HOME Featured Stories October 2010 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, 2010.

Winter Sunrise Near Eilat


I admit it: I remain a sucker for sunsets. And sunrises, when I can beat dawn out the door. Observing the spectacle of changing light and color — especially in the mysterious world of heaven above — makes me pause and marvel at creation. Yet these break of day/end of day shots can often disappoint because we witness them as a process. Although I strive for the absolute peak moment in every shot, extracting but an instant in time from a glorious sky show frequently leaves me unfulfilled. Now I cannot imagine watching a videotape of a sunrise as a way to relive the complete experience, but it does help when we return later to look at the photograph, to complement our visual memory with a bit of introspection prompted by the moment.

This is a winter sunrise near Eilat, looking east over the Eilat Mountains and Jordan. The light show is adorned with a sliver of waning moon in the upper right hand corner. To keep the colors at their richest, it is important to set the exposure for the sky, which means the mountains, with no light hitting them from the direction of the camera, will turn to silhouette. I kept the mountains in the image to a minimum, because they are so easily identifiable as mountains and because their jagged summits add further drama to the wispy clouds catching the first light of day. May we awaken each day to the beauty and blessings that surround us.


Nikon D-300, 18-200 zoom at 31mm, f11 at 1/60 sec., ISO 400.  

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
http://www.cafepress.com/halevi18. He is available for public relations and editorial photography, celebrations and simchas.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michelle Nevada, October 31, 2010.

This comes from the October 26,2010 Israel Jewish News
(http://israeljewishnews.blogspot.com/2010/10/ we-have-reached-ugly-abyss-of-hareidi.html?spref=fb). It was written by

"We have reached an ugly abyss of hareidi leadership and there is nothing left but to rise up against it. This is not the Torah we know, this is not our viewpoint and these are not our leaders." — Rabbi Binyamin Lau


This is a beautiful speech, which I cannot classify as anything less than a manifesto for authentic Torah scholarship, humanity, and Jewish education.

Thank you, Rabbi Angel, for featuring it on Jewish Ideas/Ideals (http://www.jewishideas.org), and thank you, Rabbi Lau, for saying these words so courageously.

Too many rabbis are hiding in the shadows, keeping their opinions and knowledge to themselves, afraid to speak out for fear that they will be religiously and professionally lynched by an uneducated and fervent Haredi mob.

Too many are standing in judgment of our Torah scholars, hell-bent upon the anti-Jewish intellectual void that is the obsequious rabbi worship.

I fear we are heading quickly into a "Jewish Dark Ages": where learned rabbis fear to be labeled heretics, while heretics roam freely in the street spouting lies without fear.

Judaism is plunging head-first into a sea of ignorance, and our sacred knowledge is being daily replaced by a collection of superstitious mumbo jumbo in the name of "strictness."

This is a serious problem.

Mamoinides warned us that Hashm carefully delineated between Jewish worship and pagan worship by changing only small things so that we would be willing to leave our old ways and embrace the Torah. If we deviate from the practices handed down by our matriarchs and patriarchs, even a small bit, we may find ourselves, unwittingly, performing tasks as a pagan would. This is why we are told we cannot add to or detract from the Torah--not even one letter.

Unfortunately, the Torah is being added to daily with some new chumrot, and being detracted from daily through the denial of such things as respect for Torah, avoiding Loshan Hara and Motzei Shem Ra, and protecting the stranger among us.

Below is Rabbi Binyamin Lau's speech as recorded on the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals website: http://www.jewishideas.org/. Rabbi Binyamin (Benny) Lau is Rabbi of the Ramban Synagogue in Jerusalem, and one of the leaders of the Bet Morasha Torah Study Center. A noted author and lecturer, this article was originally presented as a lecture at his synagogue. It was published in De'ot, the journal of Neemanei Torah vaAvodah, in the June 2010 issue. It was translated into English for the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals by Sarah Nadav.


The current religious educational system encourages people to accept the authority ofthe major Torah scholars of the generation and to obey them unquestioningly, thereby creating a culture of dependency and submission. We must return to and deepen inspiration of independent thought, personal freedom and individual empowerment. Talmudic tradition and adjudication teach us that no Rabbi, no matter how great, is sacred nor should he be revered as a Lord over us.

Today's religious community suffers from a lack of confidence and a perpetual fear in the face of the compelling outside world and its influences. This inevitably gives rise to a search for protection and dependency upon role models who will show the way and protect our children from any doubt. As a result, the religious educational system encourages obedience to the Torah sages and their authority.

But this search for great leaders capable of guiding us in a world laden with doubts and quandaries has led to weakness, and submission to the opinions of a handful of charismatic leaders.

Many of our children have become dependent on role models in yeshivas and midrashot due to the fact that Religious Zionism has sought to emulate the Hareidi doctrine, which is increasingly dominating the religious way of life and outlook. The message of this lecture is to encourage education toward independent thinking, individual empowerment and personal freedom through the wisdom of the Torah and its sages. Independent thinking is not innate; therefore, it must be patiently and laboriously nurtured in our homes and schools so that upon maturity our people will be capable of carrying the burden of human independence in which responsibility and authority are so deeply intertwined.

Armed with the knowledge that no single person is omnipotent — that no one, no matter how great — is as "holy" as the Torah itself or is meant to lord over us, we must encourage every teacher and every parent to free our children of this heavy burden. They must be given the tools to recognize and fortify their own strength. We must once again imbue the acceptance of responsibility and decision making in our children; granted, their surroundings are complex and the temptations are great, but there is no other way. It is impossible to flee from freedom and choose slavery in its place.

In the spirit of personal integrity and individual freedom Rabbi Kook wrote:

"The virtuous man should believe in his life, that is to believe in himself and his feelings which take the path of the righteous because that is how his spirit directs him. Because these are good and honest and they naturally lead towards a path of righteousness."

This is a most important lesson: have no fear, you need to have faith and trust. When it comes to most decisions in life, there is no need to consult with a Rabbi or a Rebbe. Individuals, couples and families should make their own decisions in regard to themselves. These are the parties that should make such resolutions. External entities should not and cannot control a person's private life.

Common decency is the basis of the social infrastructure. There is a general code of conduct and legitimate norms of behavior, as well as conduct that is considered unacceptable. So when the sages instruct us to "blunt the teeth" of the wicked son, it is in the sense of education and refinement — to remove the barbs and sarcasm from his speech. But the truly problematic son is the one that "does not know how to ask" or perhaps thinks that it is forbidden to ask.

The Haggada instructs us: "It is up to you to discuss this with him," or in the words of Rabbi Shelomo Alkabetz, (a Kabalist from 16th century Safed): "You must be confident in him" — thanks to your trust in him and his strength, his ray of light will burst forth. "Find yourself a Rabbi and remove all doubt" — is a teaching of Rabban Gamliel. This statement is a main source of education to almost blind obedience and heeding the Rabbis' teachings without criticism. As it is specifically stated in Avot of Rabbi Natan (Version A, Chapter 22): "Rabban Gamliel states: Choose for yourself a Rabbi and acquire for yourself a friend to remove yourself from doubt and do not overly often do your tithing by estimate."

I have chosen this version of Rabban Gamliel's words because it has three main components:

A. "Choose for yourself a Rabbi" — This is the categorical imperative for every religious individual who strives to be a normative member of the religious world and does not know how to choose between different alternatives in the world of halakha.

B. "Acquire for yourself a friend" — This is what distinguishes between the person as an individual and the person as part of the community. R. Gamliel seeks to establish a kind of collective responsibility, which is the basis for a God worshipping community.

C. "Remove yourself from doubt" — This concept is the reason for the two preceding statements. In a world of doubt, the individual seeks meaning and direction. The choice of a Rabbi and being part of a community relieve a person of doubt; he is then free of this onus and can make his way through the world without questions or errors.

If in the days of R. Gamliel — the time of the rise of Christianity and differences of opinions — there lurked a fear of the world of doubt, then what are we to say when it comes to the modern world, or even more so in the post-modern world? Indeed, it is due to this awareness that the words of R. Gamliel have been given the utmost importance.

Take for example the teaching of the Ramhal in his famous parable from "The Garden of Confusion," which appears in Messilat Yesharim. The Ramhal describes a man who has lost his way in the garden's mazes until his eyes are opened by a sage who knows his way through the garden.

Most of the religious community's instruction books are based on this approach. Instead of getting lost and wandering along the dusty paths in the thick forest, it is best for us to latch on to the great trees and to let others who are familiar with the path guide us.

This model is also used by Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, one of the great leaders of the yeshiva world of the previous generation. In his book "Letters from Eliyahu" he writes: "From this comes the foundation of faith in the sages. He who chooses to have faith in them can make use of their clear vision, which will serve as their own eyes. From their teachings we acquire a true image of the hashkafa of the world and practical leadership.

And because of this the sages of our generation possess a vast measure of this direct and true reflection to the point that their teachings — even if they lack a clear source and even if they are expressed in bits of advice — are clear and true. 'When a man asks about his Creator's message' — this we witness in this generation as well, thank God."

Rabbi Dessler's concept of the term "faith in the sages" reflects the classical approach of the Lithuanian yeshiva world, and certainly the Hassidic courts as well. This approach places the sages on a higher spiritual level, like prophets. As Rabbi Dressler summarizes: "'When a man asks about his Creator's message' — in each generation the individual must turn his eyes to the great leader' of his generation, to shut his own private eyes and to try and see through the eyes of the great scholar. If he is blessed, he will be able to share the view of the scholar and adhere to his thoughts."

In my humble opinion, this is the stage where faithful students and believers turn into mindless and unquestioning masses. This type of education leads to slavery due to the dread of the garden of confusion.

"Acquire for yourself an understanding heart", said R Elazar ben Azariah.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the approach of R. Gamliel's successor, R. Elazar ben Azariah. All of R. Elazar's teachings serve as an alternative to those of R. Gamliel. One of the very first steps he introduced when he took over was to dispose of the "selector" from the entrance of the House of Study who during R. Gamliel's day would stand at the entrance and say: "He whose heart is flawed dare not enter." (Berakhot 28)

Rabbi Gamliel sought to introduce discipline and obedience to the House of Study and the world of Torah, fearing the forces that might shatter the existing hegemony.

R. Elazar's teachings stand in direct opposition to the abovementioned approach — he strove to fill the House of Study with as much strength as possible, to occupy it with all those who wished to be there and to cope with any doubts that might arise in the House of Study in other ways.

"The words of the sages are like goads, and like nails well planted (are the sayings) of the masters of the assemblies, given from one shepherd. Why are the words of the Torah likened to a goad? To teach you that just as this goad directs the cow along its furrows in order to bring forth order to the world...

" But if the words of the Torah are likened to nails, one might think that just as the nail diminishes and does not increase the object or wall into which it is driven so too the words of the Torah diminish and are not increased among those who observe them. To teach otherwise Scripture states: well planted. That is, Just as the plant is fruitful and multiplies, so too, the words of the Torah cause one to be fruitful and multiply.

"The Masters of Assemblies, these are the wise scholars who sit in various groups and occupy themselves with the study of Torah. There are those scholars who declare a thing ritually contaminated and there are those who pronounce it clean; those who prohibit and those who permit; those who disqualify and those who declare fit. Perhaps a man will say: how can I ever learn Torah and understand it precisely, when every issue is subject to debate and disagreement? To allay this concern, Scripture states that all the various rabbinic opinions are given from one Shepherd — one God gave them.

One leader proclaimed them from the mouth of the Master of all, blessed be He, as it is written: and God spoke these words. Hence, you are to make your ear like a funnel, and acquire yourself a discerning heart — to hear intelligently the words of those who declare a thing impure and the words of those who pronounce it pure; the words of those who prohibit and the words of those who permit; and the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who declare fit. "

The above mentioned passage from Ecclesiastes describes the Torah in agricultural terms. A goad is a stick with nails attached to it that is used by farmers to prod a working animal so that it will move faster and continue walking in the furrows. As a metaphor, the goad is the "teacher for the cow"; although the goad hurts the animal, its true purpose is to ensure that the animal actually does what it is supposed to do. The nail that is affixed to the end of the goad represents the "leader of the community", those who guide the community in the service of God and keep them on the path of righteousness.

In simple terms, it is possible to understand this parable as a justification for the use of the discipline which Torah teachers use. The words of the sages are not always pleasant but they are intended to improve humankind and the human condition, which is to say that they guide them into the "furrow", the furrow being the path of serving God. This is a good parable for any farmer that has had the experience of having to direct livestock. But R. Elazar is seeking to add another dimension of understanding.

According to his explanations, the nail is not a static object. He likens it to a tree that is planted in the ground rather than simply hammered into place; he is trying to communicate that with the proper care, this "goad" can blossom and grow and in this way he is portraying the world of halakha (religious law) and its enormous complexity.

Just as a nail affixes two things to each other, so to halakha affixes the Torah to our life and does not allow people to stray off its path thereby protecting them from the perils of the journey. Torah evolves with the path and is not static, constantly being renewed. It is nailed, and it is "planted" — which means it has the opportunity to grow and does not allow the journey to tear us apart.

The passage goes on to describe the planted nail as "Masters of Assembly" (scholars of the community). Rabbi Elazar uses the expression "Masters of Assembly" as a colorful description of the new world he envisions for the House of Study after he has taken over, where students are coming by the hundreds and thousands to learn Torah, without any fear or conflicting opinions or pre-existing notions. "They sit as groups, and in those groups they learn Torah. (All positions will be respected). Some will say that something is ritually pure, and some say it is impure. Others will say that something is permitted and some will say that it is not permitted; or (some will say that) something is fit and (others will say that) something is unfit." This is the vision of the house of learning in the eyes of R Elazar.

Now we have a question which begs to be asked: "Perhaps a man will say "How can I ever learn Torah" (and understand it precisely when every issue is subject to question)? A person enters the world of open style of learning, most of the students know that there are many variations, and it is possible to "lose your head". How is it possible to guide a person with questions in a world of plurality? The answer that comes from the house of study of the Rabbi Gamliel is: "Choose for yourself a Rabbi and remove yourself from doubt." In a world of uncertainty, the only way for a person to find his way is to ask a guide and then adhere to what he says.

However R. Elazar provides an alternative response to that of R. Gamliel. R. Elazar seeks to place the burden of responsibility for finding a person's way through doubt on the individual him/herself. Instead of saying "choose a Rabbi for yourself," he cites another teaching which says "Make you ear like a funnel", where a lot of grain can be poured in at one time but little can come out. The source of the word "afarkeset (funnel)" is from Greek, meaning a funnel that is wide open to receive, but has only a narrow opening at the end.

The wide end is able to receive many voices which are sailing through the void. The funnel receives and absorbs all of the voices without censoring them. R. Elazar seeks to free your ears from its bonds and tells you to make them open to receive all of the voices. This includes the opinions of those who forbid and those who permit; those who find guilt and those who relieve from guilt; those who declare something is impure and those who say that it is pure. All of the voices of dispute or disagreement in the House of Study have their source from Mt. Sinai. Only when you are able to listen to all of them, is it possible to begin seeking the right path.

Objection to Admiration and Adoration

In many places in the Talmud, we come across glorification of the image of sages of the time by their pupils and the surrounding community, as well as explicit criticism of this phenomenon. One of the significant figures exalted in his own time was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. There are numerous illustrative stories concerning the criticism of scholars who disagreed with this cult of personality.

One of the most famous is the story of the visit to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's House of Study by Rabbi Yishma'el — son of Rabbi Yossi ben Halafta. The Talmud describes the pupil's entrance into House of study. Everyone is seated, the Sage takes his place, and only Rabbi Yishma'el — who was very large — is still pacing slowly from one edge of the hall to the other to find a place. In his pacing, it looked as if he were walking over the heads of the other pupils. Rabbi Avdan, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's assistant, was furious and he objected.

R. Avdan said: Who is the person walking over the heads of the holy congregation?
R.Yishmael answered: It is I, Yishma'el son of Rabbi Yossi who has come to learn Torah from the Rabbi.
R. Avdan said to him: Are you worthy enough to learn Torah from the Rabbi?
R. Yishmael answered: Was Moses worthy enough to learn Torah from the mouth of the Almighty?
R. Avdan said: Do you think you are Moses?
R. Yishamel answered: Do you think the Rabbi is God?

Here we have a precise description of the House of Study of the time (at least from the viewpoint of the Talmudic scholar). The scholars sit in rows and the sage sits in front on a dais. Those closest to the sage advance to the front to find their seat. Rabbi Avdan's condescending attitude toward Rabbi Yishma'el exemplifies an elitist and insulting atmosphere in the House of Study.

The gap between the level of a student and the level of a teacher is not a reason to prohibit entrance into the House of Study. Only when R.Avdan continues to insult Rabbi Yishma'el by asking arrogantly "Do you think you are Moses?" Rabbi Yishmael answers pointedly "And is your Rabbi God?" The atmosphere around Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had turned him into a God-like figure, but Rabbi Yishma'el pointed out how faulty that environment was.

A similar pattern is evident in the story of Rabbi Hunah's passing. Rabbi Hunah was the most prominent among the Sages in the second generation at the yeshiva of Surah, and held the position of head Rabbi for 40 years.

In a number of places in the Talmudic literature, we learn of a disagreement between Rabbi Hunah and Rabbi Hisdah, one of the Rabbi's prominent students. Based on this disagreement we can understand what unfolded at Rabbi Hunah's funeral, when Rabbi Hisdah arrives as the new leader and most prominent Rabbi in his generation.

When Rabbi Hunah passed away, there were those who wanted to place a Torah scroll on his bed.

Rabbi Hisdah stated: This was a practice which he did not agree with when he was alive and now you want to do it to him (when he is dead)?...

His bed could not exit the front door. Some thought of taking it out through the roof.

Said Rabbi Hisdah: "indeed I learned from him (Rabbi Hunah) — a sage is honored by exiting through the front door."

They wanted to change his bed to another.

Said Rabbi Hisdah: "So I learned from him — a sage is honored by staying in his first bed." (So) they broke the front door and took him out from there.

Rabbi Abba exclaimed:"it was appropriate for the Divine spirit to be bestowed upon our Rabbi (Rabbi Hunah), but his location in Babylonia made him unfit."

Said Rabbi Nahman bar Hisdah, and some say Rabbi Hanan bar Hisdah: "And it was that God spoke to Yehezkel ben Buzi in the land of Kasdim (Ezekiel 1)."

His father slapped him with his sandal and said: "Didn't I tell you not to annoy the public? Whatever has already happened — happened".

Politics scream out from this story. Placing a Torah scroll on a deathbed underscores the connection between the deceased sage and the Torah, and attributes excessive sanctity to the sage.

Rabbi Hisdah protests against the action: "Any man, sagely as he may be, can never be a Torah scroll; he can be adored and admired but not sanctified."

In the ensuing discussion, Rabbi Hisdah maintains that they must stick to the procedure of taking the deceased out of the house, insisting he be taken out properly like a sage through the door and not through the roof, on his first bed and not after moving him to a second one (something he deduced from the Ark of the Covenant).

Rabbi Hisdah's sons are also at the funeral, and children are known to repeat what they hear at home. When they hear Rabbi Abba lamenting and saying that the only reason Rabbi Hunah didn't "receive the divine spirit" (i.e. prophecy) was due to the fact that he lived outside the land of Israel in Babylonia, they retort that the prophet Ezekiel was living in Babylonia when he received his prophesies.

In other words, Rabbi Hunah is not a God or a prophet. He was a sage, no more and no less. Rabbi Hisdah scolds his sons by saying "There are things you say at home which you don't repeat outside — leave the mourners to mourn the sage according to their way."

There are many other stories about the relationship between parents and children, and between teachers and pupils. In many instances, they carry an overt or covert message about the importance of the empowerment of the child or the pupil, discouraging their subjugation to the image of the father or teacher.

For example, there are a number of stories about the personality of Rabbi Yehuda bar Yehezkel — the head of the Pumbedita yeshiva, and his relationship with his father, his rabbis and colleagues. Rabbi Yehuda is described as a person who doesn't hesitate to contradict his father or rabbi when he believes they are wrong in their teaching or deeds, and even to banish one of his scholarly friends who had "gone bad".

There is a well known story of the destruction of the House of Study in Tiberius, following the terrible argument of Rabbi Yohanan with his son-in-law and student Resh Lakish. The story vividly describes the ideal House of Study as seen by Rabbi Yohanan. Rabbi Yohanan believes that the proper decorum in a House of Study is that the rabbi speaks, the pupils ask questions, and the rabbi concludes by answering all the questions. This is an idyll of authority which recognizes the position of the student only as one who understands and repeats the words of the teacher.

The moment a pupil dares to challenge this scenario, Rabbi Yohanan has no tolerance for him and says "Robbers know only to rob".

The rabbi is ready for questions but not for opposing ideas. The clear message from this story is when a rabbi suppresses the pupil's independent thinking and development, then he is destroying the very school he teaches in.

In short, you can say that the Talmudic tradition clearly upholds the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. The Rabbi should demand each of us to develop his/her own judgment and knowledge, and to grow in defining and realizing the image of God which is in each and every one of us.

The culture of arguments by the early and later sages

The traditional literature of the early and later sages encourages independent thinking and enables development of self judgment and knowledge even at the price of disagreement with "Gedolim" (scholarly leaders). Below are a few examples.

The Ramban, in his introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam, describes the awe he feels toward those before him, yet he does not shirk from contradiction in places where he feels that his knowledge demands this of him.

His concluding paragraph is written poetically:

"And I am here with my desire to be a pupil of the early sages, to abide by their rules and to wear them as bracelets and necklaces, and not to be a simple donkey carrying books. I will judge according to the way I see fit and according to the clear religious law, I will not prefer one over the other in the name of the Torah, because God will provide wisdom in all times, and will not hold back the good from those who walk in His footsteps with an honest heart".

Among the scholars of our times it is worthwhile to read Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's introduction to the Responsa book "Yabiah Omer" in which he sums up the importance of independent thinking and argument as an integral part of Torah learning:

"I want to address people who speak out about how one shouldn't contradict the books of the sages, and when they see a new book that has opinions that differ[with earlier opinions of sages] they immediately start to squawk like a bird. And any person who is well versed knows that arguments are the way all our rabbis, debated since the early days and till the last of the judges.

And Rabbi Yeshayah Mitrani said in the Responsa Harid (no. 62) 20: Anything which I don't agree to, I don't hesitate to speak my opinion according to my limited knowledge, and I will speak up against kings and not be ashamed. And I rule according to my knowledge just like philosophers, who once asked one of their most prominent: we acknowledge that those who came before us were smarter than we are and yet we contradict their sayings in many places and we know the truth is with us, and how can this be? He answered: Who can see further, the giant or the dwarf? You might say the giant, since he is taller and so can see further. But if you put the dwarf on the giant's shoulders, who will be able to see further?

You must say the dwarf, since his eyes are now higher that the giant's. So are we, dwarfs standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before us, since we learned from their wisdom and we add to it from our own perspective;, it is not because we are greater than they are.

And I have also seen written by the Gaon Reb Haim of Volozhin in his book Ruah Haim (chapter 141 of Avot, mishna 4): "And a pupil is prohibited to accept his rabbi's view when he has questions about it, and sometimes the truth will be with the pupil just as a small twig can light up a mighty tree..."

One cannot read these words without feeling frustrated over the culture of silencing and subjugating Torah scholars which is rife today. There are scholars who are afraid to voice opinions which contradict the leading decision makers of our time. Even Rabbi Ovadia himself did not say a word against the Lithuanian extremism on the issue of conversions. He did not come out against the ridiculous idea of moving the new critical ER wing for the Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon far from the hospital due to dubious pagan gravesites on the premises. Also he did not voice his opinion in any vital matter of religious law which contradicts the rulings of Rabbi Elyashiv and his followers.

The silencing of Torah scholars is spiritual violence. It breeds shallowness and dependence that affect our religious lives wherever we go. The Hareidi violence against anyone who does not abide by the rulings of the "leaders of the generation" reached new and shocking heights in the matter of canceling the conversions done by officials in the Religious High Court (Beit HaDin Hagadol). Rabbi Sherman's outrageous ruling defined Rabbi Drukman and the official religious courts a "court of criminals" just because he would not yield to the rulings of the so-called "leaders" of the hareidi community who supposedly "speak in the name of the Torah". We have reached an ugly abyss of hareidi leadership and there is nothing left but to rise up against it. This is not the Torah we know, this is not our viewpoint and these are not our leaders.

Our children need to hear us cry out against the violence and the silencing of opposing opinions. We need to shout out loud: "This is not the way of the Torah! We believe in God and His Torah and we refuse to bow down to this dreadful "papacy". We must strengthen each other in our belief in God and the Torah, and strengthen our trust in honesty and righteousness of our children.

Bavli Yevamot, 106; Jonah Frenkel in his book "Insights into the Spiritual World of Agada Stories" (Tel Aviv, 1991, pages 78-82), analyzes our story. Amongst others he brings the Halacha which states "sons of sages and pupils, when the public needs them, they step over the heads of the leaders". Bavli, Moed Katan, 25 page 1. Translated to Hebrew according to Steinzaltz.

Michelle Nevada is an essayist, who writes when time allows from raising her boys. She dreams of living in a caravan on the top of a hill in Yesha with her husband, her boys, her dog, and her guns.

Rabbi Binyamin (Benny) Lau is Rabbi of the Ramban Synagogue in Jerusalem, and one of the leaders of the Bet Morasha Torah Study Center.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 31, 2010.

The tenured radical Left at the University of Haifa is hysterical and in panic. It seems that students from the local chapter of the Zionist "Im tirtzu" student organization have started attending classes of some of the radicals, taking notes and threatening to cite what the faculty members say in class. On other campuses, Im Tirtzu students have already started to tape lectures with small cameras or cell phones.

That has the tenured Left at the University of Haifa soiling itself. In recent days the chat list of faculty members at the university has been flooded with hysterical postings by leftist faculty members denouncing the students as fascists and for violating the "rights" of the professors. Most of the hysterics are coming from the very same University of Haifa professors who sponsored and collected a petition a few years back demanding that army officers be prevented from giving talks to students in high schools. So you can see they have a very sophisticated appreciation of academic freedom. One of the posteurs was Prof. Gabi Salomon, quoted in the press last week as comparing the proposed loyalty oath for immigramns to Israel to Nazi Germany's genocide of Jews.

I failed to stay out of the conflagration and posted the following, which so far seems to shut up the tenured Left: More on Im Tirtzu Students and Their Activities

So let us see if we have this straight.

The Im Tirtzu students are violating the rights of faculty members by attending the public lectures given by these faculty members in public institutions paid for by the taxpaying public while drawing salaries paid for with public funds. The students are threatening to reveal to the public the public statements made at public lectures.

Taking notes in public lectures at public universities is suddenly a form of violence and fascism. Moreover the Im Tirtzu students are suspected of plans to cite the public statements made by publicly paid faculty members at public institutions. Then the Im Tirtzu students are threatening to silence those faculty members, but it is a strange form of silencing, for it consists of granting widest public circulation, citation, publication, and other forms of spreading of the words of the silenced faculty members. Just imagine the dangers to which this could lead! Members of the public learning about advances in research methodologies, scientific insights, tools of analysis. The list of dangers is endless.

Moreover, students who attend lectures and cite what they are told there in forums outside the classroom are fascists because they might be involved in unauthorized citation of the contents of public lectures. People who cite what rabbis say about politics in yeshivas to their students are great heroes, but tuition-paying students at universities who do the same are terrorists and fascists. We know they are fascists because they wear black tee shirts with slogans on them and black socks and black shoes and none of the guilty students are wearing Che Guevera shirts to class. Since when do students not wearing Che Guevera tee shirts (or Abdul Nasser tee shirts) to class have the right to hold any opinions? Citing what a faculty member says in his lecture hall is no different from planting a listening device in the faculty member's bedroom or bathroom and revealing the utmost intimate sounds coming from in there.

Of course what REALLY has the tenured Left so upset is that they fear that the public might just learn from these perfidious unauthorized cases of citations just how many faculty members at Israeli universities are misusing their classrooms for political indoctrination and ideological brainwashing and preaching, rather than for teaching and analysis. And the public might react with expressions of unwillingness to pay for such things using their tax shekels.

Now since the Israeli university administrations for years have refused to put a stop to the in-classroom indoctrinations and abuses, and indeed wink at them, one might think that the public should salute the Im Tirtzu students and their efforts. But instead we are hearing thunderous denunciations coming from the tenured Left about students who maliciously attend lectures and take notes, since such abusive behavior has been known to lead to citation. What would come next – citing in the media the contents of course syllabi carried on the universities' web sites? Unauthorized break-ins to the reserve library to read course readings without permission? Unauthorized citing of Op-Ed articles published by faculty members in newspapers? Inappropriate unauthorized reading of books written by faculty members?

And, most dangerous of all, it could actually lead to students expressing unauthorized opinions and criticism of the political activism of members of the faculty, especially the extremist ones. If we do not put a stop to that at once, freedom of speech and academic freedom could leak out of control in an uncontrolled manner and actually be practiced by non-leftists!

And then what would we all do? It might even lead to soldiers having the right to speak when invited to schools!

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, October 31, 2010.

A terror suspect captured in Yemen on suspicion of sending two bombs that were discovered on US-bound cargo planes is an Islamic female linked to al-Qaeda. Hanan al-Samawi, a 22 year-old student at the University of Sana'a, was arrested after police officers surrounded a house in the Yemeni capital. Police officials credit the immediate response of bomb experts in the U.S. who identified the explosive devices and the materials used to build them.

Police bomb technicians are arguably the most important member of any counterterrorism operation. As occurred during the Yemeni plot initiated on Friday, each improvised explosive device, or IED, may offer clues as to the identity of the perpetrators, their location and their M.O. (modus operandi). And bomb techs are a key to capturing the terrorists responsible for an attack on the United States.

Police bomb technicians, officers and detectives on the scene of an explosion or attempted bombing must first gather evidence in order to better understand what they are dealing with, as well as for future prosecutions.

First responders must always keep in mind that there could be multiple bombs planted in the immediate area of the blast or attempted blast, and these additional devices are planted for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill or maim the emergency personnel who respond to an initial blast.

If a suspicious object is sighted during this phase of the crime scene search, detectives and other emergency personnel will evacuate the scene until bomb technicians can determine the nature of the threat or disarm the additional devices.

Once the visual search is completed, with the utmost care and continuous caution, detectives and police officers will start removing large pieces of debris from the area of the explosion. They should keep in mind that there could be live electrical wires or ruptured gas lines in the immediate work area. The scene of an explosion should be viewed as hazardous at all times.

When any of the large pieces of debris are removed, they are stored within a protected location, catalogued as to the description and place of recovery, name of the officer involved, and held at the location for a subsequent detailed search. After the large pieces are moved and secured, detectives and officers must get on their hands and knees and start searching the debris looking for anything that appears foreign to the scene such as: leg wire (color-coded wire used in blasting caps); parts of a blasting cap; remains of a safety fuse; battery fragments; metal pipe fragments; other metal fragments (clock, propane tank, etc.); and bomb container fragments (metal, leather, canvas, cloth, paper, etc.).

Whenever anything considered significant is found, it will be bagged and marked for identification purposes. The location, time, date, name of officer or detective, shield (badge) number and command should always be marked on evidence bags.

If there are other data, these should be written on a separate report form or piece of paper and enclosed in the evidence bag. Investigators will never mark or deface the recovered evidence.

Detectives and officers at a blast scene must be persistent and they may have to go over the same area numerous times before uncovering anything of value.

Ultimately, they will have to conduct a sifting operation because some objects such as watch springs and other internal mechanisms are so small that they could easily be overlooked by investigators. The type of search to be conducted at the scene of an explosion will be determined by Bomb-Section personnel and investigators will be guided by their decisions. A properly conducted search may yield fingerprints, serial numbers, manufacturers' names, price tags and many other investigative aids which would eventually help in solving the crime.

Any information regarding the nature of the explosion, type of device, damage, amount of explosives used, etc., is the function of the Bomb Section because they are the ones who possess the expertise to make those determinations. Investigators should not volunteer any information to the news media. Instead, advise them to consult with the explosion squad supervisor or the police department's public information officer.


Upon arriving at the scene of an explosion or attempted explosion, investigators will immediately consult with the emergency personnel and familiarize themselves with the facts. The area should be thoroughly canvassed for witnesses who may be found anywhere within the vicinity of the bomb blast.

Possible witnesses to interview will include: the first police officer at the scene; maintenance workers and other employees and residents within the premises; residents and employees of adjoining or adjacent buildings; delivery men, cab drivers, transients, and anyone who frequents or walks through the area.

Detectives and officers will also canvass the area for all license plates or motor vehicles parked within the area of the explosion. They will also check with all utility companies for any emergency crews that may have been working in the area of the bomb blast. In short, anyone who may have even the smallest piece of information will be interviewed by detectives and assisting uniformed officers. And investigating officers should double check to make sure that he or she has all the necessary information before concluding the neighborhood canvass.

At first it may appear extremely difficult to investigate a terrorist bombing — or any bombing for that matter — especially when faced with the horror and chaos of a crime scene like that at New York City's World Trade Center or at Oklahoma City's federal building. However, as time goes on and investigators acquire experience with this type of investigation, it will certainly become routine and systematic. In fact, it was the method described in this article that was used in conducting investigations into the WTC and Oklahoma City bombings.

If investigators take all of the required steps and follow the aforementioned format, they will find that they are able to answer questions from their commanding officers, and in the event that arrests are made, their case folders will be helpful in the preparation of the eventual prosecution and adjudication of the bomb incident suspects.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com). He's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 31, 2010.

This is by Sheik Yer'mami of the Winds of Jihad website
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/10/31/visit-london- and-breed-they%E2%80%99ll-pay-and-house-you-well/


Another sequel to our "we will outbreed you with the bellies of our women" series:

Max Hastings on the British Government's attempts to cut back on a welfare rort that puts welfare recipients with huge families in London houses that most taxpayers could never afford themselves (Andrew Bolt)

* "We will outbreed you with the bellies of our women" — how the demographic time bomb is transforming Europe...

Demographic time bomb: millions of Muslim immigrants will change Europe beyond recognition, and almost no policymakers are talking about it

* 'We will outbreed you with the bellies of our women'
A Muslim who already has 6 kids has octuplets — in America!

This is called "Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent." It's by Adrian Michaels in the Telegraph, August 8 (thanks to JW):

Britain and the rest of the European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it.The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.

Europe's low white birth rate, coupled with faster multiplying migrants, will change fundamentally what we take to mean by European culture and society. The altered population mix has far-reaching implications for education, housing, welfare, labour, the arts and everything in between. It could have a critical impact on foreign policy: a study was submitted to the US Air Force on how America's relationship with Europe might evolve. Yet EU officials admit that these issues are not receiving the attention they deserve.

Jerome Vignon, the director for employment and social affairs at the European Commission, said that the focus of those running the EU had been on asylum seekers and the control of migration rather than the integration of those already in the bloc. "It has certainly been underestimatede_SLps [sic] there is a general rhetoric that social integration of migrants should be given as much importance as monitoring the inflow of migrants." But, he said, the rhetoric had rarely led to policy.

The countries of the EU have long histories of welcoming migrants, but in recent years two significant trends have emerged. Migrants have come increasingly from outside developed economies, and they have come in accelerating numbers.

The growing Muslim population is of particular interest. This is not because Muslims are the only immigrants coming into the EU in large numbers; there are plenty of entrants from all points of the compass. But Muslims represent a particular set of issues beyond the fact that atrocities have been committed in the West in the name of Islam.

America's Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, part of the non-partisan Pew Research Center, said in a report: “These [EU] countries possess deep historical, cultural, religious and linguistic traditions. Injecting hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people who look, speak and act differently into these settings often makes for a difficult social fit.”…

That is not the core of the problem. The core of the problem is that they have a ready-made system of laws and customs that they consider superior to the laws and customs of Europe, and are ready to replace the one with the other. And their system denies freedom of speech and conscience, as well as equality of rights for women and non-Muslims. As such, all free people should be fighting against it.

A reader's comment:

Hecate October 31, 2010 at 10:44 pm

Keysar Trad is one of these "Free Loaders". He has two wives and at the last count seven or eight kids, and more on the way. He does not work, they all live on the dole. And how about those cousins they bring to our shores, they are not married under our law, but marry in the mosques around our country under Islamic law. Never the less, we pay for them. This is their plan — over burden us with debt and they move in on our country — their mission over and not one shot fired.

I know personally know of a family who sent the sick mother back to Ankara where she died shortly after — her son has kept her key card and pensioner ID. He is still drawing her pension and getting access to it through her key card. How can this happen? Easy Peasy, just substitute another old lady wearing the hajib and saying "Me no speaka Hinglish".

Dont think I have not reported this and other instances — I have. And what has happened — gosh you are quick — "bloody f... all". I have reported it to the police — nothing.

When I worked at one of the "kids hospitals" we knew that the receiver of the treatment was not the one on the Medicare card — but a substitute brought out from a Muslim country for the sole purpose of getting specific treatment for the child — sometimes costing up to 80 thousand dollars or in that region. We cant prove it, and it is not worth being attacked in a back alley at a later date. This is how it works. Fear and Intimidation.

This happened to an 79 year old friend in the Bankstown Mall. She was rammed by a stroller in the Mall. She suffered shock but her biggest shock was that the woman involved with the baby did not even say sorry, but told her if she was reported by this lady she would get it later. The woman with the stroller was Muslim of course. The lady was taken to the doctor nearby, and when she came out and was walking back to her car, the Muslim woman was waiting for her and belted her again. Reported to the police — yes, action taken — none.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 31, 2010.

I would like to begin today with an article — "Are US Officials Understanding and Responding to the Middle Crisis? Ya Think?" — by Barry Rubin, director of the Gloria Center.

As to that "Ya think?" Rubin explains: "There's a relatively new American idiomatic expression, 'Ya [you] think?' Said sarcastically, it means: Wow, duh, the answer to that question is really obvious!"

Rubin uses this expression over and over, to point out all of the issues in the Middle East that are really obvious, but that the Obama administration hasn't gotten right. For example:

"The New York Times reports that the U.S. government is 'increasingly alarmed by unrest in Lebanon, whose own fragile peace is being threatened by militant opponents of a politically charged investigation into the killing in 2005 of a former Lebanese leader.'

"Ya think? Lebanon has been taken over (or recaptured, if you wish) by the Iran-Syria anti-American, revolutionary Islamist, terrorist-sponsoring axis, operating largely--though by no means completely--through their client, Hezbollah. Might this be of some concern for U.S. policymakers?

"Four years ago, Lebanon was run by an independent-minded, pro-Western government that would have preferred peace with Israel (though knew that was impossible), opposed Iran, and saw radical Islamism as its antagonist. Today, Lebanon has been 'lost' in large part through Western (don't forget France's responsibility) weakness and inaction....

"Speaking of Syria...the Washington Post reports that Syria just doesn't seem to be responding to administration efforts to engage, moderate, and pull that country out of Iran's orbit.

"Ya think?

"During the last almost two years there has been example after example of Syria opposing all aspects of U.S. policy; sponsoring terrorism to kill Americans in Iraq and against Israel; sabotage the Israel-Palestinian peace process; dominate Lebanon; help Hamas and Hezbollah; and build an ever-tighter alliance with Iran.

"And now people in Washington are starting to notice this? So what will the administration do, end engagement with Syria and take a tough line? Ya think?"

Rubin mentions a good many other situations in which the US has read the situation wrong and has failed to act in a manner that might improve the situation:

"Should I mention the total reversal of U.S. policy on Hamas from trying to undermine that radical Islamist group's rule in the Gaza Strip to believing Hamas will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous?

"Should I mention that most Arab governments are shocked at U.S. expressions of weakness and want a strong American policy to protect them from Iran and revolutionary Islamists?"

This last one, above, I ask you to note carefully. It's something I've alluded to multiple times and will continue to refer to yet again as necessary. This puts the lie, definitively, to US claims that the Arab governments require an Israel-Palestinian Arab peace treaty before they will help Obama take on Iran.

Please, see the entire piece for yourselves:
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/10/ are-us-officials-understanding


There has been a reaction in several quarters to news that originated with a couple of Arab papers, most notably Asharq Al-Awsat, regarding quiet talks allegedly going on between Israel and the US regarding an innovative way to solve the impasse of a "two-state solution." The suggestion being floated is that areas such as Jerusalem be given to the Palestinian Arabs, but that Israel then be permitted to lease parts of Jerusalem for some 40-100 years.

I hasten to advise you that I have found no corroboration of this from either an Israeli or American source. Unless there is such corroboration, it would be highly premature to respond to this as if it were solid news.


The good news is that there has been an informal poll done by the JPost of the members of the Security Cabinet and the full Israeli Cabinet. The Post's conclusion is that Netanyahu would be unable to secure backing in either forum for an extension to the building freeze.


The UNRWA representative stationed at the UN, Andrew Whitley, has long been my favorite UNRWA spokesman, because he's more honest than the rest. On several occasions I've called him and received answers that I would not have received from anyone in this part of the world associated with UNRWA. Now he's leaving, and recently he delivered what I can only consider his parting shot:

"If one doesn't start a conversation soon with the refugees for them to consider what their own future might be — for them to start debating their own role in the societies where they are rather than being left in a state of limbo where they are helpless but preserve rather the cruel illusions that perhaps they will return one day to their homes [left in 1948] — then we are storing up trouble for ourselves.

"We recognize, as I think most do, although it's not a position that we publicly articulate, that the right of return is unlikely to be exercised to the territory of Israel to any significant or meaningful extent.

"It's not a politically palatable issue, it's not one that UNRWA publicly advocates, but nevertheless it's a known contour to the issue."

Bless this man for telling the truth!

In the process of doing so, however, he caused several near-heart attacks. Not politically palatable? This is something simply not to be said. Never mind that the so-called refugees are miserable because of their limbo situation, in which they are deprived of human rights. Never mind that this has radicalized them, so that there is a direct link between their situation and the emergence of Hamas in Gaza over a period of years well before the take-over.


First to respond were UNRWA officials here who totally disassociated themselves from this statement. Sustaining the refugees until they "return" to Israel constitutes the very raison d'etre of UNRWA, which maintains a staff of some 24,000 people who provide the refugees with services.

Then Jordan, which not only fully rejected this statement, but also sent a letter to UNRWA director-general, Filippo Grandi, informing him that they condemned the statement.

What's Jordan's problem here? Fear of getting stuck with some of those refugees, most likely.


Lastly, we've now heard from Sa'eb Erekat, PLO negotiator, who strongly protested Whitley's remarks in a letter to UN Middle East envoy Robert Serry.

Praising UNRWA for its speedy distancing from Whitley's remarks, he wrote:

"The Palestinian refugee's right to return to their homes and lands is one of the most important rights. The Palestinians haven't given up this right since the nakba [catastrophe] that happened in Palestine in 1948...and they never will give up this right.

"...despite Israel's insistence on denying the Palestinians' right of return to their homes and lands, the right of return was legitimate in accordance with international law and UN resolutions, first and foremost Resolution 194."


Well, I'm here to tell you that there is no "right of return" in international law. Resolution 194 was passed by the General Assembly, whose resolutions are no more than recommendations that have no standing in international law

Actually, the oft-cited paragraph 11 of this resolution, says, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.." This leads us to questions regarding the desire of potential returning refugees to live in peace with us.

In 1949, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Muhammad Saleh Ed-Din, wrote, "Let it therefore be known and appreciated that, in demanding the restoration of the refugees to Palestine, the Arabs intend that they shall return as the masters of the homeland, and not as slaves. More explicitly, they intend to annihilate the state of Israel.." Many similar statements followed.

For further details, see my original report on UNRWA from 2003, page 11, at:
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/library/ pdfs/UNWRAReport.pdf


When I wrote recently about "fact-free" Middle East negotiations, I spoke about distortions and misrepresentations of the truth so thoroughly promoted by the Palestinian-Arabs that they are widely accepted as fact. Focused as I was on issues of borders and Jewish rights to the land, I did not discuss this particular misrepresentation of fact. But it's a big one that has done immeasurable harm. And so I welcome the opportunity here to revisit this issue.

No other refugee group in the world is told that they have a "right" to return whence they had come. If the situation makes it possible, return is pursued; but the majority of the world's refugees end up elsewhere. The goal of the agency that handles all of the world's refugees except the Palestinian Arab refugees — UN High Commission for Refugees — has as its mandate helping refugees get on with their lives fully as quickly as possible.

Of course, sending the refugees back into Israel is part of the PLO plan for destroying us without resorting to war. And this is why Erekat will not entertain any other solutions to the refugee problem.


While we are on the subject of the UN, broadly, I want to touch on this, as well:

When PM Netanyahu announced earlier this year that Rachel's Tomb outside of Bethlehem and the Machpelah (Cave of the Patriarchs) in Hevron were to be officially Israeli heritage sites, there was protest from the UN.

Now the UN has said that both Rachel's Tomb and the Machpela are integral parts of the "occupied Palestinian territories." In point of fact, both are under Israeli control. When large parts of Hevron were turned over to the PA as part of the Oslo Accords, a Jewish area, under Israeli jurisdiction was delineated; that area contains the Machpela. Similarly outside of Bethlehem, the map was drawn as part of the Accords so that the Tomb remained in Israeli hands.

To add to the outrage, Rachel's Tomb now has been recognized by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a site worthy of preservation as a mosque — Mosque of Bilal Ibn-Rabach. The site has never been a mosque, and was until recent years was readily recognized by Arabs in the area as Rachel's Tomb.

Said PM Netanyahu with regard to this:

"The attempt to disconnect the nation of Israel from its heritage is absurd. If the places where the Jewish nation's forefathers and mothers — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel — were buried 4,000 years ago is not part of the Jewish nation's heritage, then what is heritage site?"

He "regretted that an organization which was created to promote the heritage of historical sites around the world was trying to for political reasons to uproot the connection between the nation of Israel and its heritage. This attempt won't succeed..."

Of course it won't succeed, and of course our prime minister had to make a statement. But to expect anything akin to fairness from the international community would be pointless. This is a cardinal lesson in what we are up against and precisely how corrupt the UN is.


I heartily recommend the most recent satirical video, Latma, produced by Caroline Glick. Perhaps you'll enjoy it as much as I did:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/10/jamil-and-awad- do-jihad-and-to.php (scroll down for the video)


"The Good News Corner"

This is straight from the Jerusalem Post's Health and Science Page:

"There are 325 million Arabs in 22 Middle Eastern countries and other lands, but the first and so far the only registry for potential unrelated Arab donors of bone marrow or stem cells — which have the ability to cure certain cancers and other serious disorders — is at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem's Ein Kerem."

Not only does this registry exist, but efforts are made to publicize its existence, and the need for testing, in Arab Israeli cities, towns and villages.

How about that? Save this information to use when we are accused of being racist or "apartheid."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Brother Shane, October 31, 2010.

Maya Avraham (photo: Azini)

To Maya Avraham, My dear & sweet friend,

You know, not only are you blessed with a beautiful singing voice (and one of the most beautiful women on earth), but also, in your face, one can see half the ethnicities of the World.

I can see a Persian Queen. ...an Incan Princess. ...a Malay Maiden. ...a Tibetan Girl. ...a Hindu Lady. ...a Tahitian Beauty. ...an Egyptian Goddess. ...a Mexican Sweetheart. ...an Arabian Mother. ...a Cherokee Bride.
I can see the beauty of Baath-Sheba.
I can see the wife of Noah — the Mother of all Living.

I can see Sarah, Esther, Ruth, Naomi, Miriam, and Mariah.

In your eyes...i can see all of Israel...and i can see all humanity.

God bless you, Maya...for you are truly a special woman.

Where would all of us be, without Israel and the Jews?

Without the Jews we would have no concept of One God.
Without the Jews we would have no Bible.
Without the Jews we would have no True Sciences.
Without the Jews we would have no Pure Laws.
Without the Jews we would have no Order.
Without the Jews we would have no Justice.
Without the Jews we would have no Peace.
Without the Jews we would have no Freedom.
Without the Jews we would have no Faith.
Without the Jews we would have no Messiah.
Without the Jews we would have no Grace.
Without the Jews we would have no chance for Adoption.
Without the Jews we would have no chance for Salvation.
Without the Jews we would have no Loving Relationship with a vengeful & wrathful God.

To the Jews, even Israel, i say, Thank You!

I am so grateful, that by His' Mercy, Grace and Blood, i was able to become a part of the Family of Avraham, and an Heir, by Faith, according to the Promise. (ISAIAH 49:6)

Nobody Loves Peace more than a Jew.

God bless Israel.

The Perfect Peace-Plan

Contact Brother Shane at wisevirgin_777@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, October 31, 2010.

This is by Gil Hoffman and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post.

Pollard has never been allowed to challenge claims in the documents; his attorneys have never been allowed access to portions of sentencing file.


Documents submitted by the late American defense secretary Caspar Weinberger that were used to incriminate Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard should no longer be classified, Weinberger's deputy at the time of Pollard's arrest, Lawrence Korb, said over the weekend.

Korb said there was no reason not to hand over the documents. But their declassification is considered very unlikely.

Since he was sentenced, Pollard has never been allowed to challenge the claims in the documents in court. His security-cleared attorneys have never been allowed access to the secret portions of his sentencing file, though those who oppose his release have had access and used it against him.

New York Senator Charles Schumer and former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who have seen the documents, have said publicly that there was nothing in them to justify the life sentence Pollard has been serving for 25 years. But Pollard cannot return to court, because all his legal avenues have been exhausted, so he is seeking clemency from US president Barack Obama.

In an opinion piece published in Thursday's Los Angeles Times, Korb wrote that Pollard deserved to be severely punished for his actions but that his punishment does not fit the crime he committed of giving classified information to a US ally.

Korb noted that in return for his guilty plea — which spared the government the embarrassment of conducting a trial involving highly sensitive information — and his cooperation with the US government, the US attorney pledged not to seek a life sentence for Pollard.

He suggested three reasons why he was still given a life sentence in complete in violation of a plea agreement which Pollard honored and the US violated: a false affidavit submitted to the sentencing judge by Weinberger which is still classified; the Israeli government's more than 10 years of refusal to acknowledge that Pollard was one of its agents; and Pollard's lack of remorse for his actions — a charge which has been repeatedly refuted.

Korb said that since then Weinberger's false contentions had been debunked, the Israeli government admitted that Pollard was its agent, and Pollard himself has publicly expressed remorse on multiple occasions.

"Some now argue that Pollard should be released because it would improve US-Israeli relations and enhance the prospects of success of the Obama administration's Middle East peace process," Korb wrote.

"Although that may be true, it is not the reason I and many others have recently written to the president requesting that he grant Pollard clemency. The reason is that Pollard has already served far too long for the crime for which he was convicted, and by now, whatever facts he might know would have little effect on national security."
Text: Letter by Former US Assistant Secretary of State to President Barack Obama

September 27, 2010

Dr. Lawrence J. Korb
203 Yoakum Pkwy Apt 908
Alexandria. VA 22304

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As Assistant Secretary of Defense a the time of Jonathan Pollard's arrest I respectfully request that you exercise your power of clemency on behalf of Mr. Pollard who has now been in prison for 25 years.

Jonathan Pollard is the only person in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for passing classified information to an American ally.

Based on my first-hand knowledge, I can say with confidence that the severity of Pollard's sentence is a result of an almost visceral dislike of Israel and the special place it occupies in our foreign policy on the part of my boss at the time, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.

Secretary Weinberger submitted two affidavits to the court in order to convince the judge to give Pollard a harsher sentence than the one requested by the government, despite Pollard admitting guilt, plea bargaining and cooperating with the government. The government committed to not seeking a life sentence but due to the Weinberger Affidavits, the redacted version of which I have read, Mr. Pollard received a disproportionate life sentence.

Secretary Weinberger omitted his crucial involvement in the Pollard case from his memoirs and when asked by the famed investigative journalist Edwin Black, about the omission, Weinberger indifferently responded, "Because it was, in a sense, a very minor matter, but made very important." Asked to explain, Weinberger continued, "As 1 say, the Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance." When asked why this was so, Weinberger replied "I don't know why-it just was."

Mr. Pollard was not charged with harming America and has repeatedly expressed remorse for his actions. Furthermore, the average sentence for his offense is 2-4 years and today the maximum sentence is 10 years. Justice would best be served by commuting Pollard's sentence to the time he has already spent in prison.

Lawrence J. Korb

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 30, 2010.
This is not the first time saboteurs or terrorist have been caught red handed vandalizing something with the intent of blaming the action on Jews. In fact, every time someone is caught in this kind of action it is a provocateur of some sort. Nevertheless anytime an act of hooliganism occurs, the media dogs begin howling; "Jews, Jews, Jews! It's the Jews!"

It is very important to remember that all the Jews that have ever been convicted of actions against Arabs have been convicted through flimsy circumstantial evidence or "confessions" extracted under duress. Quite often even this is presented as secret evidence seen only by the "judge" and no defence is allowed. Yet they sit in prison under harsh conditions and are treated as if they and not the Arab murderers are a danger to Israel.

The news item below comes from Arutz-Sheva and is archived at


Jewish villagers from the northern Samaria region have disclosed that they have documented a staged act of vandalism in an Arab field aimed at leveling false accusations against local Jews.

The images show anti-Zionist activists using a chainsaw to vandalize Arab olive trees in an attempt to frame local Jews.

See video.

Some additional information from the November 7, 2010 Ynet article written by Yair Altman.
Dov Mark, land supervisor for the Gush Etzion Council, said such acts have taken place a number of times. "This is a known Palestinian method to take over state land," he said. "With the support of anarchists, who usually come from abroad, they come to an area of natural woodland which has never been cultivated, burn it on purpose and at the same time plant trees. It's all supposed to alter the reality on the ground."

Mark warned that "in this way, it's hard for the Israel Land Administration to work from the moment they plant trees on the land or cultivate it for agricultural crops. In today's case, some 80 dunams (20 acres) of natural woodland were burned by a group of 25 Palestinians and anarchists."

Anarchists near Bat Ayin (Photo: Gush Etzion Council)

Shaul Goldstein, head of the Gush Etzion Council, said the involvement of foreign left-wing activists in inflaming animosity between Palestinians and settlers had increased in recent years.

"They come to provoke," he said. "The State and police do nothing, especially against those anarchists who this time were foreign nationals. Whoever is arrested is released shortly afterwards and goes back to his old habits. About Israeli anarchists, the only thing I can say is, whoever loves this country doesn't burn it."

Firefighters in the area said investigations into the cause of fire were underway, and the main finding so far is that arson was involved.

And this is an excellent answer to the false proposition that Israel is occupying Samaria and Judea (the West Bank), so they have not right to plant trees:

#23. Sarah B, U.S.A. / Israel (11.08.10)

Don't quite know how to break this to you, but the West Bank is non-sovereign territory, and was acquired by Israel in the course of fighting a defensive war against Jordan. Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria is fully legal, as is its right to construct settlements. Israel is not an "occupying" power, as you falsely claim, because the West Bank was never sovereign territory to begin with. If anything, since all West Bank Arabs and their progeny were irrevocably granted Jordanian citizenship by virtue of Jordan's 1954 Citizenship Law, Israel would be well within her rights to simply annex Judea and Samaria, and repatriate its Arab residents to Jordan, country of their citizenship.

I remind you that in 1947, only the Jews accepted partition. The Arabs rejected it, choosing to go to war instead. They lost. They started five more wars, too; they lost them all, with increasingly devastating results. And nothing you can say changes international law; none of the sweeping statements you make (including all of the usual buzzwords) changes the facts. By the way, following the 1947 partition offer, the Arabs have had two other opportunities to accept a two-state solution. Most recently, the one in 2000 would have awarded them 90% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a capital. They chose to walk away from the offer, and start the second intifada.

Six wars, and nearly seventy years of unrelenting Arab terror later, I assure you that there is very little in the way of goodwill left among Israelis. The Arabs have demonstrated, time and time again, that they are not interested in peace; or even peaceful co-existence. The thirty-odd organizations, each of which purport to be the sole true representative of the "Palestinian" people, have steadfastly refused to repudiate their vile charters, which all call for the destruction of the State of Israel and the extermination and/or expulsion of the Jewish people. To date, each "Palestinian" organization has refused to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in its ancient homeland; similarly, each such organization refuses to recognize the inalienable character of the State of Israel as the Jewish state.

Arab intransigence has achieved nothing. Frankly, Israel isn't going to be making any offers. We have tried and tried to get the Arabs to act reasonably, with no success. But our patience is not limitless, and we have more than adequately proven that the Arabs are no match for Israel on the battlefield. Next time, dear, will be the last time. Judea and Samaria will be annexed — just as Israel annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and the Arab interlopers and illegal squatters on Israeli soil will have to leave. Count on it. And don't look to the international community for any assistance — they're pretty sick of the Arabs, too.

Finally, I remind you that Israel left Yamit and Gaza voluntarily. Don't count on it happening with respect to Judea and Samaria. In fact — you can count on the precise opposite.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Voice of the Copts, October 29, 2010.

More Islamization of history!

This was written by Maayana Miskin and it appeared today in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).


The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) voted recently to officially declare Rachel's Tomb to be a mosque. UNESCO director Irena Bokova had previously stated "concern" at Israel's decision to treat the tomb as a heritage site.

The vote called for Rachel's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs — the burial site of the other Biblical Patriarchs and Matriarchs — to be removed from Israel's National Heritage list.

The Palestinian Authority has claimed that Rachel's Tomb is holy to Muslims as the site of a mosque called the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque. The PA demands control over both the tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, as well as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

UNESCO appeared to support the PA demand for the Temple Mount as well, asking that Muslim officials be allowed to examine the Mughrabi Gate near the Western Wall (Kotel). Muslim leaders have accused Israel of attempting to damage the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount under the guise of repairs to the Mugrabi Gate. Israeli officials have warned that if the gate is not repaired, it could collapse, putting worshipers at the Western Wall at risk.

Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovich, Rabbi of the Western Wall, termed the decision "outrageous."

"They have never said in the past that this was a Muslim holy site. The [UN] organization responsible for heritage has turned heritage into politics." Israel should think carefully about whether or not to cooperate with UNESCO in the future, he said.

Israel's Foreign Ministry denounced the UNESCO ruling.

Tens of thousands of Jews recently visited Rachel's Tomb to mark the biblical matriarch's Yartzheit (anniversary of death). The tomb is located within Bethlehem city limits, but remained under Israeli control when the rest of Bethlehem was transferred to Palestinian Authority control.

Journalist Nadav Shragai, writing for Yisrael Hayom, noted that Muslims living in the land of Israel have historically referred to Rachel's Tomb as "Kubat Rahel," the Arabic term for "Rachel's Tomb." Under Ottoman rule, Rachel's Tomb was a Jewish site.

Only in 1996 did the PA begin to call the site the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque, he said.

Visit the website of Voice of the Copts at http://voiceofthecopts.org. This article is archived at
http://voiceofthecopts.org/en/news/ rachel_s_tomb_is_a_mosque.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Alpern, October 29, 2010.

The Dry Bones cartoons are by Yaakov Kirshen. He started doing them in 1973. Contact him at blog@mrdrybones.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, September 29, 2010.

This was written by Aryeh Tepper.


Someone forgot to tell the republic of Azerbaijan that Jews and Muslims cannot live together in peace. Somewhere between twenty and forty thousand Jews reside in that Shiite country, which sits on Iran's northern border and enjoys diplomatic, economic, and military ties with Israel. Can this last, and for how long?

Jewish history in Azerbaijan goes way back. The majority of Jews in the country are so-called Mountain Jews, a community that believes it was exiled from the land of Israel after the destruction of the first Temple in 586 B.C.E. Whatever truth there may be to the claim, there's no denying that Jews have been in the region for a long time: in 1990, archeologists found the remains of a 7th-century Jewish settlement close to the capital city of Baku.

In the early 19th century, a small number of Ashkenazi Jews also began settling in the country, and Baku's oil boom in the latter part of the century drew in more — as did the anti-Semitic pogroms in Kiev, Russia, in 1904. The first branch of the proto-Zionist group Hovevei Zion, "Lovers of Zion," was set up in Baku in 1891.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, economic fears pushed the majority of Azerbaijan's then-80,000 Jews to emigrate to Israel and the West. Nevertheless, a substantial community, loyal to the regime, remained. In early October, Azerbaijani President Ilhem Aliyev and Israeli Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar attended the festive opening of a new campus at a Jewish school in the capital.

Whence Azerbaijan's openness and tolerance? In the years immediately following World War I, the country established the first Islamic modern parliamentary regime in history, earlier even than Turkey's. For a brief period, until this breath of freedom was snuffed out by Soviet occupation, Muslim women enjoyed the right to vote, Jews served as government ministers, and a Zionist activist was elected to parliament. This legacy, evidently never forgotten, was revived and refurbished after Azerbaijan declared its independence from the USSR in 1991.

Diplomatic ties between Israel and Azerbaijan were established in 1992, and the two countries' strategic relationship was further upgraded with the end of the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1994. During that conflict, which displaced over a million people and left 15 percent of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian forces supported by Iran, Baku asked for and received help from Jerusalem in rebuilding its military and supporting its cause in Washington; in return, it offered oil, open markets, and crucial intelligence cooperation.

And today? Despite Azerbaijan's secular and tolerant character, a constellation of factors, including a bad economy and domestic corruption, has left the country vulnerable to the global appeal and reach of Islamic extremism. Sunni and Shiite radicals have begun to penetrate Azeri society, threatening the country's fabric and undermining the government's moderate policies. One doomsday scenario played out in 2009 when Hizballah operatives were arrested for plotting to blow up the Israeli embassy in Baku. Azerbaijan has yet to open an embassy in Tel Aviv.

Thus, despite the countries' shared interest in preventing the spread of Islamic radicalism in general, and their shared apprehensions regarding Iran in particular, Baku's willingness to reinforce its ties with Jerusalem remains in question. And so, inevitably, does the future status of Azeri Jews.

This is an issue that should engage the concern of others, especially in the West. Open cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel and the successful integration of Jews into Azeri society are living reminders of the possibilities of peaceful, fruitful relations between Jews and Muslims. If Azerbaijan were to fall under the influence of radical Islam, the spiritual and political darkness that is descending upon much of the Islamic world would become that much more complete.

Azerbaijani Jewish Song On Azerbaijan

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, October 29, 2010.

We are avidly in favor of carving up the land unlawfully occupied by the Hashemites and its arab population. Unlawfully occupied because the new state of Jordan was carved out of the Jewish Homeland after its boundaries, encompassing most of the region later called Transjordan, were established during the Twenties (San Remo Resolution) thereafter ratified by still-binding treaties and then later violated by the British. The ultra vires acts of the Jewish bureaucrats who took it upon themselves to accept the illegal status quo created by the British do not abrogate either the San Remo Resolution or the treaties.

Our plan, below, can be (mischievously) treated as an object lesson, this time applied to the arab occupiers.

