses into the "to" field and send the same email to all ministers at once:

sar@moch.gov.il; roeil@moin.gov.il; minister@most.gov.il; ministerts@most.gov.il; sar@tourism.gov.il; sar@mfa.gov.il; sar@mof.gov.il; sar@mot.gov.il; sar@mops.gov.il; yedelstein@knesset.gov.il; gerdan@knesset.gov.il;bbegin@knesset.gov.il; myaalon@knesset.gov.il; mcachlon@knesset.gov.il; yiskatz@knesset.gov.il;llivnat@knesset.gov.il; gsaar@knesset.gov.il; ypeled@knesset.gov.il;ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il; sshalom@knesset.gov.il; iaharon@knesset.gov.il; aliberman@knesset.gov.il;ulandau@KNESSET.GOV.IL; slandver@knesset.gov.il; smiseznikov@knesset.gov.il; dhershkovitz@KNESSET.GOV.IL; mnahari@knesset.gov.il; aatias@knesset.gov.il; eyishay@knesset.gov.il; ymargi@knesset.gov.il; yakovm@dat.gov.il; sar@sviva.gov.il; sar@moc.gov.il;sar@moia.gov.il;sar@environment.gov.il;sar@mni.gov.il; zelkin@knesset.gov.il

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 13, 2009.


Former Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Amr has been working with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), but is a critic of Abbas. His recent criticism is that Abbas mishandled the Goldstone report. [First he got the UN to postpone considering it, so it would not discourage negotiations at which Israel would be asked for concessions, then, after the Arab world complained, he demanded its consideration. I think his first tactic was clever. It was urged by the U.S.]

In apparent retaliation, Abbas has withdrawn the bodyguards assigned to Amr, who has been the target of assassination attempts. Amr intends to continue coming to the P.A. (www.imra.org.il, 10/11).

Where should they send the body?


Hamas is seeking to upgrade the range and accuracy of its rocket force, as did Hizbullah. It also is striving to improve its anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. Iran has supplied most of its weaponry (www.imra.org.il, 10/11 fromJerusalem Post from Washington Institute for Near East Studies).

Hamas is vindicating Zionists who predicted this effort. Among those was the head of IMRA, Dr. Aaron Lerner. Dr. Lerner had ridiculed the Israeli Left for leaving Hamas undisturbed, once they mostly stopped fighting. He warned that they would use the respite to build up their forces. Then they would be able to inflict more damage, when they resume fighting, which it is their mission to do. He described the "quiet" that the Left boasted of attaining as a period of Hamas preparation.


A six-part cartoon about foreign incidents being told to the world leader at 3 a.m.:

1. "N. Korea threatens nuclear war!" The world leader sleeps.

2. "Sudanese genocide in Darfur!" The world leader sleeps.

3. "Crisis in Pakistan! Islamic terror spreading!" The world leader sleeps.

4. Iranian crazies! Mexican druglords! Somali pirates!" The world leader sleeps.

5. Sri Lankan slaughter of Tamils! Chinese repression! Peru-Bolivian conflict!" The world leader sleeps.

6. "Jews are building houses on the W. Bank." The world leader cries out in indignation, "What?!" (Jewish Political Chronicle, summer 2009, p.35 from Dry Bones.) Now that is a disproportionate response!

The cartoon expresses reality. Israeli leaders ignore it.


Anti-terrorism officials monitor the Internet, to find out what Radical Muslims are discussing. They find increasing discussion about attacking UN peacekeepers, whom the terrorists call "crusaders." UN troops patrol in the Golan, which the terrorists call Syria though it has been annexed by Israel, and in Lebanon (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 9/1).

The crusaders came to thrust back Muslims and take their land. The UN troops come just to keep the peace. Apparently the Radical Muslims don't want their violent comrades to be separated from their victims. But do they have to call the UN troops "crusaders," as if they have malign intent against Muslims? Actually, they are pro-Arab. They were put into southern Lebanon so as to get Israel not to destroy Hizbullah.


Israeli scientists at Technion in Haifa have patented a device for detecting lung cancer by analyzing the breath. Lunch cancer emits certain chemicals, which the device detects. It can do so even if patients have just eaten.

So far, the device is accurate 86% of the time, including early occurrences of cancer that existing methods cannot detect. Scientists are refining their technique. They want the device to be simple, in expensive, and non-invasive (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 9/1).