Let's transfer the millions of arabs who currently refer to themselves as "palestinians," and who are encamped in Jordan, in let them return to a small section of Judea and Samaria (not including Jerusalem) and then all the land they have vacated in Jordan must be restored to Israel, A small region of Jordan (about the size of Monaco) will be alloted to the Hashemites royals who can play king and queen to their heart's content. However, the future of the arabs moved into Judea and Samaria will be determined by Israel. Not by the UN. Not by the British. Not by Belgium or the bloody Duisenbergs. Israel can then decide to shuttle all arabs who refuse to sign a loyalty oath to Israel back to where they came from and resettle them onto the lands retrieved from Jordan and restored to Israel. If the arabs who want to be known as 'palestinians' still want to establish a new state for themselves with a separate vote for themselves at the UN, then Israel itself shall divided itself into a series of new Jewish states each with its own vote at the UN. (Assuming anyone still takes the UN seriously.)

If the arabs don't want to be shuttled back and forth, then they can stay put and carve Jordan into a state for the so-called "palis" leaving a remnant for Rania and Abdullah. If they don't like it, tell them to get used to it because the Jews have spent almost 60 years living on but a small remnant of the Jewish Homeland. If the Jews can do it, then so can they.

If the palis act out, then this will be treated as an act of war that will warrant retribution against any arab asset to be selected for destruction by Israel.

By the way, a large segment of the US population believes the supposed terrorist attack via bombs in printer cartridges is a manufactured hoax intended to keep Barack Hussein O in place. A diversionary tactic to make him seems like a diligent guardian of US security. Only the dhimmis at the Washington Post are buying into this ploy because BHO has withheld funds and the national guard from Arizona which state is under seige by illegal aliens and Mexican drug runners. Yehrite--BHO cares about US security. Sure.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, October 29, 2010.

This letter is a response to the rude rejection by Saley's of an order placed by the SA Zionist Federation.


Congratulations on your brave refusal to continue to do business with a long-standing customer because of your antagonism to Zionism. To ensure that your action is not a meaningless gesture, we look forward with great interest to seeing you demonstrate your sincerity and consistency by following through with a complete boycott of all Israeli products.

You can make an immediate start by examining your computer and throwing it out if it contains software or an Intel Pentium chip that was developed in Israel. Of course you should also avoid instant messaging based on ICQ, that was invented by Israeli teenager Arik Vardi and three friends. And you will of course avoid mobile telephony, developed in Israel by Motorola, the camera telephone chip and Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) as used in Skype and similar applications.

You will be hard pressed to locate all the Zionist components in your Security Software, Network Firewalls, Anti-virus programs, System Software, Microsoft Operating Systems (XP and Vista), Google, Disk on Key and Wi-Fi, but I am sure you will assiduously check your equipment and rule out everything with Zionist roots. Unless you do so thoroughly, it will appear that you don't have the courage of your convictions and that your refusal of the small SAZF order was an insincere gesture playing to the anti-Israel gallery.

I could go on and on about the items you must avoid to be consistent in your attitude, but for humanitarian reasons you will be excused if for medical reasons you or members of your family use the "camera pill" developed in Israel to investigate the intestines painlessly by swallowing a pill containing a mini camera and transmitter.

Despite your anti-Zionist feelings, if you have a heart attack, don't hesitate to let the surgeon insert a stent, which was developed in Israel.

You will also be excused if you or members of your anti-Zionist business use new Israeli methods to measure and inject insulin for diabetics or Copaxone to reduce the physical breakdown caused by MS and other MS medicines such as Betaseron and Avonex. Similarly you will be excused for using Israeli developments in computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance systems (MRI), ultrasound scanners, nuclear medical cameras and laser surgery.

You will be excused too, if you use the Israeli developed Resperate, an interactive breathing device, for lowering blood pressure as well as treatments for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, auto immune diseases, Alzheimer, cardiovascular diseases and aging as well as the ReWalk, a robot suit that enables wheelchair users to walk, sit and stand again.

On second thoughts I suggest that it would be more rational to re-examine your prejudices and enter into a civil discourse with the Zionists. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that we have much in common and I would be happy to enter into a dialog with you about the issues on which you feel so strongly.

This letter is being publicized as will the response I hope to receive from you.

Maurice Ostroff

copy of email from the South African Zionist Federation

The SA Zionist Federation is holding its 47th Conference in March 2011, and we recently placed an order for conference bags from a company by the name of Saley's Travel Goods, based near Gold Reef City in Ormonde.

The order was confirmed telephonically; we faxed it through and immediately received the invoice for the goods.

The following day, however, the same invoice was faxed through to our offices again, with lines drawn through it stating "Order cancelled by management!" and the following sentences handwritten on the invoice:

"Sorry, we cannot supply you any of our goods as we don't want or need your blood money! Please do not contact us any more and remove all our contact details from your records and we will do likewise. We don't want to aid and abet organizations that are responsible for crimes against humanity. Please don't pay! Don't contaminate our account with your blood money!"

Over the past few years the SAZF has placed various orders with Saley's Travel Goods, purchasing conference bags and folders from them. We have never before been confronted with such naked hostility, such unbridled hatred, such disgusting slander and such overt anti-semitic sentiment.

Companies are at liberty to do business with whoever they choose; and it is their right to refuse to provide us with the goods. However, their reason for cancelling our order is deplorable; hence we have no compunction in naming and shaming them.

Froma Sacks
Executive and Administrative Coordinator
South African Zionist Federation
Tel : (011) 645-2505
Fax: (011) 640-6758
E-mail: froma@beyachad.co.za

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 Daily Alert, October 29, 2010.

This was written by Sara Toth Stub and it appeared October 27, 2010 on the Tech-Europe website
(http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2010/10/27/ eureka-moment-for-israeli-chief-scientist/)


As the new chairman of the the EUREKA Network, an intergovernmental organization of mainly European countries working to promote industrial innovation and research and development, Israeli chief scientist Eli Opper said his priorities include developing innovative funding tools, enhancing cooperation with Asia and North America, and promoting the development of cleantech.

He also said that Israel's chairmanship will open more doors to international cooperation for Israel, a small country that relies heavily on foreign markets.

"International cooperation is not just important, it's crucial to our economy," Mr. Opper said in an interview before he was scheduled to address business and industry leaders from more than 40 countries gathered for a three-day EUREKA conference in Tel Aviv.

Israel's minister of industry trade and labor, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, is also leading the country's chairmanship of EUREKA. Mr. Opper said he looks forward to Israel hosting at least four more EUREKA meetings under its year-long chairmanship.

At the meeting in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, EUREKA approved a total of investment of €51 million in 56 R&D projects in member countries, including 17 projects in Israel or with Israeli participation.

"Israel is getting a real benefit from this network," Mr. Opper said. EUREKA, founded in 1985, spends $1.5 billion a year funding about 300 cooperative R&D projects in European countries.

Israel, which joined EUREKA in 2000, is the only member country that is not also a member of the European Union or geographically in Europe. "But we are a European country in terms of R&D," Opper said.

Coined the "Start-Up Nation" in a 2009 book by Saul Singer and Dan Senor, Israel, with 3,800 start-ups, has the most start-ups per capita. Innovation runs in the country's culture, and Mr. Opper's job is overseeing the government's involvement and support of R&D.

In 2009, the Israeli government spent 4.9% of GDP on civilian R&D in 2009, compared with 2.8% in the United States, according to the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation. But Mr. Opper said his office's greatest challenge is still having a big enough budget.

He said more start-ups have also come to rely on grants from the chief scientist in the last couple of years, as venture capital money has become more scarce.

"In general, there is a lack of resources," he said. He called for more creative sources of funding for not only Israel's but for the global technology sector. "Innovation can be used for funding too," he said.

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 Daily Alert, October 29, 2010.

This was written by Julie Burchill. It appeared in the Independent (UK)
(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion /columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-poor- lauren-booth-ndash-she-would-do-anything- to-get-in-with-the-tough-kids-2117219.html)


Last year I took the first steps towards converting to Judaism; also last year, I abandoned my attempt. It was partly that I find it hard to stick at any discipline, being bone-idle and highly hedonistic (for instance, I was only a lesbian for six months), and I realised that Judaism was such an extraordinarily complex and rich religion that I would really have to commit to do it properly. As I can't even commit to Lost or any of those long American television shows, this seemed unlikely.

I also began to feel a tiny bit ridiculous trotting to shul every Saturday, in a way that I didn't feel going to church on a Sunday, even though I found the Jewish idea of one deity far more sensible than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost free-for-all. I'm well aware that everyone who isn't a complete self-deluding fool finds themselves preposterous at times, but I didn't want this to happen because of a culture that I have such respect for.

I suppose what it boils down to is that I've always hated phoneys, and anyone who changes their name, their accent or their religion seems to me to be doing the cultural equivalent of putting a crochet crinoline lady on a toilet roll. Far better, if the religion you're born into doesn't convince you, to simply let it lie and act out your faith in a private capacity — for me, volunteering and giving away loadsamoney.

Of course, there is one religion which proscribes its followers under threat of death from rejecting it, and that is Islam. Which just happens to be the one that Lauren Booth (born a Catholic called Sarah) has opted for.

It's hard to know where to start when describing the sheer ickiness of Booth. That she works as a paid stooge for the murderous Iranian regime's television channel has to come pretty near the top. A woman, choosing to act a front for a gang of thugs who uphold the punishment of death by stoning for adulteresses! This is surely Stockholm Syndrome gone gaga.

Her entirely inappropriate addiction to the spotlight, although she was obviously designed as one of Nature's plus-ones, is another stand-out feature. A failed actress, a mediocre hack, it's pretty fair to say we would never have heard of her had her half-sister not married a man who became Prime Minister. And now her meal-ticket is Mohammed.

Yes, it seems that even the faith she was raised in isn't narrow-minded, patriarchal and oppressive enough for the sensation-hungry Booth, who having tried everything else is so jaded that she can only get a kick from self-denial. (There does seem to be a particular affinity between Catholics and Muslims — Jew-hating is a great bonding agent.) And a kick it is — she describes her engagement with faith in terms that veer between the drooling of a clammy adolescent ("this shot of spiritual morphine, just absolute bliss and joy") and that of a recovering alcoholic clinging desperately to the wreckage of her sobriety ("I haven't had a drink in 45 days!")

We've all done embarrassing things, but the spectacle of Booth attempting to rap in the celebrity jungle does seem to indicate that she is the sort of dweeb who would do anything to get in with the tough kids — who she now perceives as being the Muslims.

Maybe like a lot of Western cowards, she thinks that if she sucks up to Islamism hard enough she will be spared its rage. Personally, I prefer to aspire to the words of the great Spanish anti-fascist activist Dolores "La Pasionaria" Ibarruri; "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

As I pointed out in this column a while back, the website Iranian.com, a voice of the country's exiles, recently ran a photo of Miss Booth in full modesty drag, with the headline HAS THIS WOMAN GONE MAD? and the comment "in donning the hijab, she is kowtowing to the very fundamentalism that holds the fate of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani in its hands ... To use the language that Booth might to describe Israel's excesses, it is shameful and disgusting that she a) works for Press TV, and b) agrees to wear Islamic headgear on screen."

What sort of woman freely converts to a religion which supports the oppression, torment and murder of thousands of Christians, homosexuals and spirited women, worldwide, every year? The sort of woman who writes love letters to a serial killer, I reckon. Still, might as well look on the bright side. Go on, Lauren, treat yourself to a full-face and — most essentially — mouth-covering burka!

If your Iranian paymasters and puppet-masters won't spring for it, I'd be more than happy to.

A gap-tooth smirk at those who have cosmetic surgery

When I was young and gorgeous, occasionally someone would be brave or dumb enough to tell me that if I had my gappy teeth fixed, I would be even cuter. I would always say the same thing: "But if I had any more sex, I would be in a wheelchair. And surely the only reason people want to look better is to have more sex?"

Decades on, my looks gone, I don't despise people who have cosmetic procedures but I do feel pity for them, because it means that: a) they haven't got the life they want and: b) they care what people think of them, and that's always a bit of a buzz-kill. With this in mind, I couldn't help smirking to see that the gappy teeth which some sad souls tried to convince me would blight my life are now all the rage, with women paying up to three times the cost of standard perfect teeth for customised nasty veneers featuring gaps and staining.

If I was a people-pleasing drip, I dare say I would feel some sort of affirmation. As it is, I'm afraid it seems just as pointless as any sort of appearance alteration. When will women ever learn that what men want is someone who is FUN TO BE WITH? If you want to find love, just stop being a bore; everything else is just window dressing.

Israel can teach us about tolerance and happiness

I was interested to see that Britain now ranks as the 13th happiest country in the world. It seems pretty respectable, but many people seem to think we should be up there with the Scandinavians. As they're so rich and good-looking, this is unlikely. But there are certain things we could do to pull level with, say, Israel, which was named the eighth happiest country in the world — coming in above Britain and the US — in a poll conducted by Gallup between the years 2005 and 2009 and published in Forbes magazine earlier this year. In Tel Aviv last week, I noticed that both smoking and dogs were allowed in restaurants, and I've rarely seen a perkier lot of people. By the way, I don't have a smoking habit or a dog — just a very tolerant nature. Try it — it might make you happier.

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 David Wilder, October 29, 2010.

This week Hebron's Jewish Community received an unusually large number of greetings. Specifically, 14 ministers, five deputy ministers, and 24 MKs from both the coalition and the opposition (3 from Kadima), including Knesset speaker Ruby Rivlin, sent special messages of support to Hebron. This, as part of an annual celebration, as we read the weekly Torah portion, Chaye Sarah, in which Abraham purchases Ma'arat HaMachpela, the caves of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, almost 4,000 years ago.

Not only are politicians participating. Usually somewhere between 15 to 20 thousand people arrive in Hebron and Kiryat Arba to join in the festivities. Several hundred Jews, mostly from the US, arrive in Israel especially for this special Shabbat in Hebron. Youth and adults, with knitted kippas and black kippas, some in suits, some with shtreimal fur hats, rabbis, laymen, pour into Hebron beginning early Friday afternoon. Tents are pitched outside Machpela on the garden lawn and across the street in a park. Others find a patch of floor at the entrance to a building and set there their sleeping bags. It is the only time of the only time of the year, when receiving a phone call requesting to stay with me, and I answer, 'we still have some floor space available,' the response is a resounding 'great!'

One year I recall a young woman approached my wife in the kitchen Saturday night, and thanked her. My wife asked her, 'for what.' She answered, 'oh, I slept here.' To this day, we have no idea where she slept because the house was full without her.

Shabbat evening thousands fill the 2,000 year old structure atop the caves of Machpela and thousands more worship outside in the Machpela courtyard. Some pray very traditionally, while others sing and dance to tunes of the late Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach. The atmosphere is both holy and joyful simultaneously.

Shabbat morning the Isaac Hall, opened to Jewish worshipers only ten days a year, is packed to the brim, with some having to stand for a lack of chairs. Here the ancient words are chanted from a Torah scroll, written by hand on parchment, reciting the purchase of the caves and the field by Abraham for some 400 silver shekels, thousands of years ago. It should be noted that according to recent studies, four hundred shekels in the time of Abraham is worth about $700,000 today.

The day continues with meals, lectures, discussion groups, tours of the Jewish neighborhoods, rest and Shabbat song, a wonderful way to commemorate this unique event.

The basic question that must be addressed though, is why? Why was it special then, and why is it special today? Why should so many thousands of people arrive in Hebron to recall what happened almost four millennium ago?

Let's start at the beginning. Abraham paid a small fortune for a commodity he could have had for free. Efron the Hittite offered to give him the caves gratis. But Abraham refused. Years earlier, according to accounts in the holy Zohar and other sacred literature, Abraham had discovered in these very caves the tombs of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman. Here was the entrance to Paradise, the Garden of Eden. Realizing how holy the site was, Abraham knew the only way to ensure his continued possession of it was to sign a contract and put money down on the table in front of witnesses, thereby preventing any counter claim as to the ownership of the place. And so he did just that, at an extremely high cost.

Our sages taught, some 2,000 years ago, that there are three places the nations will never be able to say we Jews stole, as it is written in the Bible that we paid money for them: Joseph's tomb, Temple Mount, and Ma'arat HaMachpela. And today, what are the three 'most controversial places in Israel?

Just as it was special then, so too today. The site has not lost any of its sanctity or allure. To the contrary. It must be remembered that Jews (and Christians) were prevented from entering Machpela for 700 year, following the Mameluk expulsion of the Crusaders in 1260, until the return to, and liberation of Hebron in 1967.

Why today do some half a million people visit Machpela annually, with 50,000 during the Succot holidays and this Shabbat some 20,000?

People understand that Hebron and Ma'arat HaMachpela are the roots of the Jewish people, the commencement of monotheism, the beginnings of humanity. Roots must be watered, to prevent them from drying up. Tens and hundreds of thousands of people visiting, identifying with and worshiping at Machpela is a figurative irrigation of these roots, allowing Jews and other believers around the world to soak up spiritual nutrition, so necessary for our being, both individually and collectively, and as people, as a nation.

In reality the wonder of Hebron, of Machpela, and on a larger scale, of all of Eretz Yisrael, is not what was. The amazing facet of Machpela is not that Abraham purchased it 4,000 years ago, rather it is that we are still here today, at that same exact place. How many peoples can say, 'here we began, thousands of years ago, and here we remain today, not as a memory, but as a living, thriving organism, keeping our past alive in the present?' I daresay, no one, excepting the Jews, here in Hebron, Jerusalem and throughout Israel.

Hebron is the beginning, the roots of the roots. We know what occurs to a tree should its roots be chopped off. In 1929 we lost Hebron. In 1948 we lost Jerusalem. In June, 1967 we returned to Jerusalem and the next day, returned to Hebron. Hebron and Jerusalem, our heart, our soul, our roots. Our past, our present and our future. This is why our holy city lives on and will continue to live on. This is why so so many people arrive to celebrate the planting of the seeds of our people in the field of Machpela, in Hebron.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, October 28, 2010.

This was written by Frank Gaffney, Jr. and it appeared in today's Washington Times. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program "Secure Freedom Radio," heard in Washington weeknights at 9 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.


Earlier this year, President Obama drove U.S.-Israeli relations — to use one of President Obama's oft-employed analogies — into a ditch. Arguably, ties between the two countries were never more strained than last spring when Mr. Obama serially insulted the elected leader of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vilified his country and tried to euchre it into making territorial, political and other ill-advised concessions to Arabs determined as ever to destroy the Jewish state. Unfortunately, what the president has in mind for Israel after the election next week will make his previous treatment of the Jewish state look like the good old days.

To be sure, ties between the United States and Israel — far and away America's most important and loyal friend in the Middle East — have improved lately from the nadir to which Mr. Obama plunged them since he took office. That has nothing to do, however, with a change of heart or agenda on the part of the president and his administration.

Rather, it is a reflection of a cynical calculation forced upon the Obama White House by its panicked congressional allies. Already laboring under the backbreaking burden of their association with a president and his agenda that have become huge liabilities, Democrats on Capitol Hill faced wholesale defections of their Jewish constituents and funders if their party's leader persisted in his assault on Israel. Public letters and private conversations had the desired effect: Mr. Obama began treating his Israeli counterpart with a modicum of respect and the optics of a restarted peace process — however short-lived or doomed — helped conjure up an image of a renewed partnership between the two nations.

Make no mistake about it, though: Once the 2010 elections are behind him, it is a safe bet that Mr. Obama will revert to form by once again exhibiting an unmistakable and ruthless determination to bend Israel to his will.

Worse yet, he will be able to take advantage of a vehicle for effecting the so-called "two-state solution," no matter how strenuously Israel and its friends in Washington object. The Palestinians will unilaterally declare themselves a state and ask for international recognition, and Mr. Obama will accede to that request.

A number of the particulars involved in this gambit are unclear at the moment. For example, will the Palestinians announce the borders of their state to be the 1967 cease-fire lines, in which case large Israeli population centers (defined as "settlements") will be inside a nation that is certain to be, to use Hitler's phrase, Judenrein(free of Jews)? How will the Hamas-stan of Gaza be connected to the currently PLO-run West Bank — in a way that will make them "contiguous" without bisecting the Jewish state and ensuring that Hamas does not take over the rest of the so-called "Palestinian Authority?"

Also unclear is precisely how Mr. Obama will handle the sticky issue of extending U.S. recognition of Palestine. Will he want to parallel Harry Truman's direct and immediate endorsement of the establishment of Israel in 1948? Or will he do it more disingenuously, as former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton speculated in the Wall Street Journal last week, by having the U.S. abstain from an approving vote by the U.N. Security Council. The hope behind the latter would be that Team Obama and its partisans will somehow avoid retribution from Israel's friends, both Democrats and others, here and abroad.

The truth is that, either way, Mr. Obama will have dealt Israel a potentially mortal blow. Without control of the high ground and water aquifers of the West Bank, the Jewish state is simply indefensible and unsustainable.

Some suggest that international forces (perhaps led by America) should be deployed in the areas Jews have historically known as Judea and Samaria so as to ensure that they are not used to harm Israelis in the low-lying areas to the west.

We have seen how such arrangements work in practice in Lebanon, though — which is to say not well.

In southern Lebanon, U.N. "peacekeepers" have merely wound up protecting Israel's enemies, notably Hezbollah, as such foes of both the Jewish state and our own have amassed immense amounts of missiles and other arms and prepared to resume hostilities against Israel at a moment of that Iranian-backed terrorist group's choosing (or, more precisely, that of their sponsors in Tehran). The same is certain to eventuate in the West Bank as paramilitary forces the United States has foolishly trained and equipped become a standing army and fall under the sway of Hamas.

Such a "two-state solution" will make another regional war vastly more likely rather than preventing it. Yet, the Obama administration is committed to pursuing that goal as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made excruciatingly clear in a pandering speech to the American Task Force on Palestine last week.

Among other ominous comments, she declared that "the World Bank recently reported that if the Palestinian Authority maintains its momentum in building institutions and delivering public services, it is, and I quote, 'well-positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.'" She seemed determined in particular to emphasize the last seven words.

Voters need to know now whether Mr. Obama and those in Congress who support his agenda are determined to help Israel's enemies destroy her — not find out that is the case after the elections.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, October 28, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z) and we read your bulletins. We support the Patriots of Israel who are battling against Islamic imperialism and ummah's announced plan to slaughter Christians and Jews both in Israel, Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, etc.

Here is an excerpt from your recent bulletin. Our suggested correction follows:

"The process that began when Yitzchak Rabin shook hands with the head of the Organization to Liberate the Land of Israel from the Jews (PLO) brought us much more than an unending trail of blood. Prior to Rabin, all of Israel's prime ministers — from both Right and Left — understood that it was dangerous to speak with, meet or recognize the PLO in any manner. Our conflict with the terror organizations is not a border dispute. The terrorists' goal is to totally undermine the right of Jews to establish a state in any place in the Land of Israel. Rabin's handshake with Arafat was essentially Israel's recognition of the "Palestinian" claim. Fifteen years later the world says: If you admit that you stole half the Land, then the other half is not yours either. Your presence here is one big crime.

The SC4Z sees a far broader threat: The terrorist's goal is to totally undermine the right of Jews to establish themselves any place in the world.

This threat to one of the world's oldest faiths is one the entire world must take seriously because it correctly forecasts how ummah will unleash its war machine against the rest of the world. (First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.) The Islamics have made it clear that their intention is to fight everyone, everywhere, and by every means (from subversion, terrorism, to outright warfare) until the entire world succumbs and surrenders to Islam. (Thereafter comes the battle between Sunni and Shia.)

Rabin's submission to pressure to make "gestures" to Arafat and the PLO was perceived by Israel's antagonists (including the British Foreign Office) as Israel's first step, not toward peace, but toward surrendering not only to Islam but eventually to it's own demise. ("Just put on the pressure and watch the Jews run.") Many Jews and non-Jews alike sensed the negative consequences of Rabin's terrible misstep and were repulsed by Rabin's spinelessness. Other Jews (commonly referred to as "the lefties" or "the knee-jerk contrarians") reacted with fear and hid their fear under slavish obedience to the self-destructive Oslo nonsense, thinking their flaccid passivity would save their necks should the Islamics and the British subdue Israel. But the tide has turned. Not only in Israel, but broadly, throughout the world, and not only against Islam, but also against the knee-jerk contrarian Jews who were so quick to side with their would-be oppressors. One must be repeatedly reminded that this is no time to relax or surrender to Islam's false promises and outright lies.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, October 28, 2010.

Al-Shabaab, a radical Islamic terrorist organization affiliated with al-Qaeda, announced that they publicly executed two teenage girls whom they accused of being spies for the Somali government. The terrorists, who espouse Shariah law, are responsible for the deaths of government officials, police officers and civilians they deem their enemies.

In a statement released by a ranking member of Al-Shabaab, the group claims that "those two girls were evil and they were spies for the enemy, but the mujahedeen caught them and after investigation, they admitted their crime, so they have been executed."

Only one of the teenagers was identified by name in a press release — 16-year old Ayan Mohamed Jama.

A U.S. intelligence analyst tells the Law Enforcement Examiner that the teens were blindfolded, tied to a tree, and shot by a firing squad in front of men, women and children in the town of Beledweyne.

Friends and neighborhood of the teenaged girls denied they were spies or in any way a threat to the terrorists who run a de facto local government.

There has been a fierce battle between Somali government forces and Al-Shabaab with the waging an all-out war against Somalia's government in an effort to impose a stricter form of Islamic law, or Shariah. The group's reign of terror includes public beheadings and stonings.

In one terrorist attack in Mogadishu, Al-Shabaab terrorists killed and injured innocent civilians at a graduation ceremony for Somali medical students. The attack also resulted in the deaths of the Ministers of Health, Higher Education and Education of the Somali Transitional Federal Government.

"This was a criminal attack on people dedicated to building a peaceful, stable and prosperous future for the people of Somalia," United Nations officials said in their condemnation statement.

"While the UN should be expected to condemn such barbarism, calling it a 'criminal act' is wrongheaded and treats an act of war as if it were a bank robbery," said former Marine intelligence officer and New York police detective Sid Francks.

Unfortunately, Somalia has not had even a facsimile of a central government since 1991, and its police and military are fearful when confronted with groups such as Al-Shabaab.

Also, Somalia's police spokesman, Dhexe Abdullahi Hassan is quoted as saying that al-Qaeda was the prime suspect in a smuggling operation involving counterfeit notes after international financial institutions starved the terrorist group of all money supplies, according to a report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police's Terrorism Committee

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com). He's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 28, 2010.

Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak (often characterized as 'The Poison Dwarf') continues his not-so-subtle subversion of Israel. In any other country this radical Leftist would be viewed as a double agent working for a foreign nation.

But, he is not alone, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gives him cover to carry out the egregious demands of America's President Barack Hussein Obama, coupled with those of Mahmoud Abbas, himself a scurrilous murderer, financier and 40 year companion for Yassir Arafat.

Should Obama, Netanyahu and Barak succeed in abandoning Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, the North, East and South of Jerusalem, Israel's Holy Eternal Capital, they will all be responsible for the destruction of what remains of 'little israel', G-d forbid!

So start preparing the evidence to try these men for crimes against humanity, as was done in the Nuremberg Tribunals and the trial of Eichmann — with the same penalties if they are found guilty.

Collaboration to commit national suicide and Genocide of their own people, according to the Pledge of all the Muslim Arab Charters (the PLO, Hamas, Arab League, etc.) deserves no less.

But, if it comes to that, it will be too late!


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 Spyer, October 28, 2010.

Dear Friends,

I am writing to tell you about my new book 'The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict,' which has just been published in the USA and Canada by Continuum publishers.

Below is a short article from the book.

The Transforming Fire deals with the effect of the rise of radical Islam on the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The book combines analysis and narrative and covers the period from 2000, the collapse of the Oslo process, and the Lebanon War of 2006. It includes a first-hand account of my participation in the 2006 war, and my meetings with individuals on both sides of the conflict.

I hope you find these of interest. I'd be glad to answer any questions and discuss these matters with you. Write me at jonathan.spyer@gmail.com

Jonathan Spyer


The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict
by Jonathan Spyer
Publisher: Continuum International Publishing Group
Publication Date: November 17, 2010
ISBN: 9781441166630
240 pages, hard cover
Buy at: Continuum, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.


Check out The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict on Facebook!

Excerpt from 'The Transforming Fire'

In the late afternoon of 9 August 2006, the unit received word that the operation into el-Khiam and Marjayoun was on. We would be commencing movement at six p.m. The company was positioned on a field next to an avocado grove, on lands belonging to a border kibbutz. We had been waiting there for three days. Twice, the entry into Lebanon had been postponed. We'd spent the days checking our equipment, eating sandwiches and smoking cigarettes. Waiting. The routine of tense expectation and prolonged inactivity was one you got used to.

You can get used to a lot. You can sit next to a verdant field of avocados, and get used to the endless, sinister booming of our artillery in the morning, and the Katyusha rockets from the other side that started around 11 a.m. You can get used to scrabbling for cover in the rich dirt as the missiles fly overhead, and watching them plow up white smoke in the hills. All of that can, within 72 hours, start to feel like a normal routine. So much so that some poor, domestic animal that lies within you can even feel a little sad when it hears that its time to move on.

All the same, I was aware of the strangeness that had brought us to this point. We had come a long way from the great hopes of the 1990s. From the high-tech boom and the successes on Nasdaq and the New Middle East. All the way down through the collapse of negotiations, the ending of illusions, the return of the suicide bombers to our towns and cities, and now this, war. Who had ever believed that we would be rushing for the bus depot in confusion, like extras in some fourth-rate film about the Yom Kippur War? That we would be taking the polythene covers from the tanks that had waited patiently and motionless for precisely this moment.

The operation was into one of the areas south of the Litani river, as yet untouched by our forces. Everyone was thinking about the huge mines that had devastated a couple of the tanks heading inward at earlier stages of the war.

Nothing much you could do against the mines. I thought about them a lot. They seemed more fearsome than the other ordnance in Hizballah's armory. Mainly, I was concerned as to whether I would know what had happened. Whether there would be time to realize, with a sort of mild surprise, "We've hit a mine, so this is where it ends." Or whether the process would be too quick, and one would simply switch off. I wasn't sure which of the two possibilities seemed worse.

There were fewer jokes than usual, and no one was playing cards. We knew that we were going into the killing zone, and that it was not certain who would come out. Lebanon was the adjacent fields a few hundred yards ahead. Topographically identical, and strangely alien. The hills a little balder. No electric cables. Gray, flat roofed houses clustered on the inclines, instead of the familiar beige ones with red roofs.

With the tanks all in line against the setting sun, an elegiac mood came over us as we made the final preparations before moving off. There was time for thoughts, cigarettes, maybe surreptitious final mobile phone calls from home, or last minute adjustments.

The call had come on Friday evening. The phone rang, and after a second or so of silence on the line a recorded woman's voice was telling me to report to the agreed point from which buses would be arriving to take us north. The peaceful summer evening atmosphere abruptly changed into something cold and urgent. I had a boiling hot shower, perhaps my last for a while, it occurred to me — and dressed in the olive green uniform which I had presciently washed a few days earlier, as the scenes from the war on TV had worsened. I called my parents in London. I wrote a couple of e-mails to friends, and turned off the computer. Then I walked out of the house into the calm Jerusalem Friday evening, and began making my way to the assembly point.

Years before, I had read an interview with the Israeli journalist Amnon Abramovich, who was severely wounded in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Abramovich had been a law student in Jerusalem when the war erupted. As I walked to the meeting point, the details of this article returned to me. I remembered his description of the transformation of his life following the severe burns he'd received when his tank was hit by Egyptian Sagger missiles.

It happened during General Avraham "Bren" Adan's failed counter-attack on 8 October 1973. Abramovich noted how one minute you're living the good life in Jerusalem, with the girls and the parties and the bars; the next you're facing surgery to rebuild your face, and burns across 70 percent of your body. The first part of Abramovich's narrative was not a bad approximation of my own life, at least on a good day. The prospect of becoming acquainted with the second was at the forefront of my mind through the weeks of the war.

The assembly point was in an Ultra-Orthodox part of town. Young secular and national religious Jerusalemites were gathering there when I arrived. The called-up Israel Defense Forces (IDF) fighters and the Ultra-Orthodox men mingled amiably, ongoing enmities put aside due to the strange drama of the event. After a while, I noticed an acquaintance of mine from Jerusalem, whom I hadn't seen for about ten years. We knew each other when we were students at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the mid-1990s and were involved in the campaign against the Rabin/Peres government's attempts to negotiate away the Golan Heights to the Syrians. In the meantime, Eli had married and had two children. We reminisced about various characters we'd known.

Some men had turned up with their girlfriends, and there were high spirits outside as people prepared to depart. For a while, something resembling the atmosphere of a café at the Hebrew University prevailed. Shouts of laughter, and friendly mockery. Mildly combative humor with the Ultra-Orthodox men, who as usual proved to be possessed of a no less nimble humor of their own.

Finally, at about 11 in the night, a convoy of buses arrived, and there was a crush as people piled aboard. I remember the Jerusalem night outside as we pulled away. The crowd of Ultra-Orthodox men watching us, now mostly in silence.

Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, and a columnist at the Jerusalem Post newspaper. Spyer holds a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics and a Masters' Degree in Middle East Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He served in a front-line unit of the Israel Defense Forces in 1992-3, and fought in the war in Lebanon in summer 2006.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, October 28, 2010.

Nearly half a century of improved Catholic-Jewish relations took a heavy blow earlier this week when a Vatican synod in Rome launched a blunt assault on the foundation of Jewish belief. At a press conference, Archbishop Cyril Bustros of Boston denied the unique, covenantal relationship between G-d and the Jews, while rejecting the Divine promise to restore the people of Israel to their land.

One cannot help but wonder: what Bible is the Vatican reading?

Whichever one it is, it must be missing a few pages, as even a cursory glance at the Scriptures makes clear that the Jewish people's right to the Land of Israel is Biblically and indisputably ordained.

As I suggest in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, given the Catholic Church's long and dark history of anti-Jewish bullying and persecution, it is only fitting that the pope himself should speak out loudly and clearly on this issue.

It is incumbent upon Pope Benedict to transform this turn of events into a profound opportunity to atone for what the Church has done to the Jewish people down through the centuries.

Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly at msfreund@netvision.net.il.


Michael Freund
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=193019


This past Saturday, a synod of bishops in Rome tossed the theological equivalent of a hand-grenade, threatening to blow up decades of efforts to improve Catholic-Jewish relations.

In a press conference held at the Vatican, Monsignor Cyril Salim Bustros, a Greek Melkite archbishop from Boston and president of the Church's "Commission for the Message," launched a blistering attack against the very foundation of Jewish belief.

"The Holy Scriptures", Bustros declared, "cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands."

Not stopping there, the archbishop then went on to state that, "We Christians cannot speak of the 'promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people....There is no longer a chosen people," he said.

And so, in one fell swoop, a senior church official sought to deny the unique, covenantal relationship between G-d and the Jews, while rejecting the Divine promise to restore the people of Israel to their land.

One cannot help but wonder: what Bible is the Vatican reading?

Whichever one it is, it must be missing a few pages, as even a cursory glance at the Scriptures makes clear that the Jewish people's right to the Land of Israel is Biblically and indisputably ordained.

Take, for example, Isaiah 14:1-2: "The L-rd will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land."

Or how about Jeremiah 11:5, where G-d says: "I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey ..."

And then there is Ezekiel 34: 11-13. And Hosea 3:4-5. And Amos 9:14-15. And Obadiah 1:17, Zephaniah 3:19-20, as well as Zechariah 8:7-8.

You get the point.

But it doesn't seem that the leaders of the Catholic Church do.

After the Lebanese-born Bustros' remarks caused a furor, the Vatican spokesman waited two days before issuing a mealy-mouthed statement which did little to calm the storm.

"If one wants a summary of the Synod's position, attention must currently be paid to the 'Message,' which is the only written text approved by the synod in the last few days," the Vatican's Father Federico Lombardi said.

"There is also a great richness and variety in the contributions made by the fathers," he added, "but which as such should not all be considered as the voice of the synod as a whole."

Lombardi's efforts to contain the fallout won't fool anyone. There is no getting around the fact that this convocation of bishops was called by the pope himself.

Moreover, the perception around the world was that the Vatican had officially delegitimized Israel while assaulting Judaism itself.

As the Catholic writer William Doino Jr. noted, "In a statement meant to be fully and intensely Christian, Israel was singled out for blame and criticism. That's not fair, much less Christian."

Indeed, this entire episode is little more than a cheap bit of politics donning the ecclesiastical robes of religion.

Bustros and his colleagues clearly have a political ax to grind with the Jewish state, and they shamefully do not hesitate to invoke the sacred for this most profane of goals.

My Christian friends tell me that the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" do not even appear anywhere in the New Testament. So the learned bishops could not have come up with the idea of the "occupation of Palestine" while attending Sunday school.

Furthermore, by Bustros' own definition, the founder of Christianity would also have to be considered an "occupier" and a "settler", for according to Christian belief, Jesus the Jew was born and raised in Bethlehem.

That is the very same Bethlehem that Bustros would now like to see become part of a Palestinian state that is free of Jews.

No matter how one looks at it, the synod's unbridled insult to Israel and the Jewish people simply cannot be allowed to stand. If it is not denounced and corrected forthwith, it will quickly be exploited by Israel's enemies to stir up still more hatred and strife.

In a letter to Cardinal-elect Kurt Koch, the newly-appointed head of the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, the Anti-Defamation League rightly singled out Bustros' remarks as "the worst kind of anti-Judaism, bordering on anti-Semitism".

The organization called on Koch to "swiftly and publicly correct Archbishop Bustros's shocking and damaging statements", and to clarify whether his "interpretation of the Synod's final report reflects the intention of the Synod on these profound theological matters".

I would take it one step further. Given the Catholic Church's long and dark history of anti-Jewish bullying and persecution, it is only fitting that the pope himself should speak out loudly and clearly on this issue.

It is incumbent upon Pope Benedict to transform this turn of events into a profound opportunity to atone for what the Church has done to the Jewish people down through the centuries.

Ironically, it was 45 years ago today, on October 28, 1965, that the Second Vatican Council approved a document known as "Nostra Aetate", which heralded a sea-change in the Church's position toward the Jews.

In its wake, much has been accomplished in enhancing relations between the two faiths.

But Archbishop Bustros and his hate-filled rhetoric now threaten to turn back the clock and undermine nearly half a century of dialogue and progress. What a terrible shame that would be for all concerned.

For while the Church may pride itself on preaching love and tolerance, when it comes to its attitude toward the Jews, they still have got a long way to go.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's first term.

To Go To Top

Posted by RonMossad, October 27, 2010.

Recently, Sean Penn was on the CNN news magazine program, AC360. Penn was on television to raise awareness for a cholera outbreak that has rapidly been spreading across earthquake-torn Haiti. To date, over 250 Haitians have been killed and 3,100 people have been sickened by the disease.

It is worth noting, that at this time the outbreak is still approximately 60 miles north of the capital of Port-Au-Prince — an extremely densely populated city with very poor water filtration. When cholera shows up there, the numbers of dead will skyrocket. It is also worth noting, that this kind of nightmare happens on a daily basis with little to no reaction from people who refer to themselves as "liberals" or progressives. So this kind of apathy is less than surprising.

But in Haiti we have a developing situation is nothing short of a humanitarian crisis — and it has all the makings of a humanitarian disaster.

Furthermore, as of this month, not even one cent of the United-States-pledged $1.15 billion that was supposed to help rebuild Haitian infrastructure (like water treatment plants that would prevent cholera contamination for example) has been spent.

But you probably didn't even know this was a problem, did you? Foreign aid news seems to be dominated by speculation on when the next Gaza flotilla is going to try to force an unnecessary provocation with the Israeli Navy. Doubtless you have heard how there is a terrible "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza that needs to be solved with another dramatic confrontation with Israeli naval commandos.

However, if you type in disease outbreak gaza into a google search — the first response* talks about Haiti. Type in died of hunger gaza into a google search and the second response (the first hit is a link to the tragic death of two zebras in a Gaza zoo) is a link to the following quote from June 5, 2010 — less than a week after the initial flotilla incident: "There is no starvation in Gaza," said Khalil Hamada, a senior official at Hamas's ministry of justice. "No-one has died of hunger."

The esteemed Mr. Hamada's statements are indeed grounded in fact.

With a population of 1.5 million people, Gaza receives approximately 16,000 tons of food aid per month. This means that if every individual living in territory received an equal share of the food aid allocation, they would receive about 16 pounds of free food every month.

Every single day, dozens of trucks that are full of foreign aid (including aid that is donated by Israelis) stream across the Gaza border crossings with the full assistance of the Israeli military.

This in itself should negate the mythical need for these needlessly provocative flotillas — but let's take a look if these numbers even make sense.

Gaza is among the top 10 recipients of foreign food aid. Its closest neighbors in food benefits are Zimbabwe (17,000 tons of food), Somalia (19,000) and Afghanistan (19,000). On the surface this would appear to make sense since all of these places have rather serious poverty issues, right? Or worse, Gaza aid is even lagging behind! Hurry up and send another flotilla? Not so fast...

Here are some particularly relevant population statistics on those other countries:

Zimbabwe: 11.4 million people,
Somalia: 9.8 million,
Afghanistan: 28.4 million.
Source: CIA Factbook

This means that the average person living in Zimbabwe has access to less than three pounds of food per month, the average Somalian gets less than four pounds and the average Afghani must find some way to get by on a staggering 1.33 pounds of food. PER MONTH. Or to put it another way...

The average Gazan receives over 12,000% more food aid than the average Afghani.

Is this fair? Is this justice? And when you think of the scope of the tragedies that take place in these countries, the injustice of the situation becomes even clearer. Lest you think that these are just arbitrary numbers that have no correlation to the actual reality on the ground, check out the average life expectancy for these countries:

Zimbabwe: 45.8 years,
Somalia: 49.6 years,
Afghanistan: 44.4 years.

What is Gaza's life expectancy? 73.4 years. For even more contrast, the life expectancy in Haiti (even prior to the disastrous earthquake) is only 60.8 years.

Want more contrasts? Check out some of the other countries whose life expectancies are WORSE than Gaza's:

The Philippines
The Bahamas

That's right, the life expectancy in the tourist paradise of the Bahamas is 69.9 — a full three and a half years WORSE than in the "besieged" Gaza Strip.

Free the Bahamas! Save Atlantis! Oh wait, it might be a little late for that...

And how about little irony thrown into the mix? The chief antagonist against Israel and organizer of these flotillas has been the NATO-member and recent EU-reject — Turkey. Guess where they rank in the life expectancy game? 71.9 years.

Well, luckily for Turkey they are better off than the hopelessly oppressed people of the Bahamas but still BELOW the elite fatcats of Gaza. Maybe the Turks should put the fire out in their own backyard before looking to start fires elsewhere?

Source: CIA Factbook

Or at least they could look to help people that are worse off than them, like the Haitians — who as we've already established are about to deal with an imminent health catastrophe.

To make it crystal clear: HAITI is in a state of EMERGENCY — GAZA is NOT.

Furthermore Haiti is not currently governed by Hamas, a group that is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Nor does the Haitian government make a habit of hijacking foreign aid shipments, selling them on the black market and then using the money to buy weapons that will be fired indiscriminately into civilian population centers, used to infringe on the rights of women and conduct violent purges of political enemies — as Hamas has a proven track record of doing.

So perhaps another flotilla IS in order...

However, the destination should not be Gaza where at best it will only be used for political purposes and at worst will actually be used to further oppress the very people it claims to want to help. Instead, let's send a flotilla to the perpetually tragic population of Haiti (or Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, etc) where the situation is truly dire and the people have been neglected for decades.

To focus our attention on Hamas propaganda at their expense and continue dumping aid to people whose own "leaders" say don't need it, would be an injustice of the highest order. And we will have no one but ourselves to blame for the results.

For information on donating to Haitian relief efforts (and others) go to: http://www.israaid.org.il/

*UPDATE: As of now this blog entry is actually the first response on google.

Visit the RonMossad website at http://ronmossad.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, October 27, 2010.
Dear friends,

The article below by Isi Leibler is simple, to the point, short, easy to understand and true. Isi Leibler is a veteran Diaspora Jewish leader and prolific commentator on Jewish and Israeli affairs. He now lives in Jerusalem. His article appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/reneging-oslo-accords Excerpts are below. The full article is also on www.truthprovider.com

Please understand that Abu Mazen has no intention of accepting the State of Israel as a separate state, let alone the national home of the Jewish people. He is holding a map of "Palestine" — what the world knows as Israel and the Territories.

Abbas and his map of "Palestine"

To him, "Palestine" is Israel. To me, "Palestine" is Jordan!

Your Truth Provider,


"We know the Palestinian end game in negotiations. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Abbas concessions that neither the Knesset nor the people of Israel would ever have endorsed. These included foregoing indefensible borders by returning to the 1949 armistice lines, enabling the Palestinians to assume control of the Temple Mount and even making a preliminary offer to accept 100,000 Palestinian "refugees". Yet these offers were rejected by Abbas."

"I am reminded of the last conversation I had with Rabin before his assassination. I asked him: "What would your response be if the Palestinians made absolutely unreasonable demands?" Rabin replied that if Arafat sought to divide Jerusalem or was not prepared to concede that Israel needed defensible borders he would conclude that his "gamble for peace" had failed and would feel obliged to inform Israelis that they would have to await a new generation of Palestinian leaders before making tangible progress towards attaining a durable peace."

"...aside from placating the Americans, Netanyahu is under no illusions and must realize that there is absolutely no chance of achieving a real settlement. Indeed, some say that a total breakdown might be a blessing in disguise because if negotiations do take place, nothing is more certain than the fact that whatever is offered to the Palestinians will not satisfy them, we will be blamed for the breakdown and be subject to even greater global pressure to make unilateral concessions."

"It does not take a genius to realize that this entire process is designed to extract further concessions from Israel which the Palestinians would insist become the benchmark for the next round negotiations as they doggedly pursue their objective of dismantling us in stages."

Despite all the concessions that we made, the Palestinians and Arabs refused to even reciprocate with gestures. Abbas has a forked tongue and conveys nice words to the foreign media and Diaspora Jews which are never expressed in Arabic to his constituents. There, he continues to incite hatred against us, sanctifies suicide bombers as national heroes and condemns us for defending ourselves against terrorists.

In this context it is both incomprehensible and nauseating when senior analysts and political leaders repeat the absurd mantra that the PA and Abbas are moderate peace partners.

"...should the PA formally repudiate the Oslo Accords, few of us would shed tears." I.L.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 27, 2010.

Leaders of Judea and Samaria are warning of a "silent, de facto building freeze."

Naftali Bennet, director-general of the Yesha Council, has reported that "The cities of Judea and Samaria are effectively frozen. The government has promised to stop the freeze, yet it is continuing it."

There are 4,321 planned units that relevant government ministries have not officially sanctioned. Two of the biggest cities — Ma'aleh Adumim and Beitar Illit — are almost out of permits for building. In fact, building will soon stop in 14 of the 19 largest communities of Judea and Samaria unless the Defense Ministry authorizes more construction and the Housing and Construction Ministry issues more tenders. In nine communities all that is required is the political OK, as all technical arrangements are in place.

The Yesha leaders say that the media have been so focused on the few hundred building starts that have gone ahead that no one is paying attention to the fact that things may come to a dead stop soon. They aim to change this with their "Save the Cities" campaign, which is pushing for building permits to be issued.


So what is going on? Wish I could tell you. This sort of "silent" freeze, which is not total in any event, is not sufficient to allow Abbas to climb down from his tree and sit at the table. Nor can Obama get many points for this before the election, because it's so much under the table, so unofficial.

Who is satisfied by this? What goals are achieved and by whom?

I suspect that in looking at Abbas or Obama for clues may, we may, in fact, be looking too far afield. As I've noted, what is required are permits from the Ministry of Defense, which is headed by our "good friend" Ehud Barak. Surely, we see his heavy-handed approach here. Barak often takes steps like this to mollify his Labor party, so that he can retain the position of party leader, and so that the party doesn't pull out of the coalition, thereby costing him his ministry.

The whole story? Probably note. But I do not discount this. Nor do I discount Barak's eagerness to be good buddies with Obama.


The bottom line, however, is that the buck truly does stop with the prime minister. If Netanyahu weren't signing off on this somehow, or turning a willfully blind eye, this would not be happening. And so we must also ask what he has agreed to, what comes next, and what his intentions truly are.


Once again, it's time to raise our voices. Please!

Let PM Netanyahu know (politely, of course!) how deeply enraged by this you are. Let him know that you hold him responsible for the lack of building in Judea and Samaria, and that his credibility is on the line. Tell him that you consider such building to be imperative, and that you will do everything in your power to promote such building and those Israeli leaders with the courage to support it. If we stop building, we will compromise the human rights of Jews in the area, the Jewish claim to the land, and Israel's broader security.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses


Alan Baker, a lawyer and former legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry, does not think much of the PA threats regarding unilateral establishment of a state via the UN.

Most recently, the PA threatened that if the Security Council didn't sign off on a state, they would go to the General Assembly, whose resolutions are not binding in international law in any event. Says Baker, This threat "shows either ignorance of or contempt for the UN system."

Any attempt to circumvent the agreed-upon negotiation process stipulated by Oslo would undermine the basis of Oslo, he says, and with it the legal basis for the Palestinian Authority. This would provide grounds for voiding the agreement and "open the door to potential Israeli unilateral action..."

There is a question as to whether the parties who are signatories as witnesses to Oslo — the US, the EU, Egypt, Jordan and others — would in the end agree to sanction recognition of a state in a process that runs contrary to what they had signed.

What is more, claims that "settlements" are illegal — because they violate Article 31 of the Accords, which prohibit alteration of the status of the territory that is subject to negotiations — do not hold up. That is because legal arrangements between individual Israeli residents and the government authority that is administering the area under question does not alter its status.

As to the Security Council, Baker is not so sure it would sign on to unilateral declaration of a state either, for this would fly in the face of its own Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for the need to determine borders via negotiations.

And there are other problems as well: The call for the Security Council to recognize the state within "the 1967 borders" would be severely problematic because (as I've pointed out innumerable times) there are no such borders, only armistice lines. Says Baker, "Determining borders is an essential component in interstate relations. The principles of peaceful coexistence and bon-voisinage ["good neighbor" treaties that seek to bind countries to border cooperation], whether pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations or the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, respectively, determine the necessity for mutual recognition of a common border."
;http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/ Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=192886

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Saperstein, October 27, 2010.

October 27, 2010

A young man came to visit last night. He and his family lived across the way in our cul-de-sac. We always knew when he and his brothers came home. The sounds from the boom box in their car trunk would signal their arrival. Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! The beat, no music, went on and on.

"And here they come," we'd groan. "Turn down the noise!"

Now this can cause a lot of friction between neighbors, especially with my husband sitting outside listening to classical music and puffing on his cigar.

The boys generally laughed and turned down the noise. Once they actually admitted to enjoying my husband's music. Today I miss the Boom!

Somehow we were all friends. Their mother baked challah every Friday and one of the boys would bring one over so we could enjoy warm challah at our festive Shabbat meal.

The family has moved away. The boys did much of the work building the family home in Nitzan A. They invited us to see their efforts and we were more than delighted to see the interesting designs they had incorporated.

"We found these ideas on the internet and we wanted our parents, especially our mother, to have a special home," they boasted.

I'm happy for them. Their mother has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Over thirty rockets and mortars had fallen near their home in Gush Katif. Several had damaged the house. During Operation Cast Lead she suffered severe reversals when the sirens sounded and she heard the blasts of rockets falling nearby.

I hope they will live out of harms way. We miss them, noise and all.

Today a crew brought a crane and flatbed trucks to disassemble and remove their caravilla. An empty lot stand where once a family had lived.

A few weeks ago we met with architects, two lovely young women, and went over the plans for the design we had chosen from the booklet prepared by the Bnai Dekalim housing committee.

This past Monday we joined our friends at the caravilla site in Kibbutz Ein Tzurim. We signed with various government agencies, making our one-quarter acre plot [half a dunam] officially ours. We felt a sense of elation that we were finally making some headway to building a home of our own.

Last night we took a walk, not a power walk, merely a stroll. We took note of the many empty lots where the caravillas have been removed. Weeds have taken over. Our refugee camp, home for the past four years, looks more like a trashed slum. We know that our friends who have moved are living in their own homes. We are happy for them. For us, left behind and waiting, there is a sense of abandonment. It takes enormous strength to remain in this dying place.

We wonder where the government is storing the caravillas. For whom are they waiting? Will others experience the cruelty of expulsion as we did?

The concept of the Wandering Jew is alive and well... in Israel.


OPERATION DIGNITY is still in need of your help. See our website — http://www.operationdignity.com — for further details.

Shekel checks or US$ checks under $250 should be sent to

Operation Dignity
POB 445
Nitzan 79287 Israel

Dollar checks earmarked for Operation Dignity should be sent to

Operation Dignity, 13 Hagoel Street, Efrat 90435, Israel


Operation Dignity, 980 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, USA

Rachel Saperstein and her husband, Moshe, were among the thousands of Jews kicked out of their homes in Gush Katif, in the Gaza strip, and forced into temporary quarters so dismal, their still-temporary paper-based trailers in Nitzan, seemed a step up. Contact them at ruchimo@.netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Walid Shoebat, October 27, 2010.

Nov. 21st, The International Counter Terrorism Officers Association (ICTOA) and a private organization have scheduled a competing memorial service to honor the dead and wounded of Ft Hood, followed by five speakers who will expose what our nation's leaders are afraid to share with the American people.

[October 27 — Houston, TX] The Killeen, TX Chamber of Commerce has issued a letter to its members stating that they are supporting the Nov 5th, and are not supporting Nov 21st event. They have also insinuated that there is a money issue, and that Forum For Middle East Understanding has been "pressuring local businesses" to sponsor the Nov. 21st event. They have also stated to members that our event is being misrepresented as a memorial service.

"Why is the Chamber of Commerce of Killeen even taking sides one way or the other?" says Keith Davies the executive director of the Forum For Middle East Understanding, who organized the event. "I would not expect the support of the Chamber of Commerce nor would I expect their animosity."

The memorial service and symposium for the Ft. Hood victims is proudly a private affair funded by donors, ticket sales and sponsors. The overall cost of the event on is in excess of $80,000, while the Nov. 5th memorial service is totally funded by taxpayers. We are offering Killeen businesses the opportunity to participate as a sponsor, but no one is pressuring anyone as insinuated by the Chamber.

We have not been in communication with the Chamber of Commerce and wonder why they have so much animosity to this second event? The answer is most likely the ongoing issue of political correctness, the very reason why the Ft Hood tragedy happened, and the root cause of similar incidents, because of our unwillingness to properly address the issues of terrorism. Our conference wishes to truly honor those soldiers and civilians who lost their lives with a memorial service, and then present terrorism experts who are not afraid to share the truth with the American people.

We dishonor our men and women in uniform, and put them at greater risk by not speaking the truth or facing the facts about Jihadist Terrorists like Major Nidal Hasan, whose hidden agenda killed 14 and wounded 35."

The theme of this memorial event is DIVERSITY STARTS WITH THE TRUTH, which will be held at the Killeen Conference Center Nov. 21st, 2-8 PM. A primary sponsor of the event is the ICTOA (International Counter Terrorism Officers Association). Among the five keynote speakers, each of whom are experts in terrorism, are former military officers, law enforcement officers and two former Jihadist terrorists, Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, October 26, 2010.

This was written by Julia Gorin.


This is almost too good to be true.

Israel: 'Fix Kosovo first before telling us what to do' by LEIGH PHILLIPS, EU Observer, Oct. 11

Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman of the hard-right nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, has bluntly told the foreign ministers of Spain and France to fix problems in Europe before telling Israel what to do, according to reports in the local press.

"Solve your own problems in Europe before you come to us with complaints. Maybe then I will be open to accepting your suggestions," he told France's Bernard Kouchner and Spain's Miguel Angel Moratinos at a dinner on Sunday evening (10 October) in Jerusalem.

Mr Lieberman said that after Europe had solved conflicts in the Caucasus as well as the ongoing disputes over Cyprus and Kosovo, then the Jewish state "will listen to your advice," reports the conservative Jerusalem Post.

Now, notice the way the reporting goes out of its way to try to say something about an Israeli talking this kind of sense: "Lieberman of the hard-right nationalist party"; "the conservative Jerusalem Post". Notice any shades of similarity between this and how non-compliant Serbs are portrayed by the same media?

He also suggested that Europe is sacrificing Israel the way it abandoned Czechoslovakia in 1939.

"In 1938 Europe placated Hitler, sacrificing Czechoslovakia instead of supporting it, and gained nothing from it," he said, according to Haaretz, the left-leaning Israeli daily.

"We will not be the Czechoslovakia of 2010, we will stand up for Israel's vital interests."

Mr Lieberman suggested that the international community was trying to compensate for its failures elsewhere in the world by pushing for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

"What about the struggle in Somalia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Sudan?" he continued.

"Instead of talking now with the Arab League about the future of a referendum in Sudan, or discussing the explosive situation in Iraq in 2012, the international community is applying great pressure on Israel."

The strong words came as Mr Kouchner reportedly signalled that the creation of a Palestinian state may have to come via the United Nations Security Council if peace negotiations falter.

In an interview with Palestinian paper Al-Ayyam, the French minister said that Paris would prefer a two-state solution to be agreed by both sides, but that the former option could not be ruled out.

"We want to be able to soon welcome the state of Palestine to the United Nations. This is the hope and the desire of the international community, and the sooner that can happen the better," he said.

"The international community cannot be satisfied with a prolonged deadlock. I therefore believe that one cannot rule out in principle the Security Council option," he said.

"But the establishment of the Palestinian state must come as a result of the peace process and be the fruit of bilateral negotiations."

Those are some considerations that the Serbs — the other Czechoslovakia — were not afforded. And the "prolonged" Kosovo "deadlock" — unlike the decades-old Palestinian one — lasted only eight years before Serbia wasn't afforded a negotiated solution.

The two ministers also met with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defence minister Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni, a former foreign minister and leader of the opposition centrist Kadima party.

The other government leaders told the two Europeans that the international community must be flexible over the issue of a freeze on the construction of settlements in the occupied [sic] Palestinian territories.

The Israeli government has refused to extend a 10-month partial freeze that ended in September on new settlement building, illegal under international law [a debatable point].

Over the weekend, Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas said to Arab foreign ministers that his side would consider a request before the UN Security Council if the peace talks collapse as a result of the settlement issue.

The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, of the centre-left Labour Party, was reportedly more cordial with the two European ministers.

"They both take a lot of time working towards a real European contribution to peace between Israel and the Palestinians," he said.

"I know that they are both friends of Israel, and they are respected by the Palestinians and throughout the Arab world. Therefore, they can really help."


There was an update to this story in the Jerusalem Post today in a commentary by Israel Kasnett. Until reading it, I didn't realize just how much this is the Kosovo precedent in action:

...This was a busy week for Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos arrived at the Foreign Ministry Sunday to promote an initiative under which the European Union would recognize a Palestinian state even before Israel and the Palestinian Authority reach a final settlement through negotiations. Lieberman responded by telling his counterparts that before coming to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they should concentrate on the problems in their own backyards.

One must wonder why it has become the diplomatic norm for Europeans to come here for meetings that are disproportionately devoted to telling Israeli officials what this country should or should not be doing. If the opposite were true and Israeli officials were to arrive at the Elysee Palace to lecture the French on their policies, it is easy to see why they would be met with scorn.


Lieberman suggested that after solving the conflicts in the Caucasus and Cyprus, and after making peace between Serbia and Kosovo, the Europeans can come here and "we will listen to your advice."


"I tried to explain that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far from being central to the world and surely not the most ancient in the world, and I have not seen any universal formula that has solved all the conflicts on the face of the planet," he said. "Our stance is that we must stop stuttering and apologizing."


If Kouchner insists on focusing on Israel, then why not, as Lieberman suggested, review Turkey's occupation of Northern Cyprus as well?


And yet, even with its ongoing occupation of Northern Cyprus, Turkey is currently considered a candidate for full membership in the EU. This lies in sharp contrast to the EU decision to suspend the upgrade process for Israel in April 2009 after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced a reassessment of the peace process and suspended peace negotiations.

But Kouchner has taken his meddling even further. He said on Sunday in an interview with the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam, "One cannot rule out in principle the Security Council option."This echoes Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who said that the possibility was raised of eventually going to the UN Security Council to create a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last Friday also told leaders at the Arab League meeting in Libya that if peace talks remain stalled, he may consider asking the US to recognize a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders. [NOTE: Both of these Palestinians brought this option up immediately upon observing Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008.]

While he is repeating Erekat's comments, if nothing else Kouchner's remarks appear to be blatant European meddling in the peace process, the resolution of which must be found through bilateral negotiations between the two sides.Kouchner appears to be informing the Palestinians of European support for a Palestinian state regardless of whether or not the negotiations are successful. [...]

HELLO! This is following the lead of how Washington sabotaged the negotiations process.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Ha'ivri, October 26, 2010.

David Ha'Ivri, Director of the Shomron Liaison Office said: Over the past two weeks, since the commencement of the olive harvest season, our region has been flooded with daily provocations by foreign "peace and aid" organizations and international media. This campaign to defame the Jewish communities in general, and Jewish residents in particular has become theatrical. Each day residents of the Shomron are blamed for vanadalism, arson, and other destructive behavior to Arab property. So far, no evidence has been provided by either the aid organizations or media to substantiate these inflammatory accusations. We at the Shomron Regional Council are anxiously awaiting the end of the olive harvest and the return of international provocateurs to their home countries. Only then can we expect decreased tension and increased cooperation between local residents.

The accusations lodged against the residents of Elon Moreh are completely unfounded and unsubstantiated. The community of Elon Moreh is equipped with a state-of-the-art sewage treatment facility. This unit purifies sewage water to the highest level, and the cleaned waters are used for agriculture in Elon Moreh.

Gershon Mesika, Director of the Shomron Regional Council and resident of Elon Moreh said: "The true culprits of this environmental vandalism, spilling raw sewage into the environment in the area, are the residents of neighboring Arab villages who lack purifying systems. In an effort to enhance local cooperation, we have offered the Arab villages to connect to our system. The villagers have not accepted our offer due to their fear of threat and retaliation from the Palestinian Authority for cooperating with the neighboring Jewish communities".

The Elon Moreh Council and the Shomron Residents Committee, on behalf of the libeled residents of their community, will be initiating legal proceedings against AFP, requesting the court to issue a cease and desist order preventing AFP from printing and disseminating arbitrary and capricious accusations against the residents.

Their statement read: "We have become accustomed to the ongoing campaign of defamation and lies expounded by the leftist organizations and the Palestinian Authority. The residents of Elon Moreh have decided to use legal means to put an end to this foreign-led campaign of libel and request compensation for the damage done to our good name".

David Ha'ivri, chairman of Revava, is also editor of Darka Shel Torah and Ideas in Action newsletters, and the publisher of books teaching Jewish pride and faith in HaShem. He has set a goal to put the Jewish people back on the footpath of our fathers, and build a proud and strong nation whose national policy is based on Jewish values. He can be reached by email at haivri@hameir.org or at his website: http://www.hameir.org/

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, October 26, 2010.

Forgotten Vision of Rabin.
by Eli E. Hertz

The following excerpts from Rabin's last public speech to the Knesset (Parliament) just days before he was murdered reveal Rabin's true realistic vision — The Knesset, October 5, 1995:

"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 which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank." (There is a better option)

"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" (E.H., and never thereafter) honored its commitment to change the Palestinian Covenant, and that all of the promises on this matter have not been kept..."

Rabin's vision essentially incorporated the principles of Israel as both a Jewish state, and as a state living in "Peace within secure and recognized boundaries" as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 242. (Arabs, so-called Palestinians were not yet invented in 1947, had rejected this resolution at the time. Therefore, they have no legal standing to demand its implementation now!)

Sober and Realistic Prediction.

At a meeting with Finnish foreign minister Alexander Stubb, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the staunch refusal by the PA to recognise Israel as a Jewish state raised suspicions that, prior to a final agreement, Israeli Arabs will agitate also against Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state, and will use violence to try and establish autonomous areas around the country. In contrast, there was no debate in Israel on the importance (reality of the process and consequences) of achieving peace, only on the manner of achieving it.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Throughout history, some of the most vocal and hideous anti-Semites, Israel haters and even al Qaeda members have Jewish ancestry. They fiercely hate the blood of their mothers, fathers or grandparents in them! This is another reason that supports the argument against Jewish assimilation.

Turkey is Out, Greece is In

The Israeli and Greek Air forces embarked on a joint four-day exercise code-named Minoas 2010 over Crete and the Peloponnese Peninsula. (I wonder about the relevance of the Turkey's membership in the NATO, with the Islamic digger behind its back!)

Illegal Arab Structures: Incompetence or Political Idiocy

State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss accused the Jerusalem Municipality of incompetence which led to the situation in which 130 illegal Arab structures were built in the King's Garden compound near the City of David. He said that over the years enforcement of execution of demolition orders was insufficient.

Are Settlements really Stopping Negotiations?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered the PA a trade off in order to revive useless peace talks that they had quit — a new freeze on building in settlements if they recognise Israel as a Jewish state. The PA immediately rejected making any such declaration.

Broken Promise is a Sign of Disrespect

Former Mossad intelligence director Rafi Eitan said that the United States government broke an oral agreement with Israel that Jonathan Pollard would serve only about 10 years in prison for passing classified information to Israel. Pollard has served more than twice that long under a life sentence handed down in 1987.

Quote of the Week:

"Very few people were true Nazis, but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come." — A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II — When will humanity start to learn from the lessons of history? Islam is creeping upon us and is about to completely paralyze the world, but we are 'letting it all happen' until 'they own us'!

Covert War is On?

Iran loses most of its ballistic missile launchers in mysterious blasts. A top-secret Iranian military installation was struck by a triple blast Tues. Oct. 12, the day before Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Lebanon. The site held most of the Shehab-3 medium-range missile launchers Iran had stocked for striking US forces in Iraq and Israel in the event of war — some set to deliver triple warheads.

Mob Rules in 'Moderate' Arab State

An angry mob stormed a television station in Kuwait, claiming the station aired a program that criticised the country's ruling family. The attackers were armed with pistols and knives, and beat the station's employees. Ten people were wounded in the attack. (Just imagine what they would have done if the station had expressed support for Israel or criticised terror of Islamic expansionism.)

Why the Peaceful Majority Is Irrelevant?
by Paul E. Marek

&We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.

It is the fanatics, who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority is irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

ATTENTION: Shamrak report and Ha;Uma.org ("the Nation") network are completely independent and we are not affiliated with any political party. At the moment our distribution list has excided 21,000 email addresses. Our aim is to achieve the reunification of the Jewish homeland — Eretz-Israel! We are looking forward to increase our distribution list, especially to collage and university students, politicians, journalists and members of Jewish organizations. By sending their emails to us you will allow people gain the knowledge and understanding of the Arab-Israel conflict, as well as expose anti-Semitic lies, concealed as anti-Israel propaganda.

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 a website at www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 26, 2010.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. Go to http://denjanewhome.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, October 26, 2010.

This news item is archived at
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in- national/somali-pirates-seize-two-ships-off-african-coast


Somali pirates appear to be a permanent fixture on the high seas off the African coast. (Photo: DoD)

Somali pirates seized a German freighter after attacking it on Sunday about 1,000 miles off the coast of Kenya. Beluga-Reederei, a German shipping company is the registered owner of the captured vessel. The exact number of prisoners is still unknown, according to Department of Defense officials.

On the day before the German ship attack, Somali pirates seized tanker with 17 crew on board 170 km off Mombasa. While the ship itself is a Singapore-flagged vessel, the captain of the ship is a German national.

Singapore's Maritime and Port Authority reported that the vessel, MV York, was transporting gas from Mombasa to Mahe in the Seychelles.

Officials told the news media that they were jointly working with the ship's owner, York Maritime Company, and the appropriate government agencies to secure the release of the captured ship.

In a press statement released Sunday, the European Union Naval Force said that a Turkish warship had launched a helicopter on a reconnaissance mission following the hijacking and the helicopter crew reported observing the pirates on MV York fully armed.

While the majority of the crew are Filipinos, two Ukrainians and a German are among those being held hostage, according to officials.

The EU Naval Force said nearly 20 ships have been seized and more than 400 people had been kept hostage so far this year by pirates.

Somali pirates routinely release the crew unharmed with their ship when the ransom is paid to them after negotiations.

Critics of the current system of response to piracy on the high-seas believe the fact that many shipping companies insure their ships and ships' crews contributes to these abductions by pirates.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com). He's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 26, 2010.

This was written by Georges Malbrunot and it appeared yesterday in Le Figaro. This is the Google translation from the French. The article is archived at
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/10/25/ 01003-20101025ARTFIG00681-dans-le-secret-des- caches-d-armes-du-hezbollah.php


EXCLUSIVE — Le Figaro reveals logistics units in Syria and Lebanon that allow Hezbollah to strengthen its arsenal.

Last January, an alert flashed on the radar screens of U.S. intelligence. The transfer of 26 missiles M-6002 was spotted somewhere between Damascus and the Syrian-Lebanese border. Syrian manufacturing, these ballistic missiles with a range of about 250 km have been delivered to the Lebanese Hezbollah, to enable it to hit Israel in depth.

"From an independent source, we have not had confirmation of the transfer of highly sensitive missile technology from Iran, which come in versions of guided and unguided," says a French soldier, familiar with the matter. However, soon after, news reached Paris on the supply chain weapons of Hezbollah, that is to say one of the most secret parts of its operation.

Deposits in Syria

Ally of Iran and Syria, Hezbollah has three structures dedicated logistics of transporting its weapons — about 40,000 rockets — and the personal — more than ten thousand fighters — according to a note "confidential defense" that we consulted. The first unit is 108, which was probably "taken into account" the missile M-6002. His "principal office" is in Damascus. The unit 108 is responsible for transporting weapons and ammunition from storage sites located in Syria and other infrastructure located at the Syrian-Lebanese border, where the Shiite militia has stepped up its bases. This "unit" is subdivided into "normal deposits" and deposits called "reserve". The first is located near Damascus, Douma, near the Syrian capital, and near Adra, right next to the Damascus airport — close very useful when you know that most of the weapons come from Iran by plane. Reserve sites are, themselves, in the region of Aleppo, Homs and Tartous, Syria still.

Second link in the chain unit 112 is loaded, it, supply depots of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and distribution of weapons supplied by the base unit 108 from the Shiite party, the plain Bekaa, among others. The escorts are made by truck, usually at month end to take advantage of power cuts in that period. To go incognito, drivers are on the anarchy of the plates in Lebanon.

Finally two "specialized sections" of the unit 100 carried by members and fighters of Hezbollah, and Iranian experts, moving between Lebanon, Syria and Iran via Damascus airport. It is this unit 100 which had recently secured the return of militia in Lebanon, following a training camp in the use of missiles to Iran Fateh — 110. The Party of God does not have enough large camps in Lebanon to practice the use of these missiles to 150 km range.

Israeli strikes targeted

Since the war against Israel in 2006, many activists went to train with the Revolutionary Guards in Iran. And not just since the fief of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. "In my village of Hermel in the north, I know a lot," said a relative of the militia. But since Mougnieh Imad, the head of its military wing, has mysteriously disappeared in Damascus in February 2008, Hezbollah has sought to take over the safety of his men passing through Syrian territory. Hence these new logistic structures, whose existence has been known to Western intelligence services in the spring, when tension was rising dangerously, after Israeli accusations relating to a provision of Syrian Scud missiles to Hezbollah. Information denied by Damascus.

Anyway, these units confirm the strategic importance of Syria as Hezbollah's logistical system. Although since the voltage is settled, "a targeted action by Israel against the sites under the responsibility of the unit 108 in Syria is still possible," say the Defense Ministry in Paris. Like the raid conducted in September 2007 to al-cons Kihara Syrian nuclear site, which did not result in retaliation by Damascus. Would that still the case if new Israeli strikes? One thing is certain: the face of threats from the IDF, Syria and Iran are close together.

The Iranian involvement in the Syrian project of the M-6002 is now "proven". A few months ago, we were still at the stage of flight testing. And today? "We can not exclude that vectors produced as a model in Iran have been provided to Syria," said the expert cited. In return, Tehran would have asked Damascus the provision of multiple copies of the M-600 to the Party of God, in anticipation of a possible conflict with Israel.

Deterrence, the new strategy of the Party of God against Israel

In its "cold war" with Israel, Hezbollah is seeking to acquire weapons powerful enough to provide a deterrent against the IDF. Hassan Nasrallah, secretary general of training Shiite, do not hide more: "If Israel attacks Lebanon, we'll bomb their infrastructure such as ports and airports," he threatened last February. This is the aim missiles long and medium range Zelzal, Fateh, or M-600 — possession of which is never denied by the Shiite. After his semi-defeat of 2006, the IDF is now asked to watch it twice before embarking on a new military adventure in Lebanon.

As well as strengthening its arsenal since the adoption of UN Resolution 1701 that ended the war, Hezbollah has redeployed its operative offensive north of the Litani river in the Bekaa Valley. "This is not over in southern Lebanon that the Party now has its strategic sites," said one expert. In recent months, launching sites Fajr-3 missiles have yet been developed.

"Hezbollah has completely revamped its system C-2 command-control with checkpoints and withdrawal buried," the source added. And tunnels they have dug along the Syrian border between the towns of Baalbek and Hermel, in order to facilitate a withdrawal of the militia in the event of renewed conflict with Israel.

To counter the risk of infiltration, training Shiite has an extensive telecommunications network independent, fully buried on land belonging to it, ranging from the south in the southern suburbs of Beirut and Baalbek region — Hermel, bordering Syria. Thus, the connections of command of the units are effective.

Embryonic Navy

But Hezbollah has not abandoned, so far, the southern villages, which constitute the first line of defense against Israel. Again, thanks to the engineer units of the Pasdaran, most of his positions are connected by underground tunnels, which would avoid the militia of being spotted by Israeli drones. But in recent months, Hezbollah increased its pressure to regain control of South clandestine, not hesitating to taunt patrolling the United Nations force. To prevent an arms can therefore be identified by peacekeepers, his men to disperse their weapons caches in smaller than in the past (mosques, schools, shops, fire stations). "They practice of asymmetric warfare, using the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the adversary," said the expert. Besides his six brigades (three players), the armed wing of Hezbollah would even recently acquired an embryonic naval capacity (unit 87): a small group of men trained in scuba diving, which could used fishing boats or coasting as the starting point.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, October 25, 2010.

A picture is worth a thousand iies.

September 30, 2000, saw the creation and spread of the 21st century's first blood libel, a literally deadly hoax to which thousands of subsequent murders can be directly traced.

Orchestrated and perpetuated by French media determined to paint Israel as a barbaric nation of child killers, the Mohammad al-Dura affair made a celebrated hero out of a slanderous reporter, created "truth" out of pure fiction, and caused one media analyst to undertake an ongoing quest to set the record straight against the entirety of the French political, media, and legal establishment.

The now infamous al-Dura hoax, revolving around a France 2 videotape that purported to show Israeli troops killing a frightened Gaza boy trapped in the middle of firefight, circled the world in moments. The international outrage and condemnation of Israel fueled a genocidal anti-Jewish propaganda machine, which manufactured the pretexts for murdering thousands of Israelis and even beheading Daniel Pearl.

The incident, we now know, was staged for the cameras.

French media analyst Philippe Karsenty was among the first to see through the deception, and his campaign began trying to call the stagers to task. Even when he was charged with defamation by French elites determined to protect its own, he refused to give up. Eight years later he is still working to expose the cover up surrounding the al-Dura hoax, a cover up that threatens to bring the French media establishment crashing down. He continues to fight against a tidal wave of international opinion determined to believe the very worst about Israeli Jews, and for the very worst reasons — even if it means embracing a now-debunked blood libel.

Doris Wise Montrose is with Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors (CJHS)

To Go To Top

Posted by UCi, October 25, 2010.

This appeared October 22, 2010 in IsraPundit, author unknown.


Quote for the Week

"You go to the Middle East if you're looking for oil and you wouldn't even stop in Israel, but if you're looking for brains, energy and integrity, Israel is the place to be." — Warren Buffet — (Financial Wizard and Entrepreneur Extraordinaire)

* Beat this if you can! We've mentioned that Israel is a hi-tech super power and that includes such weird and wonderful things as nano-tech, bio-tech, clean-tech etc. and when the achievements in these areas, in this tiny country, with a total population smaller than that of Greater London are as amazing as they are [see quote for the week above] then you tend to get a little blas?. But even we were mightily impressed by the following: There's an organization called GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) and it's all about cellular phone technology. Well, said organization presents awards to the industry that are held in very high regard — the awards that is — and for this purpose they divide the world into four; the Americas, [North and South]; Asia Pacific [India, Singapore, Korea etc.]; EMEA [Europe, the Middle East and Africa] and...Israel — in a class of its own, bursting with innovation in this vital field!

* The TASE isn't doing that badly either. On Monday the benchmark TA-25 Index rose 0.4% to reach a new record high of 1,259 points at the close. So you'd expect some of what investors call profit taking, which is what happened and the Index dropped on Tuesday and Wednesday as people converted shares to cash, only to surge back on Thursday, finishing the day and the week on yet another record high of 1272.25 with a turnover of NIS2bn for the day. The other indexes followed suit and the mavens are saying that the bears are hibernating and the bulls are behaving as if they're at Pamplona.

* Delegations from 26 of the 33 OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development] member states began arriving on Tuesday evening of this week for an OECD Tourism Conference in Jerusalem with a special focus on sustainable, environmentally-friendly tourism. Founded in 1961 and based in Paris, the Tourism Conference is held once every two years and this is only the second time that these countries will be meeting away from home base. Perhaps it's fitting that the Organization has given this honor to its newest member, — we've only been an OECD State for a few months — Israel, But there's also no getting away from the fact that it's a significant vote of confidence in us, our economy and our tourist industry, which...

* Has registered a 27% rise over last year, a pretty good year to start with, and we seem to be racing towards three million guests by December, a number that does have a certain magic about it.

* British Airways chooses 10 destinations out of the hundreds it has on offer every year and designates them as 'Top Cities" and Tel Aviv is right up there with the best of them. The Big Orange's selection comes in the wake of being chosen by National Geographic as having one of the top ten beaches in the world so no wonder that all of this is happening against the backdrop of a tourist boom that Israel is enjoying right now [see the figures in the item above].

* Jerusalem has always been a top tourist attraction for its sites, holy to all three religions and as recently as a month ago Travel and Leisure Magazine rated it as one of the top destinations in the Middle East but now website, TripAdvisor that boasts more than 40 million travel reviews culled from tourists all over the globe, ranks it as one of the ten top go-to places in the world not for religious pilgrimage this time but... wait for it, culture and sightseeing and that places it together with London, Rome, Paris and well, you can guess the rest.

* Last week [in GN 15 10] we said about the Chilean miners that, quote : "They're not Israeli and if they've heard of Israel they've never been here [it would be a nice gesture if one of our hotel chains would offer them a spell of R&R in the Holy Land]" Unquote. Our superstar Minister of Tourism, Mr Stas Misezhnikov must have read GN because this week he said: "It would be a great honor for us to welcome you as our guests in the Holy Land. This December, Christians around the world will celebrate Xmas. During that time, we welcome tens of thousands of pilgrims and we would be pleased to offer you this uplifting and extraordinary experience at no cost." Just by the way 58% of our visitors last year were of the Christian faith.

* "Business activity continued to expand in the third quarter of 2010, at a pace similar to that since the beginning of the year," says the staid and conservative Bank of Israel in its Companies Survey for the Third Quarter of 2010. It adds, "Expectations are that activity will continue to increase in the fourth quarter" and perhaps most significant of all, the business community is displaying optimism and confidence re the future. And just to prove our point "Israel offers incredible investment opportunities, and I say this as a major investor in the Israeli economy through The Arison Group." Said no less a person than Shari Arison, still one of our favorite business people, in a speech at the New York Stock Exchange to mark the fourth annual Israel Day [Yes, that august institution has an annual day honoring the State of Israel].

* Business, hi-tech, scientific discoveries, they're exciting stuff but how did it all start? Well if we can take you back to pre-state days it was the Jewish farmer, inevitably a kibbutznik, who was the man or the woman of the hour simply to be overshadowed in time by business... etc. But two things have happened in the past couple of weeks; one is that agricultural crops are back in the news with amazing developments in the quality and types of produce and predictions are that revenues in 2010 will reach NIS26bn way up on 2009 and the other is that the kibbutz, that so many had written off as going the way of the dinosaur has roared back on the 100th anniversary of its birth, somewhat altered in ideology but still producing bananas, avocadoes and a lot else. So GN salutes them both, the collective farm and the farmer, vibrant, productive and providing that touch of romantic nostalgia that makes life interesting.

* Israel's national under-19 team got its qualification campaign for Euro 2011 off to a flying start this week by beating Armenia 3-0. Two goals in the first five minutes, one after just two minutes and the second, three minutes later, gave Israel a lead that never looked like being threatened. Drawn in the same group as Spain, Lithuania and Armenia, the team has a way to go yet and it will be GN if the first match is the shape of things to come.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, October 25, 2010.

This was written by Arnold Soloway and is archived at


The "Strategy of Stages" and a Concocted Arab Narrative

After 1948, when five Arab armies were defeated in their avowed "War of Extermination" against the greatly outnumbered nascent Jewish State, Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, and Egypt controlled Gaza. But Israel had successfully defended its right to sovereign statehood.

In 1967, after again defeating three Arab armies in a war of self-defense and gaining control of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, Israel offered to return territory it had won in exchange for peace agreements with its neighbors. The Arab League responded with their Khartoum Resolution: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel." Once again, no "Two-State Solution". During the nineteen years in which Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza were under complete Arab control, there was no agitation or effort to establish a Palestinian state. But to enhance their appeal to Western public opinion, the Arabs of Mandate Palestine waived their traditional self-identification as "Arabs", that is members of the Arab Nation, and described themselves as "Palestinians."

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity...Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons."
— (Zuheir Mohsen, head of military operations for the PLO and a member of its Supreme Council as interviewed by James Dorsey in the Dutch daily Trouw, March 31, 1977.)

In 1974, after another Arab defeat, the nine-year old P.L.O., at its Twelfth National Convention, adopted "The Strategy of Stages". This was designed to create an impression of "moderation" — primarily for Western consumption — by agreeing to set up a Palestinian Arab state in any West Bank and Gaza territory vacated by Israel as Stage I, without recognizing the State of Israel. Stage II, was to be resumption and intensification of the "armed struggle" from the greatly enhanced power base, which would ensure the destruction of Israel and allow Arabs to take the rest of Palestine in Stage III.

At the same time, the P.L.O. began advancing a narrative according to which "Arab people were engaged in farming and building, spreading culture throughout the land for thousands of years, setting an example in the practice of freedom of worship, acting as faithful guardians of the holy places of all religions." (Arafat' s speech in the U.N., N.Y.Times, 11/11/74) It is hard to imagine a description that stands in harsher contrast to the facts. For while archeological evidence suggests that Palestine possessed one of the largest populations and most varied economies in its history during the sixth century, the Arab invasion of the seventh century inaugurated a period of over a thousand years, where except for brief breathing spells, Palestine settled into a period of deep decline punctuated by periodic massacres of its remaining population.

(As late as 1867, on his visit to Palestine, Mark Twain wrote of "A silent mournful expanse...a desolation...not even imagination can grace...never saw a human being on the whole route (from Jerusalem to Tabor)...even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." Innocents Abroad)

The plain fact, documented in a wide range of unimpeachable sources, is that the regeneration of Palestine, the growth of its population and economy, came only after an increasing and consistent flow of Jews had begun returning in the last decades of the 19th century. And after them came Arabs from Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, the Sudan, Iraq and even far away Yemen, seeking a share in Palestine' s emerging prosperity. It is estimated that at least 300,000 Arabs migrated into Palestine during the period of the Mandate.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 25, 2010.

Below is an essay by Gil Ronen entitled "Revenge Attacks on Arabs 'Crazy,'" featuring an Channel 10 interviw with Elyakim Ha'etzni of the Techiya Party. It appeared in Arutz-Sheva

It is important to remember that one of the main factors that lead to the demise of TECHIYA was their active support for the law that outlawed KACH, Rabbi Kahane's political party. A political movement that was on the verge of receiving 10-15 seats in the Knesset was outlawed to "save DeMockracy" in Israel. When their own supporters saw how they acted, they abandoned them in droves. This in turn brings up the interesting question; for whom is Ha'etzni a spokesman? He and his fellow TECHIYA group were clearly rejected by the nationalists that had previously voted for them.

Then of course there is the actual content of what he said.


I, unlike so many in Israel who seem to hear voices from on high revealing to them great secrets, have no idea who has perpetrated these attacks against the various Mosques. My personal, unsubstantiated suspicion is that it is the scum from the Jewish section of the Shabak. The Government is in the process of putting together its budget, including the budget for the Shabak, and all the bureaucrats large and small are huffing and puffing to show everyone how important they are to the nation. What better way for these degenerates to prove how important they are to national security than to have a few "madmen" running amok and burning mosques?


(Israelnationalnews.com) Kiryat Arba resident and prominent nationalist spokesman Attorney Elyakim Ha'etzni spoke out on national TV Monday against the so-called "price tag" raids that were allegedly carried out by Jews against Arabs in Judea and Samaria.

Ha'etzni, a former Knesset Member for the now-defunct nationalist Techiya party, told Channel 10 news that the people who carry out such raids are "madmen."

The alleged attacks on mosques damage the settlement enterprise, he said, and serve as weapons in the hands of the people who hate the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria. Ha'etzni added that if he were an anarchist who wanted to assassinate the character of Jewish settlers, he would do what the "price tag" raiders do: set a fire in a mosque and spray-paint the words "price tag" in Hebrew.

Arabs reported earlier this month that carpets inside a mosque in the village of Beit Fajr in Gush Etzion were set on fire and slogans in Hebrew were spray painted in the walls. They also claimed that a vehicle with yellow license plates was seen driving away from the village right after the fire was set.

Jews were blamed in two similar incidents in the past year — but the perpetrators have yet to be caught in those cases. Four yeshiva boys from Kfar Hassidim were arrested in the summer after a mosque was vandalized In the nearby Arab village Ibtin — but were released when no evidence was found to implicate them.

In December, someone set fire to a carpet in the mosque at Kfar Yusuf near Yitzhar. Rabbi Yitzchak Shapira of Yitzhar and some of his students were arrested more than once, but no evidence has ever been found to link them with the act, in which they categorically deny involvement.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 25, 2010.

This posting is a bit out of the norm for me. No text to speak of, just two marvelous videos about two incredible and brave women. Please see both!

The first is of Wafa Sultan, who left her native Syria to live in the United States and speak out about Islam.

Listen to her, for she knows whereof she speaks:
(With thanks to Sandra K.)


The next is about someone you will not have never heard of: Alice, the lady in apartment #6. At 106, she is the world's oldest Holocaust survivor. She still plays her classical music on the piano every day — the music that saved her in Theresienstadt.

After you see this, you will not forget her.
(With thanks to Cheryl H.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, October 25, 2010.

OK--here's how the Islamics trap Israel into digging its own grave and then jumping in:

Step one: The Islamics rant and rave that Israel doesn't want peace.

In the past, Israel replied, in step two: "Yes, we sure do. We will give you our land to prove we want peace." And so in yet another absurd "peace gesture" (that nobody respects or appreciates) the Israelis surrendered Gaza to the Muslims, the region that was recognized in the San Remo Resolution and the League of Nations as an integral part of the Jewish Homeland.

At this point you should take note that Israel's venerated old cooter, Shimon Peres, thrilled at the possible surrender of Israel's land to his "dearest friend in peace," Yasser Arafat, because he and his "dearest friend" had long planned to skim a little bit of cream from Gaza through their joint operations conducted by their respective NGOs established in the Cayman Islands. Peres' scheme was exposed by WorldNet Daily and he quietly dismantled his Cayman NGO without saying another word about the identity of the wealthy Jewish investors who funded Peres' Cayman NGO. Who were they? The "former Jew" George Soros? The Bronfman family? Curious minds want to know.

But, we digress. Back to improving Israel's "hasbara". As the worthy Prof. Aumann points out, the more Israel begs for peace, the more it gets war. So, from now on, whenever the Islamics declare "Israel doesn't want peace" the ONLY logical, sensible reply that should emanate from Israel is:

The arabs (Muslims) want WAR. We will defend against their aggression. We will defend the people of Israel from Islamic imperialism.

OK Jews, don't be afraid. Just call it like it really is. Call a spade a spade. Call your antagonists what they really are: Muslims. Arabs. Baptist meddlers (Jimmy Carter). Islamics. Fascists. And if your antagonists are what you refer to as "Israeli or Jewish "lefties" call them a new name: "knee-jerk contrarians" who are "Jews who want war." No need to tie yourselves into knots if this sounds illogical. You're in a propaganda war, and the narrow logic used over the past ten years has caused Israel to lose the propaganda war. You gotta win the propaganda war so tack into the wind. Remember, you're not Juan Williams, who spoke the truth about how he felt when he saw Muslims wearing hijabs boarding the same plane as he. National Public Radio (NPR) fired him for honestly stating how he felt. But NPR cannot fire you! And Israel has nothing to lose when it comes to NPR because this radio station has spent the last ten years publishing anti-Jew, anti-Israel, pro-Muslim propaganda. Their code-word for "Islam" and "Muslim" is the artifice-word "palestinian(s)." It was recently revealed that NPR is funded by the "former Jew" George Soros and other anti-Israel sponsors. Soros also funded the anti-Israel org. dba "The New Israel Fund."

Got it? Just continue to repeat "The arabs want WAR" every time the arabs rant about Israel "not wanting peace." By the way, don't let Peres go scurrying about bowing and apologizing and agonizing in the manner of his favorite movie star, the late Victor Mature, who was famous for saying that he was cast in biblical epics because "he could make with the holy look ...". Mature's bio: Wikipedia. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Faultline USA, October 25, 2010.

This comes from today's Faultline USA website (http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/ seeking-christian-roommate-not-if-you.html).


If you haven't already heard, Big Brother claims that it's a violation of the Fair Housing law in Michigan to make a "discriminatory" statement. Apparently using the term "Christian" in an ad discriminates against non-Christians.

From Fox News:
(http://topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html? page=17224&external=539429.proteus.fma&pageNum=-1)

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths, according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that."

Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old womans case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and fair housing training so it doesnt happen again.

From WorldNetDaily
(http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa= PAGE.view&pageId=218349):

The complaint signed by Tyra Khan, a "Civil Rights Representative" of the state of Michigan Department of Civil Rights, surfaced when the Alliance Defense Fund announced today it was representing the woman.

ADF spokesman Joel Oster confirmed the organization sent a letter to the state explaining that such housing rules don't apply to people living in their own homes and wanting to share their resources.

In the mean time, while the Marxist state of Michigan is battling it out with the Alliance Defense Fund, it might be a good idea to help out these lame state investigators by scanning every ad you can find and making legitimate reports of housing discrimination to:

Fair Housing Center of West Michigan
20 Hell Street SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49507
Tel: (616) 451-2980, Toll Free 1-866-389-FAIR
Fax (616) 451-2657
Email: contact-us@fhcwm.org

OOOPS ...Gotcha — that's Hall Street in the above address. Just wanted to see if you were paying attention.

Remember that these Loons consider any use of discretion in any published ad as a form of discrimination. For example, expressing a preference for a cat over a dog or for no pets over pets is discrimination against much of the animal world. If you find such an ad, send a copy to PETA as well.

So Let's Keep Michigan's Fair Housing Center busy. Just send a copy of any legitimate ad that you find to be discriminatory (according to their pin-head standards) to: contact-us@fhcwm.org

Here's their web address

Another worthy pastime might be to consider the development of real secret Christian code words to use when seeking to locate other forced to live underground Christian roommates. Why not? The left has been convinced for years that Christians already use code on a daily basis. Let's keep them hunting for new code. It could be fun. They don't even know the difference between code and a real prayer. So constantly yanking their chains should be easy. Did you catch the code there???

Here are a few examples:

I'm looking for a roommate who has been saved by grace.

I'm looking for a roommate who has the gift of discernment.

I'm looking for a Roommate who listens to (insert your favorite Christian Group)

Someone left a great comment on one blog :

Perhaps the ad should have said: "I am a committed Christian and love sharing my faith." That should alert potential roommates of what to expect.

Contact Faultline USA at faultlineusa@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nicole Brackman and Asaf Romirowsky, October 25, 2010.

It appeared in today's Phiadelphia Daily News and is archived at
http://www.romirowsky.com/8223/ artificial-obstacle-mideast-peace


About a week ago, the freeze on construction in Israeli towns in the West Bank expired. The hiatus had been reluctantly enacted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in the year under pressure from President Obama.

Obama has been trying to persuade Netanyahu to renew the moratorium in the "settlement bloc" in an effort to revive peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, since the Palestinians consider building in the settlements a deal-breaker, halting negotiations before they can even begin. Israelis, for their part, see the issue as part and parcel of ongoing talks and reject any Palestinian preconditions on the negotiations.

In a cycle that seems to be repeated as elections come and go, the Obama administration is pressing Netanyahu to buck his own electoral mandate (and his supporting coalition in the Israeli Knesset) and accede to the Palestinian demands. Yet you can reasonably ask what purpose the previous moratorium served, as no progress in the negotiations has been forthcoming during it.

Construction in Israeli towns on the West Bank is a straw man, as it deflects attention from the issues that are truly obstructing a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is little debate over the fact that — should a peace agreement be completed — there will be a redistribution of property in the West Bank between Israel and the Palestinians.

There remains mostly dickering over whether that redistribution will take the shape of a total phased Israeli withdrawal, or (more likely) an exchange of land annexing the more populous Israeli towns to Israel for other land in the Jordan Valley or Negev desert.

So if settlement construction is a red herring, what's the real problem?

While the status of Jerusalem is a matter of national and religious pride, the question of the Palestinian refugees is the existential concern for both sides.

To say that the Palestinian power structure has predicated its entire claim to legitimacy with the Palestinian population on the full return of refugees to Israel would be a gross understatement. Two generations of the literal institutionalization and professionalization of refugees through bureaucracies like the United Nations Refugee and Works Agency (UNRWA) have raised those expectations among Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world and virtually guaranteed the rejection of any agreement that does not provide for full "return."

For the Israelis, such a provision is clearly an existential threat (and fully designed that way) that cannot be accepted. They prefer to focus on restitution, with limited (and phased) return to whatever territories will comprise the Palestinian state.

UNRWA is the primary bureaucratic culprit responsible for prolonging and exacerbating the Palestinian refugee issue.

The Canadian government has announced that Canada would defund UNRWA following a report commissioned by the European Parliament documenting that Hamas terrorists have been chosen by the UNRWA labor union to actually administer its facilities, thereby becoming the first Western nation to begin withdrawing support for the agency. The U.S. would do well to follow that example and use our tax dollars to promote independent Palestinian organizations and private-sector growth.

If the current Palestinian leadership is truly concerned about changing the status of Palestinian society, it should work to remove all the obstacles that are preventing change and democratization. UNRWA — while on its face a progressive nongovernmental organization that provides needed services — is in fact itself obstructing progress in the peace negotiations. UNRWA benefits as long as the refugee crisis can't be solved.

UNRWA has managed to prevent its demise by ensuring that the refugees stay artificially separated from the rest of the Palestinian population.

It's worth noting that every Palestinian refugee camp is currently within the jurisdiction of Arab governments — and the majority are in the land controlled by Palestinian Authority itself. This is a miscarriage of government and leadership — UNRWA has been a significant player in protracting the refugee status of thousands of Palestinians.

Taking UNRWA out of the equation now would be a step in the right direction.

Nicole Brackman writes extensively on Israeli and Middle Eastern politics. Asaf Romirowsky is an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum. Contact Asaf Romirowsky by email at list@pundicity.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, October 25, 2010.

This was written by Dr. Hagai Ben-Artzi and is entitled: "Bibi — Why are you silent?" Dr. Ben-Artzi, is a professor at Bar Ilan University and the brother-in-law of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu


The latest revelations in the case of Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard require an official, public call by the government of Israel for his immediate release.

In recent weeks two dramatic developments have occurred in the Pollard case:

1) Lawrence Korb, who was the deputy of the former US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger at the time of Pollard's arrest, wrote a (recently-published) letter to the President of the United States, Barak Obama. In his letter, Korb declares that the disproportionate sentence and harsh treatment which Pollard received have no precedent in the history of the United States and were a result of "an almost visceral dislike of Israel and the special place it occupies in our foreign policy on the part of my boss at the time, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger." This hatred induced Weinberger to provide false and distorted testimony to the American court — testimony which he recanted before his death.

Korb who was close to Weinberger, states in his letter, that Pollard's disproportionate sentence (which he is currently serving now in his 25th year in unbearably harsh conditions) is grossly unfair and a travesty of justice. He ends his letter with a call to the president of the United States to correct the injustice without delay by releasing Jonathan Pollard.

2) Another dramatic development in this case occurred in an interview given by (former Minister)Rafi Eitan, who was Pollard's handler, to a Kol Yisrael Radio reporter, Aaron Vizner. In this interview, Rafi Eitan declared that there was a deal between Israel and the US by which Pollard would serve 10 years and then be released — this today is the maximum sentence for espionage on behalf of an ally.

Rafi Eitan stated that the Americans abrogated the agreement and violated a clear commitment that had been made to the Government of Israel. He too supported Korb's assertion that Pollard's disproportionate sentence was obtained on the basis of false information that was provided to the court.

These two new developments point directly to the unequivocal conclusion: a great injustice has been done to Jonathan Pollard which must be rectified, at the very least, by his immediate release from prison.

In the face of these revelations, an official, public call by the government of Israel to the government of the United States for the immediate release of Jonathan Pollard is imperative. The Prime Minister must take direct and active responsibility for undertaking the contacts, in order to bring to a conclusion one of the most deplorable affairs that the State of Israel has ever known and to bring about Pollard's immediate release.

This (Pollard's immediate release) must be obtained from the United States as an outstanding debt for political, moral and humane reasons.

Politically — because Israel is a "friendly nation and an ally" (or at least the United States claims so) and clear agreements and solid commitments have been broken (including the presidential commitment which Clinton made to Netanyahu prior to signing the Wye Accords.)

Morally — because the judicial process was tainted by false and misleading testimony, which flowed from hostility and hatred towards Israel; because today it is clear that the severity of Pollard's sentence (life in prison), was the result of calculated disinformation.

Humanely — because Jonathan has paid a price far beyond the usual punishment for the offense that he committed; because he has languished in prison for 25 years, and his health has deteriorated drastically; because the United States continues to hold him in harsh conditions.

In light of all of these facts and information, the question urgently arises: why is Bibi silent?!

Where is the most basic responsibility of the State Israel towards a man who was an agent of the State and who contributed so much to its security?

I appeal to you Bibi, personally — and also as a citizen and a member of your own family — get up, say what needs to be said, and do what needs to be done!


Dr. Hagai Ben-Artzi

See Also:

  • JPost Exclusive: Netanyahu's brother-in-law pleads for Pollard
  • Op-Ed: PM's ignoble failure to free Pollard is Obama's obligation — by Esther Pollard — Jerusalem Post
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=191895
  • JPost Exclusive:Pollard's lawyers file clemency request with Obama
  • JPost Exclusive:Pollard: PM hasn't asked Obama to free me
  • Boxerbros Video #5: The centerpiece of this YouTube video is Hagai Ben-Artzi speaking about Jonathan Pollard
  • Boxerbros Video #6: Rafi Eitan reveals deal with US for Pollard
  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFy_BxjywWI

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, October 24, 2010.

Eretz Yisroel (EY) and Am Yisroel(AY)
A Marriage Made in Heaven
Living a Life Based on Torah and Mitzvoth
BoEY Challah BoEy Challah!

Here is a quiz for for all you Latma Lovers!

Prostitution and Eretz Yisroel (EY)

  • Question: What is EY's Pimps' "Agreement of Reciprocity?"
  • Answer: If you agree to stop attacking her [EY], we reciprocate by allowing you to take her heart while we keep the rest of her.

  • Question: What is EY's Pimp's idea of a "Peaceful Solution"?
  • Answer: I'll give her [EY] to you if you acknowledge she's married to me.

  • Question: Why does EY's spokesman, Netanyahu, allow her (EY) to freeze?
  • Answer: Because he is impotent

  • Question: Why is Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the American Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, supporter of Oslo, Annapolis and a Two State Solution speaking at the Kingsway Jewish Center in Brooklyn, NY on this coming Parshat Chaya Sarah 5771 on the Shabbat that affirms our entitlement to all of EY (It says in the Gemara Kicha Kicha Misdei Efron, just like the field was bought so to a marriage is acquired with buying.
    http://shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com/2010/02/ voice-for-temple-mount-by-yosef-rabin.html)?
  • Answer: Obviously because he "GETS" it. ( EY from AY!) ("get" the pun?)

    AYAYAY Shabbos, AYAYAY Shabbos AYAYAY Shabbos Kodesh....... :( :(

    As Isaiah said: "Eichah Haita L'Zona Kirya Neemana" "How has the faithful city become a prostitute" :( :(

    Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 24, 2010.

My friends, I wrote the other day about the fact that there has been now a wave of ten years duration, which shows no signs of abating, of the most severe violence against Jewish property and persons that we've seen since the Holocaust.

That report was provided by a social scientist who had done considerable research. While I, sitting at my computer, and garnering information on what is being said about Jews and Israel, am seeing another aspect of this same phenomenon of Jew hatred. It is, indeed, with us always, and it behooves us now to be on our guard and to fight back hard. I know it is not my imagination — that anti-Israel and anti-Jewish comments that would have been unacceptable in polite company not so long ago have become politically correct.

Take, for example, Kaukab Siddique, who is a tenured professor of English at Lincoln University in PA. At an anti-Israel rally in September, he said:

"We must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel — if possible by peaceful means. Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people.

"[Muslims must] unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.

"...Settlements are only the tentacles of the devil that resides in Tel Aviv.

"...For the Jews, I would say see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up." Says Lincoln University: Freedom of speech.


I was especially irked by a recent column, "Just Knock It off," by Tom Friedman, writing in the NY Times. He refers to Israel as a "spoiled child" for not acceding to Obama's demands for a continuation of the freeze. Israel, which has made all of the concessions to date, and not the PA, which not only has made none, but has been cut slack at every imaginable turn. And as if this wasn't bad enough, he had the gall to refer to some of the members of our Cabinet as "lunatics."

I was planning to take Friedman on in some depth, but have found sufficient quality critique from others so that I've decided to begin by sharing:

Evelyn Gordon, writing in Commentary, says,

"Extending the Settlement Freeze Would Undermine a Vital Security Interest."

"Israel has a valid security-based claim to these areas, and a onetime, temporary building moratorium as a goodwill gesture to promote peace, like the one Israel instituted last November, doesn't undermine it. But extending the freeze would, because that implies the moratorium isn't a onetime goodwill gesture on Israel's part, but — as most of the world indeed claims — a necessary condition for progress, since this land a priori belongs to the Palestinians, and Israel has no right to it.

"Israel can't stop other countries from rejecting its claim to this land. But for Jerusalem to itself denigrate this claim by extending the freeze would undermine its negotiating position on a vital security issue: defensible borders. And that is something no country with any vestige of a survival instinct should agree to do."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/ index.php/evelyn-gordon/375716

I will add here that while the security claims are certainly valid and significant, they should not obscure that we have rights to the land that extend beyond this.


Also in Commentary, Rick Richman writes:

"Thomas Friedman unloads on Israel, asserting that it is 'behaving like a spoiled child' because Netanyahu will not agree to a new settlement-construction moratorium without additional assurances:

"Just one time you would like Israel to say, 'You know, Mr. President, we're dubious that a continued settlement freeze will have an impact. But you think it will, so, let's test it. This one's for you.'

"I think he means that just two times he would like Israel to say it.

"Last year, Obama demanded a settlement freeze — after reneging on agreements about such a freeze that had governed the peace process for the prior six years and refusing to endorse the presidential letter given to Israel in exchange for the dismantlement of every settlement in Gaza. The proposed deal was a construction freeze in exchange for small steps toward normalization with Israel that the U.S. would obtain from Arab states. Obama failed to get anything from the Arab states, but Israel announced a 10-month moratorium anyway. It had no impact at all.

"Friedman writes that he has 'no idea whether the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, has the will and the guts to make peace with Israel' but thinks Abbas should be tested with another moratorium. No idea?

"He knows that Abbas's term of office expired nearly two years ago and that Abbas is 'President Abbas' only in the sense that George Mitchell is 'Senator Mitchell.' He knows Abbas declined an offer of a state on 100 percent of the West Bank (after land swaps) with a shared Jerusalem. He knows Abbas has stated he will 'never' recognize Israel as a Jewish state nor negotiate any land swap. He knows Abbas cannot make peace even with Hamas, which controls half the putative Palestinian state. He knows Abbas has repeatedly canceled elections and that the idea of the Palestinian Authority as a stable democratic entity is a joke. He knows Abbas has declared he will never waive the "right of return," which makes a peace agreement impossible even if every other issue could be resolved. He knows Abbas has taken no steps to prepare his public for any of the compromises that would be necessary for a peace agreement. How many tests does Abbas have to fail before Thomas Friedman has an idea?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/blogs/ index.php/richman/375516

(Here I offer thanks to readers Bud and Phyl, who forwarded a post by a "Bookworm" blog, "Why Tom Friedman is an Idiot," that referred to the two commentators above.)


This still leaves me with one other Friedman comment that I would like to address:

"At a time when the president has made it one of his top priorities to build a global coalition to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon, he took the very logical view that if he could advance the peace process in the Middle East it would give him much greater leverage to get the Europeans and U.N. behind tougher sanctions on Iran."

Give me a break! Too many people have gone around the block with this argument, for which there is not a scintilla of evidence.

The president's exceedingly foolish policy of attempting engagement with Iran caused the loss of a great deal of significant time. And, in point of fact, many of those nations that might have been in a "global coalition" grew weary of his approach, which smacked of appeasement.

Several times here I have reported on the fact that "moderate" Arab states that are fearful of Iran are angry at Obama for shifting the balance of power in Iran's favor by refusing to wield the power necessary for deterrence. Saudi Arabia, which is terrified, is now beginning "dialogue" with Iran. And last week it was reported that Egypt, which equally fears and detests Iran, has resumed commercial traffic with this Shiite nation — traffic that had been halted since the 1970 Iranian revolution.

Syria is not in the "moderate" Arab camp, certainly, but must be mentioned here as well. That state is more solidly in Iran's camp today because Assad took a look around him and decided he'd place his bet on Ahmadinejad and not Obama.

This is deeply, deeply unsettling. Because it sure looks as if the bad guys are winning, thanks to a weak US that has not provided much-desired leadership. Without question, this demonstrated weakness by the US has done irrevocable harm to Israeli security.

And none of this has anything remotely to do with whether we are on the verge of establishing a Palestinian state, or, even more ridiculously, whether we have frozen construction in Judea and Samaria.

If you want to know how much the Arab states care about "the Palestinians," take a look at the miniscule amounts they donate to UNRWA, which is supported by American and EU funds in the main. And consider how unwilling they have been to offer full rights to Palestinian Arabs living within their borders.

Anyone who seriously believes that Arab leaders exceedingly eager to see a dangerous Iran contained would refrain from cooperating in restricting Iran's ability to go nuclear because Abbas didn't have his state is delusional.


So where are we now, with regard to the "progress" on establishing that Palestinian state?

The PA says it will renege on Oslo commitments if talks fail. The latest in a series of jokes, as the PLO never properly ratified those Accords in the first place back in 1993, and has consistently reneged on its stipulations, such as the requirement to halt all incitement. And — as I was discussing with Ted Belman of Israpundit today with regard to what he had written — the Accords called for a final resolution of issues by 1999, which leaves open the question of what their legality is now anyway. (Not that the world pays attention to legalities.)

Of course, this threat followed a warning by Israel that if the PA takes unilateral action, so will we. Who knows what comes next.


Israel has for some months now opened up the crossing into Gaza for not only humanitarian materials but commercial goods as well. The one thing Israel maintains control over is permission to bring building materials into Gaza — out of concern that such materials might fall into the hands of Hamas for use in constructing weapons or bunkers for storing those weapons. While much construction material has gone into Gaza, each building project is considered independently.

Now Israel's Defense Ministry has vetoed an UNRWA building project because — are you ready? — UNRWA wanted to build a number of new schools in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood in southern Gaza City on land that was donated by Hamas, and was next to a Hamas military installation.

Defense Ministry officials, explaining that they were shocked at what they discovered, asked UNRWA personnel if they were aware that a Hamas installation was near by. The answer was that, yes, they were aware of this, and, in fact, Hamas had donated the land.

It is hardly necessary to belabor the obvious here, in terms of what leverage Hamas would have over UNRWA in this situation and what direct influence on the school kids (something I've documented at length in the past).

UNRWA's defense: Gee, many nations have contacts with Hamas.


Guess we should have seen this coming. Remember Lauren Booth? That's Tony Blair's sister-in-law, the purported journalist who went into Gaza and lamented about how they were starving there — and then was inadvertently photographed in a Gaza store with shelves generously stocked with food stuff.

Lauren has gone native: She's converted to Islam after a spiritual experience at the shrine of Fatima al-Masumeh in Qom, Iran, where she felt "this shot of spiritual morphine."

I saw a video this evening in which she declared her devotion to "Palestine," and her determination to not permit people to accuse Islam of promoting violence because she knows first hand what a loving and peaceful religion it is. "Alahu Akbar," she said.

Oi vey. But she should only be our worst problem.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Dann, October 23, 2010.

A school principal was fired in the early years after Rabin's tragic murder for publicly disengaging from the PM's legacy though mourning his death. Here's a hard look at the subject.

Speaking at memorial services for Yitzhak Rabin, speakers ask us "not to forget his legacy." But, what exactly is that legacy?

Gideon Levy asks this question ("Remember Rabin for what he was: a real person," Oct 21) but notes that he lacked a social vision, and was not interested in democracy. "Rabin was a real, genuine and authentic person," Levy faintly praises. "The genuine article." Wow!

Hirsh Goodman offers: "the idea he planted in the minds of both Israelis and Palestinians that compassion and the will to forgive were all they needed to form a bridge across decades of hatred and distrust."
(http://www.learntoquestion.com/seevak/groups/2003/sites/ rabin/shalom4.html)

Nice ideals, but practically, it led to a disaster.

Military Hero? In what battles did he display courage and leadership? He suffered a nervous breakdown on the eve of the 1967 War and posed for photo-ops with other generals. Even the Rabin Center focuses on his "times," rather than his military career.

Strategist? How?

Tolerance? He dismissed Israelis who opposed his policies as "propellers," spinning for nothing?

Diplomacy? In what way?

The Oslo Accords? The creation of a pre-Palestinian state, broken agreements and ongoing incitement and terrorism?

"Land for peace"? Israel gave up territory, but did not get peace — or thanks, or even recognition. Was his legacy a naïve belief that terrorists can become friends, and trusted, and that Israel should do whatever America tells her to do?

Lack of honest answers is the reason why Rabin memorial ceremonies were poorly attended. Myths, like perfumes, don't last when confronted by reality.

If Rabin's legacy was to compromise, most Israelis are ready and willing — if the result is an end to the conflict, real peace and security. If his legacy was commitment and self-sacrifice, we are there.

But "Rabin's legacy" has become an opportunity to demonize religious Jews, particularly those who live in Yehuda and Shomron, to bash "the settlers," sinat hinam, to challenge Zionism and splinter our delicate ethos.

As long as the Left uses Rabin's murder in their war against the Right, they prevent closure and healing. The thousands of memorial candles that were lit in memory of Rabin, also represented those who were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.

Shalom haver makes no sense unless there is Shalom haverim.

Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il This article appeared in Arutz-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, October 23, 2010.

People have already forgotten the difficulty of the new wave of immigration from the former Soviet Union to Israel. Absorption? Assimilation? Having to build new neighborhoods and new cities to accommodate all those new immigrants?

It was an intelligent migration, in two respects: holders of advanced degrees in fields Israel could never use, educated and experienced experts in their respective fields (from medicine to music, across the sciences and everything in between) who suddenly had to clean streets to earn a living; and many, it is said, chose to immigrate to Israel even though they were not "really" Jews, since Israel allowed them an escape route into the Free World (Israel and beyond — America).

Today there is a "Russian" Foreign Minister, Lieberman, whose constituency is predominantly the Russian-speaking community in Israel and who initially was labeled almost an outcast. Now he has earned the respect and the ear of Israel's most outspoken and bitter enemies.

Just this week Israel boasted that Russia has become the second largest source country for incoming tourism. Let us read the headline:



During a recent trip to Israel I discovered a new type of tourism, predominantly from the former Soviet Union, but even from the USA. People combine a trip to Israel, seeing the holy sites, enjoying the Mediterranean sun or the nightlife of Tel Aviv, a city without stopping, with medical needs.

An annual exam as part of a trip to Israel is a very popular trend, making Israel a unique tourist destination. From dental work, implants and crowns, to colonoscopy and all the other checkups and examinations, from youths to adults to the elderly, it is apparently much cheaper in Israel and done at the highest level of sophistication and professionalism.

The organized transport that takes one to the Dead Sea, Jerusalem or Nazareth also has scheduled stops at the clinics. Things one would normally dread, or that young people will put aside for later years, take place there and now.

Israel's advancements in the field of medical services are recognized around the world. From being the very first to erect a fully operational field hospital in Haiti, thousands of miles away from this tiny spec of light along the shores of the Mediterranean; being the hospital of choice for Hamas and other terrorists, not to mention the Jordanian monarchy and some of the Saudi royalty; now everyday people like you and me travel to Israel and combine an annual exam, often a very invasive one, with a trip to the Holy Land.

Let us keep this in mind as we explore the issue further.

As Israeli doctors are being boycotted and prevented from participating in conferences, they continue to do their job, irrespective of who the patients are. They can be terrorists that just detonated explosives strapped around their bodies, or those who used their bodies as a live bomb hosting military grade viruses or bacteria. They can be Gazans who came for medical treatment and returned to inflict death and mayhem. They can be Arabs or Jews, and still the same treatment is extended.

These are the same Israeli doctors who do the best job in Israel and abroad, and have to fight the lies by bodies that call themselves "Doctors without Borders" and the like.

These are the same doctors who are later accused wrongly by Syrian national TV and other outlets around the world of harvesting the organs of young Palestinian males.

Israeli doctors are blind to anything but the patient before them, the patient's condition and what needs to be done to attain full recovery. Jewish people have always taken their dedication to medicine very seriously.

Thus, I guess we cannot blame these doctors for doing their job and being unable (or not wanting) to diagnose the State of Israel's dire condition. They diagnose and treat patients; they take Israel for granted. Perhaps, if only they thought of Israel as a patient...

I, lacking almost any medical experience, look at Israel's medical tourism with awe, and I cry as I see Israel's enemies dismantle Israel's successes and paint her evil, turning her into an abyss of inferno. Her enemies excel while Israel remains blind. They attack mercilessly and too few stand to defend Israel, preoccupied with their daily lives, with excesses, excuses and stories.

If only Israel realized; perhaps these vast talents would have been used to defend her.

Israel's Other Export Tourism

When Israel's Ministry of Tourism talks about greater number of overall tourists to Israel, and the fruits of the Ministry's hard work and dollars spent, I think of yet another tourism industry that has developed and perfected over time, a trip to a fantasy land to see up close and personal all of Israel's accused wrongdoings.

Journalists, liberal groups, individuals and high-ranking visitors to Israel are taken around by "handlers" to show them highlights of the propaganda machine against Israel. Almost every official visit to Israel would be incomplete without a visit to "Palestine" to experience first hand Israel's supposed brutality, life under "Occupation."

Thus, foreign journalists are invited to the eastern part of Jerusalem to see a well-staged ambush of a father and son driving. A car slows down deliberately and stops on the right, allowing the other driver to pass. The first car then blocks the passing car from the back, while an innocent, playful, half naked, rock-throwing, youth starts throwing stones at the car in which the father and son sit.

Others join, encircling the car from all three sides, thus preventing escape, as the lead car is now blocking the back. The stones thrown are not children's toys in a playground. They shutter glasses and wound, they murder.

The journalists are standing a very short distance from the scene, looking hypnotized at the ruthless Israeli and his son in the car. Why are they here, in the Capital of Palestine? Why are they driving freely on this road? Why do these so-called Israelis insist to be here, they must go back to their countries — Germany, Poland, the USA.

None of the reporters moves an inch, mesmerized by the unfolding scene: Something sinister is about to happen any moment. That is what they were promised, and this is exactly the feeling in the air. It is an animalistic smell of blood, a craving for a prey to die. It is a Kodak Moment, a Pulitzer Prize waiting to be awarded.

The father's heart is racing in the meantime. He has not seen the reporters on the side, he does not know the scene is staged. He wears a yarmulke, identifying him as the enemy. In his mind pictures are racing: Two innocent reservists who took a wrong turn and were bitten to death, their bodies thrown from the second floor of a Palestinian police station, while they were still alive, to the mob downstairs to finish the job.

He must protect his son. His son is his future, Israel's future.

He knows stones are harmful, dangerous and deadly.

He is trapped, surrounded, and the innocent, playful youths have surrounded them.

He speeds, and two of the young "boys" playing in the street with life and death are hurt.

A field day for the foreign press: Israeli settlers deliberately murder Palestinian youths in the streets of East Jerusalem.

This is not the first time such a scene-made-for-the-world is aired. A decade earlier a father, this time Gazan, is shown protecting his son behind a very large rock. Israeli soldiers (whom we do not see) supposedly fire at the father and son for forty-five minutes.

The soldiers are so inept at what they do that after forty-five minutes the father is still alive, only the boy is dead, but there is not a single drop of blood.

Later investigation would show that Israeli soldiers could not have shot from their post in this direction — the laws of physics made it impossible.

After the staged forty-five minute shooting spree, the dead boy adjusts his position a bit; apparently lying for too long was somewhat inconvenient for him.

These little shows are well directed and executed as part of the Palestinian propaganda machine now so effective throughout the world.

In Jenin, where a "massacre" was conducted by Israeli soldiers, children's brand new toys were planted amidst the ruins and then pictures taken to be disseminated quickly around the world: The Palestinians went out to plant memorable, photographable items, like a brand new teddy bear or a doll, colorful and new. Only these survived — so fit for broadcasting.

It was a scene taken from Spielberg's Holocaust movie, substituting the toys for the red dress and the lighted Shabbat candles. Why not use an idea that worked so well and captivated the minds of millions, creating a fake image of a "Jewish holocaust" to claim a land, to fake the reality of what is actually the real truth about events in Palestine?

Israel's enemies will stop at nothing. They are perfecting the methods and the results are their success. Like a film crew in Los Angeles, with a trailer solely dedicated for catering, other trailers with wardrobe, lighting and other equipment, and even police escort, so has the level of sophistication of the Palestinian propaganda machine achieved new heights.

The script: Show Israeli religious settlers burning mosques, writing graffiti and cutting down olive trees. Use the mosque and the olive tree as symbols of the fight for freedom, even though the first is the highlight of subjugation to a religious ideology that restricts almost every freedom and the latter has taken its image from the Bible (the waters have subsided, God's wrath has calmed down) and from the Jewish People for whom an olive branch is an extended hand for peace.

Lately mosques are burned down with signature signs left behind, lest the viewer be unable to relate immediately "BURN DOWN THE MOSQUE" with "RELIGIOUS ISRAELI SETTLERS." Immediately after the criminal act by the Jewish Occupiers, hoards of foreign tourists are brought to the area to highlight what it means to live under this so-called Israeli "Occupation."

The Jewish neighbors, who respect a house of prayer whether it is theirs or another's, come to share in the outrage. They bring Korans, the books of prayer for Muslims, to replace those that have burned. Their efforts are met with ridicule, for they are now willing participants in the greatest show in earth: "BRING DOWN THE JEWS!"

Olive trees are not spared. They are brutally attacked, trees that stood and lived for hundreds of years, well before the "Palestinian" identity or nationalistic aspirations ever were born in Arafat's mind, uprooted and burned.

The "Palestinians" care not that these trees are — according to them — sources of livelihood, symbols of peace. They are ruthless, brutal. The yield of a burned tree for the cause of the elimination of the Jewish state is by far superior to any stories they tell the world of meager existence and dependence on the world's billions to better their lives. The money will keep flowing, ever increasing with each staged occurrence for the gullible audiences around the world.

The greatest writers throughout the centuries could never have dreamed the evil ways of Israel's enemies. The worst stories, the most hideous realities humanity has experienced in the past during her darkest hours, pale in comparison to the sick minds of the people behind the propaganda machine against the Jewish State.

Israelis in the meantime are busy living their lives, doing good unto others and ignoring the attacks against them. They have become so used to this evil machine, they do not even respond any more.

The devil in the meantime with his helpers are dancing around in excitement, in a trance reaching a crescendo, anticipating that moment when the body of Israel falls into a grave the Israelis themselves have helped dig.

The journalists stand on the front line of the spectators, and behind them droves of tourists, all there to participate in this sacred ritual, chanting a melody so ancient, so sinister, so sweet — "DOWN WITH THE JEWS!"

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

To Go To Top

Posted by Donald Hank, October 23, 2010.

This comes from Laigles Forum
http://laiglesforum.com/european-court-imposes- immorality-on-russia/1973.htm


The European court, which has played the part of God to packed houses in continental political theaters for decades, is now trying to assert the same role in Russia, demanding that this sovereign nation yield its sense of moral rectitude to the decadent West's political correctness — and specifically, demanding that Russia allow "gay" parades and even pay a fine for past infractions of "human rights" in refusing to allow such parades.

Meanwhile Russia has always maintained that homosexuality spreads disease, is unnatural and offends the morals of Russians.

While the sheeplike European nations have invariably fallen into line behind the unelected officials of the EU, I somehow can't see Russia bowing to this pressure from the Western know-it-alls. If they do, these snotty elites will have achieved what Napoleon, and later Hitler, were unable to do when they sent their armies into Russia: make her bow to the wishes of an arbitrary and godless foreign Empire.

Many Christians and the politically incorrect are — secretly or openly — hoping Russia stands her ground and refuses to cede her sovereignty to the arrogant European Court. Most probably think the Russians will flout the decision just to flex their muscles and show us who is boss.

That would certainly be one good reason for them to hold their ground. After all, like China, the other non-western super power, Russia has never shown the least bit of sympathy for the nebulous notion of "interdependence" that is the philosophical foundation for global elitism. However, Russian history provides clues to an even more deeply rooted motive.

From the 1860s on, there was a smoldering social revolt gaining ground in Russia as the ideas of the "enlightenment" began trickling in, primarily from France, carried back by young aristocrats who had been to Paris and other European capitals and had been infected with the libertinism reigning among young university students there. The ostensible premises for change were political but were served up on a platter garnished liberally with heady promises of sexual freedom irresistible to young Russians of all social strata.

Thus from about the 1860s, Russia was shepherded into a European style socio-political revolutionary mindset that paved the way for the actual revolution in 1917.

But as with all revolutions, unexpected consequences set in. In retrospect, the revolutionaries should have seen it coming. Older Russians, even those sympathetic to the revolution, always had a disdain for the French and their moral depravity, as evidenced in the works of authors like Tolstoy and Turgenev.

Very shortly after the revolution, this titillating sexual apéritif that had provided a kind of euphorigenic drug, numbing the masses to the otherwise less-palatable realities (the blood baths and internecine warfare that led to the murder of thousands, including the czar and his family), was quickly swept away, supplanted by a rigid totalitarianism intolerant of the young idealists and their romantic notions of free love and Parisian-like communes. Anyone nourishing hopes of restoring the cherished libertinism was crushed. Some went to prison, others were murdered, others simply disappeared.

The fiery young poet Mayakovsky committed suicide. Others did the same as it dawned on them that the paradise they had longed for was turning into a sexually repressed hell, at least by their jaded standards.

Now, in terms of mores and sexual libertinism, Europe is approximately where Russia was then. So which way will Russia go this time, you ask?

It is clear that ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the government was in no way sympathetic to the "gay" culture that had tried to carve inroads into its cities. The Muscovite mayor consistently refused permits for gay parades and when the "grassroots homosexuals" defied the bans, he bashed heads.

If we consider that Russian strong man Putin comes from the old-regime's KGB, it will be no surprise if Russia decides either to ignore this decision by the European Court or even to drop out of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If that should happen, then we can put this Russian intransigence together with China's refusal to upgrade its Renminbi and glimpse a picture of a West crumbling under the weight of its greed, arrogance, lust for power and loss of common sense and Christian values that once gave it moral authority over the rest of the world.

The West that once gained the upper hand over the Evil Empire, is quickly going bankrupt both economically and morally. As things turn out this time, it is not too big to fail either way no matter how many nations get together and bleat in unison.

Because bears aren't afraid of sheep.

Contact Donald Hank by email at zoilandon@msn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 23, 2010.

In recent weeks it has become abundantly clear that there is one pathological way in which Israel differs from all other countries. Israel is the only place on earth where large portions of the country's "intelligentsia" think it obscene and "fascist" to expect people seeking citizenship in their country to express loyalty to it.

The issue came up because of a bill before the Israeli cabinet and Knesset amending the citizenship law. Officially proposed by Israel's minister of justice, it would require non-Israeli Arabs seeking Israeli citizenship to swear their allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state. (Native-born Israeli Arabs would not be required to do so and could therefore continue expressing their contempt toward Israel both as a Jewish and a democratic state.)