"Residents of Beit El have been under constant attacks by neighboring Arabs who hurl rocks and firebombs despite the impression of quiet reported in Israel's mainstream media, which generally plays down or doesn't report attacks unless they cause injuries or heavy property damage to Jews."

"Residents of the David neighborhood said that the frequent attacks occasionally include rifle fire aimed at their homes."

"An escalation of attacks also was reported in western Samaria on the highway between Kfar Saba and Ginot/Karnei Shomron and Kedumim. One security official in the area said that four firebombs were thrown at a Jewish vehicle last week and that rock-throwing terrorists hit his car recently and narrowly missed his wife's car twice." (www.imra.org.il, 9/1).

The major media often misleadingly or falsely accuses "settlers" of attacking Arabs, but fails to report actual attacks by Arabs on Jews. The media gives audiences an unrealistic impression. They foment unjustified indignation against Israelis.


The Europeans have formed a mission of solidarity with children in Gaza. Their humanitarian mission will bring medical supplies (www.imra.org.il, 9/1).

How about a humanitarian mission to oppose the abuse of children in summer camps that teach them bigotry and terrorism? How about a humanitarian mission to the children of Siderot, Israel, traumatized by the 8,000 rockets and mortars fired into their town from Gaza, for no good reason?


France and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation.

France depends largely on nuclear energy for its own needs. It exports nuclear technology for money. Its own plants are running down, because to save expenses, it cuts back on safety measures. Workers complain of many minor incidents, warnings of worse to come (www.imra.org.il, 9/1).

Do you suppose that S. Arabia, like Iran, among the top three countries in oil reserves, will claim it needs peaceful nuclear plants for energy? Before building nuclear weapons, countries usually learn the basic technology on civilian projects. Is the nuclear race on?


During and after the recent Gaza battles, Hamas claimed that most Arab casualties were civilians. Israel claimed the opposite. (The anti-Zionist "humanitarian" organizations sided with Hamas. They denounced Israel for killing a couple of hundred policemen, whom the organizations classified as civilians. Israel proved that at least 91% of those police were soldiers or trained as troops; when not called on for combat, they performed police duty.)

Hamas had issued notices about slain terrorists from combat units having jobs as police. That contradicts their claims against Israel. The humanitarian groups, however, disregard the notices. The groups failed to apologize to Israel.

Hamas keeps proving Israel's contention. Recent example: "Ayman Khaled Ibrahim Abu Sibleh, a policeman killed of August 14, 2009, was also an operative in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. He was killed in battle against jihadist operatives during the incident at the Ibn Taymiyyah mosque in Rafah." (www.imra.org.il, 9/2).


During the presidential campaign, Democrats based much of their objection to Pres. Bush on their claims he refused to negotiate with Iran. Last October, Defense Sec. Gates acknowledged that all Administrations had tried.

The U.S. would impose sanctions, and then attempt conciliation, by removing them. In 2006, Pres. Bush removed spare parts for Iran's commercial aircraft, but in 2008, banned U.S. bank transactions for Iran.

The Bush administration held "scores of publicly reported meetings, and at least one very secret series of negotiations. These negotiations have rarely been described in the American press, even though they are the subject of a BBC documentary titled 'Iran and the West.'" In 2006, the U.S. issued 300 visas for an Iranian leader to come and announce the suspension of Iranian nuclear enrichment, in return for ending sanctions. Sec. of State Rice awaited his arrival in New York, in vain (Michael Ledeen, Wall St. Journal, A23, Op.-Ed.).

The Democrats' major point was phony. Therefore, their leaders' indignation against Bush for lying was hypocritical. What about Obama's policy on Iran? To see a discussion of it, go here
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m9d29-Is-Obama-scamming-us-about-Iran


The Non-Aligned Movement endorsed Iran's proposal to ban raids on peaceful nuclear facilities (www.imra.org.il, 9/10).

So do I. Problem is, simple analysis proves that Iran's facilities are not peaceful. The Non-Aligned Movement used to align with the Soviet bloc.


Jonathan Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Israel has inspired a petition in Israel against prisoner swaps.

The petition was started by a right-wing activist, Moshe Feiglin. He hopes to get Israeli soldiers to sign it. The petitioners ask that if they are captured by the enemy, their government not exchange them for convicted Arab terrorists.

Jonathan Pollard set the example. Whenever his release was proposed as part of a prisoner exchange, he for Arabs, he rejected the proposal at the outset. He did not want to be responsible for the new murders and kidnapping that a sizeable proportion of the released Arab terrorists no doubt would attempt. He wants to be released out of clemency, being in poor health largely because of deliberately poor U.S. medical treatment, and having served far more years than anyone else convicted of his crime (www.imra.org.il, 10/11).

The U.S. promised his release before, in exchange for Israeli territorial concession. However, the U.S., not Israel, reneged. It owes him his freedom

The U.S. intelligence agencies objected to the agreed-upon release. At that time, they believed that Pollard had done damage to the U.S.. Caspar Weinberger, instrumental in getting the disproportionate sentence for Pollard, since then has admitted that the suspicions were mistaken and the indignation against Pollard overdone.

One of President Clinton's Jewish advisors suggested that the U.S. renege, so as to hold Pollard as a "bargaining chip" for further concessions. That makes Pollard a political prisoner of the U.S..

I don't agree with the petition as drafted. An equal prisoner exchange is acceptable. The usual exchanges now proposed are very few Israeli prisoners for very many Arab ones. The proposed trade would result in more innocent deaths because so many terrorists would be released.

In Judaism, redemption of captives is an imperative, provided that the ransom is not extortionate. The proposed deals are extortionate.

For a prior article on the problems with prisoner exchange, go here
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m10d6-Israeli-prisoner-deal-would-strengthen-Hamas


Turkey's recent decision to bar Israel from a multilateral air force exercise, coming after much other hostility, prompted Israeli strategists to reconsider their military assistance to Turkey (www.imra.org.il, 10/11).

Israel devises much technical innovation that it has been selling to Turkey. The Turkish military has been friendly to Israel. The military, however, under foreign pressure, has not defended its democratic republic from the creeping Islamist takeover.

For more about Turkey's barring Israel from an air force exercise, go here
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m10d12-Turky-partially-boycotts-IDF-US-demurs

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 and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, October 13, 2009.

The IDF has changed its standing instructions for soldiers regarding opening fire at terrorists who throw firebombs, Arutz Sheva's Hebrew service reported. According to military sources, the new instructions are part of an attempt to "change the atmosphere" in Yehuda and Shomron (Judea and Samaria) and to make Arabs' lives easier.

Fire bomb explodes near IDF soldiers, 2002 / Israel news photo: Flash 90

Whereas for decades, fire bombs have been treated as a lethal weapon and IDF soldiers were instructed to shoot to kill whoever throws them, the new instructions only permit soldiers to shoot at the fire bomber's legs, and even then — only up to knee level.

If the firebomb has already been thrown and the bomber has turned his back on the soldier — the soldier may not fire at all.

The IDF Spokesman's Unit said in response that "firing at firebombers is carried out in accordance with the regular procedures and only in cases where there is danger to life. These procedures have recently been clarified and do not constitute a change in the policy for opening fire."

Dov Kalmanovich, who was permanently disfigured in a fire bomb attack in the "first Intifada." / Israel news photo: Creative Commons

Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-Sheva, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 13, 2009.

As you read the Wall St. Journal article of October 8th following this article, the hidden disinformation of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) under its current Director Dennis Blair keeps bubbling up like a bloated, decaying corpse — that wants to float to the surface.

It is no longer a secret that the NIE Report of December 3, 2007, headlined that Iran had stopped its Nuclear production around 2003. The facts have emerged that the NIE Report was one of deliberate disinformation in order to protect Iran from a U.S. strike against its deeply buried Nuclear facilities.

John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the U.N., wrote on December 6, 2007 [1] that "the NIE Report spoke about many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department" transferred to the CIA to generate the NIE Report, in effect, subverting and misleading the President with deliberate false information in order to change government policy and public opinion. As Amb. Bolton said, "the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all."

Later the Director of the CIA apologized to Congress for misleading the President — although by that time the intended damage had been done. He should have been fired on the spot and the U.S. State Department infiltrators should have been tried and sent to a Federal Prison. More were involved in subverting the Government and protecting Iran's Nuclear plans which directly affected American security.

This was out-and-out Treason but, the enablers and the State Department moved quickly to cover up and stop any investigation by the Justice Department and Congress. This bit of dirty work makes the Watergate and the Watergate coverup look like a non-event.