This upsets the Israeli Left, in part because it wishes to maximize the number of non-Israeli Arabs granted citizenship and residency in Israel. It is part of the Left's demographic assault against Israel's Jewish character. Leftists also want automatic citizenship granted to any Arab marrying anyone with Israeli citizenship. In some cases, these are third or fourth wives of Israeli Muslims.

Other countries, including the United States, do not grant automatic citizenship to people married to their citizens. In Egypt, a citizen marrying someone with Israeli citizenship is immediately stripped of Egyptian citizenship.

In recent weeks, as the vote on the loyalty oath bill approached, hundreds of Israeli leftists took to the streets to denounce it. Many proclaimed it a form of fascism. Of course, if every democratic country requiring a pledge of allegiance were fascist, there would be no democracy on the planet. Nevertheless, Gavriel Solomon, a retired leftist professor, declared the law would make Israel "Arabrein" the way Hitler sought to make Germany Judenrein; Hebrew University professor Yaron Ezrachi saw the law as proof Israel was becoming a fascist country; Tel Aviv University professor Chaim Gans claimed the law was intended to abuse and humiliate Arabs; and Barry Leff, co-chairman of the leftist group Rabbis for Human Rights, wrote that the oath is "contrary to Jewish values."

If Israel were a normal country, no one would think there was anything strange or unusual about its having an oath of allegiance for those seeking citizenship. Among the many countries requiring such an oath are (in alphabetical order): Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Romania, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Some Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Sudan, have their own versions of oaths of allegiance, called bay-ah (or baiyat) to the leader. Curiously, Israeli Arabs and Jewish leftists aren't heard complaining about any of those.

Oaths of allegiance are not only widely demanded of would-be immigrants seeking citizenship, they also are routinely required for members of the military and those seeking to hold public office in many countries, up to and including the presidency of the United States.

Some have argued that the proposed oath is objectionable because would-be immigrants would have to pledge allegiance to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state." Why can France require allegiance to France as a French state, or Greece require allegiance to Greece as a Greek (and as a Christian Orthodox) state, but Israel cannot require similar allegiance?

There are many countries that have proclaimed Christianity, in one form or another, as the state religion. All Muslim states have an official religion. They differ from Christian states mainly in that they tend to prohibit all worship that is not part of their official religion. There are also Buddhist states.

Israel, by the way, is hardly the only country with a law granting citizenship to foreign members of the dominant ethnic group of that country. Some thirty other countries, ranging from Armenia to China to Greece to Hungary to the Ukraine, have laws that grant preferences by ethnicity.

Some Israeli critics of the bill have suggested the language be made more neutral and merely require acknowledgement of Israel as a legitimate state. But that is pure disingenuousness. The real reason critics object to the proposed oath of allegiance is that they regard the very idea of a Jewish state as offensive, even illegitimate. Their position cannot be disguised with clever word games and alteration of the language of the oath.

Let us put the matter bluntly. The driving force today among all too many radical Israeli leftists is disloyalty. Just as the raison d'être of the radical American Left is anti-Americanism, that of the radical Israeli Left is anti-Zionism. Not only are such radicals not disturbed by the widespread disloyalty of Israeli Arabs, one suspects this is the only basis for their knee-jerk endorsement of the demands made by those Arabs.

Israeli leftists increasingly identify with the enemies of their own country on virtually every issue. These folks would not have any difficulty at all in swearing a pledge of loyalty to the Palestinian Authority.

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 stevenplaut@gmail.com His website address is

This appeared October 20, 2010 in the Jewish Press

To Go To Top

Posted by UN Watch, October 23, 2010.

This report is in Vol 259, October 22, 2010.

UN Watch yesterday launched a worldwide internet campaign to remove Professor Christian Tomsuchat from his post as head of the U.N.'s Goldstone II committee, for lacking impartiality.

We thank the 1400 supporters who already took action. Below is a summary of UN Watch's new 30-page report on Professor Tomuschat.
(http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c= bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330819&ct=8827469).

A Report by UN Watch
Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
Geneva, 21 October 2010

Click here for the full report with citations.


The U.N. Human Rights Council's newly-renewed committee to enforce the Goldstone Report, headed by German law professor Christian Tomuschat, has declared Israel to be in breach of a duty to investigate "those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw 'Operation Cast Lead'," and the "serious allegations" that "officials at the highest levels were complicit in violations." Specifically, Tomuschat cited the name of Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who served as foreign minister during the 2009 war with Hamas, as well as former Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai, and IDF Major-General Dan Harel.

As soon as the Tomuschat Committee released its first report in September 2010, Palestinian organizations, echoed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, called for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and prosecutors worldwide, to intervene. This latest U.N.-inspired "lawfare" campaign recalls last year's successful effort by pro-Palestinian activists in Britain to obtain a court-ordered arrest warrant, on charges of war crimes, against Ms. Livni, who has since avoided traveling to Britain.

While the Tomuschat Report emphasized the principles of independence and impartiality as applicable to investigations, there are serious questions as to whether Professor Tomuschat's membership on the panel conforms with those same principles, as required by the standards applicable to U.N. experts. To determine these fundamental procedural aspects of the Tomuschat Committee, the present report examined Professor Tomuschat's legal advocacy work, academic publications, and other public statements concerning the Middle East conflict.

Regarding a U.N. expert's obligation to be independent, the report found credible evidence that Professor Tomuschat performed legal advocacy work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat. It was reported that he and four other international jurists advised Mr. Arafat in 1996 on how the PLO should make its case before the U.N. and the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Brief for Arafat

Professor Tomuschat's claim that he "could not recall" whether his legal brief was done for Yasser Arafat was found to be not credible. Moreover, despite later opportunities to recollect the facts, and to contest the evidence during a U.N. Human Rights Council debate, and again at a U.N. press conference, Professor Tomuschat declined to do so. Accordingly, the evidence gives rise to serious questions concerning the independence of Professor Tomuschat and his committee, and, consequently, the credibility of his report.

Regarding a U.N. expert's obligation to be impartial, the report found — from the past decade alone — more than 25 examples of statements by Professor Tomuschat that exhibited an unbalanced approach toward Israel, and, in notable instances, undisguised hostility.

The mandate of the Tomuschat Committee, as recently renewed, is to monitor and assess any domestic, legal or other proceedings undertaken by both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side concerning the allegations in the Goldstone Report, including the independence, effectiveness, and genuineness of these investigations and their conformity with international standards.

Decided in 2002 that Israel's Legal System Was Hopeless

Astonishingly, eight years before Tomuschat undertook to objectively and impartially perform this examination, he had already made up his mind about Israel's system for investigations. In discussing Israel and its alleged ordering of the "systematic commission of war crimes," he concluded that "[i]n such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system of the State concerned [i.e., Israel] will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents."

Impartiality requires that an investigator be free of any commitment to a particular outcome. Given that Tomuschat had stated, in stark and unequivocal terms, his commitment to a particular outcome — that Israel's judicial system offers "little hope" of effective investigation or punishment of alleged violations — his impartiality on the principal question addressed by his committee are severely compromised.

Compared Israeli Actions to "World War II Barbarism"

One of the most peculiar and troubling findings of the report is that, on several occasions, Professor Tomuschat associated Israeli military actions not to contemporary and similar actions by American, British or NATO troops, which have resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather to the barbarism of World War II:

  • In a 2007 essay on the previous year's Lebanon war, Tomuschat compared Israel's actions to the "barbarism which was the particular hallmark of World War II."

  • In a further comment on Israel, he wrote that its alleged practice of classifying targets as military even if they "only remotely serve to benefit one war party" could be regarded "as a relapse to the Inferno of World War II, when in many cases both sides acted according to the principle that the means justify the end."

  • In 2006, Tomuschat wrote that "the observer gets the impression that the Israeli Armed Forces inconsiderately geared itself toward the overall concept of the Totalen Krieges." (This concept was made most famous by Goebbels' 1943 Total War speech.) In 2007, Tomuschat again accused Israel of actions that were "close to total war, which does not take into consideration any protection needs of the civilian population." And in an essay from earlier this year, Tomuschat wrote that Israel's actions are "a recipe for total war."
Israel is "State Terrorist"

An additional theme that emerges from Tomuschat's statements is Israel as a state terrorist — morally indistinguishable from, and equally blameworthy as, those who deliberately target Israeli civilians with suicide bombs. For example, in a 2002 essay, Tomuschat singled out Israel as a prime example of "state terrorism," of the "systematic" commission of "war crimes," and of "crimes against humanity." Such states, in his view, "deserve the same blame as those targeted by them."

In a 2007 interview, Tomuschat equated Israel's targeting of Hamas terrorist leader Ahmed Yassin with terrorism itself, saying that "Targeted killings are as reckless as terrorist attacks." Asked if this meant "state terrorism," Tomuschat said that "It very much leads in this direction."

Tomuschat adopts an extreme position toward counter-terrorism in general. He has argued that the targeted killing of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden would be "absolutely illegal under international law." Moreover, he argues that a country targeted by terrorism needs to "discover [its] own shortcomings," "analyze its own conduct," and "ask itself searchingly whether it has made mistakes which have given and give rise to frustration, hatred and despair." The only way to cure terrorism, argues Tomuschat, is for countries to show that they are "seriously committed to world-wide welfare goals without any distinction as to race, colour or religion."

It is telling that when a German academic journal featured a debate on the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Christian Tomuschat was the one chosen to present the side opposed to Israel.

Other examples of Tomuschat's statements on Israel include:

  • Israel is bombing "entire families";
  • Arab nations rightly feel that Israel receives "far better treatment";
  • Israel targets U.N. peacekeepers;
  • Israel seeks "to reduce humanitarian law to irrelevance";
  • Israel's policy is to "bomb a country out into a lunar landscape";
  • Israel's peace concessions are a cynical plan for "dominance."
Tomuschat's Response

At the 27 September 2010 debate of the U.N. Human Rights Council, UN Watch raised several of these points in an interactive dialogue with Professor Tomuschat, and distributed an advance copy of this report to the press. The Reuters news agency concluded that Tomuschat's reply to UN Watch was non-responsive to the issues raised, and, at a press conference, asked him once again to address the questions.

In response, Tomuschat attempted to defend his statements as nothing more than legitimate academic writings that criticized targeted killings, and as being unrelated to the Goldstone Report. At the same time, Tomuschat revealed that he had shared his doubts with U.N. authorities in Geneva about whether to accept the position; that he offered to step down from the committee, presumably at some later point after having assumed the chairmanship, if they felt he was biased; but that the U.N. authorities in Geneva, which would be the office of High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, saw no reason for it. Tomuschat insisted that his writings were "not in any way the offspring of some kind of prejudice." Moreover, his opposition to targeted killings was only his "personal view."

The report finds that Tomuschat's attempted rebuttal misrepresented the prejudicial nature, degree and extent of his statements and actions, and failed to establish their conformity with his obligation to be independent and impartial.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, UN Watch finds that Professor Tomuschat's extensive record of prejudicial actions and statements gives rise to actual bias, or the perception of bias. Accordingly, the report recommends that he immediately recuse himself from the committee, which was just given a renewed mandate from the Human Rights Council and asked to report back at its March 2011 session.

In the event that Professor Tomuschat refuses to recuse himself, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay should disqualify him from the panel. In addition, she should clarify her process for selecting Professor Tomuschat, and explain why her office rejected his prior offer to step down. Finally, in light of calls for intervention by the ICC prosecutor, UN Watch recommends that the credibility of the Tomuschat Report be weighed in light of his lack of impartiality and independence. This should also be recognized by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and by the Chatham House group of international legal experts that addressed similar procedural deficiencies in the Goldstone Report.


UN Watch Challenges Tomuschat in U.N. Human Rights

To contact UN Watch, tel: (41-22) 734-1472; fax: (41-22) 734-1613; www.unwatch.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 22, 2010.

This is the title of a piece I wrote that was put up on American Thinker today. Below I provide the full text and the URL. Please share this broadly — with attribution to me and to American Thinker.

I will pick up on other topics after Shabbat.


Arlene Kushner
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/ factfree_middle_east_negotiati.html

The dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with regard to the freezing of Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) is predicated on the assumption that Israel's border is the '67 line — called the Green Line — that pertained before the Six Day War. The Palestinian claim, broadly accepted by the international community, is that everything on the other side is rightfully theirs.

There is, however, an essential problem with this: The Green Line was never Israel's border, but rather a temporary armistice line. When hostilities initiated by the Arab League after Israel's founding ended, Israel and Jordan signed an armistice agreement. It included acknowledgement that the armistice line would not prejudice future negotiations to determine Israel's permanent border.

After the 1967 war, when Israel had secured control of Judea and Samaria, the Security Council passed Resolution 242. It did not require that Israel move back to the Green Line. Recognizing Israel's need for secure borders, it maintained that those borders must be determined via negotiations.

This instance of factual misrepresentation is merely one of a host of misrepresentations and distortions of truth so pervasive as to render honest resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict impossible. Under an onslaught of Arab PR, critical facts are now ignored or forgotten by most of the world. Attempts to resolve the conflict are built on premises constructed of air, or, perhaps more accurately, founded on quicksand.

Rather than pushing for an impossible one-year deadline for negotiations, decision-makers need to call a halt, and then take a hard look at the realities:

t The Oslo Accords were signed on the White House lawn with much fanfare in 1993. Yasser Arafat, signing for the PLO, the negotiating body for the Palestinian, was expected to subsequently secure ratification from that body. It never happened. He convened the PLO Executive Committee, which approved the agreement without a quorum because factions opposed did not attend. Arafat never brought it to the full PLO National Council. To this day, the PLO is not officially bound by the Oslo Accords.

t The Accords also required of the PLO a modification of its covenant, with clauses referring to Israel's destruction or a denial of Israel's right to exist to be removed. While the impression was lent that these modifications did take place, in reality, it never happened: to this day the PLO covenant retains those anti-Israel clauses.

Arafat ostensibly committed himself to the amendment process and the Palestinian National Council then empowered a committee to make changes. The committee, however, never met, and no changes were actually made, although much of the world believes they were.

The terms of office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the members of the PA legislature have expired, and yet there have not been new elections because Hamas — which controls Gaza as the result of an illegal coup — will not permit PA elections there.

In addition to casting doubt on the legitimacy of the current PA, this raises a very fundamental question: How can a viable democratic state for the Palestinian people be established within a year?

What is called "East" Jerusalem — which actually refers to all of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line — is often alluded to as "Arab" because it contains some predominantly Arab neighborhoods. This part of the city, however, is not traditionally Arab, but is, rather, the very seat of Jewish heritage in Jerusalem. It became "Arab" only because the Jordanians, who controlled the city from 1948-67, rendered it Judenrein.

In spite of considerable hype to the contrary, it is impossible to draw a line dividing Jerusalem into Jewish and Arab sections, thereby permitting "Arab" Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state.

As journalist Khaled Abut Toameh explained recently, Jerusalem today is a web of intermeshing Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, with Jews and Arabs traveling freely about the city as necessary. Any attempt at division would immobilize the city, as it would generate a nightmare situation of checkpoints and crossings. Ultimately freedom of movement would be denied both Jews and Arabs.

An honest negotiating process will be required to corporate these facts, and others of a similar nature.

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 22, 2010.

Israel 's government recently approved an amendment to its citizenship law by which those seeking to become naturalized citizens will take an oath of allegiance to Israel "as a Jewish and democratic state."

Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas' and Arab regimes profess to be outraged. Abbas said explicitly that he would never accept Israel as a Jewish state. This rejection is not new. To an Arab audience last year, Abbas said, "I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will." Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, for example, describes the new oath as a "fascist" act that "proves" that Israel is a "racist country."

Why this rejection? The PLO official news agency, WAFA, explains, "A Jewish state endangers not only Palestinians, but also the Arab World, and the global security. It is a call for legitimizing a racist entity, built on pure ethnic and theocratic criteria."

This is nonsense. One fifth of Israeli citizens are non-Jews, almost all Arab and Muslim, who vote, attend the same universities, use the same buses and eat in the same restaurants services as other Israelis, though few perform military service, from which they are exempted. Israel has had Arab ministers, Knesset members, supreme court justices and diplomatic representatives something yet to be seen in respect of Jews (or any non-Arabs) living in Arab majority states. Iraq, with a Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, is the sole exception, courtesy of the American removal of Saddam's regime.

Moreover, what substance is there to the claim that it is racist to demand that the general identity of the state conform to that of the history and aspirations of those who founded it? Would that assertion leave Arab and Muslim states untarnished?

The answer is no: the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Great Jamahiriya and the Islamic Republic of Iran are the official names of just a few of Israel's neighbors, near and distant. Assad's own Syrian constitution's Article 1 declares that "the

Even more to the point is the way Palestinians define themselves. Fatah and Hamas in combination speak for the majority of Palestinians. The Fatah-controlled PA has promulgated a Palestinian Basic Law, Article 4 of which proclaims, "Islam is the official religion in Palestine" and "the principles of Islamic Sharia shall be the main source of legislation." Article 116 states, "laws shall be promulgated in the name of the Palestinian Arab people."

Note: not Palestinians, irrespective of ethnic or religious identity, but Palestinian Arabs. No comparable clause is to be found in Israel's Basic Laws.

Abbas has stated clearly that a Palestinian state is to be Jew-free: "I will not accept one Israeli to remain on Palestinian territory." PA law imposes a death penalty for the sale of land to a Jew. Rejecting Jewish sovereignty and murdering those who sold land to Jews was precisely the situation when Palestinians rejected a Jewish state as part of the 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed the creation of an Arab state and a Jewish state in the British Mandate of Palestine.

Hamas, in its Charter (which not so incidentally calls in Article 7 for the global murder of Jews) states, "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Koran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."

Therefore, not only do Israel's Arab foes define their own existence in explicit national and religious terms, but they base their political orientation on these criteria to an exclusive, reactionary degree. In contrast, democratic norms enunciated in basic laws and the rule of law enforced by secular courts define the Israeli experience.

In some Arab regimes, Jews are permitted as a docile minority. In others, like Hamas-run Gaza, even that state of affairs would be rejected as intolerably liberal were there any Jews still there. In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims cannot enter Mecca, and no churches or synagogues may be built.

Even in relatively moderate Jordan, Jews are debarred from citizenship by law. One can only imagine what these regimes would say if Israel promulgated laws in respect of Arabs that they have enacted in respect of Jews.

These are not mere technical or legalistic details. They point to the heart of the conflict. Arab regimes do not reject Israel because they disapprove of its policies. They disapprove of Israel's existence because it is not Arab. Expect therefore no conclusion to the peace process de jour until this changes.

Morton A. Klein is National President. Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and Dr. Daniel Mandel is Director, Center for Middle East Policy, ZOA, and fellow in history at Melbourne University. This article is archived at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/PALESTINIANS- SEEK-ARAB-MU-by-Morton-Klein-101019-842.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 22, 2010.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. Go to http://denjanewhome.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 21, 2010.

I picked up an article yesterday (written by Sheera Frankel in the Miami Herald) that said:

"The Obama administration has secured pledges from senior Mideast leaders to continue peace negotiations until after next month's U.S. midterm elections, largely to avoid handing the Obama administration an embarrassing diplomatic setback before the Nov. 2 elections."

My immediate response was a loud "What?" But then I realized that what she seemed to be talking about were the negotiations to discuss negotiations, not real negotiations on peace:

"Israeli and Palestinian officials told McClatchy Newspapers Tuesday that efforts to reach a compromise would continue until at least Nov. 3, a move they said 'served the current American government.'

"'The time frame we are following has been designed around the elections in America,' said a senior member of the Palestinian negotiating team. 'We have been asked not to issue announcements that could embarrass negotiation officials.'"

This certainly seems a plausible scenario — that the two sides have agreed, at Obama's behest, not to stop talking about resolving the crisis until after the election, at which point it will all fall apart. Meanwhile Obama and Clinton are able to babble on about the resolution to the impasse coming imminently, and to promote US skill in forging negotiations.

Is the US electorate that naive? I take that back. The US electorate voted for Obama. But maybe they've wised up a bit since then.

From my perspective, it seems that a judicious anonymous leak or two to reveal the improbability of that negotiation impasse being resolved might do wonders for helping the US electorate to see matters clearly. Just a matter of telling the truth. But Netanyahu won't do this, and you and I cannot, of course, because we're not privy to the inside.

But what we can do is share this article broadly. Send out an e-mail to everyone who would pay attention, put this on blogs and post on discussion group lists. Tell people not to be fooled. Tell them Obama is choreographing matters to help him look good pre-election. Include the three paragraphs in quotes above (paragraphs two, three and four), and the article's URL:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/19/1881466/ israelis-palestinians-leaders.html#ixzz12ylLpO00


Laura Rozen, writing at Politico, says the Obama administration is "really upset" with Netanyahu because he refused to reinstate the freeze for an additional two months in exchange for certain US assurances. (Please note, they're apparently not "really upset" with Mahmoud Abbas for refusing to come to the table. Or, if they are, they won't say so, while they volubly express their discontent with Israel.)

To this I say, "All Right!" So far, our prime minister still hasn't caved. (Although he has conducted himself in a manner that is considerably less than exemplary in another context, see below.)

The package offered to Israel was worked out by Dennis Ross of the National Security Council, speaking for the US, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak and negotiator Yitzhak Molcho, for Israel. One of the problems we see right away is that Barak does his own leftist foreign policy. This is a man not to be trusted. The fact that Molcho is involved is troublesome, however, because he is said to have the confidence of the prime minister.

There may have been other elements to the US offer that didn't make press, but from what I have seen, that "best good faith offer" was sorely lacking.


Echoing Frankel's article above, Rozen says that everything is on hold until after the election. Obama does not intend to cross swords with us now. What is important from the US perspective, she says, is that members of the administration have convinced themselves that they really tried and did the very best they could with us, and are now justified in getting tougher.

One thought, not yet crystallized, involves pushing forward an American plan for resolving the conflict that might be forced on Netanyahu.

According to former US negotiator Aaron Miller, there is a plan being considered that might either "shut the game down until the locals are ready to play seriously, or gin it up."

The mere suggestion that the US might consider putting "out...ideas...to close the process down until the two sides are ready to accept [an American proposal]" is good news. It is by far the smartest thing Obama could do: declare the differences between the sides intractable, promote the notion that efforts to bridge those differences have been pursued with vigor, sincerity and great wisdom, and then say that in the end he cannot want it more than the parties do.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1010/ Holding_pattern_Middle_east_peace_track_at_ impasse_until_after_midterms.html?showall


There is much talk about Obama trying to avoid a crisis or appearance of failure before the election. But I'm not reading much speculation as to how the results of that election might affect what Obama decides to do next.

I suggest that the election results may be exceedingly important, and that Obama's ability to come down hard on us might be inhibited by a Republican Congress (which, remember, holds the purse strings). On this we'll have to wait and see.


According to the Financial Times (London) the Palestinian Arabs are mulling an action to ask the UN Security Council to declare communities (known as "settlements") in Judea and Samaria, as well as Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line (incredibly, also called "settlement") to be declared illegal. They think this has a better chance of being approved than asking for full recognition as a state.


See what John Bolton, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has to say about Obama and a Palestinian State:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023044 10504575559973666125394.html


Ahmed Qurei (aka Abu Ala), former prime minister of the PA and official of the PLO, has now joined the chorus of voices threatening violence if peace talks fail. Speaking in Cairo, he said that the Palestinians don't rule out the possibility of "armed resistance."

So what else is new? Anything to avoid honest give and take at the negotiation table.


According to Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost, the PA is resuming efforts to end its conflict with Hamas. Right now a meeting to discuss unity has been put on hold until a venue agreeable to both parties is decided upon.

There is deep enmity between these two parties, such that a really solid unity coalition over a long period seems to me unlikely. But moving in this direction may serve them both for different reasons, and has several implications. There is the whole issue of Hamas in Gaza and prospects of negotiating with an authority that represents only a truncated portion of the Palestinian Arabs, or conversely expecting Israel to negotiate with a unity coalition that includes Hamas. No good solutions here. The only thing that is clear is that this is a ridiculous time to try to make "peace." This is one of those many things to be watched closely.


Abu Toameh, in the very same issue of the JPost, also tells us that the PA is denying it has set new conditions for returning to the table with Israel (regarding boycotts of Israeli products):

"This report is completely untrue," said Nabil Sha'ath. "We only have two conditions for resuming the peace talks: a total freeze of settlement construction and the lifting of the blockade on the Gaza Strip."

Wait! Since when is the lifting of the blockade a condition for Abbas to come to the table? This seems new to me. (Is the Obama administration noticing this??) It is best understood, I would say, by what I just reported, regarding PA overtures to Hamas. Seems the dynamics may be changing.


Israel is now commemorating the fifteen anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. This is always a highly politicized time, with revisionists notions of what Rabin would have accepted within Oslo being promoted.

Yesterday at a Knesset ceremony for Rabin, PM Netanyahu spoke, extensively citing Rabin's last address to the Knesset, in October 1995:

"We would like this [the final result for Palestinian Arabs under Oslo] to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority [i.e., an autonomy]. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the June 4, 1967 lines, The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of the term.

"Jerusalem would be united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty that will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement and 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."

Everyone should be clear on this, Rabin's red lines. Good that Netanyahu stated it all forthrightly.

However...Netanyahu went on to proclaim (surely for the ears of the Labor contingent of his coalition) that he was willing to do more than Rabin, of Labor, had been willing to do. He, unlike Rabin, who refused to freeze a single settlement, had instituted an "unprecedented" temporary freeze. And while Rabin spoke of less than a state, he was advocating "a demilitarized state," as long as it recognized the State of the Jewish people. Is he proud of this? Of having moved past Rabin? It is disgusting.


My dear friends. I know this is long. But there is simply so much to impart. Next I will look at issues regarding Iran that have enormous import. And I may take on Thomas Friedman of the NY Times.


"The Good News Corner"

Dr. Leon Mubenga, a surgeon from the Democratic Republic of Congo, is receiving training in burn treatment and plastic surgery at Rambam Medical Center in Haifa. At present such treatment is not available at all in his country:

"Treatment options are few due to limited knowledge and suitable equipment. In contrast to Western countries, many patients with relatively small percentages of burns on their bodies die."


An organization called Chai Lifeline, underwritten by the Hartman Family Foundation in Chicago, has brought 14 N. American teenagers who have survived cancer, and one parent each, to Israel for a period of ten to celebrate.

They have rejoiced in thanksgiving at the Kotel; toured the Western Wall Tunnels and the City of David; visited Rachel's Tomb, the Golan Heights, the Dead Sea, and a great deal more.


Israeli Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov has extended an official invitation to the 33 Chilean miners who were rescued last week to visit Israel with their spouses, during the Christmas season, for a week-long, all-expenses-paid sightseeing tour of sites holy to Christianity.


To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 21, 2010.

So Mr. and Ms. American citizen, do you feel safe in your homes knowing that the multi-billion dollar security system you pay for works so well? For some information about former Army Secretary Tommy White check this link and note that White worked for Enron from 1990 to 2001.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2003-04-25-white-resigns_x.htm

This below was written by Catherine Herridge and it appeared on FoxNews
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/ al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/)


Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.

Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military's outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

The incident was flagged by a current Defense Department employee who came forward and told investigators she helped arrange the meeting after she saw Awlaki speak in Alexandria, Va.

The employee "attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks. During his talk he was 'harassed' by members of the audience and suffered it well," reads one document.

According to the documents, obtained as part of an ongoing investigation by the specials unit "Fox News Reporting," there was a push within the Defense Department to reach out to the Muslim community.

"At that period in time, the secretary of the Army (redacted) was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim."

In addition, Awlaki "was considered to be an 'up and coming' member of the Islamic community. After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel."

Awlaki, a Yemeni-American who was born in Las Cruces, N.M., was interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the first week after the attacks because of his ties to the three hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour. The three hijackers were all onboard Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon. See a video featuring Al-Awlaki.

Awlaki is now believed to be hiding in Yemen after he was linked to the alleged Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who e-mailed Awlaki prior to the attack.

Sources told Fox News that Awlaki, who is a former Muslim chaplain at George Washington University, met with the Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Yemen and was the middle-man between the young Nigerian and the bombmaker. Awlaki was also said to inspire would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.

Apparently, none of the FBI's information about Awlaki was shared with the Pentagon. Former Army Secretary Tommy White, who led the Army in 2001, said he doesn't have any recollection of the luncheon or any contact with Awlaki.

"If this was a luncheon at the Office of Government Counsel, I would not necessarily be there," he said.

The Pentagon has offered no explanation of how a man, now on the CIA kills or capture list, ended up at a special lunch for Muslim outreach.

After repeated requests for comment on the vetting process beginning on October 13th, an Army spokesman insisted Wednesday that the lunch was not an Army event. "The Army has found no evidence that the Army either sponsored or participated in the event described in this report," spokesman Thomas Collins said.

Collins also noted that the FBI document referred to the "Office of Government Counsel" but should read "Office of General Counsel."

Collins said he believed the event was sponsored by the office of the Secretary of Defense. A spokeswoman there said she would look into it and get back to Fox News.

A former high-ranking FBI agent told Fox News that at the time Awlaki went to lunch at the Pentagon, there was tremendous "arrogance" about the vetting process at the Pentagon.

"They vetted people politically and showed indifference toward security and intelligence advice of others," the former agent said.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Asher Eder, October 21, 2010.

This appeared August 4, 2010 on CIF Watch
() which monitors anti-semitism on the Guardian newspaper's 'Comment is Free' blog.

Last week, CiF Watch posted a piece by Roslyn Pine reporting on the UK Launch of "Friends of Israel" on July 19. What follows is an edited version of the speech delivered by Andrew Roberts at the event, which was held in the British House of Commons — as published in The National Post.


From Morocco to Afghanistan, from the Caspian Sea to Aden, the 5.25 million square miles of territory belonging to members of the Arab League is home to over 330 million people, whereas Israel covers only 8,000 square miles, and is home to seven million citizens, one-fifth of whom are Arabs. The Jews of the Holy Land are thus surrounded by hostile states 650 times their size in territory and 60 times their population; yet their last, best hope of ending two millennia of international persecution — the State of Israel — has somehow survived. When during the Second World War, the island of Malta came through three terrible years of bombardment and destruction, it was rightly awarded the George Medal for bravery. Today Israel should be awarded a similar decoration for defending democracy, tolerance and Western values against a murderous onslaught that has lasted 20 times as long.

Jerusalem is the site of the Temple of Solomon and Herod. The stones of a palace erected by King David himself are even now being unearthed just outside the walls of Jerusalem. Everything that makes a nation state legitimate — blood shed, soil tilled, international agreements — argues for Israel's right to exist, yet that is still denied by the Arab League. For many of their governments, which are rich enough to have economically solved the Palestinian refugee problem decades ago, it is useful to have Israel as a scapegoat to divert attention from the tyranny, failure and corruption of their own regimes.

The tragic truth is that it suits Arab states very well to have the Palestinians endure permanent refugee status; whenever Israel puts forward workable solutions they are stymied by those whose interests put the destruction of Israel before the genuine well-being of the Palestinians. Both King Abdullah I of Jordan and Anwar Sadat of Egypt were assassinated when they attempted to come to some kind of accommodation with a country that most sane people now accept is not going away.

"We owe to the Jews," wrote Winston Churchill in 1920, "a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all wisdom and learning put together." Although they make up less than half of 1% of the world's population, between 1901 and 1950 Jews won 14% of all the Nobel Prizes awarded for literature and science, and between 1951 and 2000 Jews won 32% of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32% for physics, 39% for economics and 29% for science. This, despite so many of their greatest intellects dying in the gas chambers. Yet we tend to treat Israel like a leper on the international scene, threatening her with academic boycotts if she builds a separation wall that has so far reduced suicide bombings by 95% over three years.

Her Majesty the Queen has been on the throne for 57 years and in that time has undertaken 250 official visits to 129 countries, yet has not yet set foot in Israel. She has visited 14 Arab countries, so it cannot have been that she wasn't in the region.

After the Holocaust, the Jewish people recognized that they must have their own state, a homeland where they could forever be safe from a repetition of such horrors. Since then, Israel has had to fight five major wars for her existence. Radical Islam is never going to accept the concept of an Israeli State, so the struggle is likely to continue for another 60 years, but the Jews know that that is less dangerous than entrusting their security to anyone else.

I recently visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. Walking along a line of huts and the railway siding, where their forebears had been worked and starved and beaten and frozen and gassed to death, were a group of Jewish schoolchildren, one of whom was carrying over his shoulder the Israeli flag. It was a moving sight, for it was the sovereign independence represented by that flag which guarantees that the obscenity of genocide will never again befall the Jewish people.

No people in history have needed the right to self-defence and legitimacy more than the Jews of Israel, and that is what we in the Friends of Israel Initiative demand here today.

Contact Asher Eder by email at avrason@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 21, 2010.

This is by Matthew Kalman and is archived at
http://matthewkalman.blogspot.com/2010/01/ israel-eco-revolution-in-desert.html. The article was entitled "srael: Eco-Revolution In The Desert." Matthew Kalman has been a foreign correspondent and filmmaker based in Jerusalem since 1998. Matthew can be reached at matthewkalman@gmail.com


It grows food in sand, powers homes with the sun and this year launches the world's first city-wide electric car system. So how has war-torn Israel become such an eco-pioneer?

BY THE end of this year the world's first all-electric car network will be up and running in one of the most unlikely settings. The cars built by Renault-Nissan need a network of re-charging points and battery changing stations and these are being set up in Denmark, Hawaii, California, Canada and Australia.

But the first place to host a national electric car network will be one that has almost permanently been at war with its neighbours since its inception. This is Israel, which invented the original technology and is home to Better Place, the company that came up with the idea.

"Israel will be the first country in the world with this new technology. Jerusalem will be the fi rst city," says Better Place boss Shai Agassi, who recently unveiled Israel's first car charging points. The car looks like a regular Renault Megane except it has no exhaust pipe and an electric socket where the petrol cap should be. It drives noticeably quieter than a regular car and powered by a 450lb lithium-ion battery it can run for about 140 miles without re-charging, compared with 300 miles for the average family car on a full tank of petrol.

Drivers will plug in their cars to recharge for several hours at home, work or at designated free car parks throughout the country. Or they will swap empty batteries for fully-charged ones at a network of up to 200 "swap stations" throughout Israel. The electricity for the cars will come from solar technology being developed in the desert in southern Israel. Amid the gunfire this tiny country the size of Wales and with a population of just under 7.5million leads the world in developing and exporting green technologies that could save the planet.

Ironically it is precisely because of its precarious position that such eco-inventions have flourished. Surrounded by hostile neighbours, with few natural resources of its own and two-thirds of its area inhos pitable desert, Israel has had to use its wits to survive. When Warren Buffett, the world's wealthiest man, decided to make his first investment outside the United States, he chose Israel. "Some Amerircans have come to the Middle East looking for oil so they didn't stop in Israel. We came to the Middle East looking for brains and we stopped in Israel," Buffett explained as he put $4billion into Iscar, a precision tool maker.

"We found that the real trick in business is not to be a genius yourself but to go around associating with geniuses who are already doing a good job and stay out of their way." Israeli innovations range from Intel microprocessors to messaging systems that ensure the safety of nearly all the world's financial transactions. Micro soft Intel, IBM and NDS, a firm that designs TV set-top boxes to unscramble cable and satellite signals, all have research and development centres in Israel drawing on the brainpower of those "genius".

There are more than 1,000 clean-technology start-up companies in Israel, a country that has attracted more foreign investment in high-tech businesses in the past decade than all of Europe. It has more companies quoted on the high-tech NASDAQ stock exchange in New York than any other country outside the United States. In innovation it outshines all its neighbours. Between 1980 and 2000 Egyptians registered 77 patents in the US. Saudis registered 171. Israelis registered 7,652.

"We are flexible and we are smart because we know that we have to be to survive," says Shraga Brosh, chairman of the Israeli Manufacturers' Association. A primary motor of this technical innovation is the Israeli army. Its units cream off the top teenagers, ram them through accelerated university training and give them sophisticated military assignments. Agassi of Better Place, like the founders of computer security pioneers Check-point, demobbed from Unit 8200, a top-secret division of military intelligence where every other soldier is a computer whiz-kid.

TALPIOT, another military programme veiled in secrecy, whips its high-achieving teenagers through electronics, engineering or physics degrees before setting them up in state-of-the-art laboratories to build next-generation defence solutions. "The ingenuity in technology is tremendous. Israel is a fountain of knowledge," says Avishay Braverman, an Israeli cabinet minister and former World Bank economist.

"The reason for the success in high-tech industry is that the army invested so much in research. Where else do you have men and women operating the most sophisticated computers in the world at such a young age?" The ingenuity and training is mixed with a need to solve Israel's problems due to its geography and political isolation. Its main water sources are controlled by its enemies Syria and the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The land is sandy and infertile. "Israel has become a world power in terms of green technology because of our long experience in dealing with scarcity," says Jon Medved, head of the pioneering video ringtone company Vringo and an investor in Israeli clean technology companies. "We've created these technologies to solve problems that are acute here."

Israel and experts such as Dov Pasternak lead the world in countering the creeping desertifi cation that has made large swathes of Africa and Asia uninhabitable. Satellite photographs show that only two countries have increased the area of land covered by forest and agriculture — the United States and Israel. Israeli farmers revolutionised the watering of agricultural crops more than 40 years ago through the drip irrigation system which has since been adopted worldwide.

Water is carried directly to the roots of the plant through tiny holes in small tubes that can be easily redeployed according to need. The system is set on a timer, reducing evaporation and eliminating run-off. Because the water is delivered direct to the roots of the crop there is less moisture on the leaves and surrounding soil, suppressing mould and weeds. That reduces the need for chemicals and pesticides.

Netafim, which markets the technology, says it is now used in more than 110 countries and has helped create self-sustaining agricultural communities in drought-stricken areas, particularly in Africa. Israel now recycles 70 per cent of its waste water — a huge amount that puts it way ahead of any other country. The water is used for agriculture, waste management and for fi sh farms in the desert.

Israel is also a pioneer in geothermal and solar energy. The world's leading company in geothermal power — harnessing Earth's heat to generate electricity — is Ormat, an Israeli company. For decades visitors to Israel have been struck by the solar heating panels and water tanks on the top of almost every building. These provide solar-heated water to just about every home and business.

Now Israel is leading the way in a new technology that harnesses solar power for clean electricity production. One company, Solel, was snapped up by the German industrial giant Siemens last year for more than $400million. It is competing with Brightsource, another Israeli company, for contracts to supply more than two million homes in California with electricity produced without any fossil fuels.

But Israeli ingenuity in electricity is not limited to the sun. Innowattech is developing a system to generate electricity from the pressure of traffic driving along roads. Piezo-electric generators are installed inches beneath the upper layer of asphalt and convert the mechanical energy of traffic passing over them into electrical energy.

INNOWATTECH estimates that its generators placed along a half-mile stretch of a four-lane motorway would produce about 1MWh of electricity — enough to power 2,500 households. It is testing prototypes for roads, railways, pedestrian walkways and airport runways — all of which could generate completely clean electricity.

Before too long it will be possible to drive an electric car powered by a battery whose electricity was generated by the sun or by other cars driving across sub-surface generator, and whose engine is cooled by recycled water.

But only in Israel.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://denjanewhome.blogspot.com/ to see his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 21, 2010.

Are the Israeli Police rotten to their core? No, probably not. They cannot act, would not act without orders from Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak, well known for his aberrant hatred of Jews east of the Green Line and/or religiously observant.

However, it was Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who put Barak in place — at the insistence of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department. State wanted/needed to keep one of the Olmert-Livni-Barak in play to subvert the Jewish Nation/State.

One solution is to pray to G-d to curse all the above, including those close to them, much the same as they savage Jewish families. I must tell you that for many years I have prayed that the nations who savaged the Jew suffer such retribution as famine, drought, floods, disease, natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornados, collapse of their monetary systems — and more.

During those years I did not think that America would be similarly cursed until I saw the first President George H.W. Bush family and Administration bond with radical Islam — followed by President Barack Hussein Obama in his vendetta against the Jewish Nation/State.

We are all familiar with G-d's promise to Abraham that He will "Bless those who bless thee; and curse those who curse thee." Sadly, I think this is happening and picking up speed.

The "Nations Are Gathering" (1), linked together in a pathological hatred of the Jewish Nation/State, even aiding and abetting their own virulent Islamic self-declared enemies.

I have, indeed, prayed for their destruction for what they have done and what they plan to do to the Jewish people. It has taken a long time using G-d's timepiece to fulfill his promise of retribution but, it appears that time has come.

The article below was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).


Police woke up a young couple and their baby in the middle of the night early Wednesday morning and ordered them out of their Gush Etzion home, which was then demolished.

The couple and their neighbors immediately rebuilt it.

Yaakov and Sarah Levin said the police also brought along Arab workers who removed the family's possessions before the destruction at their Mitzpeh Erez home, adjacent to Bat Ayin in western Gush Etzion.

Using material from a nearby container, the couple and neighbors rebuilt the home.

Area residents told Israel National News, "Arabs build thousands of homes illegally throughout Judea and Samaria, while Jews are expelled and home-building is frozen. We will continue to build everywhere in Israel."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, October 21, 2010.

This was written by Gil Troy, a McGill history professor, and author of "Why I Am A Zionist." He is a Shalom Hartman Research Fellow in Jerusalem. It appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post


"...if Jews cannot apply the same standards to [Pollard] that they do to others the courts mistreat, then maybe American Jews should realize that they too are imprisoned, by delusions and fears."

What many long suspected has been confirmed. Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger targeted America's Jewish spy from the 1980s, Jonathan Jay Pollard, to teach Israel a lesson. One of Weinberger's assistant secretaries of defense, Dr. Lawrence Korb, recently wrote a letter to President Barack Obama saying: "Based on my first-hand knowledge, I can say with confidence that the severity of Pollard's sentence is a result of an almost visceral dislike of Israel and the special place it occupies in our foreign policy on the part of my boss at the time, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger."

As members of Congress circulate a demand for Pollard's release after nearly 25 years in captivity, as American Jews once again agonize, as speculation grows about using Pollard's release as a figleaf to allow Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to extend the settlements' building moratorium, justice remains AWOL. Pollard should not be freed as part of a deal but as part of a settlement, wherein the American government atones for abusing his rights. The presidents who could have released him, the national security types who insisted on jailing him, as well as the Americans and Israelis who failed to redeem him, should all hang their heads in shame. The hero of the moment, Dr. Korb himself, should explain his quarter-century delay before doing the right thing. While we dithered, Jonathan Pollard has languished in jail.

Since Jonathan Pollard's arrest in November 1985, most American Jews have wanted to forget all about him. Until Bernard Madoff, Pollard was the undisputed black sheep of the American Jewish family. If Madoff's swindle brought to life the anti-Semitic caricature of the greedy Jew, Pollard embodied the treasonous Jew, the untrustworthy Jew, the dual-loyalty Jew. Despite the community's affinity for lost causes, few have dared buck America's national security establishment to defend the most infamous Jewish Judas since the 1950s' Ethel and Julius Rosenberg Atomic spy case. Such blaring silence for so long demonstrates a dismaying insecurity about Jews' place in America.

It makes sense that in 1985 most American Jews wanted to see Pollard jailed. Pollard broke the law when he passed secret navy intelligence documents to Israel. No patriotic American can countenance such behavior — even if the documents went to an ally. Yet even at the time, in denouncing Pollard's "despicable" and "shameful" acts so vehemently, Jews seemed overly anxious to demonstrate their loyalty at Pollard's expense.

American Jews got their wish. Pollard was punished, severely. In March, 1987, as part of a deal intended to keep his then-wife Anne Henderson Pollard from jail, Pollard plead guilty to "conspiracy to commit espionage." His plea spared the government from the risk of spilling more secrets at trial. Yet despite the plea bargain, and swayed by a blistering pre-sentencing memorandum from Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Judge Aubrey Robinson threw the book at both Pollards. Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment; his wife, who was never accused of stealing secrets, was sentenced to five years.

Pollard is no hero. But should Jews ignore the compelling cries for fair, proportionate justice simply because Pollard embarrasses us? Pollard does not deserve special treatment because he is Jewish, but neither does he deserve undue retribution. He is entitled to the same crusade the ACLU might mount for a murderer who, while guilty, does not deserve the death penalty.

When Pollard was arrested, many American Jews were furious because his actions supposedly made all Jews suspect. Since 1985 many Jews have endured more extensive investigations when being considered for security clearances; Israelis have faced more obstacles collaborating in defense-related American industries too. That one person could cause so much damage is mind-boggling. But does this say more about Pollard's crimes or about Jews' status in America?

If one rogue can threaten an entire community's standing, something is wrong. Is that all it takes to derail the Jewish campaign to be America's model minority? Are Jews merely tolerated, not accepted? American Jews' reaction to the Pollard case evoked 1950s America, when first-generation greenhorns struggled to prove that Jews could be "a credit to our race and to our country." Back then, Judge Irving Kaufman presided over the Rosenberg Atomic espionage case determined to rehabilitate Jews' reputation. Millions of success stories later, American Jews should feel more secure. The many accomplishments, the deep patriotism, should refute the ancient dual loyalty libel.

American Jews do not live at the indulgence of Polish Nobleman patrons or a Russian Czar. American Jews do not enjoy civil rights as long as they sacrifice their Jewish identities, as their ancestors in "enlightened" Germany and "emancipated" France did. Jewish freedom is not contingent on anyone's good will or on communal good behavior, but stems from inherent rights, "regardless of race, color, or creed."

The American dream invites all citizens to sit at the table as equals. The American Jewish neurosis compels Jews to act like model dinner guests terrified of being banished from the dining room. Ironically, American Jews' shame concedes too much to Jonathan Pollard and to anti-Semites — maybe Jews don't feel as at home as they claim to in the Diaspora.

American Jews should be free, strong, proud, and comfortable enough to demand Jonathan Pollard's release — unconditionally. This one individual does not reflect on the community but his continued imprisonment does reflect badly on American justice. If Jews lack that comfort, if Jews cannot apply the same standards to this one unfortunate Jew that they do to others the courts mistreat, then maybe American Jews should realize that they too are imprisoned, by delusions and fears. Ironically, by defending this spy, by arguing that Jonathan Pollard has been punished enough, Jews can demonstrate loyalty to America, and to the fundamental fairness that makes America, America.

See Also:

Letter to an American Friend: Soured Promise — by Shlomo Avineri — Jerusalem Post — originally published 1987/ J4JP webposted 1997

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Kaplan, October 20, 2010.

Statement Submitted by Investigative Reporter Lee Kaplan to the Haifa District Court, Regaring "Wrongful Death" Suit Filed by Craig and Cindy Corrie


My name is Lee Kaplan. I act as an investigative journalist who has been published internationally who writes on homeland security and terrorism issues. I am considered an expert on the ISM. I have attended undercover as a reporter ISM orientation and training sessions in the United States and attended ISM national conferences on US campuses where strategy is devised.. I have spent the last eight years researching and exposing the ISM and its affiliates in the US and abroad and have consulted US and Israeli law enforcement agencies. I have been interviewed on over two hundred and fifty nationally and internationally syndicated radio shows about the ISM and on national security matters and been a guest on Fox Cable TV's Dayside with Linda Vester and Bill O'Reilly's Factor. I am currently working on a book about America's colleges in the War on Terror and the International Solidarity Movement as a threat to both Israel and the United States.

These are facts about Rachel Corrie and the ISM I believe the court needs to know:

1) Means of deception. The ISM training manuals in the possession of our agency, prepared for both the United States and the UK, stress the use of deceptive and contradictory language. Both the US manual, written by Norcal ISM leader Paul LaRudee and the London manual, written by Huwaida Arraf, tell ISM trainees that instead of calling themselves "human shields," they should say they are "peace activists." Ms. Corrie was neither a pacifist nor a peace activist, but was an anarchist by her own and her boyfriend's definitions. She was recruited to ISM from Evergreen College in Washington State.

The information Ms. Corrie wrote home to her mother would have followed ISM dictates of deceptive language. Hence, weapons smuggling tunnels that are holes in the ground would be identified as "Palestinian water wells" and terrorists in those tunnels would be called "Palestinian municipal water workers." This deception is repeatedly used by Ms. Corrie's mother. One would have to assume that Mrs. Corrie is either following up on this deception or else naively repeating what she was told. As for Rachel Corrie, she would have had to have gone through ISM orientation and training both in Washington State and once she arrived in the Middle East, by so doing she would have had to read and follow those manuals.

2)Rachel Corrie was involved in removing a dead body from an open field in a combat zone along with her fellow ISM activist Joseph Carr a.k.a. Joseph Smith. She did this under the direction of her Palestinian "handler" and "translator" (ISM activists are always supervised by plainclothes Palestinian handlers at all actions according to co-founder Adam Shapiro at the Ohio State conference in 2003).This particular action was recounted to me by Joseph Carr in a recording I have submitted to the court and can also be verified by an interview with Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother, done by George Cadman in Santa Cruz, California. found on the Indybay.org[1] website (also submitted to the court). When I asked Carr if he and Rachel were afraid of being arrested by the IDF he explained that they were not because they know if the IDF came out to get them they would be killed by the Arab snipers. This is the first suggestion of an active role in assisting terrorists as practiced by the ISM in Rafah doing "human shield" work.

3)A video taken by the IDF the day Corrie was killed and of the incident reveals she was not protecting a house, but had stationed herself in a trench opposite the D9 tractor which killed her. This video is visible on my websites at www.dafka.org[2] and www.StoptheISM.com.[3]

4)Rachel Corrie was potentially in the weapons smuggling tunnels two weeks before she died. An ISM media office report for mid-February confirms that ISM activists in the same affinity group as Rachel in Gaza were requested by Rachel's "handler" a Mohammed Qishta, to retrieve the dead body of a Palestinian Arab, most likely a Hamas member from a weapons smuggling tunnel. While Rachel isn't mentioned by name in the communique, it is her same Rafah group that received the order from Qishta and went to carry it out. One of the two Arabs removed from the tunnels was also names Muhammed Kishta but is not the same person. Shortly after Rachel died, Cindy Corrie, her mother spoke at UC Santa Cruz where she stated the first time she figured her daughter was doing something dangerous was when she told her how she had helped to bring some dead bodies out of a tunnel. This means that Rachel was in the tunnels, knew of them and was certainly involved with them.

5.) At the time of Rachel Corrie's tragic death, the ISM website openly proclaimed that it endorsed the "armed struggle" of the Palestinians.

6.) The most telling statement of all was that which Rachel Corrie told to the western media, shortly before her death:

"Think about the relative positions of the fighters and occupiers in this monumentally unequal struggle.... the few young fighters have NOTHING BUT THEIR WEAPON (and this not the most modern) — no helmet, bullet proof vest, radio contact or other protection. No back-up, no plane, helicopter, tank, APC, searchlight, dogs, flares, ambulance or refuge... every time the Israeli Command terrorises Nablus, more Martyrs are ready to defend the honour of Palestine and fight for the freedom of surely the most gentle, generous and peaceful people on earth." (New Zealand Herald, 10 February 2003)


[1] http://indybay.org/

[2] http://www.dafka.org/

[3] http://www.stoptheism.com/

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 Seth J. Frantzman, October 20, 2010.

By Seth J. Frantzman
10/18/2010 23:31

This was supposed to be a country of hope for the world's Jews. But when it comes to buying a home, the Jewish citizens have little hope of obtaining this essential lifestyle.

A fascinating set of statistics were presented by Channel 2's Oren Aharoni on October 13. The report was titled "In Israel people work the hardest to buy a house."

According to the data, it takes just 30 months of work for the average Swede to buy a house. The American works 60 months, while the Israeli is burdened by 129 months.

The information is not based on how much a person might actually work and save or whether he can secure a mortgage to finance a house, it is just raw math calculated on a person working without spending any money and saving every penny toward the home. Consider the American numbers: 60 months multiplied by an average salary of $2,000 a month equals $120,000. That is the cost of a home in the type of market where the average salary is $2,000 (i.e. Arizona). So the numbers make sense.

What is happening here? Based on the math it seems that a person making NIS 5,000 a month can achieve his dream of buying a home for NIS 645,000 in 11 years. Of course he won't ever achieve his dream because when one factors in all the expenses the person must pay out every month, including utility bills, rent and taxes, he is left with a tiny sum to save toward buying a home. Even with the possibility of obtaining a mortgage, which in reality is the only reason average people in any country can ever purchase a home, the Israeli is not only behind his peers in other countries but he faces an increasingly uphill battle to obtain propertied independence.

Why is this the fate of Israelis? This was supposed to be a country of hope for the world's Jews, a place they could call their own and put down roots. But when it comes to home ownership, which is a large part of identifying with one's landscape, the Jewish citizens have little hope of obtaining this essential lifestyle.

One must write "Jewish" here because all things are not the same when it comes to home ownership. The Arab community owns most of the fully private land (5 percent roughly) and home ownership is held in high esteem in Arab culture (one oft repeated ditty is "have a son, build a house, plant a tree"). The Arab community suffers from perceived building restrictions and overcrowding, lack of planning, infrastructure and other issues, but owning one's own property is not one of the factors mentioned by Arab rights groups as an issue of discrimination.

SO WHAT is it that has turned the Zionist dream of living in one's own land on its head? One oft-repeated excuse for the lack of affordable housing and steep prices is that there is a lack of land. Obviously relatively wealthy countries with a high population density tend to have housing price problems. In the 1990s the business world was abuzz with stories of the "100-year Japanese mortgage" or what was called the "three generational loan."

In the society of the "salaryman" (the Japanese term for the lifetime employee in a business suit) such exotic financial instruments, while not necessarily the norm, shine a light on what befell Japanese urban society due to rising real estate prices.

Home ownership was not only out of the grasp of the Japanese though. Under communism in Russia newlyweds told nightmare stories of waiting years to get the "right" to live in small dingy apartments.

But Israel isn't Russia under the stagnation of the Brezhnev years, nor is it crazily hitech urban Japan. Even in the worst development towns or peripheral communities, home ownership remains a tough call.

In Beersheba the statistics tell us that one must work full time for 58 months and save every penny.

How is it possible that in the rural periphery, in the desert where there are millions of empty dunams, that people cannot afford to buy a simple apartment, let alone a house? The answer is partly salaries. Public salaries are abysmal. Police are paid a paltry starting wage of NIS 4,400 a month. Private salaries aren't any better except in some industries in Tel Aviv, and there they still don't compensate for the ridiculous price of real estate (216 months of work to purchase an apartment).

Some of those interviewed on Channel 2 pointed to a government solution. Dov Henin, the Hadash MK, complained about lack of government support for more housing. Another man voiced anger that the government sends people to army reserve duty but "gives them no hope" afterward.

Government can't solve all our problems.

Artificially low prices for apartments or building more flats isn't the only answer. Some hidden problems affecting the real estate market can be found elsewhere. One issue that doesn't always exist in other countries is that the rural property market is very frozen. To put it simply, Arabs and Jews are not able to relocate. No Jew can move to an Arab neighborhood and in many cases can't even gain admittance to Jewish rural communities, like kibbutzim and moshavim. Arabs also are generally unable to buy homes anywhere but within their own communities.

This creates, for better or worse, a frozen market, one artificially structured to allow only certain groups to live in certain places, the opposite of a free and open real estate market. Obsession with planning — the resulting eyesores can be seen in every development town and suburban or urban community — leads to building plans being approved that have nothing to do with the private demand for housing.

How else to explain the absolute scandal that is the Jerusalem housing market where the statistics tell us one must work 151 months, in one of the poorest cities in the country, to buy a property? Government regulation, the inability of ethnic groups to mingle, the domination of the rural environment by communes from another era and other factors have conspired to crush the dream of home ownership.

By Seth J. Frantzman
09/28/2010 21:38

Those who condemn the Israel of Likud, Shas and Israel Beiteinu for being undemocratic point to the pre-1967 days as the flowering of Western-German-Jewish democracy.

On the heels of the recent September 13 Time magazine cover that purports to show why Israelis don't care about peace, Roger Cohen of The New York Times wrote an oddly-timed op-ed about the very same topic ("Israelis have better things to do than dream of peace).

In his redundant article he included a quote from the author and journalist Tom Segev: "They really don't believe in peace, and the million recent arrivals from the former Soviet Union didn't bring democratic values. Democracy is weaker."

Segev's comment about the Russian-Israelis, as if they are "recent" arrivals, when they have been here 20 years now, is surprising.

What is more interesting is why he choose to slander the entire Russian community and single it out for the supposed weakening of democracy. What are these "democratic values" that Israel had before 1990 and that are sorely lacking today? The condemnation of the Russians for ruining democratic Israel is reminiscent of a December 2004 interview in Haaretz with journalist and writer Amos Elon by Ari Shavit.

Elon, who was then living in "exile" in Italy because he had become estranged from the Israel that had provided him with fame and luxury, called the country a "quasi-fascist" state with "religious people [who] would be better off behind bars and not in politics."

He complained that Israel was no longer a democratic Western country, and summed up his views with: "There was provinciality here. [in Israel]. There was this upstart's arrogance.

I'm not surprised when you look at the population. We know where it comes from. Either from the Arab countries or from Eastern Europe."

Here Elon adds the category of Jews from "Arab countries" to the reasons why Israel became, in his view, a non-Western nondemocratic society. The argument over Israeli society's lack of democracy thus tends to decline into the realm of blaming "others," especially immigrants, for taking away the Western democracy that once flourished here.

But it depends partly on the background of the beholder. Segev was born in 1935 to parents who fled Germany that year. His first language was German, which his parents spoke at home. Elon too was born to German-Jewish parents; he explained to Shavit "my parents' friends were all immigrants from Germany and Austria. The big library at home was all German... But they were really the first free Jews. And the first Europeans.

They built a civil society and believed obsessively in Bildung, which is self-improvement through the fostering of social concerns."

>From the perspective of Segev and Elon, who in many ways represent a very strong stream within elite Israeli society, the complaint can be boiled down to the fact that non-German Jews ruined their country. It is an extraordinary insult to the millions of Jews who have come here, especially considering that, far from being haters of democracy, many of them yearned to breath free in the undemocratic states they fled.

The Jews of the Arab countries, whether Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria or Iraq, were almost all firm absorbers of the latest Western ideas in the early 20th century. Some of them became ardent socialists before they became Zionists, if they became Zionists at all. The Jews of the Soviet Union, especially the refuseniks, were all democrats to the core.

THERE IS a question that must be asked of those like Segev (Elon died in 2009 so he cannot be asked) who believe that it is the Jewish immigrants who came after 1950 that brought nondemocratic values with them.

How democratic was Israel in the old days? Those who condemn the Israel of Likud, Shas and Israel Beiteinu for being undemocratic almost all point to the utopian pre-1967 days as the flowering of Western-German-Jewish democracy.

Let's recall that Israel for a second. Pre-1967, this was a one-party state whose government was dominated, since its inception in 1948, by the Labor Party. It was more akin to the democracy found in Italy, Japan or Mexico in that period than in the UK and the US. The democracy of those years is the one that kept Arab communities under military rule, where Arab citizens, although they could vote, faced all sorts of mobility restrictions, including curfews. Pre-1967 was heavy on censorship generally, so much so that the Beatles were banned from coming in 1965 for fear they would corrupt public morality. The Israel of old was undemocratic in its allocation of land to new immigrants and in its treatment of Jews from Arab countries, so much that ethnic riots erupted in Haifa in 1959. It was pre-1967 Israel that crafted a Supreme Court with no checks or balances, and that elects itself — probably the least democratic institution in the country.

This is not to condemn the accomplishments of the old Israel that didn't include Sephardi, religious, Russian or Ethiopian Jews; surely the pre-immigration Jewish leadership accomplished great things, but they weren't paragons of democracy, and the arrival of their Jewish cousins after 1950 has done nothing but improve democracy. It was Sephardim who brought the first change in political power, in 1977, and it is Russians, the religious and the Ethiopians, not to mention the Israeli Arabs, who have contributed greatly to the democratic fabric.

The fact that some find this diverse country so abhorrent says more about the "democracy" they wanted, the one that was to be composed only of their colleagues and culturally-linked groups, than it does about the immigrants. Those who call themselves cultured and slander other groups are correct to exile themselves to Europe, which bans the burka and minarets and has proven it is incapable of welcoming outsiders.

Israel may have failed the Western European test by opening its gates wide to people from the Arab, Slavic and African worlds, but it is more democratic for it.

Seth Franzman is a PhD researcher at Hebrew University and a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. This appeared in
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=189560 These two essays are from #188 on his website: Terra Incognita.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, October 20, 2010.

This is a straight-talking rebuttal by Jeff Jacoby to all those who would deny the Jews a Jewish state while ignoring the many Arab states that have Islamic Republic of .. as their official name. Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe. Compare Jacoby's tone to the supercilious tone of the LA. Times article below, It's obscene that so many people are desperate to give the Palestinians — a people that was invented in 1964 — a state but deny that the Jews, an ancient people, have the right to a state in the land which has been identified with Judaism for thousands of years. This appeared October 17, 2010in the Boston Globe and is archived at
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/8067/the-undeniable-jewish-state. The original article has live links to additional material.


IS ISRAEL a Jewish state?

Is the pope Catholic?

Nothing about Israel could be more self-evident than its Jewishness. As Poland is the national state of the Polish people and Japan is the national state of the Japanese people, so Israel is the national state of the Jewish people. The UN's 1947 resolution on partitioning Palestine contains no fewer than 30 references to the "Jewish state" whose creation it was authorizing; 25 years earlier, the League of Nations had been similarly straightforward in mandating "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." When Israel came into existence on May 15, 1948, its Jewish identity was the first detail reported. The New York Times's front-page story began: "The Jewish state, the world's newest sovereignty, to be known as the State of Israel, came into being in Palestine at midnight upon termination of the British mandate."

Today, half the planet's Jews live in that state, many of them refugees from anti-Semitic repression and violence elsewhere. In a world with more than 20 Arab states and 55 Muslim countries, the existence of a single small Jewish state should be unobjectionable. "Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people," President Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly last month. By now that should be a truism, no more controversial than calling Italy the sovereign homeland of the Italian people.

And yet to Israel's enemies, Jewish sovereignty is as intolerable today as it was in 1948, when five Arab armies invaded the newborn Jewish state, vowing "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre." Endless rounds of talks and countless invocations of the "peace process" have not changed the underlying reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is not about settlements or borders or Jerusalem or the rights of Palestinians. The root of the hostility is the refusal to recognize the immutable right of the Jewish people to a sovereign state in its historic homeland. Until that changes, no lasting peace is possible.

That is why the Israeli government is correct to insist that the Palestinian Authority publicly recognize Israel as the Jewish state. It is the critical litmus test. "Palestinian nationalism was based on driving all Israelis out," Edward Said told an interviewer in 1999, and the best evidence that most Palestinians are still intent on eliminating Israel is the vehemence with which even supposed "moderates" like Mahmoud Abbas will not — or dare not — acknowledge Israel's Jewishness as a legitimate fact of life. "What is a 'Jewish state?'" Abbas ranted on Palestinian TV. "You can call yourselves whatever you want, but I will not accept it. ... You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic]. Call it whatever you like. I don't care."

There are those who argue that Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and a democracy. When Israel's parliament decided last week to require new non-Jewish citizens to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic" state, some people bristled. "The phrase itself is an oxymoron," one reader wrote to the Boston Globe. "How can a state openly favor one ethnic group over all others and declare itself to be democratic?"

But there is no conflict at all between Israel's Jewish identity and its democratic values. Indeed, the UN's 1947 partition resolution not only called for subdividing Palestine into "independent Arab and Jewish states," it explicitly required each of them to "draft a democratic constitution" and to elect a government "by universal suffrage and by secret ballot." The Jews complied. The Arabs launched a war.

Many of the world's democracies have official state religions. Think of Britain, whose monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England; or of Greece, whose constitution singles out the Eastern Orthodox Church as the country's "prevailing religion." The linking of national character with religion is a commonplace. Israel stands out only because its religion is Judaism, not Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism.

Nor is democracy incompatible with ethnic or national distinctiveness. Ireland waives its usual citizenship requirements for applicants of Irish descent. Bulgaria's constitution grants the right to "acquire Bulgarian citizenship through a facilitated procedure" to any "person of Bulgarian origin." It is not oxymoronic to describe Ireland as "Irish and democratic" or Bulgaria as "Bulgarian and democratic." Israel's flourishing little Jewish democracy is no oxymoron either.

It is something different: a beacon of decency in a dangerous and hate-filled neighborhood. If the enemies of the Jewish state could only shed their malice, what an Eden that neighborhood could become.

To Go To Top

Posted by Eye On The U.N., October 20, 2010.

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on National Review Online.


As gross human-rights violations continue to plague much of our planet, the U.N.'s lead human-rights body, the Human Rights Council, remains fixated on Israel, leaving the Obama administration in need of a strategy for justifying its policy of "engagement," and particularly American membership in the HRC. The new strategy of choice? Misrepresentation. The State Department has posted on its website an account, photo and all, of HRC action on an egregious human-rights violation — action that didn't happen.

Soon after he took office, President Obama decided the United States should join the HRC. On October 1, the last day of the HRC's most recent session, the United States' U.N. mission to Geneva issued a press release heralding the administration's engagement approach. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe, who chaired the finance committee of National Women for Obama during the 2008 campaign, is quoted as declaring that the council has "made historic progress ... in advancing the rights of human-rights defenders throughout the world." But her sales pitch depends on a serious distortion of events.

By the time this "historic" session advancing human rights had ended, the council had spent the same amount of time on its agenda item devoted entirely to Israel-bashing as on its single agenda item on all the "human-rights situations that require the Council's attention" anywhere else in the world. Tallying all the resolutions that the Council adopted targeting any of the 192 U.N. member states, there were two resolutions condemning Israel, one resolution on "assistance" to Somalia, one on "advisory services and technical assistance" to Cambodia, and one "congratulat[ing] the Government and the people of the Sudan for ... the April 2010 elections." Those were the widely criticized elections that handed President Bashir another term after 21 years in office, notwithstanding that he has been indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court.

Justifying American membership on the council and the legitimization that U.S. membership brings is, therefore, a challenge. But few would have expected that the administration would attempt to meet that challenge by leading the American public to believe the council had held a meeting to respond to a terrible human-rights violation — when in fact no such meeting had taken place.

Since late July, gang rapes have been systematically carried out in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and impunity for the rapists has been standard practice. The attackers are mostly members of rebel militias, but government troops have also been implicated. Victims have included baby boys and women aged 110. U.N. peacekeepers stationed just 20 miles away, and warned of impending violence, did nothing to stop 240 rapes over a four-day period in early August. Given what we know about the council's routine in the case of Israel, it could have held a special session, or held an urgent debate during September's regular session, or started an investigation, or adopted a resolution condemning the atrocities and demanding that the perpetrators be prosecuted.

The council did none of the above. On September 27, two months after the attacks began, it held an "informal dialogue" on the DRC during a lunch hour. The meeting was not listed in the U.N. bulletin that is supposed to provide notice of informal meetings. The council president gave just 15 minutes' advance notification of the event, which was deliberately organized to take place outside the council chamber. This meant there was no webcasting service, no recording of the event, and no U.N. press release summarizing it. The DRC minister on human rights and justice, who had originally indicated he would come, did not show up; thus the so-called dialogue was held without the representative of the state involved. To put it in perspective, a lunch meeting on systematic mass rapes had less status than the lunch meeting organized a few weeks earlier with plenty of notice in the U.N. bulletin on "Non-State Service Provision in Water and Sanitation."

But here is how the Obama administration scriptwriters rewrote it. The U.S. mission to Geneva issued a press release with the title: "United States Welcomes Engagement by Human Rights Council on Abuses in DRC." The press release included a large file photo of a full meeting in the council chamber — though the "informal dialogue" had deliberately not been scheduled in that chamber.

The administration's press release quotes Ambassador Donahoe as gushing: "Today's meeting demonstrated that the Council can react to events in real time." A few days later, Donahoe wrapped up the council session with the following praise: "I also recognize the forward movement made on other important human-rights issues this session ... . I welcome the council's engagement on the issue of the mass rapes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This showed the council's ability to react to real events in real time and to contribute its voice to this important issue."

Not only was two months later not "real time," but the council itself had not reacted at all. By comparison, in response to the Koran burning in Florida that was called off, the council issued an agreed statement demanding "practical steps to end such intolerance." Agreement on practical steps to end such intolerance as gang-raping the DRC's women and children, however, was beyond it.

The Obama administration is pouring significant energy into making U.S. membership on the Human Rights Council a shining example of the benefits of engagement. Back in September, Donahoe penned a New York Times op-ed entitled "Fighting the Good Fight," in which she said: "I have been very pleased by several developments that confirm U.S. participation was the correct decision." Three weeks later she was heralding "historic progress." She pointed to the creation of a new post of U.N. investigator on the theme of freedom of association and assembly and a new working group to monitor "discrimination against women in law and practice." Attempts by U.N. thematic human-rights investigators to gain entry and report on the world's worst states, however, routinely fail. And whatever they find, they can expect the same wall of silence with which the council greeted the rape victims of the DRC. Unless, of course, they target Israel.

What the Obama administration is really communicating is that demonizing Israelis and granting exception clauses for African women and children can be offset by human-rights "progress" on other fronts. Little wonder that its tall tales justifying American membership on the Human Rights Council aren't convincing.

For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, October 20, 2010.

This was written by Edmund Sanders (edmund.sanders@latimes.com) and it appeared yesterday in the Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/ la-fg-israel-jewish-state-20101019,0,6335179.story. Batsheva Sobelman in The Times' Jerusalem Bureau contributed to this report.


Reporting from Jerusalem — It sounds at first like a familiar Mideast tussle: Israel demands recognition, Arabs refuse to give it.

But Israel's recent push to be recognized as a "Jewish" state is actually a new twist on an old struggle, and one that is rapidly turning into the latest stumbling block to faltering peace talks.

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state in its declaration of independence. U.S. Presidents Obama and George W. Bush have embraced the term, which was used in the 1947 U.N. resolution calling for the establishment of two states, one Jewish and the other Palestinian Arab.

But lately, Israel has started pressing Palestinians — who recognized Israel's right to exist in 1993 — to go one step further by also publicly acknowledging Israel's Jewish character. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert first raised the issue and, in recent weeks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu followed suit.

"Just say it," Netanyahu goaded Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a joint appearance in the U.S. recently. "Say yes to a Jewish state."

Palestinians reject the demand as "racist," saying it raises troubling questions about the status of Arab Israeli citizens and other non-Jews in Israel. They see it as a trap to get Palestinians to make concessions on such issues as the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel and other matters that should be determined at the negotiating table.

Abbas insists that the 1993 recognition is enough, and Palestinians should not be dragged into an internal debate about Israel's religious or ethnic nature. "Israel can call itself the Israeli Zionist Jewish Empire,'' Abbas said recently.

Some see Netanyahu's actions as a tactical move designed to put Palestinians on the defensive, paint them as rejectionists and divert attention from Israel's controversial settlement construction in the West Bank, which has thrown peace talks into crisis.

"Netanyahu is raising this to create yet another condition that makes it virtually impossible to reach an agreement," said Galia Golan, a political science professor and anti-settlement advocate at Israel's Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. "It throws a monkey wrench into talks."

Others, however, say Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state is a much more profound question, and the matter is likely to become a central issue in the peace process, equal to other so-called final-status issues: Jerusalem, borders, settlements, water rights and refugees.

"The demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state isn't a tactic or ploy, but something deeply important," said Yoram Meital, chairman of Ben-Gurion University's Chaim Herzog Center for Middle East Studies and Diplomacy. "We thought all along there were five final-status issues. Now it turns out there's another one. It's really the basis for everything else."

Since its founding, Israel has demanded and received formal recognition from its Arab peace partners, including Egypt, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which granted it under the 1993 Oslo peace accords.

But, beginning in 2007, some Israelis began insisting that the PLO's recognition of Israel's "right to exist" was not enough and that some sort of endorsement of a "Jewish state" was necessary.

The adjustment stemmed from growing Israeli concerns that, even though Palestinians had accepted Israel as a state, they still might one day try to wrest control of the country through the expanding Arab Israeli minority — already one-fifth of Israel's citizenry — and the possible influx of Palestinian refugees.

Israelis worried that, in light of the shifting demographics and the country's democratic ideals, they'd left a giant loophole that could allow Palestinians to one day turn Israel into an Arab-dominated country. Because Palestinians want their own state in the West Bank, it was seen as a kind of political double-dipping.

Those same concerns are a driving factor behind right-wing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's proposal to redraw Israel's borders so Arab Israeli villages would be absorbed by a future Palestinian state, thereby shrinking Israel's Arab citizenry and reducing any threat it might pose.

They are also among the reasons why Israel recently moved to require non-Jewish prospective citizens to take a loyalty oath to Israel as a "Jewish democratic state," though Netanyahu said Monday that he'd amend the measure to make it apply to Jewish immigrants as well.

"This perception comes from a place of fear,'' said Yitzhak Reiter, professor of Ashkelon Academic College. As a result, Israelis began seeking psychological and diplomatic assurances of Israel's Jewish character.

"Explicit recognition that Israel is the Jewish people's home will strengthen our willingness to take risks and leave the territories," wrote political columnist Ari Shavit in Haaretz newspaper.

But Palestinians note that Israel's previous peace deals with Egypt and Jordan didn't require acceptance of Israel's Jewish character.

Further, they complain, there are no clear definitions of a "Jewish state." Would Arab Israelis have an inferior status or reduced rights in a Jewish state? Would such an endorsement affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees or the division of Jerusalem?

"Would this mean they could get rid of all non-Jews from Israel?" Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath asked. "They have never explained the meaning. They are using this to just create new complications. Now, rather than discussing borders or Jerusalem, we are talking about the Jewishness of the state."

Even Israelis don't agree on what "Jewish state" should mean, Palestinians say. Secular Israelis worry such terminology would increase the mix of religion and state. Many Orthodox Jews, meanwhile, believe the Torah forbids the formation of a Jewish state until the arrival of the Messiah. The lack of consensus is one of the reasons Israel never drafted a constitution.

Some Palestinian leaders have expressed a willingness to consider calling Israel a Jewish state, provided the term is defined and other issues are resolved. Shaath said that if Israel is serious it should raise the issue formally during negotiations, rather than in political speeches and in the media.

"They should bring it to the table," he said. "But right now, they are using it to create fear and agitation."

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 Doris Wise Montrose, October 19, 2010.

This was written by Richard Landes.


The latest developments from Silwan,[1] and a brilliant spoof on the MSNM by Latma (below) prompt me to report a conversation I had last summer with a journalist who is the Middle East Correspondent for a major Western news outlet. I was speaking to him about my concern that the MSNM had behaved very badly over the previous decade, much to the detriment, not just of Israel but of the West and societies that try and guarantee the freedom of speech and the press. In particular I emphasized the skewed epistemology whereby they treated Palestinian claims as true until proven false, and Israeli claims as false until proven true, and when the evidence eventually favored the Israelis, they tended to fall silent.

His response was that Israeli complaints (whining) about the media being unfair is like a general who complains about rain on the field of battle. I didn't bother pursuing the point that in no case does the rain only fall on one army alone. What interested me more was the implication of this (repeated) comment, namely that he (and apparently many others) saw the media as a force of nature, an unalterable force, immune to reason or rebuke. They would just do their thing, and let the Israelis deal with it.

I think that some of this comes from an attitude of sympathy towards the underdog. Bob Simon, in treating the Al Durah story, commented that "in the Middle East, one picture can be worth a thousand weapons." Over time, a number of journalists (off the record) agreed with the formula: "The Israelis have all the weapons, so why not let the Palestinians have the PR victory? It's a way of leveling the playing field."

But what about fake stories? Like Muhammad al Durah? In subsequent years, I heard (especially European/French) journalists shrug and say, weapons of the weak, as if somehow that made it alright. In this sense, Enderlin's response to my observation that most of the action sequences from Talal abu Rahmah were framed — "Oh, they do that all the time, it's a cultural thing" — represents the journalist's off-the-record Orientalist indulgence of a culture foreign to everything that Western journalism is supposed to be about.[2]

Now, I can understand some journalists coming to this conclusion, deciding that somehow the underdog status of the Palestinians allowed them to invent what Nidra Poller has aptly called "lethal narratives"[3] but not everyone. And yet, my friend the journalist (who few would consider a particularly nasty anti-Israel writer) tells me that a majority of the journalists stationed in Israel would be far more harsh in their treatment of Israel were it not for their editors at home.

I think I understand why he presents the MSNM as a force of nature, impermeable to change: they're going to handicap Israel by raining on their troop positions. It's not only the "moral" thing to do (level the playing field, side with the underdog), but it's also a show of power. They will be the Lilliputians that tie the giant Gulliver down.

Talking to him, listening to his reasoning, to his explanations for things (like explaining the precipitous drop in Hamas' suicide bombings in recent years as a response to the disapproval of Muslims worldwide), to his disappointment that Israel is not more in line with his own liberal/progressive thinking (alas, they reacted to suicide attacks by becoming more right-wing), to his selective empathy, I begin to realize how tight the grip of what Charles Jacobs calls the Human Rights Complex[4] is on our journalists, and their party-buddies, the UN workers and "Human Rights" NGOs who hang together in Jerusalem. It produces the "herd of independent minds" that characterizes today's Middle East journalism.

And of course, if you adopt this point of view, you never have to deal with the problem of what happens if you report stuff that's not acceptable to the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. So they can, in all good conscience, look you straight in the eye and say, "There's no intimidation here."[5] Try writing some stories on the culture of genocidal hatred that has pride of place[6] in Palestinian pulpits and airways, and see if there isn't some pushback.

But then, that would be supplying Israel with PR weapons, and we wouldn't want that.

All of this is a long and rather elaborate introduction to a brilliant satire put out by Latma on precisely this subject. Enjoy. Imnsho, it's right on. It's called "Pallywood director in tell-all interview with the Tribal Update." View it here at LATMA TV.


[1] http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/ 45884734/critiques/new/MSM,_Stone_Throwers_ Collude_and_Collide_In_Silwan.asp

[2] http://www.seconddraft.org/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=558:patv-official-on-inserting- pictures&catid=85:the-al-durah-case-the-videos&Itemid=250

[3] http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/ frm/29898/sec_id/29898

[4] http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/08/08/ from-the-archives-dr-jacobs-argument-on-msm-coverage-of- human-rights-abuses/

[5] http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/04/04/ erlanger-intimidation-and-the-western-ignorance-of-the- palestinian-hate-industry/

[6] http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=427

Doris Wise Montrose is with Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Contact her at doris@cjhsla.org.

Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors(CJHS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization committed to the promotion of Western values against the dual threats of complacency at home and political Islam abroad. We believe that a safe and secure Israel, prospering as a Jewish State, is a prerequisite to long-term global peace. CJHS insists that the last Holocaust imposes upon all people of good will a moral and political imperative to prevent the next one.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Isaac, October 19, 2010.

"[T]here is good reason why the Israeli government should heed Defense Minister Barak's advice and extend a settlement freeze. If nothing else, a freeze would prove that the obstacle to Middle East agreement isn't the settlements ... but the more basic refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over any part of the land." So writes Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at Jerusalem's Shalom Hartman Institute, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Halevi believes that what the West wants, or even cares about, is Israel's good behavior. In assuming this, he entirely misreads the West's motives. Israel's ability to prove that its pursuit of peace is genuine is irrelevant to the West's calculations. Western policy, as Shmuel Katz writes, is "in fact governed by the principle of not 'infuriating the Arabs,' of appeasing and fawning upon them, of encouraging them to continue the flow of petrodollars ..."

Put simply, the West is less interested in what Israel does than what the Saudis want. This policy principle expresses itself as Western pressure on Israel. In "Fruits of Myopia" (The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 14, 1980), Shmuel writes:

The policy of shrinking Israel has in itself ... been a function of US political doctrine in ... the perceived need to please and appease the Arabs. It has been pursued vigorously and relentlessly, and it remains the leitmotif of Washington's policy to this day.

This approach has been there from the start. In Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (Bantam Books, 1973), Shmuel writes:

At every critical phase in the conflict between Arabs and Israel, the pragmatic considerations have predominated. There is a heavy American economic stake in the oil of the Arab states. Already in 1948 it was described as the United States' "greatest potential investment in a foreign country." The spokesmen of the oil interests — warning of a non-existing Arab threat to cut off oil supplies — were largely influential in 1948 both in the American government's formal withdrawal of support for the 1947 partition plan and in the United States' subsequent pressure of the Zionist leaders to "postpone" the declaration of the Jewish state. It was those interests which, together with the British government (which supplied the Arabs with arms), achieved the imposition of an American embargo calculated to operate only against Israel. It is a matter of simple arithmetic that if in 1948 Israel's birth and her survival had depended on the help of the United States, the country would not have come into existence at all. The declared Arab plan for a campaign of destruction of Jewish life in Palestine to rival those of the Mongol hordes and the Crusaders — that is, genocide — would then have gone into operation.

Fear that the Arabs might 'turn off the oil tap' isn't the only motive that clouds the thinking of Western policy-makers. There is also the growing fear of Arab terror. As author Bat Ye'or writes in a recent column, the European Union has "wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad..." The West, she says, "grasps at the demise of tiny Israel as though at a lifebelt."

A stark example of this type of behavior is the secret, ignoble deal in the 1970s, revealed only two years ago, that was made between the Italian government and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the PLO in which the two organizations agreed not to hit Italian targets in return for safe haven and free passage.

Western countries also have commercial interests to consider. They don't want to upset Arab states, with their 350 million potential customers. And then there is continuing anti-Semitism. Shmuel, who was never a conspiracist, concluded that only that ancient hatred could explain American behavior in Jerusalem.

In "Moving the U.S. Embassy" (The Jerusalem Post, April 13, 1984), he wrote:

Indeed a close examination of U.S. policy since 1947 suggests that its willingness to go to absurd extremes against a Jewish sovereign presence in Jerusalem derives from a deeper passion. There can be little doubt that one of the strands of State Department doctrine on Jewish national restoration has been the historic "religious" prejudice, which cannot tolerate the notion of Jewish statehood at all and which recoils from the very idea of Jews actually ruling over the Holy City.

Oil interests and commercial greed, fear of the global jihad, and a sprinkling of some old-fashioned anti-Semitism — here are the motives that drive the West. Such "pragmatic considerations," as Shmuel writes, determine the lions' share of the West's Mideast policy. The merits of such policies won't be debated here. The point is that none require deep thinking about the justness of the respective sides in the Arab-Israel dispute, making what Israel does, in the end, beside the point. This has not stopped Israelis, who continue to fall for Western rhetoric, (really the regurgitation of Arab propaganda) about Israel's need to end the "occupation", from believing therefore that Israel can show the West that, "no, it, too, genuinely seeks peace". They would be wise to stop their ears, disabuse themselves of the misguided notion, and think clearly about what the West really cares about. Failure to do so will only lead to the same tragic policy mistakes that Israel has made in the past, perhaps the most egregious example being the actions of Israel's leadership during the Yom Kippur War. In "Reflections On A Resignation" (The Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1983), Shmuel describes what happened.

In that war, compounding the blunders of commission and omission in the defence establishment and the army before the war, the political leadership knowingly jeopardized the lives of hundreds of front-line soldiers. They declined to call up the reserves even when they knew that the Egyptians and the Syrians were poised for the attack, and refused to accede to Chief-of-Staff David Elazar's appeal for a pre-emptive air-strike.

They took these decisions in order to demonstrate to the "world," beyond any possible shadow of doubt, that it was the Arabs, with swords visibly unsheathed, and not an obviously unprepared Israel, who were the aggressors; and thus to win sympathy and support. The sacrifice they made met with a uniform European response: complete indifference. In Israel's darkest hour during that war, Europe's governments, with the exception of Portugal, refused to allow U.S. planes carrying supplies to the IDF to land in their territory, even for refueling. (Not to mention Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's statement after the war, justifying the Arab aggression.)

... grievous was the blunder of the Golda Meir government in paying a horrendous advance price to please a European morality which had long ceased to exist.

The Golda Meir government rested its decision on an absurd assumption — that what the West seeks is proof that Israel is in the right. Israel seems not to learn and continues to act on the dangerously false assumption that its actions are what drive Western attitudes. It freezes settlements, removes checkpoints, destroys thriving communities — each concession spawning new demands for still further concessions.

So long as Israel clings to its misunderstanding of Western motives, it will continue to sacrifice its sons, its sovereignty and its strength in vain.

David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: www.shmuelkatz.com. Contact him at david_isaac@shmuelkatz.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, October 19, 2010.

Laura: The Obama White House is actively engaging in an anti-Semitic policy with regards to Judea and Samaria. While demanding that Jewish building be halted in order not to create "facts on the ground", the administration is funding Arab construction, thereby creating facts on the ground favoring the Arab occupiers. It is imperative that Israel ends the freeze and not let them get away with this diabolical anti-Jewish plot to drive Jewish communities from their lands and create an islamic terror state adjacent to Israel where it will be used to further the jihadist aim to obliterate Israel with Obama's blessing.

ZOA Opposes Obama's Funding Palestinian Construction In Judea/Samaria — While Demanding Israel Stop Jewish Construction

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has opposed the Obama Administration for funding Palestinian construction projects in Judea and Samaria while at the same time demanding and publicly pressuring Israel to stop all Jewish construction in the same areas. This is despite the fact that Israel is only building within the boundaries of existing Jewish communities, which comprise only 4%-5% of the disputed areas of Judea and Samaria.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been financing Palestinian infrastructure projects in these disputed territories, including projects that involve the construction of PA municipal buildings, as well as roads and other infrastructure. A World Net Daily report indicates that "by aiding Palestinian construction of infrastructure in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, the U.S. has effectively been helping the PA create facts on the ground that could push disputed neighborhoods toward becoming part of a Palestinian state, including areas where the land in question is wholly owned by Jews."

Last month the State Department inaugurated a USAID-funded Palestinian school in Beit Ijza, a neighborhood about five miles northwest of Jerusalem. Development with U.S. aid has also been extended to northern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis, which are close to the Jewish neighborhoods of Neve Yaacov and Pisgat Zeev in Israel's capital. (Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis are located entirely within the Jerusalem municipality and were populated by Jews until the 1948 war). This represents a stepping-up of U.S. assistance to Palestinian construction projects over and above funding for Palestinian development in eastern Jerusalem over recent years.

In Kfar Akeb in Jerusalem, an official sign reads in English, 'Ramallah-Jerusalem Road. This project is a gift form (sic) the American people to the Palestinian people in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and PECDAR. 2007.' The sign bears the emblems of the American and PA governments and of USAID and was not present when last checked in 2006. In these neighborhoods, official PA logos and placards abound, including one glaring red street sign at the entrance to the neighborhoods warning Israelis to keep out (Aaron Klein, 'Double-talking on Israel: U.S. aids Palestinians? Obama demands Jews stop construction while building PA foothold in same areas,' World Net Daily, October 10, 2010).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said,

"It is disturbing that the Obama Administration is adopting Palestinian positions, effectively acting as the lawyer/negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, demanding that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria be stopped in order to one day create a Jew-free Palestinian state and aiding the PA in building up its presence even in eastern Jerusalem.

"The Obama Administration itself states that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated directly between the two parties. If that is the case, then the Obama Administration should be doing nothing to bolster the Palestinian position in Jerusalem, which creates facts on the ground and therefore prejudices the outcome of those negotiations, should they ever occur.

"We note that part of the explicit rationale of the Obama Administration opposing Jewish construction is that it creates facts on the ground. Why then are they not opposing the creation of facts on the ground by Palestinians? Worse, why are they funding these efforts with U.S. taxpayer money? Consistency requires that it start opposing Palestinian efforts to change the facts on the ground and cease funding these efforts.

"The ZOA calls upon the Obama Administration to cease funding PA construction projects. We further call upon the U.S. Congress to investigate whether funding PA infrastructure developments in disputed territories is even a permissible use of U.S. funds, especially in light of continuing PA sponsorship of incitement to hatred and violence against Israel."

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, October 19, 2010.

The writer is the wife of Jonathan Pollard, an American-born Israeli citizen who is currently serving his 25th year of a life sentence in an American prison for espionage charges. He worked for Israel's Ministry of Defense. This appeared in yesterday's Jerusalem Post.


No matter how morally bereft the behavior of successive governments toward Jonathan may be, this does not absolve President Barack Obama of his responsibility to exercise his powers of presidential clemency to right a 25-year injustice. Dramatic "revelations" in The Jerusalem Post by a high-ranking Israeli minister that "high level discussions in Israel are under way" to secure the release of my husband Jonathan Pollard are nothing but smoke and mirrors to deceive the public.

These revelations confirm that the Israelis are still talking only to themselves about Pollard, not to the Americans. Once again there is a nefarious move afoot, according to the Post, to bury the Pollard case in committee.

Unprecedented charges of US government malfeasance recently made by two senior officials with first-hand involvement in the case, former US assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb, and former minister Rafi Eitan, underscore the injustice of the life sentence Jonathan is serving and the urgency of securing his immediate release. Their statements also provide Israel with the golden key to open Jonathan's jail cell.

Incredibly, Israel apparently plans to toss the golden key away, once again.

But no matter how morally bereft the behavior of successive governments toward Jonathan may be, this does not absolve President Barack Obama of his responsibility to exercise his powers of presidential clemency to right a 25-year injustice in a case where no other avenue of relief exists.

The unlimited powers of clemency the US Constitution grants to the president are his solemn responsibility.

The Constitution grants these powers as part of the president's duty to safeguard the rights of all American citizens in those cases where the judicial system either cannot or will not correct itself.

In the case of Jonathan Pollard, where the ends of justice have been ill-served, where the judicial system has been subverted to prosecute one American citizen excessively and where there is now clear evidence of government malfeasance, it is imperative that the president intervene.

THE MEDIAN sentence for the offense Jonathan committed is two to four years. Jonathan is now in his 25th year of a life sentence with no end in sight.

In addition to Korb and Eitan, after numerous security briefings on the issue, Rep. Anthony Weiner recently wrote in a letter to the president: "The life sentence which Jonathan Pollard is now serving is not a reflection of the severity of the crimes he committed, but rather the result of... a damage assessment report written by an intelligence community that was badly shaken by unrelated espionage cases..."

Even former secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger who drove Jonathan's grossly disproportionate sentence, admitted in a 2002 interview that the Pollard case was in fact "a minor matter" that had been exaggerated to serve other ends.

Nor is parole an option, as Jonathan's attorneys have explained: "Applying for parole is not an option for Mr. Pollard, because of a severe impediment which has been unilaterally imposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ)... The DOJ has refused to allow Pollard's security-cleared attorneys to see their client's entire court file, which is partly under seal. Without access to that file, persons opposed to parole know that they have free rein to say absolutely anything about Mr. Pollard without any risk that they will be contradicted by the documents."

This impediment has hamstrung all of Jonathan's efforts to bring his case back to court, and in the process all legal remedies have been exhausted.

Whether it is ineptitude, calculation or expedience that prevents the government from discharging its responsibility to seek Jonathan's immediate release on the compelling legal and moral grounds that now exist is irrelevant. Whatever the reason, clearly no initiative is forthcoming from the Netanyahu government, and no effort is likely to ever be made to bring Jonathan home alive.

Having served 25 years in the harshest conditions the American penal system has to offer, Jonathan is ill, his immune system depleted and his very survival is at stake.

The petition for executive clemency, filed last week by Jonathan's American attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, is my husband's avenue of last resort to resolve a travesty of justice that now threatens to end his life in prison.

At a time when the people of Israel are being asked to believe Obama's claims about America's strong ties to Israel and of the US's special friendship with the Jewish state, it is too great a leap of faith to rely on words alone.

With one stroke of his pen, President Obama can restore honor to the American system of justice, regain the confidence of the American Jewish community, and reassure the people of Israel, that in spite of the Netanyahu government's failure, America can be relied upon to do what is right.

Netanyahu's ignoble failure to act to rescue Jonathan Pollard is now Obama's supreme obligation.

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, October 19, 2010.

(Israelnationalnews.com) Even as Chancellor Angela Merkel pronounces the failure of "multiculturalism" in Germany, the English-language German newspaper reporter, Marc Young, writing for the English-language German news at The Local, proclaims that "bigotry towards Muslims is the new anti-Semitism."

As the author of a book with the title The New Anti-Semitism (with an edition in German), allow me to remind Mr. Young that one of the things that is "new" about this most ancient of hatreds is that it is pandemic in the Islamic world and in Muslim communities in the West and that the multicultural relativists in the world's universities, media, and political leadership, are collaborating with it in the name of "political correctness."

Thus, what both Young and those who run the state-subsidized Center for Research on Anti-Semitism at the University of Berlin have learned from the Nazi Holocaust is that Europeans should not discriminate against Muslims as they once did against Jews.

German scholar Clemens Heni strongly disagrees:

"There is no other prejudice or form of racism which you can compare to this centuries-long hatred (anti-Semitism) which has no real justification. If you look at Islam today, there is a point to Islamophobia because Jihadists say, 'We want to kill the unbelievers.' Jews never said that. Because as a German I have a responsibility to deal with my own history, and if I see that other Germans want to downplay anti-Semitism and to minimize the threat of Islamic jihad and other forms of anti-Zionism — I think there is something deeply wrong, they didn't learn the lesson from the Holocaust, they are even downplaying the Holocaust itself.

"I think it's really important to focus on anti-Semitism as a specific phenomenon. This was the subject of my first article in the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Most people in Germany and in academia focus on anti-Semitism as one prejudice among many like racism, colonialism, imperialism, sexism, whatever. That was the reason why Robert Wistrich, the leading historian of anti-Semitism, was never invited to the Berlin Center for Research on anti-Semitism for the last 20 years. Usually an institute, well-funded, with hundreds of thousands of Euros a year — they have to invite the leading scholars. They didn't invite him. One must ask why."

Heni has paid a punishing price for his beliefs and values. He has failed the test for political correctness, both in Berlin and at Israel's own leading "post-Zionist" universities which have, so far, refused to hire him as a professor of German history who specializes in German anti-Semitism — when such positions have actually been available.

Ironic, yes?

Heni has worked with Robert Wistrich in Jerusalem and with Charles Small at the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism. He has written two books about anti-Semitism in Germany: Antisemitism in Germany: Preliminary Studies of a "Heartfelt" Relationship and Antisemitism as a Specific Phenomenon, and co-written the book German Middle Eastern Studies and Islamism After 9/11. He remains an independent scholar without a tenured position.

In a recent interview, Heni explained to me: "The big controversy goes back to the conference in 2008 that equated Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, literally saying that the Muslims of today are in the same situation that the Jews were in during the late 19th century. And I'm a scholar of German history, I've written two books about that topic, including one about the late-19th century, so I know a little bit about what happened at that time. We had specific parties dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism, and right now we don't have a single party spreading Islamophobia, saying 'we don't want any Muslims in our country,' or that they should be killed.

So on the other hand, the Center says that after 9/11, we had an increase in hostility toward Muslims, which is a strange thing because Mr. Benz, the head of the center, was saying that after the killing of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands in 2004, we had an increase in hostility toward Islam. He did not say that he was sorry about what happened to Mr. van Gogh, which was one of the most powerful political acts of killing in the last decade in Europe because it was a very Islamist, jihadist action."

This precise European (and therefore post-Zionist Israeli) view of anti-Semitism was on display in a recent article in the New York Times about a new Hitler exhibit in Berlin. The article is titled "Hitler Exhibit Explores a Wider Circle of Guilt." Those who were chosen to comment on the wisdom of such a display equated the persecution and extermination of Europe's Jews with what is now going on in Europe vis a vis Europe's Muslims. Thus, the University of Berlin's Center for Research on Anti-Semitism and the post-Zionist Israeli Academy share the New York Times view that a hostile, anti-integration, pro-jihadic Muslim population in Europe is the same as a highly assimilated and/or pacifist Jewish population was in Europe in the past.

Leaping right over what is specific to the extermination of Europe's Jews, Germans, as well as other Europeans today, are generalizing that tragic and unique history so as to justify the absorption of a far more dangerous and increasingly radicalized Muslim population.

Yes, of course: Germany welcomed "foreign workers" from Turkey whom they either never expected to stay or whom they assumed would be so grateful for a western life that they would happily integrate and become more German than Turkish. And yes, it is true: Germany has a history of racism towards Jews, gypsies, "foreigners." However, today, Germany and the rest of Europe faces a far different challenge.

I wish to acknowledge the fine work of Esther's Islam in Europe blog (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/), and the assistance of Nathan Bloom in the preparation of this article.

Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, October 19, 2010.

Negotiating with non-Representative 'Partner'
by Joel Gilbert

Once upon a time at the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thought he saw a two-state solution that would achieve peace in the Middle East. "President Abbas, you are my partner in peace."

While Netanyahu was the duly elected leader of his country, three strange characters who did not represent their people were standing next to him at the White House — Jordan's King Abdullah, Egypt's President Mubarak, and the former Palestinian Authority President, PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas.Beginning in 1983, support amongst Palestinians for the secular Palestinian Liberation Organization steadily declined as an Islamist Palestinian leadership emerged. By the end of the nineties, the PLO was irrelevant to most Muslims. In January 2005, Palestinians made their choice official when the Islamist group HAMAS won a decisive victory over the PLO, capturing over two-thirds of the vote in free elections. Abbas' term as President of the Palestinian Authority quietly expired in January 2009.

In his statement at the White House, Abbas declared his hopes for successful negotiations "in the name of the PLO." He did not even pretend to represent the Palestinian Authority...

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

For many centuries Jews pledged loyalty, in accordance with Jewish law, to host rules or countries. Now, in our own state, some disgusting self-haters and traitors are opposing loyalty oath to Jewish states.

Look Who is Talking?

Commenting on the change to people's oath of loyalty to Israel, opposition leader Tzipi Livni said: "We have seen today politics at its worst. The sensitive issue of Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state has become subject to political horse-trading." (Most countries are trying to preserve their own national identity, demand loyalty and respect for the law. Why shouldn't Israel?)

Europe Must Fix Own Problem First

Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman hosted counterparts Bernard Kouchner of France and Miguel Moratinos of Spain in Jerusalem a week ago. He admonished them, saying that Israel is not Czechoslovakia surrendering to Germany and pointedly told his guests that, "Before you teach us how to resolve conflicts here, I expect, at the very least, that you solve all the problems in Europe." Lieberman reportedly accused the international community of trying to "make up for its failure to resolve conflicts in Somalia, Afghanistan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan and other places by trying to bring about an Israeli-Palestinian agreement within a year." (At least one minister of the Israeli's government is able to keep bigots at bay. Reminder: France and Spain are still occupying the Basque region!)

Undemocratic First Democracy

A poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates found that the majority of American adults support Israel, and oppose U.S. President Barack Obama's Middle East Policy — 50.9% said Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital, compared to just 20.4% who disagreed. 77.9% said that Palestinian Authority leaders should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, compared to just 6% who said they should not. (Americans are consistently pro-Israel, but where Jews are concerned democracy is ignored!)

Ugliness of the US Administration anti-Israel Attitude.

Support of the Jewish state or just Love for the Game?

"The region needs to accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people," State Department spokesperson Philip Crowley said. "The desire that Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed" when he spoke in the Knesset about the offer he had made — continuing the freeze in exchange for PA recognition of Israel as a Jewish state — "is a core demand of Israel, one we support. Israel must be recognized as part of the region, and the region must accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people," Crowley said.

Quote of the Week:

"This is a fight for the homeland. It is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive... We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors — if there are any — the boats are ready to deport them." — from a speech of PLO leader Shukairy, on June 1, 1967 — The objectives of this our enemy are clear. By rejecting all peace initiatives and concessions made by Israel, Arabs prove that there their intentions remain the same!

Barbaric State in 21st Century

A Saudi couple tortured their Sri Lankan maid, Ariyawathi, 49, (after she complained of a heavy workload) by hammering 24 nails into her hands, legs and forehead. Nearly 2 million Sri Lankans sought employment overseas last year and around 1.4 million, mostly maids, were employed in the Middle East. Many have complained of physical abuse or harassment. (This is the true face of 'moderate' Islamic bastardry, which is flourishing amongst the despicable silence of the free press and 'sensitive' politics conducted by democratic countries!)

Opinion of Qualified Nobel Laureate 'They' Ignore

Prof. Yisrael Auman, Nobel Laureate and noted American-Israeli mathematician and game theorist commented about the 'Peace process': "The calls for peace, which we have been hearing (mainly from our side) for the past 90 years, do not bring us closer to peace but actually take us further from it." "We think that posters with pigeons will bring about peace, but that isn't true and will only bring about war," added Aumann.

Conducting Undeclared Wars.

Tempers are running high in Islamabad since US officials intimated that additional remote-controlled aircraft and helicopters from other Afghan sectors were brought in to strengthen the major new front opening up against Taliban strongholds in Pakistan's North Waziristan. Pakistan blocked NATO Afghanistan-bound convoys which are regularly torched and attacked. (Turkey wages war on Iraq by attacking Kurds in the North. The US is conducting war in Pakistan, attack Taliban targets. International laws are not respected. The international 'free' media is silent! During the war in Vietnam there was at least some pretense to hide the US attacks on Laos!)

Awakening of Israeli Left?

Israel's leading Hebrew news website Walla, founded by the Haaretz group and identified with the left, has surprised its readers with its latest editorial questioning the peace process: "Stop the Peace Process" it wrote: "You can argue with Ya'alon and Lieberman, but you should listen to them. Netanyahu does not want it, Abu Mazen cannot achieve it and the left knows there will not be peace here in the coming years. It is time to remove the mask." (Our enemies are not interested in peace. Only by pursuing its own interests and rights, can Israel achieve peace!)

The Art of Jewish National Suicide
Writings of a Rabbi.

For decades, large numbers of (not just) American Jews and the vast majority of their leadership have been practicing the art of national suicide. Faced with the loss of an elementary understanding that ... vital issues should be judged on the basis of national self-interest — Jews have consistently vowed fealty to 'objectivity', regularly placed liberal or "humanitarian" concepts over Jewish ones and worked tirelessly to destroy themselves.

Normal people realize that groups base decisions upon self-interest. Normal people realize that democracy is a conglomerate of pressures and self-interest groups with farmers, consumers, unions, Catholics, Blacks (African American) and all kinds of lobbyists constantly striving to ensure that their interests be served. Apparently, the Exile has so warped and terrified certain Jews that they strive to escape their Jewishness... thus gaining love and safety from anti-Semitism.

It is insecurity, fear and drive to assimilate that lead certain Jews to back causes that are blatantly anti-Jewish. Thus, some Jews become Marxists in face of the fact that Marxism means the elimination of Jews both as a religion and nation. Certain Jews become "humanists" despite — or because of — the subsequent blurring of all division between Jew and non-Jew. Others retain their Jewishness, but insist upon being liberals before Jews and think a liberal world guarantees safety for the Jew. All these groups have been proven wrong a thousand times over and the fact remains that the Jew can never purchase his safety, security and peace at the expense of his own identity, or specifically separate existence. The one way to ensure their identity and the survival of the Jew as a separate entity is through Jewish self-interest.

...Liberal support for downtrodden people in no way necessarily ensures Jewish survival. Being a liberal is not always synonymous with Jewish interests (and the same holds true for being a conservative).

It is vital for the Jew — if he wishes to survive — to understand a number of basic axioms:

1. Unless the Jew aids himself there is no one else who will come to his rescue in time of great and critical need. The fact is so historically true that it is inexplicable that it is not self-obvious.

2. Jews, in order to survive, must continually gird their resources and strength for Jewish causes and aims since no one else will.

...inward national pulls are far more powerful than international and supranational movements. It is little wonder that after 50 years of Soviet rule, Ukrainians and other groups retain and strengthen their own identity and the Great Russians retain their strangle hold on the Soviet Establishment. It is not surprising that 27 years of Tito can do nothing about the rise of Serbian-Croat rivalry, and the Communist Albania and Yugoslavia have an Albanian ethnic problem.

...The solution to survival and respect in this world is not to attempt to lose oneself... One who does not know from whence he came will never know where he is going. Some day we may build a better world but it will never come until each of us regains his own separate identity and self-respect. Only with that self-respect can we respect others and only when others respect us will they truly accept our hand in friendship.

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 a website at www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, October 18, 2010.

Act Three of Seventeen

Once again, the ritualistic exchange of Islamic greeting in Arabic and three pecks on each cheek, after which the two egomaniacs got down to business. As I watched, I thought to myself that there was no more compelling evidence of the sorry condition of the world than the fact that these two loonies wield enough power to end it. The Fascist seemed itching to fire the opening salvo and, by so doing, assume the high ground.


Listen up, and listen up good. You — I mean, America, of course — are going bust. Your government is just like your people. You all live way beyond your means. Your people go bankrupt by the millions because they get to the point that not even your loan-shark banks lend them any money. So, they lose their cars, homes and even their household furniture to the repo and foreclosure vulture —


I take it you're trying to rub it in, as if I am responsible? Come on, man, tell me something I don't know. Why are you wasting our time talking about this? A man who lives beyond his means must end up facing the music. That's not unique to America — it's the same all over the world. Don't you read the economic reports of credible institutions such as the World Bank? You know what they say? They say there isn't enough money in the world —


Patience, patience, my dear brother. Remember: Allahoma yejazzi al saaberoon be ajron men gheyre hesaab — "Allah compensates the patient ones with infinite rewards" — is a saying attributed to the blessed lips of the beloved Messenger Rasul Allah. So, be patient, brother. For now, let us leave it at saying that the problem is complex, and allow me to tell you what relevance it has to our discourse.

The U.S. government also keeps borrowing money and spending like a drunken sailor. Between the Arab oil peddlers and the Chinese trinket sellers, they own you. They own shiploads of your nearly worthless treasury bonds. The Chinese have hoarded so much of it that they have started squawking publicly. They have threatened to dump the stuff, much less buy any more of it. The way you are going, your two little girls and the coming generations of Americans will be taking in laundry for the Chinese. The shoe will be on the other foot, so to speak.


Yeah, yeah. Stop worrying about my watch, brother. You have so many of your own problems that you hardly need to use your Einstein brains to solve ours —


Stop right there. First you want to call me "Ahi," which means "repulsive." Now you befoul my brains by connecting them to that dumb-ass Jew who had nothing original to contribute, yet he stole other people's work and claimed it as his own. A typical Jew, I say. That moron could not hack primary school, remember? All of a sudden he became the genius of the age? How did he do it? By craftily stealing other people's work and claiming it as his own, I say. Jews, Jews, Jews. The Best Beloved of Allah, the one-and-only true Messenger, recognized the Jews for what they are and dealt with them with the justice of Allah in Medina, where our Holy Prophet (saw) executed 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe. That is why we, His faithful, are duty-bound to complete the work that the Prophet himself pursued: We must cleanse Allah's earth from the microbes of Jews. We must destroy Israel utterly.


Like they say, a true anti-Semite. Tell me if you would: Why, then, did the Holy Prophet (saw), with his infinite power, let the Jews thrive? According to the Holy Quran and the commentaries, Muhammad (pbuh) split the moon with one slash of his sword and performed many other miracles, didn't he? I don't mean to sound skeptical, I am just curious.


Look, if the Messenger of Allah had exterminated all the Jews, then how could his adoring followers earn merit points, merit points that we need for admission into Paradise? Out of his infinite kindness, Rasul Allah left us a great deal of work. Can you not appreciate that? But see here — you too are a Jew-hater, aren't you?


Some people say so, and I guess I don't give off a good impression when I so blatantly suck up to other members of the Ummah, the global Muslim community — I suppose I should tone that down. I'm doing my best to help out our oppressed Palestinian brethren — did you hear about me snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to the White House? I think that should show them a thing or two, as it did when I made that comment about journalist Danny Pearl's beheading. I said, "Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world's imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is." My critics were quick to point out that Pearl was a Jew and was murdered because of that fact, so my remark looks quite trite and insensitive.

I'm really trying to make Islam look not so bad. But you guys aren't helping — all the suicide bombings, beheadings and indiscriminate killings are giving Islam a really bad reputation. Since 9/11, there have been over 15,000 fatal Islamist terrorist attacks globally!

Nevertheless, I apologize for connecting you in any way to that crafty Jew Einstein — you have no idea what influences I am under. I've got to deal with the bad rep of Islam, as well as having powerful Zionists breathing down my neck all day long. But we can't have your solution to the "Jewish problem." The difference between us is that you blare out your hatred without being able to do much more than make life a living hell for the few Jews still remaining in Iran. If I did that, the American Zionists would lynch me. You know, lynching blacks used to be a favorite pastime activity in America. There are some who are still nostalgic about those years and want to bring the practice back.


First of all, as concerns who did 9/11, the Muslim Ummah only claims responsibility when it is convenient to rally the troops and uplift morale. At those times, we refer to the alleged suicide bombers as "The Magnificent 19 Martyrs." Otherwise, publically we uncategorically deny that Muslims had anything to do with 9/11, which we then say was an "inside job" carried out by the CIA and the Mossad. We are so fortunate that Allah commands us to speak out of both sides of our mouths, as you Yanks say, especially when it comes to the stupid infidels, who are so easy to fool!

We lie to the dumb kuffar all the time, including in describing the true Ummah. When it is convenient for us Shi'a brethren, we loudly trumpet the fact that there are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, but when it is also convenient for us, we dismiss the 90 percent of Sunnis as heretics, kuffar and infidels.

And, by the way, do you know why the date of 9/11 was chosen? Because of the scripture in our Holy Quran, ayah 9:111, which guarantees us a seat in Paradise for killing infidels:

"Allah has bought from the believers their lives and worldly wealth, and in return has promised them the Garden (of Paradise). They will fight for the cause of Allah, and will slay and be slain."

Regarding your other comments, yes, you do go around the world and expose the evil-doings of the American administration, controlled by the twin evils of Wall Street and Zionists. Actually they are one and the same, since the Jews own Wall Street as well. But 9/11 really took care of that, did it not? It cost the American economy billions of dollars, which pleased us greatly.

In any event, apology accepted — back to what I was proposing. What I am doing, in the spirit of Islamic charity from one brother to another, is helping you out to save the broke and broken American nation. Do I need to tell you that even your Golden State, California — the engine of your soon-to-be-wrecked-train — is flat broke? It is short $19 billion this year alone. It is so sad that it is hilarious. It is a comedy, I say. California turns to your Federal government, hat in hand for a handout, while you kiss up to the Chinese and the Arabs to loan you some more money. Then your people have the gall to call me zany. Who is really zany, tell me?


You're so full of crap, your eyes are brown. So, the Mossad — the Jews — did 9/11, which destroyed their own financial district, costing them billions? That makes no sense at all. Maybe some Jews were involved — and there could've been some of just about any group on the planet involved at some level, including Muslims. But we don't even want to go there, brother, because we aren't really at the top of the food chain, are we?

Anyway, I'm impressed — how do you know all this? You even knew what Dolly said about Slick Willy being a horny toad. Your public image and what the CIA paints of you are so vastly different from what I see myself. They think you are a glib, head-in-the-sand, two-bit-jerk who houses nothing more than crap in his cranium. I mean, I don't say that — that 's what your public image is. Now, I can see that they are dead wrong. That's why a tête-ày-tête like the one we are having is so critical at getting to the real skinny.


What is the "real skinny?" We know all the important stuff, but we do not usually bother with the kind of street slang that you have acquired in the course of wading your way through the slums of Chicago and the cesspool of the Chicago Democratic Party.


All right, knock off the abusive language. But you're wise not to bother with street slang, because it can be a waste of gray matter. Now that you asked, the "real skinny" means the "real scoop."


The "real poop," did you say?


I see you just can't resist the street humor after all. In fact, I'm quite sure you are amused by it. Anyway, the real skinny, real scoop and real poop all mean the same thing. The English language is so vast — the unabridged dictionary lists nearly one million words. Not like Farsi where you can't say two words without one of them being Arabic. From what I've understand, most Arab-speakers can't understand the classical Arabic of the Quran, and regional dialects vary so much that it's difficult for two Arabic speakers from different parts of the Arab world to communicate with each other.


Yes, yes, that is true. But Farsi? My arsie! Who gives a rat's hindquarter for Farsi? Farsi and anything non-Islamic or pre-Islamic are all trash, I say. It is Arabic, the language of revelation, which counts. And yes, yes, you are correct — in due time, we shall toss that 1,000,000-word English and all other languages in the dustpan where they belong, and have Arabic as the common and only tongue. That day is coming. Count on it. As we say, "Arabic only by 2030."

And for your one-million-word English language, that reminds me of the blessed words of the Messenger of Allah where he says, Al elmo nughtatan katharho al jaaheloon — "Knowledge is but a dot, expanded by ignorant people."


Surely the blessed Prophet (pbuh) must've been using a metaphor. How could knowledge be only a dot? And of all people, how could ignorant people expand it?


That is the difference between true believers like me and chameleons like you. To me, every word that has issued forth from his blessed lips is a literal truth. The Messenger of Allah needs not rely upon banalities of metaphor, allegories and similes.


I love Arabic, as you know, but all these facts remind me that I don't want my grandchildren to speak only Arabic, which is a plank in the Muslim Brotherhood agenda to Islamize the world —


Ugh. The Muslim Brotherhood! Those kuffar infidels are nothing but puppets of the CIA and the Mossad. We will fight them too, as they are just Zionist agents.


Well, some might say that's an outrageous claim, to say the least. But I hear so many, and nothing surprises me. If all of it were true, I'd have to say that the SuperJews who omnipotently run everything must be superior indeed. They can so easily make complete fools of the Egyptians, Arabs and Sunnis in general by being behind the Muslim Brotherhood?! Perhaps you've forgotten who a number of my major supporters have been? And if the SuperJews control everything in the world, who do you work for?

Anyway, we've got pressing problems in the here and now that we need to work out between us. In our mutual love for Islam, we are two brothers, but we represent diametrically different positions. I mean, I am the President of America, and you are the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the countries we represent have been at loggerheads for many years. What we need to do is to have a private understanding of working together towards furthering the Ummah and publicly pretend that we are still irreconcilable enemies, although personally I'm not pretending, because you really are disgusting. But to make this play, we need to keep up a degree of hostility for public consumption — a sort of shadow boxing, if you know what I mean.


Please do not even suggest that we personally are under the control of the "SuperJews," as you put it. We are being advised from On High, far above the long reach of the Zionist arm — and that is precisely why you need to join us.

We — the truth believers, of which you too can and must become one — must time and again thank Rasul Allah for giving us all the tools and instructions we need to implement his design, not that of any "SuperJews." As you know, an indispensable powerful tool at our disposal is taqiyya — lying — ordained by Muhammad (pbuh) himself. Taqiyya frees us completely from having to be stymied by any commitment, it allows us to say one thing and do the opposite if it suits us, and clearly puts our adversary at a disadvantage. And that is the way it should be. The work of Allah must be implemented, following His guidelines, and none of the trashy standards made up by infidels should get in the way.

Once more, a rap on the door is followed by the appearance of the Thick Thug, who informs their Excellencies that the afternoon prayer time was at hand. Showing his great respect for Islam, which he had proved many times, the Fraud joined his "brother" in spreading their prayer rugs, facing Mecca and performing their prayers, anxious to get the five-times-a day bother out of the way and get on with their important business.


Act Ten of Seventeen

When the tape resumed, the self-adoring, imitation human being, deeply impressed by his use of English idioms, intoned, "No time to beat around the bush. Let's get down to brass tacks." He was swiftly answered by the other phony.


Sure, sure. Earlier you advised me about being patient, but I see that you are not practicing what you preach. Be a bit patient with me. As I said at the end of our last meeting, this is the most difficult decision of my life, and I need to give it due consideration —


Well, have you? Let us get on with it.


Being the practical man that I am, I want you to tell me what's in it for me to "convert," because my Sunni friends would say I'm falling for the ridiculous lies of you and your priesthood, pretending like some delusional nutcase that you are receiving instructions essentially from Allah Himself. So, give me my motivation and explain what you alluded to earlier — about it being a great thing for me here in this world as well as in the afterlife. Well, the afterlife still remains to be seen, much as I would like believe in it. And as for benefits in this world, I basically have as much or more than any man could ever aspire to. I'm the President of the most powerful country in the world. Numberless people, including world leaders, kiss up to me — a black man — for a change; women swoon over me by the droves; and I can go on and on enumerating the long list of the perks I have.

You mentioned "amenities." What do you mean by that? Please explain, so I can make up my mind.


You keep throwing me curve balls, as you people like to say. First, you brag to me about having a long pri —?


No, no, no. You misheard me. I said "perks" not "pri —." A long list of perks, I said. Now who has a dirty mind?


Then tell me what "perks" means. You know that we are dead serious about mastering English, even English slang and colloquial English. All of it, so that we can be a good jihadist and help the Ummah establish Arabic as the only acceptable language in the world. As for the lies about being a puppet of the Arabs and His Blessedness being a fairytale, we should kill anyone who disrespects the Holy Faith like that. You are lucky, because you have a chance to redeem yourself by converting and becoming a disciple of the Supreme Leader.


If you are not an Arab lap dog, as others say, then why are you stumping for Arabic to be the only acceptable language on earth? Why not the Farsi of your homeland?


Arabic is the language of the Holy Quran, the divine revelation of Allah. It is the holy language. We pledge our allegiance to Islam, above and beyond all nations. I am first and foremost an Ummahist. The only reason you have not been killed before is because so many in the Ummah believe you are secretly one of us, as do many of "your" own people. But all you need to do, really, is give up the Sunni heresy and come over to us.

Remember, two things tell us you are a Muslim: 1. Your father was a Muslim, albeit it a heretic, but much better than if only your mother had been a Muslima — which, of course, she was not; and 2. Your middle name Hussein is that of one of our most revered saints.

You were warned years ago that you should not come here — do you honestly believe you can go now? You may have believed you could charm me! No, you are a fly in my spider web, so you have no choice. If you do not convert, we will not let you leave. And if you do convert, but if you are not sincere, you will have a very big bounty on your head for the rest of your life — nay, for eternity, insha'Allah. You know very well that such treachery as apostasy is punishable by death under our legal system.


You can be sure that I regret having come here, although I have to admit some of my visit has been pleasant. But I knew you would try to extort and blackmail me, and here you are. You can't be serious that you think you can prevent me from leaving. Even you can't be so megalomaniacal as to believe you could get away with such an absurd plan — but perhaps you are that insane.

But as long as I am here, I want you to elucidate all kinds of things for me, and I should be prepared to explain things you want to know. Fair enough. "Perks" is short for "perquisites," which means "privileges, benefits, advantages."


Am I supposed to turn green with envy? Do not let who you are now and what you have at present blind you to reality. As your friend, we will take time and spell things out for you. By the way, I really dig that spelling thing. I thank you for it.

Then he burst out with his trademark roaring hyena laughter. He seemed to relish using the word "dig." I just can't fathom why the creep found the word "dig" so hilarious. Who can figure out what goes on in that cranium of his?


I've been taught that something is funny when both parties laugh. So what's so funny, my helpful friend?


You really do not want to know, because it would upset you to no end.


Okay, finish laughing and get this show on the road. It's wearing my patience thin.


Well, back to serious talk. You will love the amenities and "perks" we will be offering you. There are, however, two non-negotiable conditions. The first condition is that you convert to the true Islam — the Twelve Imamate Shi'a. And the second condition is that you call the Zionist dogs off our back and let us move forward —


I dig your first condition, and I am almost there. What you need to spell out in greater detail is your second condition. I can't just give you carte blanche. Besides, if I make a commitment, I intend to keep it, but I might not be able to do so.

The smarmy dictator cracked a sly smile, as if he were relishing a moment of conquest.


Am I the type who would do something like that to a friend? Would I ask you to do something that would get you in trouble or force you to go back on your promise?


Frankly, the thought never crossed my mind —


Stop right there and recant, Pinocchio. The long nose you have is stretching so far out that it is almost completely preventing us from seeing the other half of your face, not that it is worth seeing, anyway.

Hyena laughter again filled the little cage of the two beasts. The creep seemed to enjoy his own sense of humor. Then, with a snap of the fingers the Thick Thug appeared, at which point the Fascist commanded, "Bring us file 609 forthwith!"

With a thick file in hand, the Fascist began paging through it, keeping the Fraud in a deathly suspense for what seemed like a lifetime. As beads of sweat covered the American's face, he seemed to have difficulty breathing, and made a wheezing sound common in asthmatics.


Sorry for bursting your balloon. You compelled us to do so by bragging about your position and the perks you have. You seem so intoxicated with the immediate and oblivious to the long-term. And not very long-term at that —


Would you stop lecturing me and get to the specifics? I said a minute ago that my patience is wearing thin. By now, it's just about to disappear completely.


You are most fortunate if you keep your position and perks until the next presidential election. We, for one, would not want to bet on that more than five of your worthless dollars. That is all — five "bucks," is it not? — and not a nickel more.

Even though they were supposed to be "brothers in faith," they could not resist the macho-male competition. After all, each wanted to top the other and be president of the whole world under the Ummah or community of believers that would soon attain global domination. I could tell that a big part of their blustering was an expression of admiration for each other's misdeeds and cons against the dirty infidels and unsuspecting voters.


Okay, Mr. Big Shot. Back that up. What makes you so sure? Do you have a crystal ball, or is it another one of those private inside revelations you get from what you call "On High?"


No, neither — just plain and simple earthly assessment of facts on the ground. And here they are. You are a fraud and a fake. It is all here in this file. Written records, pictures, testimonials by the most credible people that show beyond the slightest doubt that you have pulled one of history's greatest con games on the country that you called the greatest in the world.


Yeah, tell me something I haven't heard before. Tell me something new. You mean the questions about my ineligibility to be President? All kinds of Neocons, reactionaries, and Republicans have been trying to hang that one on me, and every last one of them has failed. So, next evidence, if you please.


Not so fast. Let us do you a favor and present you the evidence. Believe us, it is good, very good, and it will assuredly cost you your job, every penny you may have, and even your testicles.


Ouch! You can talk about losing me my job, even every penny I have, but not losing my balls. They are off the table — and under it, in a secure pair of pants!

Okay, let me hear your evidence. You had a hilarious laugh a minute ago. It is my turn to have one too.


At your service. But, you have to relax, if you can, and sit back and listen. We will give you only a synopsis of the evidence, so we do not tax your thin patience that you warned us about. We are your friends, and we want to stay your friends. And a real friend should never do anything that hurts a friend.

I cringed when I watched such blatant and obvious sucking up by the wretch, as it was embarrassingly transparent. The bogus Kumbaya boy continued.


You just told us that you know all about those villains who have tried but failed to nail you on this birth-certificate thing. Maybe you are still playing games with me, or maybe you are too busy puffing up your chest with pride in yourself to notice some very damning evidence. I certainly would not be making a monkey of myself by simply re-hashing some unsubstantiated innuendo, would I?


No, I am sure you wouldn't make a monkey of yourself. Particularly not a monkey anyway, since it is one of the most common names your enemies call you. You don't want to wear that, do you?


No, I do not. Speaking of wearing, it sure looks like before you know it, you will be wearing something much worse, a sort of government-issue attire, that is. To give you a hint, it is not a military uniform. But, let me stick to the present point.

Ever heard of a man named Gary Kreep? Does it not ring a bell? Gary Kreep is a point-man for a group called United States Justice Foundation. You still cannot connect? Kreep reports that you have spent $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with 11 law firms in 12 states for legal work to block disclosure of any of your personal record. Now, if you did not have something terribly incriminating to hide, why would you pay all that money and go to all that trouble to hide your record? What is wrong with showing a birth certificate? Even though my enemies claim I'm really Jewish, I still show my proof. You and everyone else in the world are welcome to see it.

The big-nosed loud-mouth held up what looked like his passport, something he had done for the press after voting in a past election. I recalled with an ironic smile that a genealogy expert had insisted that the Fascist's real last name, Sabourjian, was that of a family of Jewish weavers.


Groan. Please stop with the "Birther" rubbish! So, what else do you have to say besides a bunch of bullcrap made up by my enemies? Heck, for all I know, you made it up, like you probably did the other junk I've already refuted — in fact, I've been wondering where all this garbage is coming from, and now I'm pretty sure it is you. Now I have to wonder why, since we're both working for the Ummah.

I know who that Kreep creep is, but even he has debunked that story. You're just looking for whatever dirt you can find, eh? This competition is a little over the top, you know. How are we supposed to work together if you just repeat a bunch of baloney? What else have you heard, Mr. Gossip?


Ah, but you are currently working for the wrong part of the Ummah — we do not consider those Sunni heretics to be true believers.

Anyway, they say that your Attorney General Holder, in tandem with you, dispatched teams of Federal lawyers by the droves at the taxpayers' expense to various courts to prevent people from digging your dirt out.

Only a couple more things should do it for now. First, two Kenyan government ministers have stated in the Kenyan parliament that you were indeed born in Kenya. One of them went as far as demanding that you be repatriated to your country of birth, Kenya. You know the Kenyan minister of lands, James Orengo?

Dozens of other Kenyans, some of them your own blood relatives, have confirmed the fact of your birth in Kenya. And your birth certificate must indeed show that — that is why you are doing all you can to prevent it from surfacing. But, believe me it will surface. Mark my words.

The second piece of evidence comes from your undergraduate file. Americans for Freedom of Information has released copies of your college transcripts from Occidental College. Remember the place? The transcript shows that you, under the name of "Barry Soetoro," received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia while an undergraduate at the school. You are Barry Soetoro, presently going by the name of Barrack Obama, leaving that blessed name of Hussein out to please the Zionist-Christian cabal, right? The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. As your brother, it makes us shudder to think of your very near bleak future, shuttling from one court to one law office and eventually ending up in an eight-by-eight cell as a guest of the government you presently head, for the rest of your life —


Stop shuddering for me, and get to the bottom of it, will you? So you've got some crazy Kenyans talkin' trash — do they have any real proof? Of course they want to claim I'm a Kenyan citizen — I'm the most famous person of Kenyan descent in a long time. It's good for business. That bogus AFI organization you mention doesn't even exist, and you haven't seen any evidence that I went to school under the name of Soetero — because it doesn't exist. Do you just repeat every unsubstantiated rumor you hear? Your intel is not very good, dude.