Questions like: How long has this "Shadow Government" of subversives been operating?

What are their prior operations?

Clearly, this could not have happened without the quiet approval of those in the highest levels of Government — to include: Past, Present and, no doubt, Future subversive manipulators.

I am certain people such as former President George Herbert Walker Bush (former DCIA, Director of the CIA, former VP); former Secretary of State James Baker III (former Sec. of Treasury) would, undoubtedly, be delighted to give testimony (only under subpoena, of course). Brent Scowcroft could, if he would, shed light on any rogue operation made by the CIA or any of America's 16 Clandestine Services in Intel.

Then such an investigation would have to probe high ranking Generals and Admirals who believed they knew better how to conduct the affairs of the nation.

I wonder what former head of NATO, Gen. James Jones who is presently National Security Advisor to President Obama would have to say about a false NIE Report and collaboration with an enemy state in order to preserve their Nuclear capability.

Don't forget to include former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski and former President Jimmy Carter, among others, who were/are extremely hostile to the Jewish State of Israel. Perhaps they were in agreement that Iran's striking Israel with a Nuclear weapon would be 'beneficial' for the good of all and then the U.S. could stop Iran with force or the threat of force majeure.

If ever there was a crying need for a thorough investigation of this subversion, now is the time. Regrettably, we cannot rely upon Attorney General Jeffrey Holder of Justice (appointed by Obama) to mount such a truth-seeking investigation.

Perhaps it will be up to investigative journalists and editors to dig out the facts and force the investigation, due to public pressure. IF America has subversive moles in Government, running rogue, treasonous operations, they should be dug out of their spider holes, tried and sent to prison as clear and present dangers to the safety of America.

To continue:

A project of this nature must have continuity and thus be passed on and accepted by the next President and his (or her) advisors who will cooperate.

We see this in the Obama outreach to Iran, Syria and their proxies — especially Hamas and Hezb'Allah. All subsequent actions continue to ignore Iran's accelerated Nuclear growth and Syria's unbreakable alliance with Iran, although both give lip service to endless negotiations and acceptance of whatever President Obama is willing to give up in sanctions or even shipping of spare parts for their grounded aircraft and repair equipment for Iran's oil rigs. Or Obama could offer to build Iran refineries so they could make their own gasoline and derivatives, therefore, not be susceptible to sanctions imposed by the Free World nations to force compliance with the world's imposition of a Nuclear-Free Iran. All gestures of good faith but, none requiring Iran to stand down its Nuclear Militarization.

Perhaps Obama, as a neophyte President was sold a bill of goods by the Rogue "Shadow Government", making the subversion of American interests look like a good idea in the long run. Well, the Obamas could always go back to Chicago or Kenya when America feels the effects of their collaboration with America's enemies. They could plead 'innocent' or 'lack of knowledge' and get their slates wiped clean — if they lived somewhere else.

I cannot help but wonder, if there are any remaining patriots in the 16 American Intel Agencies or, for that matter, in Congress, who are willing to take on this juggernaught?

Hopefully, they will wake up, come alive and act SOON!

[1] "The Flaws In the Iran Report" by John R. Bolton Washington Post Dec. 6, 2007


Below is the October 8, 2009 Review and Outlook, page A16, Wall Street Journal. Intelligence Fiasco Footnote: The authors of the 2007 Iran NIE have some explaining to do.


When it comes to politicized intelligence in the Bush years, the critics may finally have a point. Perhaps the work of America's intelligence agencies was manipulated to suit the convenience of a small group of willful officials, intent on getting their way against the better judgment of their colleagues.

Except the intelligence was about Iran, not Iraq, and the manipulators weren't conniving neocons but rather the Administration's internal critics on the left.

That's one way to look at last month's revelation that Iran is building a secret second site to enrich uranium, among other emerging intelligence details. The Qom site — too small for civilian purposes but ideal for producing weapons-grade uranium — is supervised by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and was only declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency after Tehran got wind that the nuclear watchdogs knew about it.

But the more telling detail, as a recent White House "guidance paper" acknowledges, is that the U.S. has been "carefully observing and analyzing this facility for several years." That timeline is significant, because it was less than two years ago, in December 2007, that a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear programs asserted with "high confidence" that Tehran had "halted its nuclear weapons program" in the fall of 2003.