We will continue with the evidence, whether or not it is valid, as it makes for good disinformation to keep people confused. Anyway, the transcript shows that you applied for financial aid and were awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for this scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. I am beginning to think that those who keep calling you fraud have a case —


Okay, okay, so just more bullcrap — my transcripts have never been released. You yourself just said that I paid a lot of money to keep my records secret. So which is it?

Anyway, I admit the fact that I was born to an American mother and a Kenyan father, and I was still a babe when my mom took me back to the States. Later, she married an Indonesian, and we moved to Indonesia — yeah, I studied Islam there. So, what's the big deal...?


Well, then, do they not have reason to wonder about your background when no records have been released or are forthcoming, as you claim?

To you, it sounds like quibbling about nothing. But an awful lot of Americans are incensed at you screwing them and violating a cardinal provision of America's Constitution — the constitution that you swore on the Bible to uphold and protect. And that is the big deal, my friend. They say you are a Manchurian Candidate — and working with the Muslim Brotherhood, which, again, is a Mossad front.


Ha! So are you a Manchurian Candidate and a fraud. So was GWB — aren't we all?

Anyway, let's pretend for a minute that those crazy Kenyans are right, and I was born in Kenya — not that I think that's any big deal, since my mom was American. But, where do we go from here, just in case?


At the risk of quibbling, what you allegedly have done — not being a real American citizen but serving as President — is not a simple infraction. It is a major criminal offense.

There are times that you amaze me. You do not seem to get it, or you are trying to screw me too? You make me repeat myself. Look, those country bumpkins you charmed in Iowa, together with a legion of ACORN louts, got you the nomination. And people were so sick of George Dubbah-you — did I say that right? — that they did not want his geriatric political clone McCain to replace him. So, you got in. Now, they are wising up that you are another one of the same elite group, an internationalist, not an "American," per se.

The common people are beginning to see you for what you are, and come 2012 they are likely to throw you on your arse in the street. Most likely, people such as Kreep will get more court orders forcing you to release the original of your birth certificate, not the copy things you have been handing out. And that will be the most damning smoking gun, and the slammer will be your next residence, as we said earlier. You will not be re-elected in 2012. Mark my word. In fact, you will not even get re-nominated by your own party. You know that little woman you beat in the primaries, the same woman you keep dispatching to every corner of the world to have her out of your way, named Hillary? She will lead the charge for your testicles. But relax, all is not lost. We have good news for you...

After this thorough thrashing — half of which might be true, if we could trust that blatant liar, but which was vehemently denied by the Fraud — the Fascist obviously believed he had his "internationalist" counterpart like putty in his hands. He had him right where he wanted him. In any case, whoever was right, it certainly was amusing being a fly on the wall!


Why do I have this nagging feeling that the good news you are referring to is all for you? Is it out of your charitable heart that you want to help me? I mean, we know one another too well to go for that kind of crap... And, of course, you want me to work for you instead of the Muslim Brotherhood.


You are absolutely correct. It is no charity at all, what we plan to offer you. It is a cool, calculated, win-win business transaction. Just bear with us. Let us have a glass or two in celebration, rinse our mouth thoroughly to wash off all the bad taste of the present discourse as well as any remnants of the satanic brew, face Mecca and offer our from-the-heart prayers of gratitude. We promise you, you would love what we have to offer you in return for your cooperation.

Just to end the session on a high note, we assure you that there is an excellent way out. Before the U.S. marshals march you into court handcuffed and shackled like a common criminal, you catch the first plane to Tehran, and we will set you up with all the amenities that your heart desires. We shall explain the details in a jiffy. Now, let us get on with our celebration.

Amil Imani is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad. Contact him at amil_imani@yahoo.com This article is archived at
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task= view&id=190&Itemid=2

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz, October 18, 2010.

In the waning days of his presidency, Bill Clinton believed Yasir Arafat and the Palestinians were prepared to make peace. In September 2000, the Palestinians launched a guerrilla war. Five years later, President George W. Bush believed the secular Fatah faction would win the Palestinian legislative elections of 2006. Instead, the Islamist terror organization Hamas won by a large margin. Drawing from erroneous poll data and misreading the realities on the ground, Washington has too often minimized antipeace sentiment on the Palestinian street. Is President Barack Obama, in his current push for Middle East peace, about to repeat the mistakes of presidents past?

Imagine that Obama's advisors could simultaneously sit in a dozen Palestinian markets, or souks, and listen to thousands of Palestinians speaking in Arabic about U.S. policy priorities in the Middle East. More importantly, imagine those conversations had no outside influence.

In April 2010, we launched a study with that in mind. Our organization, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), commissioned ConStrat, a company that deploys military-grade technology on behalf of the United States Central Command, to study online Palestinian political sentiment. For nine weeks, ConStrat culled thousands of Arabic language posts from search engines, unstructured social media sites, YouTube, Twitter, social networks (like Facebook), wikis, and RSS feeds.

While polls are often designed to elicit specific responses, social media is largely free of outside manipulation. Most Palestinians write under pseudonyms, enabling them to discuss controversial issues without fear of retribution. Admittedly, social media captures only the sentiments of literate Palestinians with access to computers and with passionate views. But it offers important insights nonetheless.

Here's what we found: Although the Palestinian web landscape is not devoid of users with moderate to liberal views, it is dominated by radicalism. There is also little crossover between radical and liberal sites, indicating a lack of important debate.

Among radicalized users, a small but distinct group of Salafists (prevalent on sites like muslm.net and aljazeeratalk.net) view conflict with Israel as a religious duty, viewing jihad as the only answer. One alarming trend was the extent to which Hamas supporters engaged Salafists in dialogue to iron out their theological differences. If Hamas and these Taliban-like groups find common cause in Gaza, it would bode very poorly for peace.

To be sure, Hamas's supporters were not monolithic about politics or Islam. But, drawing from Hamas' most popular discussion sites, our research found that a majority of them continue to support violence against Israel. On this score, Hamas showed little disagreement with Salafists.

The data also confirmed what analysts already know about Fatah in the West Bank. Though it represents Palestinians in U.S.-led peace talks, Fatah is a faction in disarray. Politically, it lacks leadership. Ideologically, it lacks direction. Web users indicated this repeatedly on Fatah's largest online forums: Voice of Palestine (palvoice.com) and Fatah Forum (fatehforums.com).

Our findings revealed that Fatah's three-year conflict with Hamas (stemming from the violent Hamas coup in the Gaza Strip in 2007) is particularly harsh online. The two sides regularly traded barbs, and FDD found little evidence of rapprochement. Hamas supporters were more interested in reconciling with Salafists. Fatah supporters were more interested in decrying Hamas' failures in Gaza.

And while U.S. media has lauded Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad's efforts to reform the West Bank, online forums indicate that Palestinians are not impressed. Some forums circulated articles declaring Fayyad a puppet of the West, while others claimed that his government is constitutionally illegitimate. More broadly, Palestinians are deeply suspicious of any collaboration with the United States, Fayyad's most important political ally.

Finally, our data showed that a majority of Palestinians do not support regional peace efforts. Palestinian internet users often derided diplomatic initiatives; discussion of peace talks was overwhelmingly negative. Thus, despite Washington's efforts to win Palestinian hearts and minds, the social media environment suggests that they have little support for a new peace initiative.

As our study showed, now may not be an ideal time to push for a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. With talks already underway, the genie is already out of the bottle, but the Obama administration could become a more effective and informed broker of peace if it pays heed to the grim realities on the ground.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at jschanzer@list@pundicity.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 18, 2010.

This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/140129


New York City's Columbia University, which last year hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of its "academic freedom," now has decided that "Palestine" is a country and has opened the first U.S. Center for Palestine Studies.

Calling itself "one of the world's great educational institutions and a bastion of academic freedom," the university dedicated the center to the late Edward Said, a "Palestinian" Arab who taught comparative literature at Columbia for 40 years.

During the British Mandate, from 1917 until the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the term Palestine referred to all of what now is Israel, including Judea and Samaria, but was allocated for a Jewish homeland in the Balfour Declaration. The Palestinian Authority uses the British mandate term and teaches in textbooks and media that it should have sovereignty over all of the area, precluding the existence of Israel.

Organizers and participants in the new center implicitly admit that a "Palestinian people," which former Prime Minister Golda Meir said in 1969 never existed, is not rooted in history.

James Schamus, a Columbia School of the Arts professor who participated in the opening of the center, was quoted by the liberal Jewish Forward as saying, "Palestine seems to be a world of multiple myths, a world of lies. It's not possible to move forward before we organize the past.... It's about trying to legitimize a history that really doesn't exist."

Nevertheless, Amy Newhall, executive director of the Arizona-based Middle East Studies Association, said the new study center "is a guarantee that history is not lost, that identity is not lost."

And what is a Palestinian? The new center's co-director Rashid Khalidi stated that Palestinians are defined as those who describe themselves as such.

Mitchell Bard, author of the "The Arab Lobby" is worried about Columbia's new study center's becoming another front for anti-Zionism. He told the Forward, "I wonder if this is going to become the center for anti-Israel studies," adding that studying something that "doesn't exist" demonstrates a problem of definition.

The Center for the study of Palestine joins other Columba university departments that have served as a forum for anti-Israeli lectures.

Amanda Gutterman, a Columbia College sophomore, noted in a university forum, "The Columbia website includes a directory of its centers, which include the centers for Brazilian Studies, Iranian Studies, and French and Francophone Studies. These centers are all named with adjectives, not nouns. So why not "Palestinian"? The Center for Palestine Studies cannot possibly claim that it follows a normal model for the way centers are titled....

"It does little to assuage my concern that the word Israel' does not appear once in the Center's 500-word mission statement, while 'Occupied Territories' appears several times."

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 18, 2010.

This morning I attended a lecture by Dr. Simcha Epstein, the first of the year in the on-going series on post Holocaust Anti-Semitism sponsored by the Institute for Global Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Dr. Epstein, an author, teaches at Hebrew University.

Since the end of the Holocaust we have seen four waves of Anti-Semitism. What is measured in this context are violent acts against Jews and Jewish institutions such as synagogues and cemeteries — not anti-Jewish rhetoric. A variety of institutions and agencies measure this: national (e.g., FBI), Jewish (e.g., ADL) and Israeli (e.g.,The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, as Israel assumes the responsibility to be vigilant with regard to Jews worldwide).

For reasons that are not all together clear — although various theories, such as the effect of economic conditions, are advanced — Anti-Semitism since the 1950s has occurred in waves that wax and wane. (This discussion is not about terrorism — often referred to as "anti-Zionism" — which has been present for some time now but exhibits a different pattern.)

The first three waves were similar in nature, although each was higher than the previous. (Dr. Epstein says some analysts believe the increase is illusory — as it's simply a matter of data being more effectively collected. He believes it's real, however.)

These waves occurred in 1959-60; 1975-82; and 1988-93.

None of these waves was so severe as to be considered apocalyptic, as was the case in the 1930s. The same general pattern presented itself across the Western world at roughly the same time. There was involvement of the extreme right wing — increasingly so by the third wave as the right had made a comeback politically. The extreme left tends towards anti-Jewish rhetoric but not violence (although of course rhetoric can fuel action). What was observed in the main were young men acting independently or in small groups.

Jews seem unable to deal with the cyclical nature of Anti-Semitism, and instead perceive each lull as "the end." We have not shown ourselves to be vigilant for what might yet come.


By the late 90s, there was a marked decline in Anti-Semitic acts, so that the situation was close to idyllic. As Anti-Semitism was being pronounced "dead," Jews were taken off guard completely by the fourth wave, which began in October 2000 and persists to this day. It is the longest and most intense post-Holocaust wave of anti-Semitism, and shows no signs of truly abating.

Within this persistent wave there have been moderate fluctuations — there were a huge number of attacks in Oct.-Dec. 2000, and then the most during 2002. But across the board the violence has been sustained.

This fourth wave is markedly different from the others, not only because of its duration, but in terms the ethnic origins of its perpetrators:

Previously, the ethnicity was local — German young men in Germany, English young men in England, etc. Now the majority of perpetrators — some 2/3 to 3/4 are Muslim. These Muslims are not all Arab (for example, there are many Pakistanis in England), although in certain countries — such as France, Belgium, Holland — they tend to be. Many of these are second or third generation but frequently not assimilated into the local culture.

With the exception of Germany, only information on the ethnic origins of the victim, and not the perpetrator, is provided when statistics are gathered. Researchers have had to utilize other methods for securing this information. These young Muslims, it should be noted, do not desecrate cemeteries — they focus attacks on synagogues and persons. (Interesting, considering the Jordanian desecration of cemeteries in and around Jerusalem, post 1948.)


It is clear that there is an anti-Jewish bias in Islam — a bias that has morphed from a traditional hostility, because Jews were seen as being opposed to Mohammad, to the full blown hatred of classic Anti-Semitism, with bad characteristics attributed to Jews.

These attacks may in part be a reaction to the situation with regard to the Israeli-Arab conflict here in the Middle East — with propaganda fueling the hatred. (It's hard for me to believe that the increase in violence in 2000 — when the Second Intifada began here — and in 2002 — when Operation Defensive Shield began in Arab areas of Judea and Samaria — is just a coincidence.)

Dr. Epstein believes, however, that a major factor is social, and not related to the Middle East. Particularly does this seem to be the case as some of the perpetrators are relatively secular Muslims. These young men have not "made it" in their new societies, and they view the West with enormous ambivalence — both hating and envying Western culture at the same time. The Jew, representing Western culture and yet a vulnerable minority, is a convenient target. Small groups of Muslim youth, not directly instigated by a larger political Muslim organization, gather together to wreak violence at a local level.

As Dr. Epstein said today, anti-Semitism is a deep historical social phenomenon. Our fate, ultimately.


In the first three waves, Jews felt support from a variety of segments of their society. Liberals, and even some far leftists, were eager to take on the right wing that perpetrated attacks. Harsh punishment was sought for those perpetrators.

Today — surprise! — it's not the same. The sense that we are truly alone is much stronger among Jews now. The bottom line here is political correctness. Muslims are seen by many Europeans as victims and not perpetrators. There is a tendency to cut them slack when they are brought to trial, or to avoid the issue. Various groups that might have been relied upon previously now decline to rally to the defense of Jews.


With regard to this fourth wave, there has been a difference in terms of what is being seen in the US. This is because of such factors as a difference in demography and a deep response to 9/11. There has been an increase in anti-Semitism in the US since 2000, but more of the typically far-right variety, and not as great an increase as in Europe.

However, as the number of Muslims in the US increases, this situation may deteriorate.


A great deal more analysis is called for with regard to this phenomenon. Jews must keep their eyes open and remain ever vigilant.


Well, we may not have attacked Iran (yet?) utilizing planes, bombs, or missiles, but it's possible that Iran is the target of sabotage in multiple regards, and that this is slowing down Iranian nuclear development.

Recently, it was the highly sophisticated cyberworm, Stuxnet, that did (is still doing?) considerable damage to key Iranian computers. Speculation abounded regarding the fact that this may have come out of Israel. We don't know.

Now there is news of serious damage at the site of the Imam Ali Base in Khoramabad in the Zagros mountains. Beneath this base is a top secret subterranean missile facility, one of the largest in the world — a huge network of wide tunnels. Apparently most (some 15?) of Iran's Shehab-3 medium-range missiles — some equipped with triple warheads — were stored in these tunnels, held against the event of war, along with mobile launchers. These Shehabs can reach as far as Tel Aviv. The site was selected because it facilitates accurate launching of missiles while itself being difficult to reach by plane.

Reportedly, this subterranean site was struck by three blasts on October 12. It seems that most of the Shehab arsenal was hit hard, and the facility rendered unusable. Additionally, the blasts have killed 18 members of the Al-Hadid Brigades, the missile arm of the Revolutionary Guards, and injured an additional 14.

I originally received this information from a source that I consider not necessarily reliable. But then I learned that the Iranian Fars News had acknowledged the casualties. The explosions, said Fars, were caused by an underground fire that had traveled until it hit a munitions supply.

Maybe... But maybe not.

Once again, some analysts are looking to Israel with regard to this, with one commentator observing that this is something the Mossad might have done. Would be nice to think — and hope — so.

Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council and an expert on Iran, believes it's too soon to be certain it is sabotage. But "it's worth noting," he says, "that the facility was located in Khoramabad, which is close to Kurdish-dominated areas and has been a hotbed of anti-regime activity...This story is one to watch."


I'm still waiting for everyone to pack it in with regard to "peace negotiations." But it's not happening. Not yet, at any rate.

Abbas is lamenting the fact that the "whole world" is demanding a construction freeze, and yet he is not in a position to make that demand. He still insists he won't return to the table without such a freeze.

He also claims that he offered Netanyahu a "silent freeze" several times, but that our prime minister declined to accept it because of fear that his government would fall. I think we likely owe a debt of gratitude to those members of Likud and the coalition more broadly that put the brakes on what Netanyahu might have considered.

One Israeli official quoted by the JPost confirmed that the subject of a "silent freeze" indeed had come up. However, he then gave voice to my own doubts about this with regard to an Arab need to save face: "What is a 'silent freeze'? How do the Palestinians explain they are going back to the table? They will have to say there is no building, so as a result there will be no 'silent' freeze."

Additionally, said this official, word would get out when building permits would be denied.


But speaking of building permits... The last list of public tenders published by the Housing and Construction Ministry did not include any projects in Judea and Samaria, but did include 238 homes for Jews in Jerusalem past the Green Line.

(Note: Reportedly, Netanyahu put a hold on an additional 600 housing units to be constructed in the Har Homa neighborhood because of US objections.)

Observed Dani Dayan, head of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria and Gaza (Yesha):

The fact that there was international condemnation of these Jerusalem homes is "the direct result of the fact that there are no [tenders for] construction in Judea and Samaria. It moved the front lines to Jerusalem."

Added Dayan:

"After you clear all the propaganda and all the distortions, the only relevant truth is that Israel came to the negotiating table with clean hands and without preconditions, and Mr. Abbas refused to negotiate. This is the only thing that matters. So the fact that he says that Israel does not want peace is a blatant demonstration of chutzpah."


You might want to read Mortimer Zucker's observations on this situation:

"Why did the Palestinians terminate the Arab-Israeli peace talks? The justification cited was the Israeli refusal to extend the moratorium they had put on construction in the settlements. It is a phantom excuse, the product of President Obama's heavy-handed intervention."

http://politics.usnews.com:80/opinion/mzuckerman/ articles/2010/10/15/obama-causing-americas-stature- in-the-middle-east-to-deteriorate.htm


As the PA continues to make threats regarding a unilateral declaration of statehood followed by an appeal to the Security Council, you might also want to read the analysis by Dan Izenberg in the JPost regarding the question of whether the PA would fulfill the criteria for an independent state:

"According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which is now part of customary law and therefore binding on all countries, a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relationships with other states.

"Furthermore, the convention states that 'the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states.'

"Thus, there is nothing in international law to prevent the Palestinian Authority from unilaterally declaring itself an independent state.

"The question is whether other states will recognize it as such. In theory, states will only recognize a Palestinian state if it fulfills the criteria set down in the Montevideo Convention.

"According to Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN and current head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, states will, at least in theory, have difficulty recognizing a Palestinian state because it does not meet key criteria of the convention."
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/ Article.aspx?id=191760


Along with thoughts of a unilateral declaration of a state, Ali Waked, writing in YNet says that some activists in Fatah (the party of the PA and of Abbas) are considering a return to a "stone intifada," especially in Jerusalem.

There is concern, you see (are you ready?) that Fatah is being seen as too "passive." After all, at their conference of August 2009 the party voted to maintain the "popular struggle," but they're not doing that. And so, there is discussion inside the party as to whether they are ready for another conflict with Israel.

Am I surprised? Not at all. Every time expectations of "peace" are inflated artificially, the next step is violence.

However, when I learn about Arabs discussing whether to bring violence to Jerusalem, my own thoughts are something less than peaceful. If this happens, we need to be as tough as we can be. Repercussions must be severe. It's called deterrence.


Indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas, utilizing Germany (not Turkey) as go-between have begun again. In fact, yesterday Netanyahu confirmed on Army Radio that the contacts have been going on for some weeks now. What promoted their re-establishment at this time, I cannot say with certainty — although the suggestion is that domestically it gives the impression he's "doing something," even if negotiations are stalemated.

Netanyahu did well in this regard until now, standing strong against Hamas demands regarding terrorists to be released. Hamas at this point says nothing is happening, and we must pray that our prime minister does not weaken on this front now.


There is news of high level discussions here regarding ways to secure clemency for Jonathan Pollard. There has been a shift in the situation, as two people directly involved with the case — Israeli Rafi Eitan, a former minister, and Lawrence Korb, a former US assistant secretary of defense — have recently come forward with revelations regarding malfeasance by the US government.

Korb wrote a letter to President Obama that was something of a bombshell, including as it did the following:

"Jonathan Pollard is the only person in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for passing classified information to an American ally. "Based on my first-hand knowledge, I can say with confidence that the severity of Pollard's sentence is a result of an almost visceral dislike of Israel and the special place it occupies in our foreign policy on the part of my boss at the time, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger."

Rafi Eitan, who was in the Mossad at the time of Pollard's conviction, told Reshet Bet radio here in Israel that the U.S. administration has done an injustice to Jonathan Pollard and violated a verbal agreement with Israel that he would serve ten years in prison. He said that the Americans claimed that Pollard had helped to frame US agents in the Soviet Union and decided to leave him in prison for the rest of his life even though it turned out that he was not connected to the affair.

The Knesset State Control Committee plans a meeting on the subject and will be inviting US Ambassador James Cunningham to attend.

However, there is no indication that Netanyahu has directly requested of Obama that he arrange for Pollard's release. I wonder how he would seek to justify this.

Meanwhile, Pollard's lawyers have filed a new petition for clemency, asking that Obama commute Pollard's sentence to time already served.


"The Good News Corner"

In the last four years, the number of people living in absolute poverty in Israel has dropped by 18.8%. What is more, those still defined as "poor," are better off so that even those with the lowest salaries are better off than they were five years ago, with many able to own cars and cell phones.

This information came via a report published by the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, and it takes into consideration relative vs. absolute poverty. The measure of poverty here — according to the National Insurance Institute — is relative, so that as the average income in the nation increases, the line for poverty moves up. (It is not clear how that line is defined.) But in absolute terms, many defined as relatively poor are actually not doing badly at all.

To put this into perspective, the Institute's executive director explained:

"If Bill Gates suddenly made aliyah, that would lead to another 10,000 people being declared poor, because he would increase the average wealth by so much."

(This is just a hypothetical example. No, Gates is not Jewish, and will not be making aliyah.)


A baby born so severely premature — 26 weeks — that at birth he weighed only 590 grams (one pound, four ounces) has beat the 10% odds for his survival and has now been released from Kaplan Medical Center at Rehovot. The mission to save him was no small matter, and he had to be on a respirator for two months. The baby's mother, Yael Amsalem, participated in his care, utilizing what is called the "kangaroo technique" that increased his chances of survival — she held him skin to skin, so that he could hear her heart beat and feel her warmth.

It took him ten months, but a healthy Yonatan now weights over six kilo (over 13 pounds).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Rubinek, October 17, 2010.

This was written by Bob Unruh and it appeared in World Net Daily

New Shariah-compliant Islamic cartoon "superhero".
'These are not types of heroes you want your children to have'


A coming series of "superhero" cartoons promoting the tenets of Islam under the title "The 99" — which has been praised by President Obama — is drawing a terse warning from an expert who has analyzed media impact on people for decades.

"These are not the types of heroes you want your children to have," Ted Baehr, publisher of MOVIEGUIDE," told WND today. "These heroes, at their core, because they represent values contrary to humanity, at the core these heroes are more villain than hero."

Reports by Family Security Matters and others already have circulated about the plans by The Hub, which formerly was Discovery Kids, to produce the series featuring characters portraying the 99 attributes of Allah.

The New York Post ran a column describing plans for the Shariah-compliant Muslim superheroes — "including one who fights crime hidden head-to-toe by a burqa."

"These Islamic butt-kickers are ready to bring truth, justice and indoctrination to impressionable Western minds," the report said.

That's the problem, according to Baehr, with the Middle East cartoon that reportedly is being picked up and scheduled for a launch early in 2011 by Hasbro toys and Discovery Communications.

A preview of the program has been posted online: here.

Baehr's organization said the program includes "hair-hiding headscarves" that are "mandatory for the five female characters, not including a 'burqa babe' called Batina the Hidden."

"Curiously (or not so curiously considering his track record), President Obama, who was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia but supposedly converted to Christianity, praised this work created by Kuwaiti psychologist Naif al-Mutawa, saying at an April meeting with Arab entrepreneurs, 'His superheroes embody the teachings of the tolerance of Islam.'"

That message also is online: here.

Adrian Morgan of Family Security Matters, a think tank, wondered, "Are we going to see a**-kicking Christian superhero nuns called Faith, Hope and Charity ... sending Satan into Hell? It's doubtful!"

Baehr's organization said the characters, which are expected to be on-air in January 2011 or later, also reportedly are featured in a six-part series of DC Comics in which the Justice League superheroes of Superman and Batman reach out to the Muslims.

"With all due respect to President Obama and contrary to his opinion, the Muslim faith is known for its lies about Christians and Jews, lies about the Bible, lies about Jesus and His apostles, violence, warrior mentality, abuse of women, slavery, persecution of non-Muslims, and terrorism against peaceful civilians, from the alleged founder of the faith, Mohammed, down to the present day," Baehr's analysis said.

Baehr told WND he's been observing media impact on people for nearly four decades. Of the thousands of studies, there has been only one — by a media organization — that concluded the media did not have an influence on children.

But that influence does not always manifest itself the same way, he said. For example, a study revealed that 1 in 4 children who watch R-rated movies started drinking earlier than children who did not.

A small percentage, he said, are very likely to be influenced toward the violence that is inherent in Islam — it's admonitions to "kill infidels" and the like.

"Islam is a toxic religion, I will say that up front," Baehr said. "It is a very negative religion toward people and especially women."

The Family Security Matters commentary also suggested a darker side to the "heroes."

"In the Islamic world, cartoons have a more sinister purpose. In Iran, on Al-Quds Day, Iranian TV schedules are filled with cartoons about evil Israelis with red eyes, shooting and murdering innocent doe-eyed Palestinians. For older kids, the heroes fight back, and even get martyred in the cause of Allah. Al-Quds day, named after the Arab term for Jerusalem and initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983, is a time for Iranian media to reinforce Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic propaganda," it said.

The characters already are in comic books that come from Teshkeel Comics in Kuwait, a company that has worked with Marvel, DC and Archie comic companies.

"Not all kids [who watch] are going to become violent," Baehr said, "It's only if they have a susceptibility. This will become a pattern of behavior just like American converts to radical Islam in Detroit and Tennessee.

"This will appeal to a certain group who will become radicalized by watching this," he said. "The problem with all of this ... is that you cannot tell until it's too late."

WND previously has reported the content of Islamic children's TV programs.

Kids play at "jihad" in new Hamas television presentation here.

For example, the terror group Hamas' Al-Aqsa Television has "martyred" a children's bunny character named Assud and knocked off a Mickey Mouse-lookalike for the cause of jihad.

Also in a report documented by the Middle East Media Research Institute, an Al-Aqsa program features a children's choir thart opens with: "Dad, we put on our new clothes. Give us our pocket money. Today is a holiday. ... Me, my brother, and the neighborhood kids want to arm ourselves with guns."

MEMRI explained that the message is an excerpt of a holiday video aired on Hamas Al-Aqsa Television called "Holiday Gun."

According to MEMRI, the lyrics continue with the father singing:

"My children, I'm worried about you.
"This toy might harm your eyes.
"My children, I'm worried about you.
"This toy might harm your eyes.
"Think about another toy.
"You are the apple of my eye, may Allah protect you."

And the children return:
"Dad, we are a steadfast people.
"These guns need hands to carry them.
"Dad, we are a steadfast people.
"These guns need hands to carry them.
"Today we play, tomorrow we will wage Jihad.
"How joyous my heart will be on the Day of Return."

Contact Ralph Rubinek at rrubinek@aol.com
To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, October 17, 2010.

This was written by Ron Breiman and it appeared in YNET News Breiman is the former chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel.


The fundamental assumption underlying the diplomatic process in our region in the past 17 years is that peace in the western Land of Israel requires the establishment of a Palestinian state at the heart of Eretz Yisrael.

This assumption was expressed in the slogan "Land for peace." Through all those years, we'd been brainwashed to believe that peace is impossible without the establishment of a Palestinian state in addition to the one east of the Jordan River. We keep on slamming our heads against the wall, as leaders of the "Right" keep walking in the Oslo footsteps while reciting the Oslo lies.

The "peace process" officially launched in September 1993 (and even before that, secretly) was marketed by Yitzhak Rabin as an experiment that can be terminated at any moment. However, the experiment in the lives of millions of people, both Jews and Arabs, was undertaken in contravention of the criteria defined by the Helsinki Convention in respect to experiments involving even one person.

The experiment did not include careful assessment of inherent risks compared to the expected benefit to the subjects, while their right to forego their agreement to take part in the study at any time was not honored. Moreover, the experiment was not terminated once it became clear to all that it was developing in unpredictable directions-even though many observers sounded the alarm early on.

Any decent researcher would have halted his experiments once his fundamental assumptions were shattered in the face of reality. However, in Oslo, unlike in Helsinki, the dangerous experiment continued while ignoring logic and morality, and without reassessing the basic assumption: The obsessive gamblers kept going.

Those who seek peace, and life, must ask themselves whether a Palestinian state is indeed the basis for peace, or rather, a mechanism for eliminating the Jewish state. The enemy, including its "moderate" elements and "bad" brothers, openly declares that its objective is not peace, but rather, a greater Palestine on both banks of the Jordan River.

Yet only in Israel, and in its wake also worldwide, people continue to pay lip service to the "peace" mantra: Two states for two peoples. Even the enemy — which was and remains an enemy — does not bother repeating the latest slogan uttered by the "Right" — two states for two peoples.

Zionist vision retreating

The enemy does not comply with the latest Israeli "demand," which is doomed to disappear as well: Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. After all, here at home we also see many people who do not believe this is Israel's mission, and hence there is no reason that the "good" terrorists — the ones belonging to the Palestinian Terror Authority — would recognize the Jewish state.

The enemy, with the enlightened world's backing, curries favor with terrorists and threatens to quit the give-and-take sessions (or rather, "take-and-take") should its dictates not be met. Let it quit!

We cannot have peace that includes the racist expulsion of Jews from their homes in their own land; it's impossible to have anti-Jewish, anti-democratic, anti-Zionist, and anti-moral peace; we cannot have peace that is not regional, but rather, is limited to the western Land of Israel.

The "vision" of partitioning the land was and remains a deception that Israel, shamefully enough, exported to the world — which did not hesitate to adopt this foolish idea. The result will be the resumption of the Oslo war in the near future, and the elimination of our state in the long run.

For the past 17 years, the enemy did not back down an inch on its original demands, which would mark the Jewish state's elimination. And what happened around here? The Zionist vision retreated in the face of the two-state "vision" — the "good" terrorists are being dubbed "partners," while even the "bad" terrorists are already provided with all their needs.

Even the talk of peace had given way to the give-and-give's current objective — establishing a state for the enemy. The reciprocity disappeared, as the Arabs build in full force while the freeze abomination is only applied to the Jews.

Meanwhile, media outlets, which make pretenses of being an "investigative" means, barely allow us to express the opposite views. The tables have turned in the Israeli media's lexicon: "Success" means establishing a state for the enemy, while failure to establish such state constitutes the failure of negotiations.

As Israel's governments forgot that their role is to promote the Jewish state, rather than to bring dangerous Trojan horses into it, Netanyahu now faces some truly difficult decisions — yet not the ones which the radical Left and the media expect of him.

He must sever the false link between the term "peace" and the notion of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River; he must also disconnect from the dangerous slope Israel had been led to since that dark September in 1993. This is his supreme test.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 17, 2010.

This comes from the Act for America website (www.actforamerica.org)

And, he is currently pursuing U.S. Citizenship... Maybe we should all contact the Department of Homeland Security (since they are in charge of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)) and forward the following information (see below):

This below is entitled "Top American Islamic Cleric Threatens U.S. on Egyptian TV" and it was written by Patrick Poole and appeared on Pajamas Media:
(http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/ founder-of-islamic-american-university-caught-on- video-threatening-destruction-for-america/)

Islamic cleric Salah Sultan appeared on Egypt's Al-Nas TV last week and delivered a warning of death and destruction for America.

Not only did he attack the U.S. for its military support of Israel in its fight against the Hamas terrorist organization, but he vowed retaliation such that more Americans would be killed than those Palestinians (and, presumably, Hamas terrorists) killed in the present conflict in Gaza, emphasizing that this would take place "soon":

America, which gave [Israel] everything it needed in these battles, will suffer economic stagnation, ruin, destruction, and crime, which will surpass what is happening in Gaza. One of these days, the U.S. will suffer more deaths than all those killed in this third Gaza holocaust. This will happen soon.

He also invoked a notorious Islamic hadith on the inevitable annihilation of the Jews by Muslims:

The stone, which is thrown at the Jews, hates these Jews, these Zionists, because Allah foretold, via His Prophet Muhammad, that Judgment Day will not come before the Jew and the Muslim fight. The Jew will hide behind stones and trees, and the stone and the tree will speak, saying: "Oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." The only exception will be the Gharqad tree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcjp TyflYmM&feature=player_embedded

This harangue would be nothing new on television in the Islamic world; in fact, it is commonplace. What is unique about Sultan's threats aone federal law enforcement official, travels regularly on a U.S. passport. And as I have reported elsewhere, Sultan is pursuing U.S. citizenship (the status of his application is unknown due to federal privacy laws). Thus, Salah Sultan has lived quite comfortably for more than a decade under the protections of the very country he now threatens with death and destruction.

It should be noted that Salah Sultan is not some obscure figure in the American Islamic world. He serves as a member of the Fiqh Council of North America. Touted as the top Islamic governing body in the U.S., the Fiqh Council is an arm of the Islamic Society of North America. Sultan founded and served as president of the Islamic American University in Southfield, Michigan; he was the national director of tarbiyah (Islamic instruction) for the Muslim American Society; and he continues to operate the American Council for Islamic Research, based in my hometown of Hilliard, Ohio.

Sultan's Al-Nas TV appearance last week was recorded and translated by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Curiously, as soon as MEMRI published the video clips of Sultan's harangue, references to Sultan's membership with the Fiqh Council were scrubbed from its website. His name has been removed from its list of council members, even though he appeared there as recently as early last week. However, Sultan is still listed as a member on the Fiqh Council's brochure posted online (no doubt that will be remedied as soon as they are informed of this report).

This is not the first time that Sultan has been the subject of a MEMRI report for his statements made and activities conducted outside of the U.S. In July 2007, MEMRI reported on a conference held in Doha, Qatar, in honor of Hamas spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who has been banned from the U.S. since 1999 for his active support of Islamic terrorism. One of the conference's keynote speakers was Hamas head Khaled Mash'al, a "specially designated global terrorist" by the U.S. government who praised the terror cleric for his fatwa endorsing Hamas suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Sitting beside Mash'al and Qaradawi on the speaker's dais was none other than Salah Sultan, who gave two separate addresses during the conference honoring his mentor, Qaradawi.

This appearance by Sultan with two terrorist leaders directly violates the much-ballyhooed 2005 anti-terrorism fatwa issued by the Fiqh Council and signed by Sultan himself prohibiting such contact. Sultan also spoke at a July 2006 pro-Hamas rally in Istanbul held by the extremist Saadet Party, which also featured an address by Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh — again, a glaring violation of the Fiqh Council's terrorism fatwa.

But with several former Fiqh Council members in prison on terrorism-related charges (former council trustee Abdurahman Alamoudi, currently serving a 23-year prison sentence), deported for concealing their terrorism ties (Fawaz Damra), fingered in illegal terrorist fundraising (current member Muhammad Al-Hanooti), and named as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism trials (former chairman Taha Jaber Al-Awani), it should be apparent that the group is not rigorous in the fatwa's enforcement. The Investigative Project has published a dossier on the extensive roster of Fiqh Council members tied to the international Islamic terrorist network.

May 2006 saw Salah Sultan's first starring role in a MEMRI report when he was recorded on Al-Risala TV saying the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 terror attacks, which he claimed were then used to declare war on Muslims worldwide, and also praising Osama bin Laden mentor and "specially designated global terrorist" Abd-al-Magid Al-Zindani (see the MEMRI video clip and transcript of Sultan's Al-Risala interview). These comments were made just two weeks after the Columbus Dispatch published a lengthy defense of Sultan as a moderate and the Central Ohio Islamic school that he was religious director of at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyy5jqMUlg&feature= player_embedded Sultan's Middle East media appearances also caught the eye of the Los Angeles Times in July 2007. The paper cited him by name in an article by Borzou Daragahi on a group of Islamic clerics who "share the outlook of al-Qaeda" and who were "glorifying holy war" on Bahraini TV. Sultan was a regular guest on a program hosted by Muslim Brotherhood cleric Wagdi Ghoneim, who was expelled from the U.S. in December 2004 and banned from reentering for his ties to Islamic terrorism. As noted by Bahraini blogger and journalist Mahmoud Al-Yousif, their television program was shut down by the Bahraini government after extensive criticism by members of parliament and the media.

Considering Salah Sultan's lengthy résumé of Islamic extremism and regular association with designated terrorist leaders — much of it captured on video — you might think that the Department of Homeland Security would take some action with respect to his permanent residency status (despite owning a home in Ohio, he spends most of his time in Bahrain, disqualifying him for permanent residency), if not ban him completely from the country. You would be wrong, however. In fact, Sultan spent most of December touring mosques in Central Ohio before jetting off to Egypt last weekend for his Al-Nas interview.

But now that Salah Sultan is publicly inciting violence against the U.S. and predicting the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of our citizens through foreign media outlets, on what basis can Homeland Security officials continue to ignore this very real and extensively documented terror threat, his connections to leading U.S. Islamic groups notwithstanding? That remains to be seen.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 17, 2010.


Thought you should know about this — Remember the Mohammed al Dura blood libel exposed in a French court against 'journalist' Charles Enderlin and French television, in which the entire 'death' scene was a hoax, a staged Pallywood production? Well, Enderlin has had the nerve to ignore the court decision and the facts and assume people are stupid enough to continue believing his lies. He's written a book, but will not allow investigative journalists familiar with the facts to a) have a copy pre-publication b) have an interview c) get a list of his appearances. It's all going to be discussed with only his friends and people with the same attitude towards Israel. But what is Enderlin's most important 'proof' that the hoax is true? THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT HASN'T DEFENDED ITSELF!!!

Phillipe Karsenty, the French journalist who selflessly and heroically brought the case against Enderlin to court and won, will be in Israel this week.

He can't get an appointment with the Foreign Ministry! Below, his letter. At the end of this e-mail are e-mail addresses for the Foreign Ministry.

PLEASE WRITE THEM THAT THEY SHOULD MEET WITH PHILLIPE KARSENTY WHEN HE IS IN ISRAEL AND PUT AN END TO ENDERLIN'S LIES by coming out, at long last, with a statement that the Al Dura scene was a deliberately staged hoax!

Every blessing,

This was written by Philippe Karsenty. Reach him at philippe@karsenty.fr and visit his website at www.karsenty.fr. in


Dear Friends,

I'll be in Israel Tuesday, October 19th through Monday, October 25th.

Charles Enderlin, the French-Israeli journalist responsible for the al Dura hoax, has just published a book — "A Child was Killed" — where he claims to be the victim of a Jewish conspiracy.

All the French media outlets have invited him to repeat the lie that Israeli soldiers shot and killed Muhammad al Dura.

His appearance will undoubtedly stir anti-Israel sentiment. In his book and in his interviews, Enderlin completely ignores the discrepancies of the al Dura news report.

His only evidence to support his case is that he still has the full support of the Israeli authorities who "never complained about the al Dura story". He also claims that, according to the Shin Beth, his cameraman who filmed the hoax is "white like snow".

So, the important and disturbing questions are:

— In face of these new provocations and accusations against the State of Israel, how long will Israeli authorities remain silent?
— Why won't the Israelis deny these false allegations?

I will be going to Israel next week in the hope that I can find the answers to these questions.

I will also be meeting with journalists from various media outlets.

Please write to Avigdor Lieberman and the Foreign Ministry to ask them to please, finally, take a public stand on Charles Enderlin's blood libel that was exposed in a French court. Ask him to meet with Phillipe Karsenty who has selflessly and heroically invested time, money and effort in clearing Israel's name of this disgusting blood libel. Don't let Enderlin rewrite history with his ugly book of lies.

Avigdor Lieberman sar@mfa.gov.il
Director General's office — mankal@mfa.gov.il
Public Relations — pniot@mfa.gov.il
Ministry Address:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
9 Yitzhak Rabin Blvd.
Kiryat Ben-Gurion
Jerusalem 91035
Tel. 972-2-5303111
Fax 972-2-5303367

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 Paul Lademain, October 17, 2010.

Your report about Israel's "City of David?" was sensationized rubbish. Jerusalem was recognized as well within the boundaries established for the Jewish Homeland by the San Remo Resolution during the Twenties and this resolution was ratified by subsequent treaties binding the US and Europe. Every honest scholar knows this. Your reporter made a fool of herself with what appears to be yet another Saudi-written script.

Moreover, the bit about the boy being hit by the car was another set-up, this time by the callous arab provocateurs who invited dozens of photographers before the event to witness a planned charade. The boys stoned the vehicle hoping to kill the driver. True to their teaching, the boys were eager to kill Jews and die for allah and all they got was a broken leg.

You people at CBS have become as dishonest as Yasser Arafat who lied his way into our American purses with his faux stories about the so-called oppressed arab "palestinians." The original Palestinians were Jews, not Muslims and Palestine was long recognized as the Jewish Homeland before WW II. CBS can take a bow for lighting a fuse to ignite WW III because the Jews and the Christians aren't buying your disreputable propaganda and they will fight the arab invaders and if this comes to pass the entire world will indeed lose.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we urge you to study Prof. Howard Grief's analysis of international law and the boundaries of Israel. We read it, and we stand with the Israelis and against Jimmy Carter's dangerous foolishness and dishonest meddling. Clinton made things worse ... who is he to give Israel marching orders? What motivated him? We think Clinton's snarky nastiness towards Jews in general has a lot to do with his silly sortie with Monica Lewinsky in particular. And who was to blame for all that? Answer: Clinton himself! Clinton wasn't man enough to man up to his disastrous infidelity and then tell Gingrich and his young Calysta to go to hell.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we stand firmly by Israel. It's their land. All of it. And you have no moral, ethical, or legal right to finagle the facts and then sell them to the public. And you have no right to challenge the Israelis. — SC4Z Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, October 16, 2010.

World Machal — volunteers from overseas in the Israel Defense Forces


As project leader of the team that created and is still working on this site, I believe you will find some useful hasbara material on the newly-created Machal web site that records authentic stories about Aliyah Bet, the 1948 War of Independence and the 1956-1967 period as seen through the eyes of Machal volunteers from overseas. It contains a wealth of factual material disproving the distortions perpetrated by the New Historians

Creating this site has been a very moving experience for the team that created it and who are still working on it as we continue to receive contributions containing fascinating details that are not recorded in any history books about personal experiences not only in the War of Independence, but also in the pre-state clandestine operations in Europe, smuggling Holocaust survivors into what was then still Palestine, the illegal acquisition of arms and aircraft and stories by people who served on the Exodus and the Altalena as well as those who assembled decrepit Avia (Messerscmidt) aircraft in Czechoslovakia and the hazardous manner in which they brought them to Israel. (see
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=338&Itemid=119)

The site is still under construction and new material is added continuously. All the stories make fascinating reading and for some samples I suggest you read

a speech by Smoky Simon, Chairman of Word Machal, formerly Chief of Air Operations in Israel's War of Independence summarizing the Machal story.
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=95&lang=en

how Lou Lenart, Ezer Weitzman, Modi Alon and Eddie Cohen, manning our entire fleet of fighter aircraft comprising four, newly assembled and untested Avia planes, halted the Egyptian advance on Tel Aviv by attacking them at Asdod. Sadly, Eddie Cohen was killed in that battle
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=460&Itemid=791&lang=en .

how Israel's first radar was created from bits and pieces of scrapped equipment and the antenna was rotated by means of bicycle pedals
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=117%3Aradar-story &catid=54%3Atemporary&Itemid=159&lang=en
about non_Jewish South African Machalnik Butch Bottger, who changed his name officially to Butch Ben-Yok
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_content&view= article&id=41&Itemid=162&lang=en

about Charles Weiss who played an active role in Aliya Bet on board a tiny ship (600 tons, 205 feet long) built for the Spanish-American War. He tells how, in an operation that took all of 20 minutes they loaded about 700 hundred refugees. Then three fishing boats tied up to port, starboard and stern. Without a word hundreds of mysterious figures tumbled out onto the deck and were quickly shown where they were to bunk. Now they had over 1400 people on board and were setting out for Eretz Yisrael. Weiss writes "This was the first time I had come directly in contact with the people who had lived through the atrocities I had seen on newsreels and read about in the papers. How do you relate to them?"
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com _content&view=article&id=365&Itemid=628&lang=en

Michael Brecker's detailed account of the traumatizing Altalena Affair, as seen by a volunteer aboard the ship
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_content&view= article&id=233&Itemid=321&lang=en

about Migdal Teperson, who established the Machal Museum and has served continuously in the Israel army since 1948
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=39&Itemid=57&lang=en

about How Al Schwimmer was eventually pardoned by President Clinton for his "crime" of acquiring aircraft for the nascent Israel Air Force in 1948
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=472&Itemid=813&lang=en

The War of Independence in a nutshell
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=154&lang=en

and the published articles at
http://www.machal.org.il/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=470&Itemid=809&lang=en


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 Moshe Dann, October 15, 2010.

PM Netanyahu's demand that Palestinian leaders recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not a semantic tease; Israel's Jewish character is its raison d'etre and the essence of its sovereignty. That includes Judea and Samaria.

Israeli leaders are addicted to the "waiting-for-their-phonecall" concept — giving up Judea and Samaria, the "West Bank," in return for peace. PM Netanyahu's offer to continue a freeze on Jewish building if Palestinian leaders recognize Israel's right to exist is more of the same nonsense.

Despite formal treaties and "peace plans," most Arabs reject Israel's very right to exist, not which territory it occupies.

If Israeli politicians are unwilling to extend sovereignty to this "disputed territory," why should they object if the Palestinians declare it their homeland, with full sovereignty, and ask for international recognition?

Israeli reluctance undermines its diplomatic position, strengthens those who condemn Israel for its "illegal occupation," and plays into the hands of those who would wipe Israel off the map.

Israel's declaration of sovereignty, at least in those areas of Judea and Samaria which it holds, would present Israel's claims and strengthen its demand for recognized and defensible borders. But what are those "borders"?

Born in conflict and strife, attacked from within and without, The State of Israel has never known real peace. Cease-fire armistice lines agreed to in 1949 were never recognized by Arab countries; their intentions were to destroy Israel. These temporary lines are neither defensible, nor "borders."

Although Egypt and Jordan recognized borders with Israel in peace treaties, the definition of Israel's border with Jordan refers, on the one hand, to lines established by the League of Nations for the Palestine Mandate, which would seem to indicate that Israel's eastern border is the Jordan River. On the other hand, a proviso in the treaty states, "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967," reflecting Jordan's reservations concerning Israel's legal entitlement to Judea and Samaria.

Syria and Lebanon do not accept Israel's legitimacy at all, continue a state of war, and do not recognize any boundaries with Israel. Despite formal treaties and "peace plans," most Arabs reject Israel's very right to exist, not which territory it occupies.

The question of what legitimately belongs to Israel became more complicated after Israel acquired Judea, Samaria and Gaza, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in 1967. Although Jerusalem was annexed in 1967 and Israeli law and administration applied to the Golan in 1981, many Israeli politicians, jurists and media oppose extending Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

Officially defining Judea and Samaria as "disputed," Israeli jurists referred to these areas as under "belligerent occupation," because they were acquired in war. Most of the international community, the ICRC, ICJ, and UN agencies hold Israel is "illegally occupying" these areas. Despite existing Israeli law and international law confirming Israel's rights to these territories (e.g."Law and Administrative Ordinance, #11" June 27, 1967), Israel's ambiguity has led to confusion about the status of these areas and Israeli sovereign rights.

This confusion became even more complicated when Israel recognized a "Palestinian Authority" (in the Oslo Accords of 1993), a pseudonym for the PLO, which is still the "sole official representative of the Palestinian people," and unilaterally withdrew from large parts of Judea and Samaria, designated "Areas A & B," in which nearly all Arab Palestinians reside.

More damaging, PM Ehud Barak (in 2000) and PM Ehud Olmert (in 2007) offered the PA 97% of Judea and Samaria, plus 3% of sovereign Israeli territory, including parts of eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount — in return for an agreement to end the conflict and claims against Israel. The PA refused.

Part of Judea and Samaria, Area C, remains under Israeli control, where all Jewish communities ("settlements") are located, more than 300,000 Jews. An estimated 30-40,000 Arab Palestinians live in this area, most of whom have Jordanian and/or PA citizenship. In a future settlement, they might remain as residents, opt for Israeli citizenship, assuming all the obligations that come with it, or voluntarily relocate, with compensation.

Residents of Area C are subject to military law and administration, under "Emergency Regulations" handed down from the British Mandate, including Israeli citizens. This anomaly violates basic notions of civil and human rights and democratic norms and would be resolved by extending Israeli sovereignty. Israeli ambiguity and confusion have led to the current impasse.

Instead of advancing its legitimate sovereign rights in these areas, Israeli politicians and jurists have apologized for and denied them. Some call Israel's "occupation" of Judea and Samaria a "moral disaster," although nearly every country and society practices some form of occupation. The international community, including the US State Dept, calls for Israel's withdrawal from all areas "occupied by Israel in 1967," despite Israel's legitimate claims, and the absence of any valid Palestinian basis for historical or legal claims.

If "occupation" is the problem, however, then Israel's fault was not only in 1967, but 1948, as well. And, if the dispute is territorial, why then don't Arabs make a deal? Why do they refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in any form?

Advancing Israel's claim of sovereignty would at least present a compelling alternative to those of Palestinians. Not presenting its case for legitimacy, moreover, makes it more difficult for Israel to justify its possession of any areas demanded by the PA.

That many Israelis accept the false notion that Israel is "illegally occupying Palestinian land" is troubling. Many do not know what Israel's historic and legal rights are in these areas — or don't care. Concerned that extending Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria would compromise Israeli democracy and antagonize world opinion, they ignore the dangers of a second Arab Palestinian state, not only to Israel, but the entire region.

The question of Israel's sovereignty is not a popularity contest, or political game; it is the expression of historical and legal facts. To deny that Judea and Samaria are part of the homeland of the Jewish people undermines the argument for Israel's existence at all.

Although Muslims today deny Jewish historic and legal claims, the Qur'an (5:20-21) powerfully affirms Jewish sovereignty: "Remember Moses said to his people: 'O my people! Recall in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'"

Extending Jewish sovereignty is an authentic statement of the historic and spiritual relationship between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. The return of the Jewish people to their homeland, the establishment of the State of Israel, and Israel's achievements in agriculture, industry, science and technology are physical, material representations of a profound spiritual dimension — the fulfillment of Jewish destiny.

Sovereignty speaks to the purpose and the promise of the State of Israel and to everyone, Jew and non-Jew, who is inspired by that vision.

To live in peace, to strengthen its strategic and security interests, to safeguard vital water resources, prevent environmental and ecological deterioration, it is imperative that Israel maintain control of Judea and Samaria and embrace, enthusiastically — Sovereignty Now!

This was in Arutz-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, October 15, 2010.

....."Topping the OIC wish list is its effort to criminalize criticism of Islam in the non-Muslim world. And this is what makes the Wilders case is so significant. It's one thing if Islamic street thugs mount assassination attempts in Western nations against violators of Islamic law (i.e., elderly Danish cartoonists), or Muslim ambassadors to Western nations lobby them to punish such violations (the free press), or OIC representatives introduce similar Sharia resolutions at the United Nations. It would be something else again if a Western government were itself to convict a democratically elected leader for violating the Sharia ban on criticizing Islam. That's not war anymore; that's conquest"......

This was written by Diana West.


All eyes are on the war on free speech, the one that Dutch powers-that-be are waging inside an Amsterdam courtroom. That's where Geert Wilders is standing trial for his increasingly popular political platform, based on his analysis of the anti-Western laws and principles of Islam, that rejects the Islamization of the Netherlands.

But don't stop there. There's much more to see in the trial of Wilders, whose Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) is the silent partner in the Netherlands' brand new center-right coalition government. That camel in the courtroom is the tip off.

You haven't noticed it? I've been watching it since last year, when sometime after Dutch prosecutors announced in January 2009 that Wilders would go to trial for "insulting" Muslims and "inciting" hatred against them, Stephen Coughlin, famous in national security circles in Washington for his airtight and exhaustive briefs on jihad, clued me in to his analysis of the Wilders trial to date.

What we know now we knew then: that this trial presented a watershed moment. Wilders, leader of a growing democratic movement to save his Western nation from Islamization, risks one year in prison for speaking out about the facts and consequences of Islamization. Such speech is prohibited not by the Western tradition of free speech Wilders upholds, but rather by the Islamic laws against free speech that he rejects.

Wilders' plight demonstrates the extent to which the West has already been Islamized.

"It is irrelevant whether Wilder's witnesses might prove Wilders' observations to be correct," the public prosecutor stated back at the beginning. "What's relevant is that his observations are illegal." Since when are observations "illegal"? Under communist dictatorships is one answer. Under Sharia is another.

Writing in Wilders' defense in the Wall Street Journal, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a former Dutch parliamentarian, reported that Dutch multiculturalist parliamentarians, "spooked" by Wilders rising political star, modified the Dutch penal code in the fall of 2009 to fit Wilders' alleged crimes. They crafted what Hirsi Ali went on to call "the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and E.U." when trying to criminalize defamation (criticism) of religion (Islam).

This is a crucial point to understand, and one that takes me back to what Stephen Coughlin posited last year. Everywhere the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) goes, it peddles Islamic law. In effect, then, to build on Hirsi Ali's point, the Dutch modified their laws to conform with Islam's. This gibes precisely with how Coughlin saw the trial from the start: as an attempt to apply Islamic law, as advanced by the OIC, in the Netherlands.

The OIC is an international body guided by policy set by the kings and heads of state of 57 Islamic countries in accordance with Islamic law. Such law permeates OIC activities, which are shaped by the Sharia-based Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The OIC relies on the Cairo Declaration as its "frame of reference and the basis ... regarding issues related to human rights." (These include free speech rights as restricted by Sharia.) The organization's 57 foreign ministers meet annually, as the OIC's website explains, to "consider the means for the implementation" of OIC policy. As Coughlin puts it, these are "real state actors using real state power to further real state objectives."

Sharia objectives.

Topping the OIC wish list is its effort to criminalize criticism of Islam in the non-Muslim world. And this is what makes the Wilders case is so significant. It's one thing if Islamic street thugs mount assassination attempts in Western nations against violators of Islamic law (i.e., elderly Danish cartoonists), or Muslim ambassadors to Western nations lobby them to punish such violations (the free press), or OIC representatives introduce similar Sharia resolutions at the United Nations. It would be something else again if a Western government were itself to convict a democratically elected leader for violating the Sharia ban on criticizing Islam. That's not war anymore; that's conquest.

In this context, Wilders' trial was never a straight judicial process; it was a political battle from the start, a proving ground for Sharia in the West, dovetailing with the OIC's "10 year Plan," which includes a global campaign against so-called Islamophobia. It remains a test of the tolerance of Dutch elites — tolerance for the truth — and their openness to the intolerance of Sharia.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 15, 2010.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://denjanewhome.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 16, 2010.

One of the key things I see is not the legality or constitutionality of whether or not they have a legal right to build the Islamic Victory Monument at the site of their victory on 9-11.

It is purely the absolute nastiness and ugliness of the Muslims in general as being neighbors.

Every country they have immigrated Islam into, they have begun subverting the culture, and as their numbers grow, they become more confrontational and aggressive.

A particularly nasty group of Muslims wanted to build such an Islamic Cultural Center in Katy, TX in the Houston suburbs. They bought the land in the semi-rural area where livestock was still permitted. They had barely broken ground when they started complaining about the cattle and horses on the property next to theirs.

They picked on the WRONG man, who was a Vietnam Era Vet and had an attitude.

He countered with complaining to them about their proposed sound system that broadcasted the Islamic Call to Prayer 5 times a day, and said since he was a Christian, that it offended him, and he demanded they eliminate it from their plans or at least keep the volume low so it wouldn't violate his property!

They left in a huff and returned a few days later with a lawyer. He did a little more zoning research and found that he could raise PIGS on his property, legally!

He then decided that he would follow their Islamic calendar and on every holiday, would hold public Pig Races and a good pork BBQ event!!!!

Perfectly LEGAL, but he only returned the neighborliness that was extended to him by the Muslims. Dan'l, a good friend of mine and fellow Southern troublemaker, and I were going to sponsor a pig that would be trained to race.

The Pig Races are a Texas State Fair tradition and are very entertaining. But alas, seems that the Warriors of Islam had a change of heart about the location of their Islamic Cultural Center!

I would LOVE to see the Southern Pork BBQ Hall of Fame and cultural Center in NYC across the street from the Cordoba House Islamic Victory Monument! It could be the very Embassy of the South with the magnificent African-American BBQ pit Masters guest cooking in the restaurant and holding seminars on the finer points of BBQ'ing the noble and beloved Swine!

BTW... did you know the significance of the name Cordoba House? Cordoba, Spain was conquered by the Muslims in the 1200's and the Catholic Cathedral was reduced to rubble and a Mosque was built on the ruins of the cathedral! Interesting, isn't it?

Muslims have a thing about building on top of conquered nations' symbolic places.

Know what the Dome of the Rock is sitting on? Solomon's Temple and the former home of the Ark of the Covenant among other Christian and Jewish relics.

Hey, folks, it's all legal!
The moral of this story is that we need more real Texans weighing in on this mess! We'll straighten out these people, post haste! NUFF SAID: ...DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS

This is the Vouch Site:
http://onecountryvoice.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/ pig-races-vs-katy-islamic-association-kia/

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 15, 2010.

In the history of the world, no tyranny has ever voluntarily relinquished power or been replaced by peaceful means.

This below was written by Jonathan Key and it appeared in Commentary Magazine, October 12, 2010.


When Israeli planes smashed Egyptian airfields in the opening hours of the Six-Day War, announcers on Radio Cairo took to the airwaves, calling on Arabs in neighbouring countries to attack any Jews they could find. In the Libyan capital of Tripoli, then home to about 5,000 Jews, rioters responded with an orgy of murder, arson and looting that lasted three days. Even after the survivors had fled to Israel and the West, leaving Libya effectively judenrein, the anti-Semitic bloodlust remained unquenched. It was "the unavoidable duty of the city councils," opined one Libyan newspaper, "to remove [Jewish] cemeteries immediately, and throw the bodies of the dead, which even in their eternal rest soil our country, into the depths of the sea ... Only then can the hatred of the Libyan people toward the Jews be satiated."

Shocking words. Yet they do not come as a shock when one comes upon them in Martin Gilbert's newly published history of Jews in Muslim lands, recently excerpted on these pages. By that point in the chronology, I had become so numbed by the author's relentless catalogue of pogroms, executions, expulsions, forced conversions and the generalized terrorizing of Jews that the atrocities had lost their power to appall. It is not that Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill and author of books too numerous to count on Jewish and Israeli themes, is an unimaginative storyteller; this simply is the grim, unchanging nature of the epic hatred he has taken as his subject.

The Koran contains several very specific curses against Jews. And as modern terrorists often like to remind their YouTube audiences, Muhammad himself was a prolific Jew-killer. This passage from In Ishmael's House, for instance, describes events that took place after the Prophet's soldiers captured members of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in the year 627: "[All] 700 Jewish men were taken to the market at Medina. Trenches were dug in the market square and the men, tied together in groups, were beheaded. Their headless bodies were then buried in the trenches while Mohammed watched ... All Jewish males who had not reached puberty, and all the remaining women and girls, were sold into slavery." This mass slaughter came to be described in Muslim religious literature as the product of divine revelation. To this day, it is cited as clear proof that Allah permits the most hideous forms of punishment to be meted out against nonbelievers.

In the decades following Mohammed's death, the rapid expansion of Islam across the Levant, North Africa, Iran, Central Asia and parts of Europe swallowed up a great multitude of ancient Jewish communities. In some cases, Jews initially welcomed, and even joined, Muslim armies, expecting deliverance from the bigotry and cruelty they suffered under Christian and other pre-Islamic regimes. And in many Muslim lands, Jewish religious and commercial life was permitted to continue.

But even in the best of circumstances, Jews were not treated as anything near equals. The eighth Umayyad caliph, Omar Abd-al-Aziz, commonly is credited with enumerating the rights of Jews and Christians — "People of the book" — under his codified rules for dhimmi communities. Yet his rules (whose spirit survives in many modern Islamic societies to this day) also declared that dhimmis could not ride horses, only donkeys; had to wear special clothing and shoes; could not serve as a witness in a case involving a Muslim; could enter bathhouses only when wearing a special sign around their neck; could not inherit property from a Muslim, or even bequeath their own property to their children.

The prospect of a Muslim being in any way subservient to a Jew was seen as especially obscene. In this regard, Gilbert describes a telling 19th-century episode from the Moroccan town of Entifa, where a 65-year-old Jewish man took in an impoverished Muslim woman as a servant during a period of extreme famine. When the town's governor caught wind of the arrangement, he thundered, "Can a Jew have a Moorish woman serve him? He deserved to be burnt!" The man was nailed to the ground and beaten to death.

Gilbert avoids broad generalizations. As his narrative moves forward from century to century, he shows snapshots from different Muslim lands — emphasizing scattered instances, such as in Cordoba and, later, the Ottoman Empire, where truly humane and enlightened Muslim leaders took pains to protect Jewish subjects. In the courts of such leaders, Jews often rose to positions of wealth and power — typically as doctors, linguists and commercial liaisons. Yet these successes didn't help Jews win acceptance but rather the opposite: Muslims saw Jews' good fortune as an insult to the revealed order of the universe. In this climate of poisonous jealousy, it took only a single isolated violent spark for an entire Jewish community to be engulfed in an inferno of murder, rape and looting. In 1066, for instance, the murder by a single Jewish vizier in Muslim Spain was followed by pogroms that killed 5,000 Jews. Centuries later, the appointment of a Jewish vizier by the Mongol emperor Arghun Khan led to similar massacres of Jews in Persia and Babylonia.