The NIE was a political sensation, seized on by Democrats and Iraq war critics as another case in which the Bush Administration had supposedly politicized intelligence. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the NIE a "declaration of victory," and it derailed any hopes for the Bush Administration to garner international support for tougher sanctions on Iran.

Yet some of us noted at the time that the NIE added, in a crucial footnote, that by "nuclear weapons program" it meant "weapon design and weaponization work and ... uranium enrichment-related work," rather than Iran's "declared" nuclear facilities. The NIE's main authors — including former intelligence official Tom Fingar and other internal critics of Bush Administration policies — downplayed this critical detail. Never mind that it was precisely Iran's "declared" nuclear facilities that constituted the core element of any nuclear-weapons program.

Fast forward to the present, and it turns out the NIE was misleading even on its own terms: Iran did have a covert facility, perhaps for enrichment, and the intelligence community knew or at least strongly suspected it. We are also learning that the NIE's judgment puts the U.S. intelligence community at odds with its counterparts in Britain, Germany and Israel, which have evidence to show that Iran resumed its weaponization work after 2003.

The Wall Street Journal Europe reported on July 30 that Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND, "has amassed evidence of a sophisticated Iranian nuclear weapons program that continued beyond 2003. This usually classified information comes courtesy of Germany's highest state-security court. In a 30-page legal opinion on March 26 and a May 27 press release in a case about possible illegal trading with Iran, a special national security panel of the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe cites from a May 2008 BND report, saying the agency 'showed comprehensively' that 'development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003.'"

The 2007 NIE also contradicts the findings of the usually hypercautious IAEA, which concluded in a recent analysis that Iran "has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device." The word "implosion" is especially significant because it means Iran is likely seeking to design a warhead compact enough to be fitted atop one of its increasingly capable ballistic missiles.

It's of course possible that the U.S. has it right and everyone else has it wrong. But given the stakes if Iran does get the bomb, and given everything we know about Iran's history of deception, the obligation of intelligence agencies is not to issue politically skewed "estimates" that derail U.S. policy to stop the Iranian program. Getting it wrong on Iran — the most crucial intelligence question of the decade — would be no small footnote in the CIA's history of intelligence blunders.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, October 13, 2009.

Legislators are growing increasingly frustrated with President Barack Obama's seeming unwillingness to pull the trigger on an Iran sanctions package that is already locked and loaded. The American public should be frustrated, too.

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), if enacted, would put the squeeze on foreign oil companies that currently help the Mullahs refine petroleum, as well as the insurance companies that underwrite this trade. If the sanctions work, they could stem the flow of 30 to 40 percent of Iranian oil, since the Mullahs don't actually have sufficient refining capacity to meet their domestic needs. In short, IRPSA could deal a fiscal body blow to Iran and destabilize the regime, as a means to derail its nuclear ambitions.

So, why are Democrats like Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Chris Dodd (CT) unhappy? The same reason why Republicans are.

Congress rolled out the initiative back in April that mirrored candidate Obama's call for gasoline sanctions during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fast forward six months, and it's still stuck on the Hill, despite the fact that it has an astounding 327 co-sponsors in the House (HR 2475) and 75 co-sponsors in the Senate (S 908). That's more than three-quarters of Congress.

While that should easily be enough to get IRPSA into law, the administration has signaled to lawmakers that it needs more time. At a recent hearing of the Senate Banking Committee, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey testified that he was still working on a "comprehensive" plan that "takes into account Iran's potential vulnerabilities and those activities that have the greatest influence on Iran's decision makers."

Levey has worked tirelessly on Iran since assuming his post in 2004. He knows exactly what the sanctions package would look like. The problem, according to congressional staffers and think tankers who have been following the legislation, is that Obama appears ambivalent — caught somewhere between his call for dialogue and insisting that an Iranian nuclear weapon is "unacceptable."

The reason for the president's ambivalence is clear. Gasoline sanctions only have the potential to cause a spike in Iran's gasoline imports, and possibly weaken the regime. Even if IRPSA hits Iran in the pocketbook, as former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton notes, the Mullahs are not likely to change course. If he's right, the enforcement and subsequent failure of sanctions would only reinforce the notion that military intervention may be the only viable option left.

Obama seems eager to postpone reaching this excruciating conclusion.