It goes without saying that Muslim civilization has no monopoly on violent and systematic anti-Semitism: Spasms of murderous Jew hatred were common all across Christendom during the 14 centuries of Islam's existence. But in recent generations, Western societies at least have tried to come to terms with their history in a morally serious way. Gilbert's book makes clear that this self-critical approach to history remains foreign to Muslim societies, especially where Jews are concerned. While Israelis have wrung their hands for three generations over the relatively minor (by historical standards) bloodshed incurred in their nation's creation and the wars that have unfolded since, no equivalent soul-searching has accompanied the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Muslim lands in the middle of the 20th century or the persecution and pillaging of countless Jewish communities throughout the entire history of the Islamic faith.

To this day, in fact, bloody episodes from early Muslim history involving the killings of Jews are often cited casually in Arab propaganda against Israel. No effort is made to interpret these stories in any sort of allegorical sense; instead, they are celebrated at face value as victories that validate the foundational Muslim narrative of conquest and submission.

The historical pattern Gilbert describes should inform the current debate over Muslim enmity toward Israel, and the exterminationist rhetoric and deeds that flow out of it. In the dream world of foreign-policy pop-punditry, it often is taken for granted that Jews and Muslims will get along like North and South Dakotans once Israel agrees to become an even smaller country than it already is. Yet this argument — reflecting Western leaders' Asperger's-like fixation on international law and lines drawn on maps — finds absolutely no support in the region's history. In the unending account of violence Gilbert has compiled, it is hard to find a single episode that centres mainly on real estate: The issue was always the fact of Judaism itself rubbing up against Muslims ‚‚ pride and conceits.

The creation of the Zionist movement radically changed the Western understanding of the Muslim-Jewish conflict — sweeping up generations of campus intellectuals who have projected upon it all their own obsessions with colonialism and class struggle. But in the Muslim world, Gilbert's narrative shows us, Israel's creation actually didn't change the Muslim-Jewish dynamic as much as is commonly imagined. The rhetoric and barbarism hurled against Israeli Jews after the Zionist project began were not new but simply the old, more diffuse rhetoric and barbarism being redirected, as by a lens, toward a particular pinprick on a map. This is tied up with the reason that many Muslims refuse even to say the word "Israel," preferring terms such as "the Zionist entity": Deep down, they regard Israel not as a country in the proper sense but rather as a sort of soil-and-concrete stand-in for the stubborn, maddeningly ineradicable Jewish presence in Middle Eastern life since the age of Muhammad.

Aside from its value as a purely historical exposition, In Ishmael's House is a splash of cold water for all those supporters of Israel who imagine that the world can be brought around to their side if it can just be made to appreciate how successful and advanced the Jewish state has become. As the author shows us, the continued vibrancy and economic success of Jewish civilization — so close to Islam's very heartland — is precisely what has fed Muslim rage and jealousy for 14 centuries. The obscure, hardscrabble Jewish holy cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias attracted little attention from Muslims when they were poor. It was only once the desert started to bloom during the Zionist period that Muslims became obsessed with a holy city that doesn't warrant even a single explicit mention in the Koran and that Muhammad seems never to have visited. (Indeed, it is one of the great ironies of Middle Eastern history that the ancestors of many of the Palestinians now described as "refugees" originally migrated to the area from neighbouring Arab countries only in order to profit from the regional economic boom created by the well-educated European Jews who arrived in the early part of the 20th century.)

In past eras, spiteful Muslim leaders and mobs gave expression to their ugliest sentiments by unleashing violence against defenseless Jewish communities. Until Iran gets the bomb, the closest they can come to replicating this in our own era is by way of occasional bouts of suicide terrorism and missile volleys — which is why those acts are encouraged and fetishized in such a lurid manner and why so few Middle Eastern Muslims regard them as a disgraceful or even regrettable part of their culture. However self-destructive such acts may seem to our eyes, they faithfully reflect a hateful pathology rooted in 14 centuries of Muslim history.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 15, 2010.

Under orders from Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the Israeli Police have unfortunately become virtually useless in defending Israeli Jews from Muslim Arab rioting. The Police are worried that they may "upset" Barak and Barak is concerned that he will "upset" Barack Obama and the Muslim Arab Palestinians and the Muslim and Arab world.

As Muslim Arabs run wild in Jerusalem as well as Judea and Samaria, it's just a matter of a short time before they succeed in murdering more Jewish men, women and children, as their killings spread across the nation.

The solution, in part, is to fire Barak immediately and to crack down on all Muslim Arab rioters — of any age — as well as the Media who support them. If Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is unwilling to do his job of protecting the Nation by firing Ehud Barak in deference to Obama, then fire Netanyahu.

Clearly, Ehud Barak is unstable and is pathologically consumed with the division of Israel's Holy, Eternal Capital: Jerusalem. He has also offered to abandon Judea and Samaria as a forerunner to the next full scale war. Some may have forgotten Barak's effort to stampede the Israeli people when he was Chief of Staff in an earlier regime by shouting that Israel must run away from the Golan Heights because Syria could over-run the Golan and kill all Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Where would he put the 500,000 Jewish men, women and children who now live in Judea, Samaria, the Golan, the Jordan Valley and all Jerusalem occupied and desecrated by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Barak would be forced to evacuate 500,000 Jewish men, women and children IF the Muslim Arabs agreed to their own 23rd State on their own terms?

Who would pay? Who could possibly afford to pay?

If Israel surrenders any piece of her ancient heartland, given by G-d to the Jewish people in perpetuity, how would the minuscule State of Israel survive with safety, security, sovereignty and dignity?

The Charters of the Arab League, the PLO, Fatah and Hamas all call for the destruction of the Jewish Nation/State. Those declarations are equal to an unbreakable Muslim Fatwa (Muslim religious edict). No peace agreement will be able to vacate, modify or change these Fatwa pledges to Allah.


(Jerusalem, October 14, 2010) — On Tuesday, October 12, the State Control Committee was on an official visit to Beit Yehonatan in the City of David (Silwan) Neighborhood, when they were stoned by Arabs.
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140037 ).

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union), a member of the committee, said: "The stoning was a serious message renouncing Israel's sovereignty in the area, as well as of the lack of law enforcement against Arab rioters."

MK Yoel Hasson (Kadima), head of the State Control Committee, said that the police and the Defense ministry must put an end to this situation in which stone throwing by Arab rioters has become a daily occurrence. "The fact that the rioters dared to throw stones at an official Knesset group raises serious questions about the situation in Israel's capital."

The incident on Tuesday followed a similar event the previous Friday (October 8) in which El'ad director David Be'eri was ambushed and stoned in Silwan. In his attempt to leave the area safely, Be'eri's car hit one of the Arab children who had attacked him. The incident was photographed by no less than six press photographers who had been invited in advance by the rioters to document the well-planned event in which the Arabs were hoping to use to show the world how Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem attacked the "poor oppressed Palestinians". Their plans backfired as, fortunately for David Be'eri, the footage shows that he acted in self defense.

The video link is included below. We recommend that viewers pay close attention. First, the boy hit by the car was evidently not seriously hurt. And second, the boy fought against no less than three adults who tried to forcibly push him into a van which was to take him to the hospital. We leave it to our readers to try and understand why this child is so against being driven to the hospital. See the video.

Following the initial reports of the supposed injury of a Palestinian child by Jewish settlers, Chanie Luz of Tadmit, the Legal Forum's media watch organization, publicized the following statement which has since appeared on a number of websites:

"Tadmit, the organization for the strengthening of democracy in the Israeli media, applied to Danny Seaman, Director of the National Press Office, demanding that the they (NPO) suspend the press cards of the reporters and photographers who were present at the ambush and stoning of David Be'eri on Friday."

A letter was sent to the Israeli Press Council by Legal Forum Attorney Adrian Aggasi, requesting an investigation into the behavior of journalists at the ambush site, who did nothing to prevent the violent events and did not offer assistance to the injured, as stipulated in paragraph 13a of the journalists Code of Ethics.

The letter states that it is obvious that the event on Friday was organized and staged.

"The reporters were invited to photograph a planned violent event, in which lives were to be endangered. In the footage, the children and youths participating prepared for the violence by taking off their shirts and covering up their faces with them. They had stones prepared to hurl at passing drivers. Participation by the press in a planned violent event is potentially a criminal offense which should be investigated by the Israeli police.

"This cannot be called "media coverage". This event is a cynical misuse of Israeli democracy and of the freedom of the press available in Israel.

"Tadmit calls upon the National Press Office to suspend the press cards not only of the photographers and reporters who participated in the events this past Friday, but of the media agencies that sent them."

Tadmit director, Chanie Luz: "The victims of the lynching (a father and son), as well as the minor child sent by irresponsible adults to hurt innocent drivers, were a hair's breadth away from being killed in the ambush.

"We are talking about a well planned media event, intended for use in the propaganda war against the State of Israel and its citizens.

"The National Press Office must promptly take action to uproot from the media elements who take advantage of Israeli freedom of the press to agitate stage riots and jeopardize human life."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140037 (rock throwing at MK's in Silwan)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V8MbKldSG0&feature= player_embedded
(Video footage of Channel 2 reporters returning to Silwan)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= EH2YH7YElVQ&feature=related



The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel acts to protect human rights in Israel, ensure sound government, and preserve the national interests of the State of Israel and the Jewish People.
To contact them at POB 36657 Jerusalem 91366 Israel.
Telephone: 972-2-5022202, fax: 972-2-560-5824.

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, October 14, 2010.

This appeared on Israel Radio, 15 October 2010 7:12 AM.
http://www.iba.org.il/bet/bet.aspx?type= 1&entity=682030&topic=307 [IMRA translation]


Former Minister: government violated an oral agreement with Israel that he would serve a ten year prison sentence.

Former Minister Rafi Eitan who was a senior Mossad says that the U.S. administration has done an injustice to Jonathan Pollard and violated a verbal agreement with Israel that he would serve a ten years in prison. On the "Meeting Point" program on Reshet Bet Minister Eitan said that the Americans claimed that Pollard had helped to frame U.S. agents in the Soviet Union and decided to leave him in prison for the rest of his life even though it turned out that he was not connected to the affair.

[IMRA: Unknown to Pollard, behind the scenes, American officials were secretly blaming Pollard for the damage caused to American intelligence by a mole. A mole who turned out to be Aldrich Ames. Aldrich Ames was the very same intelligence officer who participated in the preparation of the damage assessment that was used to indict and sentence Pollard. Pollard was never indicted, convicted or even aware that these accusations were being made secretly to pervert the sentencing process and secure a life sentence against him. Incredibly, the arrest of Ames in 1994 did not put an end to these false accusations or to Pollard's grossly disproportionate sentence.

See The Ames Case and Pollard February 25, 1994 — The Jerusalem Post,
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1994/022594.htm, "The Ames Disclosures," September 28, 1994 — The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1994/092894.htm ]

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, October 14, 2010.

Contrary to what Peace Now members and many others think, the Palestinians don't want peace. Why would they? If you think that they've finally come to grips with the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, they haven't. If you think they feel that they're under pressure and must make peace now, they don't. If you think they want to give up receiving largesse and sympathy from the West, they haven't. And if you think that Hamas would acquiesce to the Palestine Authority signing a peace treaty to end the conflict with the Jews, you're really wrong!

Most Palestinians, most Arabs, and most Muslims cannot stand the idea that the Jewish state of Israel controls their third most holy city, Jerusalem. They cannot stomach the idea that the tiny Jewish population, just six million or so, has been able to remain sovereign over "Arab land" for more than sixty years. They cannot believe that more than 300 million Arabs in the Middle East can't rid themselves of pesky Israel, which remains a dagger in their collective neck. Furthermore, they believe that their virtual control of the United Nations, the growing influence and power of Iran, the gradual takeover of Western Europe by Muslim immigrants, and the rise of global jihad will reverse this terrible situation in months, years, decades, or even a century or two. They can wait.

Therefore, there is no reason to compromise with Israel in any way other than a temporary truce, which will last only until Israel can be eliminated. There is no pressure to make peace now, because the Palestinians are clearly the better negotiators. Since negotiations began in 1993 (Oslo Accord) and Israel accepted the idea of trading land for peace, have the Palestinians had to give up anything? Have they put forward any confidence-building measures to placate the Israelis? Why should they? Israeli negotiators, of their own accord — or because of intense pressure from their Western allies — come forward to make concessions without any need for reciprocation. The Palestinian leaders certainly aren't suffering, so they can wait for as long as it takes until Israel gives them everything they want. As for the Palestinian masses, most of them have been fed enough Jew-hatred to blame Jews and Israel, not their leaders, for all their problems.

If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty, they'll lose much of the aid from the Gulf Arab states, Western European states, America, and the United Nations. The Palestinians have received more than $1 billion in international donations annually over the past decade, by far the most foreign aid per capita of any people on earth. The annual amount of aid is greater than one-fourth of the entire Palestinian economy. (Israel receives up to $3 billion annually from the US, but almost all of it must be spent in America on military equipment.) The Palestinian Authority (West Bank) is ranked number 9 in GDP (gross domestic product) growth rate and after Qatar, is ranked second highest in the Arab world. Their per capita GDP is ranked 166 out of 227 countries, not so impressive, but higher than that of Arab countries like Yemen, Sudan, and Mauritania. On the scale of HDI (human development index) they rank higher than those three countries as well as Morocco and nearby Egypt. Additionally, if the Palestinians made peace with Israel, the UNRWA organization would be disbanded. UNRWA is the only refugee organization sponsored by the United Nations to deal with a unique population: the Palestinians. It's a gravy train which employs tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Palestinians living in Gaza are worse off than those in the West Bank ... for good reason. Their benighted existence is a product of their choosing Hamas to run things. Unlike the West Bank where the PA (basically, the Fatah party) rules and talks about peacemaking, in English (not Arabic), Hamas makes no bones about its raison d'être: the destruction of Israel. There will be no peace negotiations at all if Hamas wrests control from the PA, which is likely if Israel withdrew the IDF from the West Bank. While temporary ceasefires with infidels are permitted by the Koran, a Jewish state on "Arab land" is forbidden. The Gazan Arabs have been left out of the current negotiations. Since the PA can only negotiate on behalf of West Bank Arabs, no meaningful peace treaty can conceivably result. Even the validity of the PA to negotiate is questionable, since President Mahmud Abbas unilaterally extended his term for another year in January 2009 and continues in office even after that deadline.

To summarize, the Palestinians don't want or need peace. They are content to wait around until a feckless Israeli leader gives them everything that they need to usurp the Jewish state. While they are waiting, the ruling class lives very high and the rest hardly complain, since they're better off than many other Arabs. Meanwhile, the world powers court them and elevate their "plight" far above any other in the world. The world's Muslim countries are content with the situation too, because Israel is useful to them as a target for the unease of the Arab masses. Israelis want a peace treaty, such as it has with Egypt and Jordan, but that appears to be unobtainable for the foreseeable future. So, who needs peace negotiations besides President Obama and other Western leaders?

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." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture".

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 14, 2010.

Sorry. Before I touch other bases, as I indicated yesterday I would, I must follow up just a bit more on the "offer" made yesterday by PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo. To whit, that if the US and Israel would provide a map of Israel showing the pre '67 lines as the borders of Israel, then the Palestinian Arabs might recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

It seems the State Department jumped on this with delight, with spokesman PJ Crowley declaring at a press conference last night that "this is exactly the right conversation that the Israelis and Palestinians need to have to be exchanging ideas on how to advance this process to a successful conclusion."

But he was just a tad premature. For Khaled Abu Toameh, writing with Herb Keinon, reports in the JPost today that Rabbo "has come under attack for expressing his willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish state....A number of Palestinian factions, including the ruling Fatah movement, condemned Rabbo and called for his dismissal."


I didn't consider Rabbo's suggestion serious from the get-go, for it's clear that we are not about to present a map defining the Green Line as our border in exchange for getting the PLO to acknowledge that we are a Jewish state. And Rabbo darn well knows this.

Actually, Rabbo was countering something that Crowley had said earlier: that the Palestinian Arabs should respond to Netanyahu's suggestion that he would consider another short freeze if Israel were recognized as a Jewish state. We wouldn't do that for a freeze, he was saying, but maybe if you acknowledged the '49 lines as your true border, we might. Flippant, really.

But a desperate US doesn't let go, grasping for ways to keep the "process" alive. This is even as Crowley acknowledges the core of the problem. When asked at the press conference if a map as suggested by Rabbo could be presented, he answered, "what they're asking for is the essence of the negotiation — what are the borders of a future Palestinian state, and conversely, what will be the borders of the Israeli state."

Well...good morning! The Palestinian Arabs do not want honest negotiations, they want everything promised to them before they sit down at the table. That's why a freeze was so wrong-headed as well, for it presumed to provide an implicit acknowledgement, up front, that the land on which our communities sit is going to be part of a Palestinian state.

It's all a bit tiresome. Because the Obama administration continues to play the game as if it's real.

Rabbo, you should know, has — unsurprisingly — since denied he ever offered to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.


For the record, UN Security Council resolution 242, of 1967, says that borders must be determined by negotiations, and that Israel is not required to withdraw at all within Judea and Samaria until that issue is resolved.


Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon, speaking to Army Radio on Tuesday, said, "I don't know a single minister in the Septet [the seven-person inner Cabinet] who thinks it's possible to reach a deal [with the PA] in the foreseeable future."

The realism of these words is heartening. Dare we hope this means they would balk at further "gestures for peace"?


Charles Levinson, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reports that as prospects of a peace deal dim, opposition to PA President Mahmoud Abbas is mounting within his own party, Fatah. There is increased pressure for bringing in a new generation of leaders. The emerging faction is not supportive of peace negotiations with Netanyahu. Favored to replace Abbas, according to Levinson, is Nasse al-Qudwa, 51, a nephew of Yasser Arafat (which fact perhaps tells us all we need to know).


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is currently visiting in Lebanon, to our north. It is an official visit; he was reportedly invited by Lebanese President Michel Suleiman. The fact that it is not merely an informal connection between Hezbollah, supported by Iran, and the president of Iran make this all the more unsettling.

Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman, commented, "Iran's domination of Lebanon, through its proxy Hezbollah, has prevented Lebanon from being a partner in peace and turned Lebanon into an Iranian satellite and a hub of regional terrorism and instability."

Once a renegade terrorist group, Hezbollah now sits within the government — first participating in elections in 2005. After gaining 57 of 128 seats in the legislature as of the 2009 elections, and essentially establishing veto power, Hezbollah was asked by Prime Minister Saad Hariri to join a unity government. While Sunnis in Lebanon continue to voice opposition to Iranian influence in Lebanon, Hezbollah represents a powerful Shiite Lebanese faction in alliance with Iran. The Shiites were out in force, too, cheering on Ahmadinejad.

It should be noted that President Suleiman is himself a Christian Maronite.


Analyst Jonathan Spyer, who says Ahmadinejad has come to deliver a message, quotes Fares Soueid of the Lebanese March 14 alliance: "The message is that Iran is at the border with Israel... Ahmadinejad, through this visit, is saying that Beirut is under Iranian influence and that Lebanon is an Iranian base on the Mediterranean... The Iranian president is here to say that Lebanon is a land of resistance and to reaffirm his project of a continuous war with Israel."

Spyer notes that this is not news for Israel, which has been on alert in the north. But I will say this is unsettling in its bold implications. Ahmadinejad, speaking in Beirut yesterday, called Lebanon a "university for jihad." Today he is due to speak at Bint Jbail, which is just a few kilometers from Israel. Originally he had been scheduled to come down to our border and throw a stone at Israel, but that statesmanlike act was scratched from the schedule.


Some analysts see Ahmadinejad's presence as a bid to either have Hezbollah completely take over Lebanon and/or start another civil war there.

What we cannot forget, however, is the likely desire to also influence what happens to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is charged with investigating the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Reportedly, indictments by the Tribunal, which include charges against Hezbollah operatives, are close. The intent would be to get the present government to dissociate itself from this judicial process.


In August, after an unprovoked ambush attack by the Lebanese army on an IDF unit, resulting in the death of one Israeli officer, US Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY) — who chairs the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee — and Howard Berman (D-CA) — Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee — moved to hold up the release of $100 million in funds that had been approved for Lebanon. Now with the Ahmadinejad visit, they are more adamant than ever regarding the inadvisability of releasing those funds.


The term Pallywood was coined a few years ago by Richard Landes, Boston University professor and Israel advocate. It refers to alleged filmed news reports of violence by Israel against Palestinian Arabs that is actually staged.

You can see an example of it here. (The voice over is that of Landes.) The Al-Dura case represents the most blatant instance of this.


But now we have a new case of Pallywood, involving a Jew — David Be'eri — in a car, in the area of Silwan in Jerusalem, surrounded by rock-throwing kids, one of whom was hit by the car and lightly injured as he sought escape.

Lenny Ben David has a good overview on his blog — complete with pictures, and video of a second attack on a woman and her daughter at the same site almost immediately after the first. He offers important analysis of what happened during this staged attack — such as the observation that there were multiple photographers present and waiting.

Lenny says it, but let me repeat it: rocks can kill. It is not innocuous pebbles that are being aimed at the windshield of the car in question. (I believe you can see one of those rocks on the front seat of the car of the woman who was attacked.)
http://lennybendavid.com/2010/10/ mohammed-dura-redux-another-attempt-at.html

(If the above doesn't open, go to the website — http://lennybendavid.com/ — and scroll down.)

Caroline Glick provides a perspective with more background on the incident:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/10/t he-rise-of-the-suicide-protes.php


On Monday, the Knesset Committee on the Rights of the Child held an emergency session precipitated by this incident. There was concern about the child who was hit, but also a broader concern about children involved in destructive and aggressive behavior. Since July, there have been 450 (this is not a typo) cases of rock-throwing in Silwan.

Border police and policeman in the area regularly contend with attacks by rock-throwers.

There is concern, in particular, about rock-throwing incidents on the road to Mount of Olives cemetery, where Jews go to visit graves. Meir Indor, head of the Almagor Terror Victims Association, testified that twice he has been at the funerals of terror victims at the cemetery, only to find that people were stoned as they left. On both occasions it happened when the funerals ended at the same time that school in the area let out. "It's like rock-throwing is part of their school program."

On Tuesday, a large rock thrown by Arabs hit the front windshield of a minivan carrying a delegation of Knesset members who had toured Silwan.


You undoubtedly remember the horrendous terror attack near Hevron that killed four innocent people (one of whom, Talia Eames, was nine-months pregnant). Talia and her husband Isaac left behind six orphans.

People here in Israel please note: A musical program, "The Renaissance Show, "will take place in Hevron to benefit these orphans:

The program will be held at 8:30 PM on Tuesday October 19th, in Hevron, at the Gutnick visitor center next to the Machpela, in the "Field of the Patriarchs."

For additional information, contact Hava Shmulevich: 054-572-2904, hebron69@gmail.com


A new American Jewish Committee survey shows that the approval rate for Obama among American Jews is dropping.

Currently, 51% of Jews approve of the job Obama is doing, compared to 44% who disapprove. The last time the AJC did a survey, in March (six months ago), 57% approved, and back in May of 2009, there was a 79% approval rating.

As to the way Obama is handling US-Israel relations, only 49% approve, with 45% disapproving. Six months ago, 55% approved his handling of US-Israel relations.

A full 95%, believes that the Palestinian Arabs should recognize Israel as the Jewish state.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, October 14, 2010.

"Go forth from your land and from your birthplace and from the house of your father to the Land that I will show you." (From this week's Torah portion, Lech Lecha, Genesis 12:1)

The first Torah portion in the Bible is dedicated to creation and the second to humanity. From this week's Torah portion, we embark on the grand epoch of the Nation of Israel.

"Go forth to the Land." From the very first sentence that defines the Nation of Israel, the Land of Israel is designated as the goal and the irreplaceable tool; everything passes through it and everything hinges upon it. The entire sojourn of the Nation of Israel to its destiny is played out on the backdrop of the Land of Israel. The Land is not only the stage. It is the final destination and the destiny.

"Have you already finished solving all of Europe's problems?" Foreign Minister Lieberman justifiably asked his European counterparts.

Technically, Lieberman is right and it is a relief to finally hear an Israeli official make a remark on an international stage that retains a bit of national pride. But in practice, Lieberman's remarks will make no difference. The drive of the nations of the world to snatch the Land of Israel from our hands has nothing to do with "peace" and not even with conflict resolution. They are simply afraid of the connection between the Nation of Israel and its Land. This connection poses a threat to the evil parts of humanity. They are afraid of the settlements like darkness is afraid of light.

National pride is a vital foundation. That is why the national camp that progressed from socialist universalism to the Israeli pride of Jabotinsky is our relevant arena. But whoever gets stuck in simple national pride finds himself at a dead end. Ultimately, he will do more harm to the connection with the Land of Israel than the Left. Nationalism alone is capable of motivating the nations of the world. But for Israel, it is a means to a holy end. When the holy goal is missing, the tool falls apart.

Manhigut Yehudit's goal is to bring the content into the tool. We look on in wonder at the sea change in the thought patterns of the faith-based public. We understand that the widespread registration for the Likud in the past few months is much deeper than simple political tactics.

With G-d's help, we will merit to speedily complete this process and to lead the Nation of Israel to its universal goal: "And all the nations of the world will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:3)

Shabbat Shalom,

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 Sheik Yer' Mami, October 14, 2010.

Peaceful Muslim demands that non-Muslims accommodate violent Muslims

Khalid Latif, a chaplain for New York University, here complains that moderate and peaceful understandings of Islam are being unfairly discounted: "As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought."

That's just great, and I am happy to accommodate him in this. It is also worth noting, however, that a few years ago, when NYU students planned to display the Danish cartoons of Muhammad at a campus event, Latif wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton, asking that he "not allow these cartoons to be displayed in any shape or form." Why not? Because "the potential of what might happen after they are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly." For "the repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing."

This has been widely interpreted as a veiled threat, but let's give Latif the benefit of the doubt: let's just say that he was simply noting the possibility of violence, not threatening violence, if the cartoons were displayed at NYU. Even if that were the case, another problem remains: he was asking Sexton to make sure that non-Muslims changed their behavior to accommodate violent Muslims, rather than directing his efforts to violence-minded Muslims to try to get them to stop the violence.

And that has everything to do with what he is saying here. Because here again, he is saying that it is up to non-Muslims to take due notice of peaceful Muslims. But how effective or helpful are these peaceful Muslims when one of their foremost exponents refuses to stand up to his violent coreligionists, but instead demands that non-Muslims curtail their activities to accommodate them? If Latif is really concerned that non-Muslims don't believe his protestations of peace and moderation, this is why: his unwillingness or inability to stand up to the "radicals" either casts doubt upon his sincerity or demonstrates his impotence.

This below is "My Take: Islam is a religion of peace, or it isn't," by Khalid Latif for CNN, October 11, 2010
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/10/12/ khalid-latifs-dirty-little-jihad/


Last week, New York University hosted the Intelligence Squared Debates at its Skirball Center for the Performing Arts. Four panelists, two for and two against, presented arguments on the motion of "Islam Is a Religion of Peace." About 800 showed up to learn the answer.Problem is, there is no one answer.

The Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.

Yet we find ourselves in a moment in which we are very narrowly understood. That normative understanding is equated to something radical, despite the fact that 93 percent of Muslims are found to be far from radical according to recent Gallup surveys.

What becomes more problematic is that typically when one of us from that 93 percent steps up to speak, we are vehemently told that we either do not represent Islam or even more absurdly that we are not truly practicing Islam's teachings.

Zeba Khan, a panelist for the "Islam Is a Religion of Peace" last week, was met with such a response. She started off the debate by sharing her personal story about growing up in Ohio, attending a Hebrew Day School, and being raised by Indian parents in a Muslim household. "Just because you may not hear us," said Khan," doesn't mean we are not speaking."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, speaking against the motion, followed Zeba and immediately said, "The problem with Islam is who speaks for Islam." She went on to say, "I concede (the radical voice) is a minority," and expressed her desire that someone like Zeba Khan actually would speak for Islam, but, in her opinion, could not and does not.

And so Zeba's voice, her interpretation, and all of her efforts were collectively dismissed since she did not fit into what Hirsi Ali believed Islam to be.

Maajid Nawaz, Zeba Khan's co-panelist for the motion, was dismissed just as easily. "This debate is not about making excuses for terrorism," he said. "This debate acknowledges that Muslims bear a responsibility in reclaiming their faith from a minority."...

Despite this, those opposed to the motion told him that it is his peaceful understanding of Islam that is rooted in misinterpretation, since it does not match up with the interpretation put forth by the radical minority, and thus somehow ignores the fundamentals of Islam since those groups somehow are the end-all be-all of what Islam actually means.

That a peaceful interpretation of the religion, or even one that is non-radical, can only exist by ignoring fundamental texts is flawed in its logic.

Characteristic of any text — whether religious or not — is its ability to be interpreted through the lens of its reader. Interpretations of the Quran that espouse ideas of tolerance, compassion and mercy have existed and continue to exist in the majority of Muslim communities since the advent of Islam 1400 years ago.

As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought. There are those who make Islam to be something restrictive and radical, but there are many, many more who do not.

Moderating the panel last week, ABC News correspondent John Donvan said speaking to those against the motion, "You are making it sound like Islam is what you make it to be. Why then can it not be the peaceful Islam that we see being practiced by so many around the world?"

The answer, Mr. Donvan, is that it can be, and for the majority of us, it is.

Making "Islam what you want it to be" is a lie. Islam cannot be what you make it to be without invoking heresy and/or apostasy. The penalty for this often can be death.

The problem is that Muhammad himself, as portrayed in core Islamic texts, was a violent, mass-murdering, totalitarian theocrat. The texts which motivate the jihadists are widely available, and knowing what we know now, no Muslim should be allowed to settle in the West without making it absolutely clear that he denounces the teachings of Islam.

This from the Winds of Jihad on the Sheik Yer'Mami

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, October 14, 2010.

Letter from former Asst Secy of Defense Korb to Pres. Obama — Release Pollard

September 27, 2010
Dr. Lawrence J. Korb
203 Yoakum Pkwy Apt 908 Alexandria. VA 22304
The Honorable Barack H. Obama President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As Assistant Secretary of Defense a the time of Jonathan Pollard's arrest I

respectfully request that you exercise your power of clemency on behalf of Mr. Pollard who has now been in prison for 25 years. Jonathan Pollard is the only person in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for passing classified information to an American ally.

Based on my first-hand knowledge, I can say with confidence that the severity of Pollard's sentence is a result of an almost visceral dislike of Israel and the special place it occupies in our foreign policy on the part of my boss at the time, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.

Secretary Weinberger submitted two affidavits to the court in order to convince the judge to give Pollard a harsher sentence than the one requested by the government, despite Pollard admitting guilt, plea bargaining and cooperating with the government. The government committed to not seeking a life sentence but due to the Weinberger Affidavits, the redacted version of which I have read, Mr. Pollard received a disproportionate life sentence.

Secretary Weinberger omitted his crucial involvement in the Pollard case from his memoirs and when asked by the famed investigative journalist Edwin Black, about the omission, Weinberger indifferently responded, "Because it was, in a sense, a very minor matter, but made very important." Asked to explain, Weinberger continued, "As 1 say, the Pollard matterwas comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance." When asked why this was so, Weinberger replied "I don't know why-it just was."

Mr. Pollard was not charged with harming America and has repeatedly expressed remorse for his actions. Furthermore, the average sentence for his offense is 2-4 years and today the maximum sentence is 10 years. Justice would best be served by commuting Pollard's sentence to the time he has already spent in Sincerely,

Lawrence J. Korb

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 13, 2010.

With regard to the possibility of face-to-face talks, it's all been a bit nonsensical. Because even if there were talks held, there would be no meeting of the minds. But at this point the situation has generated to something akin to ludicrous.

I wrote two days ago about the fact that Netanyahu offered to consider a limited extension of the freeze if the PA would recognize Israel as a Jewish state. That was rejected out of hand, of course — something I believe Netanyahu anticipated would happen. He was out to expose the Palestinian Arab position and intransigence.

But, following this, Nabil Sha'ath made another demand on behalf of the PA: No temporary freezes any more, he said. "What is needed is a full cessation of settlement activities. How can settlement continue on the lands that were supposed to be traded for peace?" And, this freeze should include Jerusalem. There will be no coming to the table unless Israel agrees on these points.

That's when it became perfectly clear that the PA was opting out.


Today's Jerusalem Post carried a front page story — written by three journalists, including Khaled Abu Toameh — that cited a Fatah official who said the peace process based on a two state solution was over. Mahmoud Aloul, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, said that, "The Palestinian Authority made every effort to avoid reaching this conclusion, but the Israeli racist policies led to the failure of the peace process."

Opting out, indeed. And missing no opportunity to sling mud at the same time. They, who have made it clear they wouldn't want a single Jew in their state, call us "racist."


Now it has come down to the point of mockery. Said PA senior official Yasser Abed Rabbo today, the PA might ("in accordance with international law," whatever that means) consider recognizing Israel as the Jewish state, if Israel withdraws to the pre '67 lines, which he, erroneously, calls borders: "We officially demand that the U.S. administration and the Israeli government provide a map of the borders of the state of Israel which they want us to recognize...If this map is based on the 1967 borders and provides for the end of the Israeli occupation over all Palestinian lands..."

He is not serious. Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman, referred to this as the "Palestinian Authority running away from the issue [of establishing borders through negotiations]."


The US is playing a nonsensical game of looking for a way out of this impasse. (It reminds me of: "Children, now, now. Let's work this out. Be nice.") But it's not a serious-minded impasse with both sides really wanting to sit down, yet stuck on some point that makes it difficult. From the beginning Abbas wanted no part of this business and made that clear by putting up roadblocks. (I will not address here what Netanyahu truly did or did not want, no matter what he said.)

I would say — although I must qualify this, as one can never be sure of anything in this part of the world — that the notion of Israel negotiating with the PA is likely finished for now.

I feel relief, if this is so. Because I have feared what we might have been squeezed into conceding at that table. It would be a dangerous business with statements made even tentatively coming back to haunt us.


But there is no way to say that we're home free. As if we are ever "home free."

In fact, I want to look at what seems to me the reason why Abbas and company stiffened their demands in just the last couple of days, making it clear that they weren't interested in considering compromises to make it possible for them to come to the table.

I wrote in my last posting about the two visiting foreign ministers from France and Spain, Kouchner and Moratinos, respectively. And how they were interested in "helping" in the "peace process." If you remember, Kouchner gave an interview to a PA paper, in which he said the "Security Council option" could not be ruled out.

Well, a third dignitary also showed up here yesterday: Finland's president, Tarja Halonen.

I know that Abbas met this week with Kouchner and Moratinos in Amman, and I believe Halonen was part of that meeting. Her itinerary included stops in both Jordan and PA territory. But if she wasn't at that meeting, then Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb certainly was.

In fact, The Jordan Times, in discussing this meeting between Europeans and PA officials reports that the representatives of the PA said they have six options as to how to proceed (six?), "including unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state without an agreement with Israel..." Of the six, only this was specified.

And what do you think these European trouble mak... excuse me, I mean diplomats said to Abbas? It is not likely that they encouraged him to lower his demands regarding the freeze and sit at the table and hammer things out. What is most likely the case is that they stiffened his back, either jointly or one at a time, giving him a sense of increased strength about the possibility of going it alone, via a unilateral declaration. I believe he has been encouraged, even if only subtly, in his plans. I believe he has heard how eager Europe is to see the formation of a Palestinian state, without delay.


So, unless Obama pulls a rabbit out of a hat, and speedily, we'll soon be able to stop thinking about the freeze and all the rest. And breathe a sigh of relief on that score.

Nor need I offer any pretense with regard to my pleasure that what Obama tried to push artificially, for political purposes of his own, but with great disregard for our rights and security needs, will likely fail. If even the prospect of direct talks disappears before the elections (something he has been trying mightily to forestall), he will be greatly chagrinned.

Of course, he has only himself to blame. For excessively raising hopes, for setting unreasonable time tables, and for himself originally demanding that we freeze construction, making it difficult for Abbas to do less.

What I ponder — although it's unlikely we'll ever know — is what Obama thinks of European statements and behavior now. And how angry he is at Abbas, though he'll be loathe to admit any anger at all.


But then, after we find we can breathe that sigh of relief, it will be time for the best diplomats and lawyers and international strategists that our nation has to apply themselves to what is likely to be coming down the road within the next ten months or so. It is roughly in August of 2011 that PA Prime Minister Fayyad has said he would be ready to unilaterally declare a state. Petitioning of the Security Council, if that is the way he would opt to go, would proceed next. Or, alternately, seeking the backing of Europe and possibly the US.

This will be a time when American supporters of Israel will need to act to maximum effectiveness.


Focus of my recent posts has been almost exclusively on this issue. I will end here, and hope tomorrow to look at a number of other significant matters.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, October 13, 2010.

Arutz Sheva's Chana Ya'ar reports today, Oct. 13, that the PA is planning to build an airport and industrial park in Jericho, which is in AREA C — that area supposedly completely controlled by Israel. PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad did not trouble himself to get building permits from Israel and instead held an unauthorized groundbreaking ceremony this past Monday, Oct. 11. Has there been a hue and cry from the Israeli government? Have bulldozers, power tools, drills and jack hammers been employed to destroy whatever construction efforts have begun illegally in this Jordan Valley area, just north of the Dead Sea? No — the demolition crews have been busy elsewhere.

Another report from Chana Ya'ar in the Oct. 13 Arutz Sheva tells us that once again, three wooden Jewish homes in Maoz Esther, just outside of Kochav HaShachar in the Shomron, have been destroyed by 100 Israeli police, IDF soldiers, and a dozen Arab workers. The wooden houses were easily destroyed, but this destruction crew had trouble with a small cement house which resisted their efforts. Efforts to destroy Maoz Esther, built in memory of terrorist victim Esther Galia, began in 2007. While the Israeli police and army are determined to erase this "obstacle to peace", we're told of an illegal Bedouin encampment which gets no attention from the destroyers.

What kind of Jewish government is this that allows flagrant violations and takeover of Jewish land by the self-declared Arab enemy, and targets Jewish homes built in the biblical homeland of the Jews? How is Israel to survive if it can't identify the true enemy and work to defeat it?

Emails should be sent to the Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak — pniot@mod.gov.il and to PM Netanyahu — memshala@pmo.gov.il protesting against this suicidal appeasement and betrayal policy of the Israeli government.

Helen Freedman is Executive Director of Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI, 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.

To Go To Top

Posted by Zvi November, October 12, 2010.

On October 6th Israel's radio and TV commentators (some think of them as public opinion fabricators) dedicated a lot of air time to commemorating the 37th anniversary of the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Little or no mention of was made of Israel's dramatic success after being completely surprised by the Syrian and Egyptian attacks. The majority of the media pundits and the experts they interviewed preferred to discuss, with perfect hindsight, the unbelievable shortsightedness of Israel's political and military leaders at that time.

Prime ministers, their cabinet comrades and "expert" advisors always present themselves as omniscient, rarely admitting to miscalculations and erroneous concepts. However, Israel's recent history (from the 1993 Oslo agreement with Yasser Arafat) can be seen and understood as part of a continuum of faulty and costly decisions.

Barbara Tuchman in her prize-winning March of Folly (1984) clearly demonstrates how potentates and even modern presidents can behave like stupid idiots although they now employ excellent public relations people to get us to "better" comprehend a given problem and think "correctly" about its solution.

A recent example from Israel is the Sharon-engineered expulsion of Jews from Gaza in 2005. Before the Knesset voted on the "disengagement", the public was told that the withdrawal/retreat would enhance security, advance peace and engender greater pro-Israel sympathies in the international community. Today, five years later, we see that the very opposite occurred. This blunder was predicted by opponents of the move but they were dismissed as 'extreme rightists' by Israel's media lords.

Examine the details of the so-called "peace process" and you may wonder why Israel's government agrees to the creation of a Palestinian state that, in all likelihood, will evolve into a serious strategic threat and relinquish control over the Jordan Valley which will prove to be the decisive factor in any major confrontation with Arab and/or Iranian armies in the future.

The answer to this question can be found on page 51 of Intelligence in the Cold War, edited by Lars Christian Jenssen and Olav Riste (2001). This book is a collection of papers that were presented at an international intelligence conference in Oslo in August 2000. One participant, Professor James Kenneth McDonald who served as the CIA's chief historian from 1981 to 1995 concludes his paper with the following:

"These examples of strategic surprise [the North Korean invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950; the subsequent massive Chinese intervention in December 1950 when US (UN) troops approached the Yalu River border with China; the USSR's placement of missiles in Cuba in 1962] teach that in intelligence warning the most dangerous deception is self-deception. An old aphorism perhaps best sums it up: 'You cannot learn what you think you already know'."

In the body of his presentation, McDonald shows how US intelligence services had information about these developments beforehand but the decision makers in Washington simply refused to take CIA discoveries and estimations into full consideration.

Similarly, Israeli and American "peace" proponents and negotiators can't bring themselves to believe that the Arabs aim to first de-legitimize and then destroy Israel over the long run. Just about everything they say and do support this conclusion. But the "peace" people refuse to take facts into due consideration.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 12, 2010.

The Muslim Arab Palestinians in Jerusalem grow bolder in their attacks on Jewish civilian drivers, men, pregnant women — even children and those who are simply strolling. However, the Police, under the orders of Israel's current Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, arrest the first Jewish victim they see at the scene.

The Arab Muslims accept this encouragement as permission to attack Jews whenever they wish, knowing that Barak, Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Leftist Courts as well as the Leftist Media will side with them.

Perhaps a time will come when the Quislings in the Israeli government will be kicked out and a Peoples' Court will be established to try them for their crimes against their own people.

I recall an old saying during the years of the Muslim Ottoman Turks' rule who treated the Jews cruelly. The saying of that time goes: "Kill a Turk and take a rest." The message, I suppose, was: "Don't harm me and I won't harass you."

But, those evil times are returning as the Arab Muslims take the place of the Turkish Muslims. Regrettably, although the Jews have returned to the Land of their Patriarchs and Matriarchs, many of our own leaders plead for mercy from the very Arab Muslims whom they had to fight and beat in seven wars and continual, ongoing Terrorism.

Granted, not all Jewish leaders sniveled, whined and apologized for living and daring to live and fight back.

Now, too many of these Jewish leaders play the role models of a beaten people, instead of standing tall as honest victors in a sea of Jew-hating Muslim Arabs. They instruct the Police to harass Jews — especially if they are forced to defend themselves — even against Muslim Arab lynch mobs.

Israel's soldiers have been made fearful of defending themselves with lethal force lest the corrupt and biased Leftist Courts put them on trial for acting in self-defense and defense of their countrymen, women and children who are endangered.

Sadly, Israel's courts were taken over long ago by Leftists who act like "Arabists" (pro-Arab) who wish to impose their own rule of law.

In the Judicial world, Israeli courts are considered "Activists" who wish to put their own rule of law.

Now, when Muslim Arabs attack Israeli farmers, burn their fields, steal their sheep, cattle or horses, the Police have been intimidated by their superiors to NOT respond when Jews are endangered and attacked. IF the farmers try to defend themselves against Muslim Arab thieves or vandals who destroy or steal their animals, tear up their trees or vines, burn their fields, threaten their wives and children, they often find themselves in Court and are kept there for repeated hearings — a process which eventually bankrupts the victim farmer. Has this now become standard operating procedure?

Even the once admired Shabak (Secret Service) spends a disproportionate amount of time infiltrating and trying to entrap Jews instead of hostile Arab Muslims. (Note!) I'm sure there are Police, IDF and Secret Service people who are patriotic and still believe in their nation but their directors have long ago been bought off with political appointments so they became Arabists and expect those under their command to also behave as Arabists.

The Media (most of the Media) seems to have chosen to become accomplices on the side of Arab Muslim murderers, invariably spinning their stories that — whatever happens, it's always the fault of the Jewish victim(s).

Only when something like a drive-by shooting of a Jewish family takes place, are they forced to print the bloody story but, clearly — with reluctance.

As Arabist Leftists in good standing, Israel's Media and the world Media cannot be trusted to tell the full story if it benefits a Jew — especially if the Jew(s) happen to be Jewish settlers.

When Muslim Arabs gather to throw rocks, there is a pretense that rocks are not lethal. Think about it! A one-inch stone, hurled by hand or slingshot can reach speeds not unlike a baseball clocked at 50 to 70 MPH. That takes out an eye easily. A larger rock or chunk of concrete can impact your skull and simply kill you or your children — or leave you as a babbling idiot for the rest of your life. Therefore, it seems logical that an Arab Muslim hurling stones has chosen to trade his own life for the joy of being a Shahid (martyr). Give him what he wants and shoot him dead as a killer who wishes to take your life and your loved ones.

Now, when a mob of teenage boys gather in an ambush to throw huge stones, cement blocks at Jewish motorists — and when the Media happens to be there (by invitation) to collect their colorful, insinuating pictures — IF the Jewish motorist outwits the mob and knocks the kids off his windshield — then the Jewish motorist is arrested cuz the "poor kids" got hurt. Puleeze!

How did the Arab Muslim Media, Al Jazeera, just happen to be there? How did they know it was going to happen? How did they get such 'pretty' pictures?

Only when the Jews act with their well-known strength of arms, spirit and courage do our enemy Muslims and the rest of the world respect us.

Only when Jews respect themselves will we survive.


A. "Video: Almagor Chief Recalls Attempted Lynch" by Gil Ronen Arutz Sheva 7 October 3, 2010 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/139853

B. "Another Drives Escapes Shiloach Attack" by Maayana Miskin Arutz Sheva 7, October 10, 2010 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139992

C."Media Watchdog: Punish Journalists from Shiloach Rock Ambush" Arutz Sheva 7, October 10, 2010

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 Gabrielle Goldwater, October 12, 2010.

This was written by Chana Ya'ar.


U.S. President Barack Obama signed a waiver last week that allowed him to transfer funds to the Palestinian Authority, while relaxing some of reporting requirements. The announcement of the waiver, published October 7, did not include information on the amount or its purpose.

The requirements, dubbed a "routine bureaucratic measure necessitated by terrorism laws" by the PA-linked Ma'an news agency, are actually a complex 12-section network of legislation, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which states the U.S. policy to promote "the cessation of terrorism and incitement in institutions and territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority..."

The legislation requires exemptions be "in the U.S. national security interests" as Obama cited in announcing his signature of the waiver. The Act also requires that the proposed recipient is "not a member of, or controlled by, Hamas or any other foreign terrorist organization."

However, as recently as last year, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad spent NIS 90 million ($21.5 million) to rebuild Hamas-ruled Gaza, with tax revenues transferred by Israel with the understanding that the money would go to PA civil service salaries. Instead,Hamas directly received the funds, and no money was deposited in the workers' accounts in Gaza banks, an outright violation of the agreement.

The legislation requires the Secretary to "ensure such assistance is not provided to or through an individual or entity with terrorist ties" and prohibits the use of such funds "to recognize or honor individuals or the families of individuals who commit terrorism."

The Act also urges members of the international community to avoid contact with, and to "refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas until it agrees to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the Roadmap," a term former President George W. Bush coined for his Middle East diplomatic process.

The legislation restricts the U.S. from sending foreign aid to Hamas-controlled areas of the Palestinian Authority.

It requires the president to certify that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality that receives U.S. funding is controlled by Hamas, "unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and is adhering to all previous agreements and understandings with the United States, Israel and the international community, including agreements and understandings pursuant to the Roadmap."

The exemption requires the president to also prove "the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism, dismantling all terrorist infrastructure and cooperating with Israel's security services, halting anti-American and anti-Israel incitement, and ensuring democracy and financial transparency."

Exemptions allowed under the legislation, upon certification to Congress, include assistance for administrative and personal security costs for the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and to cover the expenses for his official activities, as well as funding for the judiciary branch of the PA and other entities.

Arabs Renege on Funding Pledges to PA

While the Obama administration looks for ways to provide some of the $500 million in annual funding it has allocated, rich Arab nations are doing just the opposite — Arab states this year cut financial aid to the PA.

PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told reporters in New York last month after a meeting with Gulf Arab ministers that he was hoping to raise some half a billion dollars from the group.

"We're hopeful that we really get the support and assistance that we need," Fayyad said, but thus far, Arab nations have not stepped up to close the gap.

"We really expect the Arab and Gulf states to live up to their pledges," added Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, who chairs the PA donors group. Stoere, U.S. officials and others have called on Arab nations to step up their economic support for the PA.

PA Finance Ministry figures showed some $583.5 in budget support last August — but only 22 percent of that came from Arab donors. The rest was provided by international funding sources, including the United States and the European Union.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, October 12, 2010.

Perplexed Supporters of Israel

It might surprise some Jews, considering the disproportional anti-Israel coverage in the media and from international pressure the on Israeli government, that there are many non-Jews who strongly support the State of Israel. What even more surprising is, that many of them enthusiastically approve the idea of the reunification of Jewish land, the creation of Eretz-Israel (Land of Israel), as it was designated by the League of Nations in July 1922, — even more than most of Jews.

Quite often I receive messages of disbelief and surprise from our non-Jewish friends. Many members of non-Jewish nations, who have never experienced continual persecution and violence, are unable to understand Jewish passivity and inadequate responses to Arab aggression and terror. Although most of these nations are Christian, they still struggle to grasp the Jewish concept of love and respect to life, even at this time of existential threat from their mortal enemies. They ask:

1) "How on Earth do Jewish people put up with the injustice?"

My reply: Jews are used to it and we must be very careful with what and how we do things. Before WWII Jews were not allowed to leave most European countries, including the current leading democracy. During the war we were betrayed and killed by our neighbours and friends. After the war the British did everything possible to disallow the establishment of our homeland, which was legally designated for Jews (many Arab and Muslim countries were recently created as a result of the same mandate system which was created by the League of Nations.)

2) "I can't understand how some Jews can turn their backs on Israel and help the hatred towards Jews."

My reply: For too long Jews suffered persecution and were told "you can't do this!" And we started to believe this lie. Many of us are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. For thousands of year we learned to survive by appeasing our oppressors. It is difficult brake bad old habits, especially when there aren't many truly supportive friends around.

3) "I don't understand. When there is non-stop world-wide Muslim violence towards the western world and none from the State of Israel, why the international hatred is centred on Israel and there is no reaction against Muslims..."

My reply: Welcome to the reality of the anti-Jewish world! They love to hate Jews, while conveniently disregarding the fact that Islamists hate Christians and any other religions, Communists and nice democracies even more than they hate the existence of Israel. Israel is just a front line of the world-wide Islamic assault to achieve global domination by Islam!

Jews and Jewish leadership must realize that the horrors of our past should not destroy the future of the Jewish people. We achieve what most people had considered impossible — creation of the Jewish state in 1948 in an utterly hostile international environment. We are in danger to squander our great achievement! The time is now to understand that we will never get approval for anything we do or not do from anyone. Therefore, it is better to do what is right for the Jewish People than for our hateful enemies!

Attention: Jewish Day School (Girls Campus), located in Australia is searching for a Principal to oversee both General and Religious (Lubavitch) studies. Relocation assistance is available. To submit nominations or candidacies please contact: Robin Laster. ( All resumes must be submitted in Word format to robin@joelpaul.com)

A Step toward Self-respect. A loyalty oath will now be required for people wishing to live in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that his full cabinet has decreed that new citizens (how about 'old' once?) should pledge allegiance to the "Jewish and democratic" state. &and traitors among us: The Likud party expressed its anger over Tzipi Livni's remarks Sunday against the proposed changed to the Citizenship Law. An announcement released by the party stated: "Tzipi Livni insists on attacking the government at all costs, even when the subject of discussion is the most fundamental principle of our existence here in Israel as the Jewish nation-state."

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Jews are the only people in the world who are continuously forced to justify to others their existence as a nation and spiritual entity and to prove their land rights on Palestine. Any other nation, regardless of their short non-existent history and even genocidal past, do not have such obligations! Why aren't Israel-haters questioning the right of the USA or Australia to exist?

Politics of Demands and Blames.

Arab League foreign ministers met in Libya on Friday to hear PA President Mahmoud Abbas's case for suspending peace talks with Israel until it extends a moratorium on settlement building in Judea and Samaria. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team said: "There is not going to be a real and serious peace process as long as there is this Netanyahu government... his government is not serious about achieving peace in the region." (Did he mean the PA terrorist government? Israel has changed several governments since Abbas came to power! Well, which side is not serious?)

Loyalty is not Arab's Forte.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pushing for a loyalty oath that would require non-Jewish candidates for Israeli citizenship to pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state. There is a very great struggle today to nullify and blur the character of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish People and to say that it doesn't belong to the Jewish People on a national basis," said Netanyahu. Arab leaders holding Israeli citizenship denounced the proposal as "racist". (Arab members of Knesset are systematically undermining Israel and disregarding its laws!)

France is still Ugly, even with Jewish Minister. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who is set to arrive in the region, told Arab media on Sunday that his country did not rule out recognizing a Palestinian state that the PA is considering (pretending) to declare without a final status agreement.

Rare Statement of Truth from Syria.

Syrian President Bashar Assad said during a state visit to Tehran that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are aimed at bolstering United States President Barack Obama's political image. "There is no goal but to gain support for Obama within America," Assad said.

Lesson for Israel.

Peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban aren't likely to advance until the United States and NATO forces gain an advantage on the battlefield. (Israel is facing enemies who are driven by the same ideology, immorality and cowardness.)

Quote of the Week:

"I don't think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything." — Fidel Castro — Even this Communist dictator is able to see and acknowledge the truth! Why are the leaders of the so-called democratic world silent or worse, hiding their anti-Semitic policies under an anti-Israel banner?

Are Construction of Jewish Settlements a Problem?

The Israel Security Agency said insurgency attacks from the West Bank and Gaza Strip rose sharply in September 2010. ISA reported 88 attacks last month, a more than 50 percent increase from August 2010. (Attacks intensified even before Israel announced the end of its construction freeze!)

Israel Must Follow Suit.

The Obama administration announced on Wednesday that in the past year it has deported a record number of unauthorised immigrants — more than 392000, about half of whom were convicted criminals. (There are many terrorist and convicted criminals among the Arab population living on Jewish land. It is time for Israel to clean her house — The US and France are already doing it!)

Another Mosque is Bombed — Usual Response.

A bomb blasted through a mosque in the capital of Takhar Province in northern Afghanistan, killing the governor of a neighbouring province as he attended Friday Prayer and at least 12 other worshippers. (After a few Koran books were burned in the PA's mosque, with out any evidence, Jews were immediately accused and this story ran for a couple of days. Muslim terrorists are regularly bombing Mosques around the world and& no international condemnation, no media frenzy!)

Hypocrisy of the Headlines:

Palestinian boy 'run over by Israeli settler' — In fact Elad director David Be'eri was ambushed. He injured two stone-throwing Arab kids with his car as he was trying to escape fearing for his life. This fact is 'descritely' mentioned only at the end of the article.

The Proposed Mosque Near Ground Zero.

by Newt Gingrich

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site — where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks — is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites...

Today, some of the Mosque's backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes "Cordoba House" as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way. Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca. And they lecture us about tolerance...

We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13-storey, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

Finally, where is the money coming from? ...America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

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 a website at www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 11, 2010.

I have been away from my computer for personal reasons — very positive family reasons. I thank G-d for these events, which keep me on mark and sane.

Now that I return to the news, which is something less than wonderful, I find the "re-entry" heavy. Today's posting will focus on certain key issues, with more to follow soon.


Before the Arab League met last Friday, statements from the US government indicated positive expectations — the hope that the League wouldn't kill the process by telling Abbas not to come to the table. It was clear that a great deal of lobbying of certain Arab governments had been done.

The outcome, however, is not exactly what Obama had hoped for.

The League decided it would give Obama a month to try to get Israel to extend the freeze. If this effort failed, then it was going to have to meet again and decide what to do next, for Abbas was correct not to negotiate if the Jews were building houses in Judea and Samaria.

People in several quarters read this as a blatant threat: put the screws on Israel and deliver, or else. The best that could be said from the US perspective is that Obama had been cut some slack (who knows, perhaps at his request, when he realized he couldn't achieve more), so that the time of Arab League reassessment and possibly the final shutdown of the talks would not come until after elections.


What this means, quite clearly, is that the pressure on us will be mounting. Especially in the days immediately after elections. The Arabs are grabbing the opportunity to squeeze us hard.

Whether because of the opposition of members of his coalition; or because — as some reports continue to insist — he knows his reputation for reliability (which is already compromised) would be destroyed if he caved after pledging he would not; or because he knew that what Obama was offering in return was close to worthless, Netanyahu in point of fact has not agreed to resume the freeze. This is enormously important and cause for tentative gladness. We still must watch what happens in the weeks ahead.

Given the veiled threats of the Arab League, caving now would be the worst thing he could do. It would be cooperating with Obama's attempts to appease the Arabs.


At the opening of the Knesset's winter session today, Netanyahu said:

"I made this message clear in quiet ways last month, and I am saying it here, now, in public: If the Palestinian leadership will say unequivocally to its people that it recognizes Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, I will be willing to gather my government and ask for another suspension of construction for a limited time."

I think this was a safe bet, because he knew that the PA response would not be positive. And, indeed it was not: it was rejected out of hand.

Netanyahu also indicated that the US was working on other proposals. Aaron Lerner of IMRA suggests today that, in offering to freeze in exchange for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu has agreed in principle to a freeze extension and it's now a matter of finding his price.

Said the prime minister,"and we are considering [the US proposals] seriously in relation to Israel's interests, first and foremost security and the promise of continued existence."

Excuse me? The promise of continued existence? I would most fervently hope so!! Does he intend to suggest that he sees some of the proposals as possibly threatening our existence? Or is he merely trying to demonstrate how careful he's being on the nation's behalf?

Nope, not home free yet, by any means.


Aside from Arab League threats, there are those coming from Abbas directly. He has suggested that he might ask the US to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state established within the '67 lines (Green Line) — and there are reports that he has asked the Arab League to help convince the US to do this. Alternately he has said he might take this to the UN Security Council.

In such a situation, a great deal would depend upon Obama. The policy of the US has been to oppose unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and insist on resolution via negotiations. If he maintains this position, he will both reject requests that the US recognize such a state, and veto it in the SC.

What is more, technically the Security Council should not be able to "recognize" a new state. There is absolutely no precedent for it doing this. As a matter of fact, a SC resolution — #242 of 1967 — says that the borders of Israel must be determined by negotiations (and that Israel requires secure borders beyond the Green Line). And so, this shouldn't happen.

The problem I see is that there is a tendency today to blithely circumvent rules. Right now, Israel's response is that this is unrealistic and represents no more than a "mirage": a way to threaten Israel. Let us hope this is where it stays.

I will be doing some further research on this.


It occurs to me, not for the first time, that concern about possible attempts by the Palestinian Arabs to go for a unilateral declaration of statehood might be fueling Netanyahu's expressions of enormous, indeed excessive, eagerness to come to the table. It may be that he wants it to be very clear that refusal to continue talks came from the other side, and not us. He wants to be able to say, Look, world, we were ready to sit down and resolve all issues, so don't force something on us because the other side refused to talk — don't reward them for their refusal.


Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner are here, seeking to involve themselves in "peace negotiations." Moratinos said that as the largest donor to the PA, the EU should be more involved in the process. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been angling for this for some weeks now.

Most infuriating of all is what Kouchner said in an interview yesterday with the PA daily Al-Ayyam.

France, said Kouchner, preferred a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, but an appeal to the Security Council was still a possibility.

"We want to be able to soon welcome the state of Palestine to the United Nations [as a member state]. This is the hope and the desire of the international community, and the sooner that can happen the better..

"The international community cannot be satisfied with a prolonged deadlock [in negotiations]. I therefore believe that one cannot rule out in principle the Security Council option.

"But the establishment of the Palestinian state must come as a result of the peace process and be the fruit of bilateral negotiations."


Huh? If the Palestinian state must comes as the result of bilateral negotiations, going to the SC is not an option.

Did he intend this as a threat: We really want to work with you to help resolve the issue via negotiations, but just know, if this doesn't work, we might support the SC option.


And so, once again, my hero of the hour, no matter that I sometimes disagree with him, is Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He is so "undiplomatic."

"I don't expect you to solve the problems of the world," he told Kouchner and Moratinos yesterday on their arrival, "but I certainly expect that before you come here to teach us how to solve conflicts, you will deal with the problems in Europe and solve those conflicts."

After solving the conflicts in the Caucasus and Cyprus, and after making peace between Serbia and Kosovo, then they can come here "and we will listen to your advice."

"In 1938, the European community decided to appease Hitler instead of supporting Czechoslovakia and sacrificed [it] without gaining anything. We will not be Czechoslovakia of 2010. We will ensure the security of Israel."

Was the international community trying to make up for all its failures by pushing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in one year, he wondered. "What about the struggles in Somalia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Sudan?"

Lieberman further said that the results of the efforts of the international community will not bring calm, but likely "an explosion like what happened after Camp David in 2000."

You might like to let Lieberman know that you appreciate his directness on behalf of Israel:
Fax: 02-640-8921 E-mail: aliberman@knesset.gov.il


Even before these representatives of France and Spain arrived on our shores yesterday, our government had expressed displeasure at the official upgrade to "mission" status of the PLO delegations in each of their capitals. It is clear that Washington, which had upgraded its PLO delegation to the status of "delegation general" in July, set the tone for these nations — with France following shortly thereafter and Spain in September.

The message of our government in each instance was that this was giving the Palestinian Arabs a "free prize" at a time when they were not being flexible.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, October 11, 2010.

It is understandably hard for people to believe the amount of violence that is staged and stories that are manipulated coming from the Middle East. Here is a bit of video from the eastern part of Jerusalem.

See what happens: Kids are ready to throw stones at passing cars with Israeli license plates, five of them run into the road, blocking it, ready to throw stones at an approaching Israeli automobile. Another car is deliberately parked across the road, partly blocking it. Surprised by the ambush, the Israeli driver slams on his brakes but one of the kids is hit by the car and he flies up and over it.

Note the following:

1. The Palestinian and other media release a story saying the driver deliberately hit him. Here's a report in al-Jazira with a photo designed to lie about what happened. This claim is clearly not true. If the driver had been speeding and wanted to do injury he could easily have hit three or four of the kids. Indeed, I've been told that Arabic-language news media is reporting that the driver killed two children (only one was slightly injured). The response to this could be terrorist attacks to get revenge. This is a common pattern.

2. There are a lot of reporters there filming (you can see them on the left and bottom edges). So this was set up for media coverage, as is so much violence in the West Bank particularly. Indeed, there are at least seven photographers visible and there are as many journalists, if not more, than there were rock-throwers.

3. At the end there is a very strange scene. The boy does not appear to have been injured seriously. (I was once hit by a car exactly in this manner and walked away. If you are thrown into the air you will just get some bruises, as long as you don't fall under the car.) But there is an ambulance which has just been standing there waiting for something like this to happen, a sign it is being staged.