Leadership, however, is about making those tough choices. The President must give sanctions enough time to work — or fail. Neglecting to do so will only limit U.S. options as Tehran draws ever closer to its dangerous aims.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at jschanzer@jewishpolicycenter.org. This article is archived at
www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1464/ obama-attempts-to-delay-iranian-sanctions-b

To Go To Top

Posted by Isi Leibler, October 13, 2009.

After 2000 years of dispersion, persecution and powerlessness and in the wake of the greatest disaster ever to have encompassed the Jewish people, Zionism rose like a phoenix from the ashes of the Shoah and achieved the impossible. In what must be the most remarkable achievement of any people and unique in the annals of mankind, it resurrected a homeland and empowered the Jews.

After fulfilling its principal objective of creating a Jewish state, it is not surprising that the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization are now mere shadows of their former glory. Even after being substantially downsized because of a drastic decline in donor income, the Jewish Agency remains a bloated bureaucracy. Aside from a few prominent personalities, the World Zionist Organization is widely perceived as a retreat for failed or retired Israeli politicians or apparatchiks who compete fiercely for paid executive positions with the perks of overseas travel. With a few notable exceptions, most Diaspora Zionist organizational affiliates have eroded and become marginalized.

For most Israelis, especially younger people, the term Zionism has become an anachronism and an expression of derision or contempt.

Yet despite this, the Zionist movement has a vital role to fulfill for the Jewish people — especially today, when post-Zionists or Hebrew-speaking Canaanites seek to transform Israel into "a state of all its citizens," a euphemism for the dejudaization of the Jewish state.

FOR MANY Jews and Israelis, the Holocaust and the struggle to create a Jewish homeland are dim historical memories relegated to history books. In the Diaspora, many have become disillusioned and traumatized by the burgeoning anti-Semitic climate and intensive media campaigns demonizing the Jewish state. Some have distanced themselves from Israel and even endorsed the anti-Zionist chic.

This was highlighted in Stephen Cohen's survey of non-Orthodox American Jews in 2007. The findings displayed apathy and an alarming decline in attachment to Israel among the younger generation. This has particular relevance because aside from religious observance, Israel is now the key factor sustaining Jewish identity.

In such an environment, only a vigorous Zionist movement in conjunction with the government could reverse the tide, strengthening the Israel-Diaspora relationship and endeavoring to maintain the centrality of Israel in Jewish life.

Yet alas, aside from the unquestionably important 10-day Birthright visits — which since its inception in 2000 has brought 215,000 Jewish youngsters to Israel — and other programs for young people, there is no concerted strategy to deal with these issues.

Indeed, in recent times, successive Israeli leaders have themselves contributed to the erosion of Israel-Diaspora relations. They focus almost exclusively on wooing wealthy donors to fund their interests in lieu of nurturing Zionist leaders. Former interior minister Meir Sheetrit even went so far as to suggest the curtailment of aliya and abrogation of the Law of Return.

Jewish Agency policy, which in the past was always determined by Zionists, has now been hijacked by wealthy — primarily American — donors who have sought to transform it into a replica of the non-Zionist American Federation system. The newly elected chairman, Natan Sharansky, whose Zionist credentials are impeccable, was forced by his board to desist from assuming the traditionally parallel role of chairman of the World Zionist Organization. This reflected the efforts of the agency board to marginalize the Zionist ideological component and transform it into an efficient charity — no more.

THE DOMINANT influence of the American funders was further evidenced by the abrupt termination of a major promotional campaign against intermarriage initiated by MASA, a Jewish Agency subsidiary. Whereas the campaign presentation may have been tasteless and warranted revision, the cancellation was unjustified and was allegedly imposed by board members who feared confrontation with donors, many of whom had intermarried couples within their own families. The prevailing mood of "sensitivity" in relation to confronting assimilation and intermarriage was also exemplified in the recent article "What Israelis need to know about intermarriage in North America," published in The Jerusalem Post by Edmund Case, CEO of Interfaith Family.

Aside from denying that the vast majority of children born to interfaith unions are lost to the Jewish people, Case broke new ground by making the preposterous assertion that intermarriage was "not a threat but an opportunity" and represented a great benefit because "intermarriage actively enlarges Jewish communities."

Needless to say, every Jew has the option of marrying whom he or she chooses. But it is hardly surprising that growing assimilation in an open society leads to increased intermarriage. Still, one would at least assume encouragement of conversion so that children of such unions would have some hope of remaining Jewish. To describe the tragic erosion of the Jewish community via intermarriage as grounds for celebration is surely obscene.

While the strongest resistance to intermarriage understandably emanates from religious Jews, opposition to intermarriage has always been a central tenet of Zionist ideology. The failure of today's "Zionist" leaders to adopt a strong stand concerning this issue reflects the growing influence of wealthy assimilated Jews.

Another disturbing manifestation of the dilution of Zionist values is the inclination to avoid all discussion related to aliya. The Jewish Agency has already subcontracted aliya to Nefesh B'Nefesh, an independent body that has handled this issue with far greater efficiency and humanity than the agency bureaucrats.

The negative attitude toward this central Zionist ideal was exemplified by the recent capitulation to demands of American donors that those directing Birthright categorically desist from any encouragement of aliya. "Momo" Lifshitz, a former IDF officer who heads Oranim (by far the largest trip provider for the project), — a secular program strongly supported by non-Orthodox groups, and by far the largest trip provider for the project — recently broke away from Birthright. Lifshitz passionately proclaimed that Oranim would henceforth operate as a separate program because he refused to accept prohibitions by Birthright organizers from urging participants to "raise your children Jewish," encouraging aliya or providing free honeymoons to Israel for couples who met during their visits.

THE BULK of Jews in Western countries are unlikely to pack their bags tomorrow and come to Israel. But it is imperative that committed Jews continue making aliya because this represents the most important bridge linking Israel and the Diaspora.

Continued dilution of fundamental Zionist objectives will have disastrous repercussions for the Jewish people. In addition to weakening Jewish identity and intensifying assimilation, it will lead to further alienation of Jews from Israel and weaken Diaspora Jewry's efforts on behalf of Israel, with particularly damaging consequences to Israel-US relations.

One would hope that the current government will be more positively inclined toward supporting Zionism than their less-ideologically-motivated predecessors.

Together with Sharansky, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu should concentrate on encouraging the emergence of a vigorous new Zionist leadership to focus on reinforcing the centrality of Israel in Jewish life and strengthening the morale of Diaspora Jews suffering in the wake of the intensified efforts to criminalize and delegitimize the Jewish state.

Contact Isi Leibler at editor@wordfromjerusalem.com This column was published today in the Jerusalem Post

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, October 13, 2009.

You Were Silent for Eight Years! David Buskila, the mayor of Sderot, sent a personal letter to the head of the United Nations committee of inquiry on the war in Gaza, Judge Richard Goldstone. In the missive, Buskila protested against the UN's silence — and Goldstone's — in the years leading up to the Gaza operation. The world, the UN, and Goldstone had eight years in which to protest the rocket attacks on Sderot and other towns in southern Israel, Buskila said. Instead, they said nothing while Hamas repeatedly attacked: "The world was silent, and so were you. You were silent at the sight of our children's bodies, you were silent in the face of their fear, you were silent when each of the 8,000 Kassam rockets hit our city."

"Let us not ignore the facts — the suffering of Sderot and its children, and likewise the suffering of Gaza' residents, are on the shoulders and the conscience of Hamas's leaders and the leaders of fundamentalist Islam," (And the leaders of the so-called Free World, but not for Jews, who have remained silent while Jews were terrorized and suffered from Arab aggression!) PA Teen Terrorists Preferred Israel Jail to Home

"Road Map" is Violation of International Law.

...the US Government continues violation of the Treaties that recognize Israel's rights to its internationally recognized legal borders, the prohibition against ceding any land belonging to the Jewish National Home, and supporting the right of Jewish settlement within those internationally recognized borders. The legal borders in question comprise all Israel, including all of Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip, the entire city of Jerusalem and more... (as it was defined in July 1922 by the League of Nations)

These borders were recognized by the United States in a 1924 treaty with Great Britain. The Jewish National rights recognized by the British and the Americans under the 1924 Anglo-American treaty are still guaranteed by the treaty. Furthermore, the US Constitution calls a treaty the "Supreme Law of the Land" and the Courts have the power to force the Federal Executive Branch (President, Secretary of State, etc.) to honour Treaties.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Popes, kings, dictators and presidents have been legitimising and justifying their ugly deeds against Jews using 'disturbed' Jew-puppets: the Soviet Union did it to destroy enemies of the Communist doctrine and the heritage of its own Jewish people, the United Kingdom and others it during the Palestinian mandate to destroy the Jewish dream of a national homeland, and the Catholic Church did it during the Inquisition to kill Jews physically and spiritually

Extraordinary Mockery of Nobel Peace Prize! US President Barack Obama had received the award this year Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," particularly for his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation. (All Obama's "extraordinary efforts" just rhetoric of a skilful demagogue and are leading nowhere but failure. Many of them have failed already. A Nobel Prize is given for achievement, not for wishful-thinking!)

Removing Terror-linked Population. The United Arab Emirates has reportedly expelled dozens of Lebanese Shiites from its territory. They were suspected of having linked to the Hezbollah. (Shouldn't Israel do the same with the terror-linked so-called Palestinian families?)

Jews are Still Gluttons for Punishment. A Gallup poll released not long ago shows that out of all religious groups in the United States, Jews account for the biggest group supporting Barack Obama as president. Sixty four percent of American Jews, in spite of the clearly not pro-Israel policy of the current administration, approve of the job he is doing and support his presidency. Among Catholics, 54% approve and support the Obama presidency, while 47% of Protestants and only 32% of Mormons do. Seventy eight percent of American Jews voted for Obama in the 2008 elections.

Another Muslim 'Democracy'. The United Nations official recently removed from his post in Kabul, Peter Galbraith, estimates that up to one third of the votes for President Hamid Karzai in the August election were phoney. He accused his former boss, Kai Eide, of being soft on the level of fraud in the elections, saying that in one region, ''there were ten times as many votes as there are voters.'' (In the West we pay for this farce with the blood of our soldiers and taxpayers' money!)

Quote of the Week: "We know from history that a war against the Jews becomes a war against free people and free nations everywhere.'' — Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu.

Reconciliation Game. Senior Hamas member Salah Al-Bardawil called on Egypt on Monday night to delay the signing of a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement, only hours after Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman had announced an October 26th date for the signing to take place. Al-Bardawil said that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was not true to PA interests. (Why should he be? By his own admission, his family came to Tzvat, Israel, from Damascus, Syria!)

Another Case of International Hypocrisy. The Israel Antiquities Authority condemned the World Archaeological Congress for holding an international conference in Ramallah dedicated to "overcoming structural violence" and the negative impact of politics on archaeology. UN excluded Israelis by not informing the IAA of the event in advance and deliberately allowed an academic forum to be used for political propaganda against Israel.

What Peace process? Fatah has declared to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the movement, that he must not resume peace talks unless Israel freezes its settlement construction. Fatah's position could help Abbas stand up to U.S. pressure to return to the negotiating table. (Strangely, the refusal by the PA and Arab states to recognize Israel as the Jewish state and end terror are not considered as obstacles to peace!)

Turning Skin Cells into Stem Cells. Scientists in Haifa have adapted an innovative Japanese gene-implantation technique to reprogram and reverse human skin cells back to artificial embryonic stem cells. After become stem cells, researchers switched them into heart cells.

Have You Heard About These Wars?

1. The latest paroxysm of Yemen's five-year war with the rebel Houthis has left more than 2,000 dead in less than a month and up to 150,000 homeless. Yemeni government troops are battling around 15,000 Iranian-armed and trained Houthi rebels dug into the northern Sadaa mountains on the Saudi Arabian border. Saudi air force bombers are pounding the rebels and the Egyptian air force and navy are ferrying ammunition to the Yemen army with US encouragement and funding...

This strategically-located, poor Red Sea country — Yemen, for years a critical stage for the war against Islamic extremists, has now become a key arena where the United States and Iran jockey for regional primacy. In that respect, the Yemen conflict compares in importance with the 2006 Lebanon War and the Gaza conflict...

2. An estimated 5.4 million people have been killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1998, with 38,000 more dying every month. Yet not only are most people unaware of this, the worst toll since World War II, but there has been no hint of the UN General Assembly emergency session to discuss it, let alone condemn it. (No visits from the 'special' US envoy, no press coverage, no international interest, no condemnations, no investigations etc& The terrorists in Yemen have the same ideological base as the ones in Gaza and Lebanon, but Yemen is not Israel! The lives of the people of the Congo ha