4. Yet the boy is holding onto the ambulance door, trying to avoid being put into the ambulance. Why? It may be too much of a stretch to say he fears being made into a martyr by his comrades, or maybe he just wants to stay with his friends but he looks pretty desperate not to get in. If I've overreached on this point I apologize.

5. The Israeli driver's back window has been smashed in by a stone. The driver's young son is also in the car. If the car is trapped there he and his son could be killed by the stones or dragged out of the car and murdered. As far as he knows, any second guns could start firing bullets through his windows. The reporters and cameramen standing and watching won't lift a finger to help him. The driver eases past the parked car and speeds away. He reported the incident to the police and didn't try to hide that it had happened.

6. Some of the driver's friends suggest that he may have been personally targeted for an ambush because he has been an activist on Jerusalem-related issues. They say his car is well-known and he often travels that road. This might be true since there is no evidence of rock-throwing at any cars before he arrived.

Here's a technical analysis of the incident.

If you see stories in your local newspapers or on television saying that an Israeli settler deliberately ran down and killed two Palestinian boys you now know the real story. But most of the readers or viewers won't know any better.

Multiply this story by hundreds of such cases, far too many to correct; add the fact that such clear proof of falsification is often lacking; and blend in the sympathy of many reporters with misreporting events. (Even after Israel released footage showing the soldiers landing on the deck of the Mavi Marmara were attacked and beaten, the New York Times implied that this didn't prove anything).

Now you get a picture of the situation regarding media coverage of Israel.

PS: I've been told — though I haven't confirmed it directly — that Canadian Television played the clip with the narration implying that he had run them over on purpose. So even if you see the opposite the viewer is conditioned to accept the anti-Israel propaganda line.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, October 11, 2010.

I'm sure you will be hearing more about this. Here is the video in as complete a format as seems to be available at this point. Do watch it at least one extra time just to count photographers. There are just so many lucky photographers in Silwan who just happen to be in the right place at the right time to get that salable action-news shot.

One other detail that is worth knowing as you watch this, Silwan history. Part of Silwan was a Jewish town on the outskirts of Jerusalem until the Jews, mostly families from Yemen decades earlier, were violently evicted by the Arabs in 1938 Arab riots. Without any of the ownership, politics and emotions of whatever else is oing on there, know that the occupants of the car happen to be a man who is a leader of those who are buying (not evicting or confiscating, but buying, from willing "owners") houses that belonged to Jews before, for Jews to live in again, and his young son who is in the back seat. The big question will obviously be, was this real or staged? After that there are a myriad of questions.

This below was written by Lenny Ben-David and was posted in
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/guest/entry/ mohammed_dura_redux. BenDavid served as a senior Israeli diplomat in Washington. Today he is a public affairs consultant and blogs at www.lennybendavid.com


This film clip showing an Israeli car hitting two Arab children in Silwan on Friday was horrifying. No one can sit quietly and indifferently while children — any children — are hurt before your eyes. Thank God the children survived and were not seriously injured.

Then came the subtext: The children were part of a gang attacking the driver with rocks, and rocks can most definitely kill. The boys, emboldened by some militant organizer, covered their faces to avoid identification and arrest. There's no doubt of their intention and premeditation. The driver was David Be'eri, a leader of the Jewish residents in Silwan. Be'eri's son was in the car.

The story and YouTube clip spread around the world in nanoseconds. Arab witnesses charged that the "settler" deliberately ran down the children.

But, I've now watched the clip scene-by-scene and in some parts frame-by-frame, and there's a deeper, even sinister, subtext.

Most viewers focus on the victims. It's natural. They don't notice at least eight still photographers in addition to the video cameraman. With the exception of one photographer standing across the street, all the others filmed the scene from the same vantage point at the bottom of the hill. There could have been more. I identify the photographers as:

1. Black baseball hat/gray hoodie with strap over shoulder.
2. White tee shirt and jeans across the street
3. Black shirt with gray stripes
4. Blonde woman
5. Green tee shirt
6. Striped polo shirt shows up once the boy's on the ground
7. Later a photographer with a long-sleeve gray shirt shows up briefly.

Reviewing the clip, it's evident that there were as many photographers as there were rock-throwers. Who invited them and coordinated the time and place? Who recruited the boys? Did they plan to ambush dafka David Be'eri's car? Was it an attempt to reenact the iconic death of Mohammed Dura, the boy allegedly killed by Israeli soldiers in 2000 in what we now know was a fake propaganda stage show?

Watch the clip and see how the photographers buzzed around the boy taking pictures while he was on the ground. Only one photographer went through the motion of extending a hand. Was their sense of humanity suppressed by their hopes of a Pulitzer prize?

Also watch as the wounded boy is manhandled and forcibly stuffed into a car against his will. As a former medic, I was shocked and amazed that the boy survived the mistreatment he received after he was hit by the car. After such an initial trauma, first responders know that there is a likelihood of neck, head and spine injuries. That was no way to evacuate a casualty, and if — or more likely when — the boy is presented before the press, the cause of his injuries should be judged accordingly.

Every photographer at the Silwan site bears responsibility for the children's injuries. They were tools in the hands of a dangerous propagandist, and they answered the summons to capture the "action" on film. Their presence incited the kids. Then the cameramen stood by as a child laid injured. Until the photographers fess up as to who dispatched them, they should be treated as accomplices to the crime of endangering the children.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by BESA Center, October 11, 2010.

This was written by Professor Hillel Frisch as BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 115, October 7, 2010
Prof. Frisch is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University (BESA).


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The US can and should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan because there are other states capable of shouldering the burden of stabilizing the country, and the threat from Afghanistan to US security is no longer acute. Iraq, however, can be stabilized only by the US, and its long-term stability is a vital US interest with lasting and broad implications. Consequently, Obama should not be withdrawing troops from Iraq now.

President Barack Obama is making a serious mistake of potentially historical proportions in withdrawing from Iraq. He should reverse direction and withdraw from Afghanistan while staying put in Iraq. Failure to do so might spell the end of America's preeminence on the world stage, a presence that is critical to global security.

The White House errs in focusing on the war against terror instead of focusing on more traditional concerns, like relations with and between states and mechanisms of maintaining regional balances of power. A reconsideration of the situation in Afghanistan with a balance of power prism leads to the conclusion that at least two emerging world powers, China and India, can be encouraged to become more involved in containing the Afghani situation. Rather than piggybacking on American taxpayers' money — as Europe did in the Cold War under a US umbrella — these countries should be cajoled in assuming greater responsibility for the situation in Afghanistan.

Indeed, for the first time since the Cold War, other states could play the role of policeman in a battle in Afghanistan and could contain the risk of nuclear fallout in Pakistan. China and India have more to lose than the US in not coping with these problems.

Furthermore, Afghanistan is less important to America today for the following additional reason: Despite the formidable comeback of the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2005, and the expansion of the terrorist sanctuary there, terrorism against the West has actually declined. This draws into question the link between available sanctuaries and the protection of the US from terrorism.

Though it is true that a Pakistani-Chinese alliance supportive of the Taliban might emerge against the present Karzai regime, which would be supported by India and perhaps Iran, the costs of such instability would be borne by these states. They are sufficiently mature states to resolve the conflict without needing the US to shoulder the burden and drain its resources. A preeminent power should know where to get involved and where, at maximum, to use its good offices, in order to foster stability. America should take advantage of what the British Empire lacked during its very problematic involvement in the region in the 19th century — a regional array of strong states to cope with the fallout and tensions emanating from the Afghani crisis.

By contrast, no one in the Middle East can fill the place of the US if America withdraws from Iraq. Egypt, a state in relative decline, will be lucky if it can cope in the near future with its domestic problems. Saudi Arabia projects no effective power beyond its borders no matter how large the arms deal it signs with the US. The Gulf States are vulnerable to aggressive states, as the Iraq takeover of Kuwait proved a generation ago. All they can and should do is foot more of the bill for US protection.

Another regional power, Turkey, is a problematic player. Its relationship with the US since 2003, and increasingly since Prime Minister Erdogan's reelection to office in 2007 during which he showed his Islamist colors, suggests that Turkey might become more of a problem for America than a solution to the fallout. Only Israel, a strategic ally of consequence, could conceivably play a role in aiding moderate Arab states in times of crisis.

The future of Iraq, by contrast, is a critical component in maintaining key US interests, if not its continued preeminence. The fall of Iraq could have a domino effect, threatening stability in Jordan and inducing the emergence of a Shiite corridor. Turkey could conceivably join the ranks of Islamic radicalism, alongside Iran, as it carves up the state of Iraq. An expanded Iranian presence in Iraq might embolden Syria to become an even more destabilizing force than at present.

Above all, a stable, pro-Western Iraq is necessary in containing Iran and preventing Saudi Arabia and the weak Gulf States from "bandwagoning" with Iran, just as Jordan was induced to join forces with Egypt's Nasser in 1967. There is a palpable danger that the world's major oil resources could then come under control of a nascent, undemocratic counter-alliance that could include China as well.

The facile idea that it does not matter who controls the oil because it would have to be sold in the international market place ignores the reality of a rising Chinese demand for energy sources. Such a control of oil would enable Iran to cut the supply of this crucial resource to democratic states like India. Politically motivated small cuts in oil supply to specific states could raise prices and damage relations between Western allies, making it more difficult for them to meet shared international challenges.

The implications of such empowerment, including the creation of a terrorist groundswell — with obvious ramifications for American allies in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Ethiopia, Egypt, Jordan and Israel — should not be underestimated. A failed Iraq would only increase the danger that Somalia and the potential state failures of Yemen and Lebanon pose to regional and world stability. In short, the state-directed terrorist fallout from Iraq is potentially far greater than from Pakistan/Afghanistan.

State-building in Iraq is doable, but problematic. The party that secured the most votes in the last election is led by Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite, while most of its voters were Sunnis. The Shiites and Kurds, two groups who have oil, know that they must come to terms with the Sunni minority in order to ensure that the oil reaches international markets, for the benefit of all Iraqis. In Afghanistan, the sharp societal disparities, the lack of a strong modern state tradition, and the mountainous terrain, render a solution to the state-building problem virtually impossible.

Does Obama have the political courage to re-assess his current direction and reevaluate America's troop deployments in line with true, long-term US national interests? As outlined above, these interests clearly require a long-term American presence in Iraq, while Afghanistan is the front from which he could relatively safely order a withdrawal.

To Go To Top

Posted by J4JP, October 10, 2010.

Urge President Obama to Pardon Jonathan Pollard

Help Free Jonathan Pollard, who has served one of the longest prison terms of any American ever convicted of spying for an ally of the United States. Send a letter now or call. Read more about Jonathan Pollard's case below or at www.jonathanpollard.org.


Members of the House of Representatives are circulating a letter urging President Barack Obama to release Jonathan Pollard, who pleaded guilty in 1986 of spying for Israel. The former Navy analyst has served one of the longest prison terms of any American ever convicted of spying for an ally of the United States. He became an Israeli citizen while in prison in 1995. The congressional letter notes that granting clemency to Pollard would be, "an act of compassion justified by the way others have been treated by our justice system; as an act that will do nothing whatsoever to lessen our defenses against espionage; and a step that far from hurting the national security, could advance it by the impact it would have within Israel."


While we do not condone breaking the law and we do not support clemency for Mr. Pollard's sentence out of a belief that he is innocent, we strongly believe in the need for fair and just criminal sentencing. The Torah says "in justice shall you judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15) and we are taught in Ezekiel that criminals are capable of reshaping their lives. "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11).


Urge your Representative to sign the letter being circulated by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) supporting clemency for Jonathan Pollard. The Capitol Switchboard can be reached at 202.224.3121

The article below comes from

Religious Action Center (RAC) of Reform Judaism Release — October 6, 2010,
http://blogs.rj.org/rac/2010/10/ urge_obama_to_release_jonathan.html.

For more information contact Eisendrath Legislative Assistant Solly Kane at 202.387.2800


Religious Action Center (RAC) of Reform Judaism Release — October 6, 2010,
http://blogs.rj.org/rac/2010/10/ urge_obama_to_release_jonathan.html

The Torah teaches that "in justice shall you judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15). This seems like a fairly easy commandment to follow, especially in America where we have a justice system in place with built-in checks to try and ensure only guilty people are convicted of crimes and that their punishments meet our expectations of fair and equal. I am not an expert on the American court system, but I would say, and I think most Americans would agree with me, that our court system usually does a good job of judging our neighbors in justice.

But not always, and not when it comes to Jonathan Pollard. Pollard is a former naval intelligence analyst who in 1986 pleaded guilty to "passing classified information to an ally without intent to harm the United States." He has been in U.S. prison ever since and has been the subject of multiple requests for clemency from Israeli Prime Ministers, U.S. congressmen and Jewish organizations, among them the URJ. Pollard is the also the subject of a letter currently circulating in the House of Representatives. Israel initially denied the accusations, saying he was not an Israeli operative, but since has recanted these denials and granted his request for Israeli citizenship.

I cannot in good conscience argue that Pollard should be released because he was acting on behalf of another country that I feel a sense of loyalty to, or on the grounds that he is Jewish. What Pollard did was illegal and I do not condone criminal activity especially in the name of the Jewish people. (For the record, the RAC also does not condone criminal activity.)

Rather, referring back to the Torah quote I started with, President Obama should extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard because he deserves to be judged in justice. Pollard has served one of the longest sentences in U.S. history for spying for an allied country. This is not a question of treason, it did not occur in a time of war between the U.S. and Israel, and Pollard was only convicted of a single count of disclosing documents to an ally foreign government. The Torah tells us that in justice shall we judge our neighbors and I implore you to stand up for the justice that Pollard never received.

I urge you to see to the RAC's Action Alert about Jonathan Pollard below and to call or write your Representative urging for President Obama to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard.

(The author, Solly Kane is an Eisendrath Legislative Assistant. He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin.)

To Go To Top

Posted by ZOA, October 10, 2010.

Contact: Morton A. Klein
Phone: 212-481-1500
http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_ view.asp?pressreleaseID=1943


ZOA sends letter to Israel Min. of Internal Security The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has called upon the Netanyahu government to ensure that Jewish farmers lawfully tilling land in Judea and Samaria receive all necessary military and police protection against Palestinian assaults in precisely the same way that Palestinian farmers are currently being protected by Israeli forces while working their land. A recent three year study by the Israeli daily, Yediot Ahronot, found that "Jewish farmers who work their land by law in the very same area [as Palestinian farmers] suffer daily abuse at the hands of their Arab neighbors, who are backed and incited by leftist human-farmer rights champions. The damages sustained by these Jewish farmers are estimated at hundreds of thousands of shekels, and who could estimate the heartache of a farmer whose crops were damaged? Yet the State of Israel's law enforcement authorities do almost nothing to protect [Jewish farmers] and the media barely covers them or their pain."

The Yediot Ahronot report, after reviewing dozens of police cases and interviewing dozens of farmers, concluded that there is a:

"wide-ranging phenomenon of deliberate, frequent, and methodical attacks premised on nationalistic rather than criminal motives: Arson, trespassing, sabotaging equipment, and the deliberate damaging of crops. We also discovered visible involvement of leftist organizations — the very same ones that preach to us about harming corps — in terms of incitement, organization, active participation, and legal backing given to the rioters and vandals. The olive trees of Jewish farmers prompt the exact opposite reaction, for some reason ... Meanwhile, Arab farmers arrive at work accompanied by massive army and police protection. The forces include police officers skilled in carrying out arrests and are assisted by the police's and even Shin Bet's intelligence agents. And if this isn't enough, the establishment would not hesitate to issue administrative orders against people it thinks may harm Arab olives — where did the holy principle of equality before the law disappear? About a month ago, we turned to the police again in the wake of five arson cases that caused grave damages and even threatened the lives of residents. In all these cases, despite evidence on the ground, nobody was arrested and police files remained empty. In one case, the police did not even issue a property tax authorization, forcing the farmer to sustain the damages. In our letters, we demanded that police commanders' preparations for the olive harvesting season also includes an effort to protect the Jewish farmers. The letters had not been answered yet" (Orit Struck, 'What about Jewish farmers?' Yediot Ahronot, October 6, 2010).

A recent, specific instance of the problem is the case of Israeli farmer, Yisrael Orbach, whose orchards have been set on fire twice in four days in the last week by neighboring Palestinians. Orbach used to herd sheep, but was forced to give that up after numerous thefts by Arabs, including those from a nearby village which he reports is filled with members of Hamas. Orbach noted that the nearby Nebi Samuel site is not being adequately protected by the authorities, who recently closed it to visitors at night because they were not willing to police it during hours of darkness. (Under informal agreements proposed by the previous Olmert government but rejected by the Palestinian Authority (PA), the PA would take control of Nebi Samuel. The Israeli government tourist information site lists Nebi Samuel along with other holy sites but unlike the others, there is no link for details on travel directions).

Orbach says the latest attempt to destroy his farm is only one of countless attacks on it and on the traditional burial site, where Jewish holy items have been desecrated in the past, as pictured. "Since the freeze, the Arabs have staged a kind of Intifada against us," he said. He used to herd sheep but was forced to give that up after numerous thefts by Arabs, including those from a nearby village which he reports is filled with members of Hamas. He now grows pomegranate, olive and fig trees, among others, but the Arabs have tried to destroy them, as well (Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, 'Legacy of Arab Attacks on Jewish Farm,' Israel National News, October 5, 2010).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "The latest news of the dereliction of duty by Israeli authorities in protecting vulnerable Israeli farmers lawfully tilling their own productive land stands in sharp and dismaying contrast to the proper protection offered to Palestinian farmers. Making this asymmetry even worse are the examples of active hostility and indifference to the Israeli farmers shown by some individuals in the security forces whose job it is to protect one and all equally.

"This unacceptable state of affairs requires remedy. The ZOA has written to the Minister of Internal Security, Yitzhak Aharonovich (Yisrael Beiteinu) and his party head, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, calling upon them to investigate the matter and to ensure that the police and security services start affording Jewish farmers the full protections to which they're entitled. The ZOA hopes that the Netanyahu government to investigate immediately what has been occurring and will implement all necessary steps to ensure that the Israeli police and army are adequately meeting all their responsibilities in their prime, vital function: protecting the lives and property of Israeli citizens."

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 10, 2010.

MK Tibi: "Any Agreement with Israel should include recognition of Israeli Arabs as national minority" in today's Addustour (Jordan)
http://www.addustour.com/ViewTopic.aspx?ac= %5CArabicAndInter%5C2010%5C10%5CArabic AndInter_issue1094_day10_id272273.htm (Google Translation):

...For his part, MP Ahmed Tibi, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, the President of the Arab Movement for Change in an interview with Addustour that any Arab state require for any political agreement or settlement in a permanent solution with Israel of any State with Israel, full equality for the Palestinians of the 48 political and civil rights all and recognition as a national minority, in response to raise the idea of a Jewish State of Israel on the Palestinian side, and a proposal to amend the Citizenship Act that divides the required "oath of allegiance to the Jewish state."

Tibi said: This is the best response to the racist demand to compel the Arabs and the Palestinians to accept Israel's definition as a Jewish state, because this definition devoted to the low status of the Arabs, compared with a legal superstructure Jews according to this definition.


MK. Tibi's demands may sound innocuous to an untrained ear. They are actually part of the scheme to destroy Israel in stages.

Recognition of the Arabs as a "national minority" doesn't give them equal rights with their Jewish neighbors — it gives them special rights, with the Israeli Arabs having the institutions and authorities for semi-autonomous if not autonomous areas within Israel.

Yes: As the next stage we would have 2 states for the Palestinians (Hamastan in Gaza and Fatahland in the West Bank), 1 autonomous state for the Israeli Arabs, 1 bi-national state of Israel

And in order to insure that the much touted "demographic bomb" blows up in the Jew's face, complete "equal rights" are imposed = the Law of Return, which grants the right to Jews around the world to immigrate to Israel and become citizens is either cancelled, or extended to cover any Arab who can claim an ancestor somewhere on the family tree with a connection to Palestine.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nidra Poller, October 9, 2010.

A Child Is Dead: We're Not Invited to Toast Charles Enderlin's Definitive al Dura Production


Ten years after the blockbuster "Killing of Mohamed al Dura" film was brought to the world by Charles Enderlin under the aegis of state-owned France 2 TV, the book version, Un enfant est mort, is about to hit the shelves...with a whimper. Why?

No one can forget the dramatic "news broadcast" that placed the "dead child" at the feet of viewers worldwide, unleashing waves of Jew hatred on a scale not seen since the Shoah. "A las cinco de la tarde"... 3 PM... shootout at Netzarim Junction... Mohamed is twelve years old... on last burst of gunfire...the child is dead... Blood libel on a planetary scale [Makor Rishon, 2005]. The brief — under one minute — video shot at Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on a day of anger organized by Israel's enemies and dutifully relayed by Western media, has been astutely analyzed, exposed as a fake, dragged into the French courts, defended by Enderlin's hierarchy and the majority of his French colleagues... What is left to be said?

My email request for a review copy left unrequited, I phoned the don Quichotte (French for Don Quixote) publishing house to ask if I could stop by and pick up a copy. The receptionist — who is apparently also press attaché, editor, publisher, and Enderlin's bodyguard — replied that it would be impossible. Might I be on a blacklist, guilty of having written extensively about the al Dura hoax? Declining her offer to mail a copy that would arrive, if ever, a week after the October 7 release, I inquired about the launch. Not that I expected an invitation...

There will be no launch, no book party, no press conference, no pride and joy. After all, a child is dead.

I jokingly remarked that I was a jealous of Pierre Haski who has already reviewed the book for the Rue89 website. "We made a very restricted distribution of review copies. I don't know why you think you should have received one." I defend my reputation: "I'm one of the few journalists based in France writing for English-speaking media."

True. I've written about the al Dura affair for, among others, Commentary and the Wall Street Journal. Which is why I didn't get a review copy and find myself in even hotter water as this curious conversation comes to a boil. "Will you be posting information," I ask, "about public appearances, TV and radio broadcasts..."

"No we will not! I know very well why you ask me for that information! No! We are not going to publicize his public appearances!"

Phew. The phone is burning. I honestly don't know why she thinks I should know why she knows I want to know. It's only later that I realize she thinks I might turn up to assault monsieur journalist Charles Enderlin... with a legitimate question. In a world hooked on PR where writers and publishers will die for a bit of high profile publicity, this quixotic publisher seems to be terrified that some uncontrollable element might dare to express an opinion about the untouchable book.

"Actually, I would just like to know so I won't miss the programs.

"He was on Les 4 vérités [France 2 TV] this morning."

"Très bien. I'll catch it online."

Quatre vérités means more than "4 truths"; it's the whole truth. On this episode of the whole truth show, Roland Sicard serves Charles Enderlin like an impeccably polite waiter in a posh restaurant. Sicard swallows whole whatever his colleague Enderlin offers to plug the holes in the al Dura story. It's worth watching, even if you don't understand a word of French.


They actually begin with a rerun of the al Dura "death scene" originally aired at prime time on that fateful September 30, 2000. Sicard innocently asks how the report became controversial. Monsieur journalist Charles Enderlin calmly explains how, two months after the incident, Israeli army officials concluded that the gunfire more likely came from the Palestinian position. Curiously enough, says Enderlin, one of the two experts on that commission had declared only two days after the broadcast that it was a staged scene.

In urbane tones —l several levels below the dramatic voice-over that convinced the world of the deliberate murder of a Palestinian child by Israeli soldiers — Charles Enderlin tells how the absurd notion that the killing was a staged scene became internet buzz, eventually picked up by — unnamed — personalities, and finally blossomed into a full blown conspiracy theory. Upon which, with a paradoxical dose of mockery, France 2's eternal Jerusalem correspondent unwittingly describes what happened that day:

Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that 24 hours after the start of the Intifada, Palestinians brought together hundreds of people to play act; the boy and his father play acted; the scene in the Jordanian hospital was faked and the blood seeping from the father's wounds was ketchup. "Francis Ford Coppola in Gaza! Harumph."

It's true: Dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians were organized to play act combat scenes — totally out of firing range of Israeli soldiers, complete with fake injuries and comical ambulance evacuations. All of this was captured on raw footage from Reuters and other agencies whose Palestinian fixers, including Talal Abu Rahma, can be seen filming these vignettes.

Did Enderlin ever doubt the sincerity of his cameraman? Of course not. Talal has worked with France 2 for years. He won several prizes for this reportage. Following a request for clarifications from monsieur Enderlin, the Shin Beth cleared the cameraman of all suspicion: "He's white as the driven snow. He doesn't belong to any anti-Israel organization."

Timidly taking the initiative (perhaps he was told to ask one tricky question) Sicard wonders if the al Dura controversy is more intense in Israel or France. Enderlin replies with a yes, no, yes, no, adding that there is also a campaign against him in the United States. Then, waxing philosophical, he sums up the "war of images" theme: "When an image makes trouble for Israel, Israel makes trouble for the image."

The strategy is transparent. We can expect to see it employed in Enderlin's book and reflected in forthcoming friendly reviews and interviews. It requires an iron grip on all elements of this staged debate in which every detail must be kept slightly out of focus. Counting on the real or feigned ignorance of the journalistic class and the impossibility of making dissenting voices heard in mainstream French media, every question will be placed just far enough beside the point to maintain the overall blur. No precise detail of the meticulous investigations that have exposed the al Dura hoax will ever be mentioned. No precise objection will ever be answered. Questioned about the authenticity of the video, Enderlin and his handmaidens will always reply with attacks on those who question it. He will lump them together as conspiracy theorists even as he weaves them into his very own conspiracy theory.

Falsehoods about the falsified killing of a young man portrayed as a child, the better to accuse Jews of blood libel, will be smoothed like butter on Enderlin's bread. Any one equipped to call him on these falsehoods will be pushed aside and dismissed. In a debate, Elisabeth Lévy [causeur.fr] asks when Charles is going to explain himself on the "death throes." "He said he edited out the death throes, it was too horrible to show. But in fact there is no footage of death throes." Journalist François Gross snaps back: "They don't save all the raw footage."

False, of course. They did save the raw footage. Enderlin testified, under oath, that it was kept in a safe. He turned over (some of it) in compliance with a court order. Lo and behold, there is no raw footage of the al Dura death scene. Nothing more than the snippet aired on September 30th and forever after. Everyone knows by now that the so-called death throes are in fact the few seconds where the boy, allegedly dead, moves and looks at the camera. Further, Enderlin claimed some years later that the "death throes" are the whole incident from beginning to end (allegedly 45 minutes), the complete footage (allegedly 27 minutes). But why should François Gross possess such useless information?

Officially there will be no launch of "Un enfant est mort." For all we know, a lovely cocktail party will be held behind closed doors, in the presence of a smiling Talal Abu Rahma and an aggrieved Jamal al Dura. Champagne and petits-fours, knowing winks and pats on the back. Worldly smiles and blasé sighs. But I'm not invited and neither are you.

What surprises me, actually, is that the book will be sold on the open market. Knowing the methods of the al Dura affair, I would expect it to be restricted to True Believers. Will I have to prove my good faith when I walk into a bookstore tomorrow and fork up 18 euros for the ultimate smokescreen?

Nidra Poller in author, novelist, translator and journalist. She is based in Paris and writes about the Muslims in Europe, anti-semitism and the French media and politicians.

This is the original version of an article published Oct. 6, 2010 in Hebrew translation in Makor Rishon] It was published in New English Review
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/ 73973/sec_id/73973

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, October 8, 2010.

Greetings to the Patriots of Israel battle bravely against the idiots within and the Islamic invaders without.

As we used to say: "Ain't them thar boys in thet US State Dept white? Y'know who we mean: them boys who are wantin' you Jews to bargain wif them white boys for keepin' little pieces of land you already own.

Ain't it sweet of them white boys, who are jes' prayin' you are so dumb thet you'll trade your own land for their air kisses? Them whitees are countin' on you Jews to do what you-alls been told to do. And some of them scaredy Jews owning the New York Times and some of them owning land and big buildings in the UK, they are doin' what they be told to do, so why aren't you?

The fighting Jews who fought and died for the land of Israel knew the law and so they knew that all the land from the ocean to the sea belonged to the Jewish Homeland. Decent Americans during the Twenties knew the same thing. And that's why they agreed to the San Remo resolution and made treaties with Europe and then the League of Nations and everybody together established the boundaries of Israel and they knew that these boundaries encompassed most of the Golan Heights, Gaza, Jerusalem and all the land from the Ocean to the Sea — and beyond into the land the Britz stole from the Jews and and illegally handed to the Hashemite muslims. The Jewish Homeland was called Palestine. So what's in a name, said the uneducated survivors of the Nazi death camps? So they let the arab invaders take their name which in turn led the arab invaders to steal Israel's heritage and then its land. The British are nobody's fool and nobody's friend and with them it's all money 24/7. So they recognized the arab terrorists who used terrorism to steal the Arabian Peninsula and helped make the first Saud a king over all the lands his tribe stole from the weaker arab tribes.

Decent people want to know why Israeli leadership allows this old con man Peres to con you into doing a job on yourselves. Do you really believe Netanyahu, with his secrets and games, will behave any better than a Peres? Do you wonder whether Nettie is willing to bow down to the bow-movement man who bowed down to Abdullah? Wonder no more. Clean house and remind the arabs next door that there's more of them than there are Jews, so if the Islamics attack Jews or steal Israel's land there are millions more Muslims than Jews who will be sent flying off to paradise. And these arabs will at last meet the fate they've been wishing upon Jews. And when the arabs get that Israel really means business about holding tight to its land and opposing sly Saudi bargains and the greedy Baptists who serve the Saudia, only then will you Jews have peace.

Don't expect New York Jews with their expense accounts and fancy apartments to understand Israeli patriotism. They think they are so rich they can defy gravity, The chasm between the spoiled New York Jews and the Patriots of Israel is widening just the same as the chasm opened wide between hard-working Americans and the self-aggrandizing greedy Baptists and Methodists who think they are entitled to entitlements. Knowing this, now you can understand the two-months these white-boy-elitists and their colorful bow-movement men hope the Israelis will give them so they will have time to sort out who amongst them will survive the November election.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we stand by the Patriots of Israel for the sake of Western Values born of Magna Carta and our sacred Constitution and Bill of Rights. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, October 8, 2010.

This essay is archived at
http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2010/10/ we-dont-ride-around-on-camels.html


Even before I got involved in public diplomacy on behalf of my country, Israel, nobody had ever asked me if it is true that we all ride on camels in Israel. This question has never arisen. Ever.

What I have repeatedly been asked is why we don't give land back to the Palestinians.

Yuli Edelstein is a politician in the Likud Party of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In order to strengthen his political power base, Netanyahu created a new ministry for Edelstein. Posts had been covered in the Foreign Ministry, in the Prime Minister's office, and also in the Jewish Agency and Aliyah Department, so Edelstein crafted his own niche with the newly formed Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Ministry. He was given new offices, staff, and a budget of a few million shekels a year to play with as he felt fit, without treading on the toes of his colleagues in the other ministries.

Edelstein has ambitions. He would like to see a new international news channel, something like an Israeli version of Al-Jazeera. Great idea, especially if this gives Israel the opportunity of pumping out a strong, resolute, message to the world.

Edelstein is looking to increase his budget with addition Governmental and private funding to create this news channel outlet.

Edelstein agrees that there is something radically wrong with Israel's 'hasbara' efforts, but he doesn't really appreciate what is wrong with the message. His explanations are confusing.

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post in August he said,

"There is the feeling that something is wrong, and there is an urge to point a finger at Israeli hasbara [public diplomacy]. In most cases, in this type of criticism, people don't define what they mean by hasbara. I would have to say that hasbara is a combination of many fields — diplomatic, mass media, newspaper, new media, the Internet, social media, and working with Jewish communities and friends of Israel all around the world."

Addressing the huge numbers of frustrated groups and individuals who desperately want to put out Israel's message he said, "We've been working on creating an infrastructure of our friends and allies around the world, in the Jewish and Christian communities, which is not fully ready yet. It's based on volunteers and professionals who will coordinate the transmission of accurate information".

"There are many things only volunteers can do. Writing on Facebook, Twitter blogs, and sending e-mails to friends is second to none. The best things people can do are not about money, but about doing things in the right way."

My reservation is that Yuli Edelstein, the Foreign Ministry, and the Prime Minister's Office are not clear about that is the right way.

Edelstein's office has produced a series of adverts, mainly in Hebrew but more recently in English, that shows a TV reporter explaining to his overseas audience that Israelis ride around on camels.

It is meant as a misconception of how people, who have no connection or accurate knowledge of our country, perceive Israel.

However, by repeating the message that Israelis ride around on camels leaves the impression that we really do ride around on camels.

Israelis who are departing from Ben Gurion Airport are given pamphlets so that they can become ambassadors for Israel when they go abroad. Edelstein's Public Diplomacy Ministry are trying to rebrand Israel. I have news for him. The brand, whatever it is, is not being adopted or accepted by the world.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have created a highly successful brand. Since 1967 they have repeated one message. Their land was stolen from them by the Zionists, who are occupying their land.

This message has been repeated ad nauseam by every Palestinian at every opportunity. It has been taken up by the international community, it is being fostered by diplomats, it is being manufactured by the world print and televised media. It is quoted by Israeli Arabs who identify themselves not as loyal members of the state into which they were born, but as Palestinians. We even have elected Members of Israel's Knesset who openly claim that this is not their country, our President is not their President, our National Anthem is not their anthem. They sit there as strangers, even enemies, in our national Parliament, and denounce our country.

And what is the official response from our own Government representatives to this false claim. There isn't one.

No Israeli Government, not the current one, nor those going back decades, have simply expressed one resounding truth — that the sovereign rights to the land belong exclusively to Israel, and these rights are enshrined in international law.

We can quote our biblical claims to the land as and integral part of our heritage. We can point to the Balfour Declaration. But more profoundly, we can also point to more recent events that concrete our sovereignty going back to the 1920 San Remo Declaration following by the 1922 League of Nations Resolution that adopted that Palestine was to be the national home of the Jewish People.

Their resolution for the Mandate of Palestine recognised "the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in the country".

It further confirmed that 'The Principle Allied Powers favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

Article 4 reiterated that "An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in economic, social, and other matters as may effect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and assist and take part in the development of the country".

So far no mention of a Palestinian people, because there was none.

Further, the League of nations stated that the existing Zionist Organisation should be recognised as the agency and "It shall take steps to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home".

Again, the Jewish national home — not any Palestinian Arab or Islamic state.

In order to clarify, and prevent, the incursion of any foreign body into the legitimate rights of the Jews to a nation state of their own, Article 5 clearly states

"The Mandatory (the British Government at that time) shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestinian territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power".

According this the above, Winston Churchill acted illegally when he carved the territory east of the River Jordan and gave it to King Abdullah to create Trans-Jordan.

Jordan legally belongs to Israel.

With reference to the land, including the disputed territories, Article 6 refers to the legality of settlement activities.

"The Administration of Palestine shall facilitate Jewish immigration and shall encourage close settlement by Jews on the land including State lands and waste lands not required for public purpose".

Quoting the legal right of Jews to citizenship Article 7 states, "There shall be included the framing of a nationality law so as to facilitate the requisition of citizenship of Jews who take up permanent residence in Palestine".

Note the emaphasis on Jewish citizenship. This is being denied by our so-called 'partners for peace'.

It is vital to note that the League of Nations Resolution on Palestine was approved by the Arab delegates who were given other lands in compensation.

It was further preserved in international law by the repeated resolution of the newly formed United Nations (which replaced the League of Nations) in 1945.It is important to stress that the Jewish peoples right to reestablish their national state in the biblical land of Israel was enshrined in international law decades before the Holocaust.

It is a gross misinterpretation of history to suggest that the State of Israel found a legal basis as a result of Auschwitz.

If repeated international resolutions, both in the League of Nations and later in the General Assembly of the United Nations, bestowed unique international legal rights upon Israel it's de facto existence is the result of repeated belligerency of its enemies, and the resolve of the Jewish people to survive.

No other nation can claim to have their national rights so firmly entrenched in international resolutions, and international law, as the State of Israel.

Palestinian, for all their protests, can make no such claim.

Israeli Governments have a huge advantage.

The land is ours to give, or not to give. This is our prerogative, not theirs.

This simple message expresses a simple and profound truth. It should remain as the bedrock of our international position. It should be the starting point in every negotiation.

Those who call themselves Palestinians may argue differently, but they have no history of nationhood, no legal sovereignty bestowed upon them, and no amount of Palestinian narrative can make it so.

The day that the Palestinian leadership tell their own people, in their own language, that their only option is a permanent peace with the Jewish State of Israel as their neighbour is the day that peace will break out.

Israel's sovereign rights to the land does not need to imply an ambition to create a Greater Israel, though this has a legal basis. It does, however, present a very strong opening position in any negotiation with the Palestinians.

The fact that subsequent Israeli Governments have failed to declare this basic legitimate right to our existence is absolutely staggering.

It is nothing short of negligence of dangerous proportions.

It has led to it becoming both an existential and internal threat to the very legitimacy of our nation as our right to exist is being called into question.

Israeli Governments may have failed us, but they could take Yuli Edelstein's budget and office and have him repeat this one message, constantly, at every opportunity.

The land is ours under international law.

They should place adverts in all languages proving this important position.

Israelis should be issued with the relevant historic documents proving our rights so that they can truly be our ambassadors as they travel abroad and face a hostile environment.

Our students would be armed by the facts that prove our legitimate rights to be here as they battle the lies on the campuses of the world.

We need to hear this message coming, repeatedly, from our own elected representatives before we can expect to hear it coming back to us by the rest of the world.

Is it too late to adopt this honest and straightforward truth?

Maybe, but it is certainly more relevant than telling the world that we ride on camels.

Barry Shaw made aliyah from Manchester, England, 25 years ago with his family. After spending eleven years on various kibbutzim, he set up a real estate office in Netanya. He writes the "View from Here" columns from Israel. To sign up to receive his emails, contact him at netre@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, October 7, 2010.

This was written by Jon Swaine and it appeared in The Telegram (UK)
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/ usa/8046312/The-West-is-being-outmanoeuvred-by- violent-Islamist-extremists-Tony-Blair.html)


In a speech in New York, the former prime minister said that warnings over the past week of new terrorist plots against Europe should remind people that they remain under threat.

Mr Blair said a "narrative" that Muslims were under attack from the US and its allies, who act out of support for Israel, had been allowed to take hold, aided by "websites and blogs". A fresh confrontation is needed because it will be impossible to defeat extremism "without defeating the narrative that nurtures it", he said. "The practitioners of extremism are small in number. The adherents of the narrative stretch far broader into parts of mainstream thinking," Mr Blair told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"It is a narrative that now has vast numbers of assembled websites, blogs and organisations." Mr Blair said it was "absurd" that some people were surprised at how powerful Islamist extremist groups were, given the amount of funding they received and indoctrination they spread.

"Measure, over the years, the paucity of our counter-attack in the name of peaceful coexistence," he said. "We have been outspent, outmanoeuvred and out-strategised."

Mr Blair said a tendency to "sympathise" with extremism was not only dangerous but also disempowering for moderate Muslims, because it made people resent them as much as extremists.

He said he was "intrigued" by the fact that western leaders, including Barack Obama, the US President, felt the need to condemn Terry Jones, a pastor who threatened to burn a Koran.

"Suppose an Imam, with thirty followers, in Karachi was to burn a bible," he said. "I can barely imagine a murmur of protest. It wouldn't be necessary for the President of Pakistan to condemn it because no one here would remotely consider he supported it."

The former prime minister also called on the west to make it "crystal clear" to Iran that their acquisition of a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to the entire "civilised world".

"Go and read the speech of Iran's President to the United Nations just days ago here in New York, and tell me that is someone you want with a nuclear bomb," he told those who disagree.

He stressed that the achievement of a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine would remove "much of the poison which the extremists use".

And he defended his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, saying: "whatever you think of the original action, we enabled the people to choose their Government"

*Mr Blair last night appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman on American television. He said that satirists like Letterman had been wrong to paint George W. Bush as unintelligent. "You don't get to this position by being a fool," he said.

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 Gabrielle Goldwater, October 7, 2010.

This was written by Sergey Borisov, and it appeared in Russian Opinion and Analysis Review, RT

As one reader observed: "also in Russia some Muslims are becoming more and more arrogant. If Russia will introduce Sharia courts, even only advisory, it will go the former-Great Britain way. That is very dangerous, especially for family disputes; rights of women will be cancelled."


A lawyer and head of the Al-Fatkh Muslim organization in St. Petersburg, Dzhamaliddin Makhmutov, has sent a letter to Russia's Constitutional Court asking if the introduction of advisory Sharia courts is lawful.

"Makhmutov is asking the plenum of the Constitutional Court to convene and explain if the ban on the creation of the institute of Islamic justice in Russia is legal," Trud daily said. In his letter, he stated that the current legislation "does not contain a direct ban on the existence of an advisory Sharia court that could look into and mediate on domestic and family arguments between Muslims," the paper said.

"I am putting forward the civil initiative of creating a Sharia court, which may reduce tension and [encourage] the growth of tolerance in society," the daily quoted him as saying. "Together with labor migrants, Islam has entered the streets of our cities and not to notice this means to avoid solving the problem," he noted.

As a possible way Makhmutov has suggested equating a Sharia law to an arbitration tribunal or officers' court of honor.

In August, Makhmutov caused a stir by announcing the establishment of a Sharia court in St. Petersburg to rule on Muslim civil cases, the daily said. The Prosecutor's Office of Admiralteysky district then sent a warning to him, noting that "judicial power is exercised in Russia exclusively by the state."

Prosecutors also demanded that the court where Makhmutov himself and his associate were self-appointed judges be dismantled. The activist responded by saying that he just wanted to solve small arguments according to Koran.

Although he described the new establishment as a "tribunal" intended to advise and solve civil disputes, many religious leaders, including Muslim ones, and human rights activists called it a Sharia court. Makhmutov, however, insisted it had no judicial power.

Later, the building where the "tribunal" had been organized was closed on the grounds of failure to comply with rules of fire safety.

Observers say that elements of Sharia law exist in some republics in the North Caucasus. In 1995, Sharia courts were actually established in Chechnya and the secular judicial system was restored there in 1999.

Now Makhmutov wants the Constitutional Court to explain if there is a possibility of creating Sharia courts on the whole Russian territory. Such courts are "advisory and do not have "a system of punishment," he stressed.

"In the modern world, it is difficult to use Sharia law," said the imam of the Central Mosque in Moscow, Ildar Alyautdinov. "The Muslims living in Russia understand that certain laws and customs exist here and follow them," Ekho Moskvy radio quoted him as saying.

The issue of Sharia laws and how they comply with our Constitution should be considered in the Constitutional Court, the imam said.

However, former judge of the Constitutional Court Tamara Morshchakova believes such issues should be considered by legislative bodies. "The Constitutional Court may take for the consideration only a request to explain if a certain legal norm conforms to the Constitution," she told the radio station. "But the court cannot introduce any rule or norm as a legislative initiative may be taken by a corresponding organ."

Sharia law cannot exist in Russia according to the current legislation, said Pavel Krasheninnikov, chairman of the State Duma Legislation Committee to Ekho Moskvy. He stressed that the parliament's lower house was not able to consider this issue either.

Meanwhile, the "tireless" head of Al-Fatkh "cannot force himself to abandon the idea of the creation of a Sharia court in St. Petersburg, the city's website Fontanka.ru said. After prosecutors warned him, he has now asked the Constitutional Court for an explanation," it added. He wonders "if the local organization of Muslims in St. Petersburg, Al-Fatkh, may introduce a Sharia court to solve religious issues among Muslims according to Koran," the website said.

According to the site's source in the Constitutional Court, Makhmutov will get a response soon. It may be negative as "the request does not comply with the form of appealing to the court," Fontanka.ru said. In particular, it does not mention the laws and corresponding norms of the constitution that are being questioned.

Official Muslim organizations have not supported the idea of Sharia courts, the website said. Mufti Dzhafar Ponchaev told the site that Makhmutov "has no authorities for such activities."

Shamil Mugattarov, head of the coordination committee of St. Petersburg's Muslims, said Makhmutov's initiative "should not be taken seriously."

Another website, Regions.ru, quoted deputy mufti of St. Petersburg Ravil Pancheev as saying that Makhmutov's decision to create a Sharia court "contradicts the constitution, which states that Russia is a secular country."

"For our state such courts are unacceptable, even if their decisions are advisory only," believes Rostov Region mufti Dzhafar-khazrat Bikmaev. Special bodies on moral and ethical issues are unnecessary "as today every regional mufti having the Kazi [Kadi] title — a judge ruling in accordance with the Sharia law — is coping well with his duties," he told Regions.ru

"The creation of the Sharia court may lead to inter-ethnic and religious discord," said Ismail Berdiev, chairman of the Spiritual Administration of the Muslims of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia and Stavropol Region. He also described such courts as "unconstitutional" and "unnecessary" to establish. "Muslims may receive all necessary consultations from their imams at mosques," he told the website. "Imams may well explain what is right according to the Sharia law," he added.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 7, 2010.

This comes from Winds of Jihad blog, at the Sheik Yemami website and is archived at
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/10/06/ geert-wilders-terrorizes-muslims-part-2/


The slime from the media. You couldn't make it up: here's a guy who lives under 24 hour protection because the soldiers of allah want to murder him, Europe is in the grip of Mohammedan terrorists who are hellbent to blow stuff up, all over the world host societies are living in fear of Mohammedan lunatics, and then the 'Independent' prints such a garbage:

Muslims in the Netherlands say that remarks by politician Geert Wilders have poisoned attitudes toward them, making them feel unwelcome and at risk, according to complaints disclosed at his hate speech trial Wednesday.

"My family and I no longer feel safe in the Netherlands because Mr. Wilders is continually making hateful remarks about Islamic Dutch people," said one complaint read out by the judge. "It's getting scary. ... Soon the kids won't be able to say that they're Muslim or half-Moroccan," wrote the citizen, whose name was not released. ["My family and I no longer feel safe in the Netherlands......"

Good. Get. out.]

Dozens of similar complaints filed with public prosecutors eventually led them to file charges against Wilders, citing frequent statements he has made comparing Islam to Fascism, calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and for banning the Quran.

Wilders is charged with inciting discrimination and hatred and with insulting a people on religious grounds, punishable with up to a year in jail and a fine.

Wilders, who polls suggest is the Netherlands' most popular politician, denies any wrongdoing. He says that his opinions are protected by freedom of speech and endorsed by more than a million people who voted for him in national elections last June.

He accused his judges of bias, but lost a motion this week to have them replaced. In an opening statement, he claimed his trial is political and he would remain silent in the Amsterdam court.

The case is seen as a test of how far a politician can go in speaking negatively about a religion without unlawfully infringing on religious freedom. He has never called for violence.

The debate over immigration has dominated Dutch politics for a decade, as it has in much of Europe. Immigration controls have been continually tightened due to rising resentment over the growing Muslim presence and their difficulty in accepting Dutch values. Muslims, mostly from Morocco and Turkey, now comprise about 6 % of the Netherlands' 16.5 million population.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, October 7, 2010.

From the October 8, 2010 issue of the Jewish Press. "This is in reply to Reader Gershon Seligson (Letters, Oct. 1, Jewish Press) which calls me an "absolutist." I say I am a realist."


It is true that Mr. Seligson lives in Yerushalayim, and I am in New York. However, through my many AFSI Chizuk missions to the embattled areas of Israel over the past fifteen years, I've seen the Tomb of Joseph burned down by Arabs entrusted with its safety and then placed off-limits to Jews, and the grave of Mother Rachel turned into a fortress surrounded with high walls and sentry boxes.

I've personally been detained by the Israeli police when I joined with a group of tourists entering the Temple Mount; I had a prayer book in my bag and, despite my assurances to the contrary, there was concern that I, a Jew, might pray in Israel's holiest place.

I've been to the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron, purchased by Abraham centuries ago, and have seen it surrounded by Israeli soldiers protecting Jews who wish to enter. When we are in Hebron, Israel's second holiest city, for Shabbat Chaye Sarah, along with thousands of other Jews, there are hundreds of soldiers guarding us from the Arabs whose homes have encroached the small Jewish area there.

In Judea and Samaria we have visited homes of Jewish heroes threatened with demolition by the Israeli government because they lack the signature of the defense minister. Jewish synagogues and "illegal homes" are destroyed by order of the Israeli government while illegal Arab homes proliferate throughout Israel.

And we saw the brave Jews exiled from Gush Katif five years ago, when their entire communities were destroyed in order to appease the enemy. Most of them are still living in caravan communities, desperately trying to rebuild their lives.

As for the "millions of "Palestinians" living in the "West Bank," there are a number of solutions that have been offered that merit consideration. Certainly, one doesn't have to live with a cancer in one's body. One can choose to seek a remedy rather than wait for death.

Mr. Seligson admits that most Israelis "are deeply suspicious of Palestinian intentions." May I remind him of the Talmudic parable of the king, his servant, and the stinking fish? The servant, not wanting to pay for the bad fish, first eats it until he gets ill, then gets whipped for it, and finally has to pay for it. If he had paid for it at the very beginning, he would have avoided eating the foul fish and would not have suffered the beating.

It is very clear that PLO intentions toward the Jews are murderous. There's no place for "suspicion." The words, the terror attacks, the evidence of the past years all speak the loud truth: The Arab world will not recognize the Jewish state. They will work towards its downfall. What is Mr. Seligson's solution to that absolute truth?

Helen Freedman is Executive Director of Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI, 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.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, October 6, 2010.

I have been arguing with American Eagle all week about the Mandate and the law and now Hertz has laid it all out for us. Exactly what I was saying. Ted Belman

This was written by Eli E. Hertz, president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org


The U.S. Administration, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia's decision to rewrite history by labeling the Territories 'Occupied Territories,' the Settlements as an 'Obstacle to Peace' and 'Not Legitimate,' thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. The use of these dishonest loaded terms, empowers terrorism and incites Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel.

The Jewish People's Right to the Land of Israel The "Mandate for Palestine" & the Law of War

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the European Union Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton became victims to the 'Occupation' mantra their own organization has repeated over and over in their propaganda campaign to legitimize the Arab position.

Continuous pressure from the "Quartet" (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of the Land of Israel are contrary to international law as stated in the "Mandate for Palestine" document, that firmly call to "encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." It also requires "seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power."

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.

International Law — The "Mandate for Palestine"

The "Mandate for Palestine" an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right under international law to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. Fifty-one member countries — the entire League of Nations — unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine":

"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [italics in the original]

Law of War — Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1948

Six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. Then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN's 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arabs rejected.

The Jewish state not only survived, it came into possession of territories — land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.

Israel's citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.

The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders' rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews, and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.

6,000 Israelis died as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.

Israel's War of Independence in 1948 was considered lawful and in self-defence as may be reflected in UN resolutions naming Israel a "peace loving State" when it applied for membership at the United Nations. Both the Security Council (4 March, 1949, S/RES/69) and the UN General Assembly (11 May, 1949, (A/RES/273 (III)) declared:

"[Security Council] Decides in its judgment that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter ..."

Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1967

In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt's President: "Destruction of Israel." At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of Judea and Samaria [E.H., The West Bank], Sinai and the Golan Heights.

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. More than half a century after the 1948 War, and more than four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors' attacks.

Who Starts Wars Does Matter

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:

"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.

"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."

Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:

"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. "Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."

Israel Has the Better Title to the Territory of What Was Palestine, Including the Whole of Jerusalem

International law makes it clear: All of Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.

Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:

"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;

"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;

"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

"... as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."

"No legal Right Shall Spring from a Wrong"

Professor Schwebel explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" must be read together with other principles:

"... namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."

Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, cannot and should not be rewarded.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:

"Territorial Rights Under International Law.... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."

Thus, under international law Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right to self-defence when it redeemed and legally reoccupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.

Legalities aside, before 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and for the first ten years of so-called occupation there were almost no Jewish settlers in the West Bank. And still there was no peace with the Palestinians. The notion that Jewish communities pose an obstacle to peace is a red herring designed to blame Israel for lack of progress in the 'Peace Process' and enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish state.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, October 6, 2010.

It seems that in government circles there is some difficulty in distinguishing between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism


It seems that in government circles there is some difficulty in distinguishing between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism. Indeed, there seems no other satisfactory explanation for the next imminent blunder looming before us in the long saga of Israel's failed endeavors at promoting its image abroad. This impending debacle is an enterprise known as the "Branding of Israel" or perhaps more accurately the "Re-branding of Israel." For as we shall see, this is an idea that has been tried before — with notable lack of success.

The sad tale of failure-foretold has its beginning in a recent press announcement that the Israeli government has engaged the services of the prestigious SS+K corporation — for a fee of a quarter of a million dollars — to advise on how the nation-state of the Jewish people should "brand" itself to improve its standing abroad. The release also stated that SS+K has had considerable success in promoting Lance Armstrong's wristlets, and Michelle Obama's health-food awareness campaign to contend with the problem of obesity in American youth.

As mentioned, "branding" is not a new idea. It was, in fact, the centerpiece of Tzipi Livni's public-diplomacy strategy during her term as foreign minister. And we all remember what splendid success that turned out to be!

For despite all of her efforts to adopt a pliable posture vis-à-vis the international community, despite all attempts to present Israel as "cool" hedonist hub, a haven of tolerance for gays, brimming with vibrant pubs, and sensual beachfronts adorned with curvaceous bronzed bodies, who can forget what glorious "victories" Israeli public diplomacy achieved under her stewardship?

From the frittering away of unprecedented world support at the start of the Second Lebanon War; through the increasing volume of voices from a wide range of academic, professional and labor organizations clamoring for censure and sanctions against Israel; to the torrent of unfounded, unfettered and unfair attacks on Israel because of the IDF's actions ("Cast Lead") to quell the bombardment of its civilian population in the south, and which finally culminated with the grotesque Goldstone report.

Intellectual surrender

These diplomatic debacles under Livni expose the entire notion of "branding" as a failed — and somewhat self-demeaning — exercise ...which makes the latest burst of renewed enthusiasm for it rather difficult to understand.

But perhaps even more troubling is the intellectual surrender reflected in the eagerness with which those charged with the conduct of the nation's diplomacy embrace the "branding" approach as a solution to Israel's international beleaguerment. Can they be oblivious to how unbecoming and undignified the idea is that the Zionist endeavor — one of the most stirring and dramatic enterprises of the past 100 year — should be "marketed" as if it were no different from a tube of toothpaste, a bottle of shampoo or a weekend package deal at the local spa.

Could it be that the Israeli leadership is so devoid of substance that it cannot formulate independently its own persuasive credo as to the moral justice and historical imperative inherent in the Zionist ideal? Could it be that its leaders are so lacking in depth that that they cannot articulate an authentic claim to justify the moral necessity for the exercise of Jewish political sovereignty in the ancient Jewish homeland? Do they feel that this is beyond their capacity without needing to invoke the aid of a foreign commercial entity whose areas of expertise are promoting yellow plastic bracelets and creating awareness of the health hazards involved in guzzling cholesterol-laced burgers and calorie-laden fries?

But what is even more distressing is that the obsession with "branding" betrays a grave misperception of the true nature of the animosity towards Israel, of its origins and its structural texture; it reveals a gross misunderstanding of the motivations and the mindset of Israel's international detractors.

After all, the hostility towards Israel is not due to its critics being unaware of the quality of Israeli Merlot, or the lures of the Tel Avivian nightlife. So if the anti-Israel acrimony cannot be traced to a lack of appreciation of the culinary delights available in Israeli restaurants or the beguiling charms of Israeli women, why would anyone believe that by enhancing such appreciation, Israel would somehow become less distasteful to the international community?

Ignorance, malice and envy

Moreover, does anyone seriously believe that the legions of foreign journalists, who publish outrageously distorted accounts of events regarding Israel, are unfamiliar with the realities that exist here? After all, many of them choose Israel as a base from which they make short sorties across the border to gather material — authentic or contrived — for their next biased report to be disseminated in London, Lisbon or LA.

Here they enjoy not only unfettered freedom of expression, which allows them to publish anything they like whether factual or fraudulent, whether the authorities approve or disapprove, without fear of regime-reprisals. They also have the benefit of full gamut of "first world" comforts immediately adjacent to their "Third World" beat — including gourmet meals, abundant cultural activities, diverse leisure facilities and all attended Western-style "mod-cons" on the fringes of the Levant.

This conduct of the representatives of the foreign media provides a clue as to the components of international animosity towards Israel: (a) Ignorance (b) Malice (c) Envy. Or more precisely — ignorance regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; malice towards the Jews; and envy at their extraordinary achievements.

In contending with these factors, not only does the tactic of "branding" have little to contribute, it may in fact be detrimental. For, on the one hand, superficial slogans and sound-bites, picturesque panoramic posters of alluring resorts will do little to rectify the misperceptions and disperse the ignorance regarding the Palestinian problem — which are the major ingredients of the fuel that drives the international crusade to de-legitimize Israel. On the other hand, highlighting Israel's technological advancement and economic prosperity are liable to reinforce the sense of resentment, nourished by malice and envy, that all these accomplishments were achieved at the expense of Palestinians and their sufferings.

In conclusion, two points:

"Branding" is merely an attempt to evade engaging the real difficulties in the struggle for the hearts and minds of those who determine the tenor of international public opinion. This is not to say that "branding" has no place in a comprehensive strategic blueprint for Israel's public-diplomacy. However, its role will be of a secondary, auxiliary nature rather than a major component. Branding is not a measure that can contend with adversarial Nobel Prize laureates such as Mairead Maguire and Desmond Tutu, hostile intellectuals and journalists such as Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk or biased organizations such as UNHRC (that begot the Goldstone Report) or the Global BDS (that promotes economic cultural, academic boycott against Israel.)

It is these individuals and groups — and others of their ilk — that influence international attitudes toward Israel, and not the typical target audiences of branding campaigns, such as the politically indifferent consumer contemplating whether to vacation in Tenerife, Tangiers or Tel Aviv

The contour-lines of an appropriate public-diplomacy strategy and the elaboration of its principal components are beyond the limited scope of this essay. But whatever the details of these elements may be, they must include resolute efforts to disperse the fog of ignorance that shrouds the debate on the Palestinian question; effective means to expose the toxic pockets of malice and envy as the major inputs that poison and distort the manner in which Israel is portrayed in the international arena; and assertive measures to foil the detestable designs they spawn.

Martin Sherman is the 2009-2010 visiting Israeli Schusterman scholar at USC/HUC-JIR and the academic director of the Jerusalem Summit. He lectures at Tel Aviv University, served in Israel's defense establishment and was a ministerial adviser to the Yitzhak Shamir government.

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 22, 2010.

This was written by Maayana Miskin and it appeared today in Arutz-7


The United States government has been allowing citizens to take a tax deduction for donations to Viva Palestina, a group that aids the anti-Israel and anti-America terrorist group Hamas. Now a U.S. Congressman is trying to put a stop to it, as reported by the International Business Times.

Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) told the paper that he has written to the State Department, the Department of Justice, and the IRS, informing them that Viva Palestina funds terrorism and is soliciting donations in America. The Patriot Act and other counter-terror laws prohibit soliciting funds for a recognized terrorist organization.

His letters were sent several months ago, but nothing has been done. Sherman said the State Department forwarded his complaint to the Department of Justice, which has yet to respond. The IRS said they would look into the matter, he added. The congressman said he plans to keep pushing the matter until something is done.

Viva Palestina is run by former British MP George Galloway, who openly supports Hamas and has made direct donations to the group. In 2009 Galloway gave Hamas leaders cash and vehicles, and taunted his government, saying, "If you want to take me to court, I promise you there is no jury in all of Britain who will convict me."

Sherman said he has faced difficulty due to the fact that Viva Palestina's branch in the U.S. is partnered with the charity group Interreligious Foundation for Community Organizations (IFCO) and receives money through them.

In addition, Viva Palestina USA claims that it does not give to Hamas. However, Sherman disputes that claim, pointing out that the group openly supports Galloway's "aid convoys" to Gaza. An expert on terrorism, Stephen Landman, was quoted by IBT as saying that Viva Palestina USA "openly used its resources to prop up Hamas' government in the Gaza Strip."

Landman recently addressed the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. He told committee members that there is "overwhelming" evidence that Viva Palestina supports terrorism, and that the group has raised at least $200,000 in America.

Galloway and Viva Palestina are currently planning a flotilla to sail for Gaza, in an attempt to break Israel's naval blockade of Hamas. A previous attempt to break the blockade ended with nine deaths and several injuries after armed passengers attacked IDF soldiers who attempted to redirect their boats, and soldiers opened fire in response.

To Go To Top

Posted by Eddieh, October 6, 2010.

Enough is enough, there is limit on everything. Watch out, the last straw on camel's back could be imminent ...........

In response to "Fair Assessment — China is not a Superpower — Not Yet" by H Wang (from the US), perhaps you should read the following poem "An Awakening Message" by D. Lin (also from the US), dated April 2008 and published in the Washington Post.


When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled opium to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.

When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.

When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion!

When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.

When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.

When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.

When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.

When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.

When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.

When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.

When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.

When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.

But when you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.

When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.

When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.

When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.

When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.

Why do you hate us so much, we asked.

No, you answered, we don't hate you.

We don't hate you either,
But, do you understand us?

Of course we do, you said,
We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...

What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer...
Because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.


When Japan was economically successful, it was Japan bashing. Now its China bashing when China is getting a bit successful. If you haven't heard of China bashing before, the above poem pretty much summarized it. In the following paragraphs, I'll try to clarify some of the facts and mindsets about China, hoping they can help some people to understand. The West ( US & formerly Europe & Britain) practice hegemony and don't seem to care what the third world feel at all. Third world countries have a right to grow, be strong and be successful too!

Inspite of the last 30 years of advance in city infrastructure and other hardwares, China is still a very poor country of 1.3 billion including a poverty-stricken farming population of 650 million, and a corrupt /backward government. Anyone who have been to China can see that. We in HK are so close to China that we probably know it better than anyone else. But the West blows the whole thing out of proportion, calling China a Superpower, and a threat, which is simply not the case. Author Helen Wang rightly pointed out in her book, saying........ China is in many ways, too backward to qualify as a superpower........it has a long way to go. However what she should realize is that the West is using the rise of a Superpower as a convenient pretext to blame and bash China for their own economic woes and diplomatic failures. Yet business is business. Trade still go on as long as there is a profit.

As far as I can see, China has a lot of catching up to do. China has more internal problems than it can handle. China is more involved in solving its own problems, such as feeding its millions, providing them with jobs, keep the rich/poor gap narrow down, fighting corruption & inflation, and give people a decent living .....etc etc. So far the progress made are stained with blood, sweat and tears. Every time one uses an INTEL, HP or Apple, there are many parts inside that are made in China 's sweat shops. This is just one example which is all over the news in recent days. Cheap products from China actually kept US inflation down for years! Sounds like a win/win situation. However what does the average worker gets for assembling the IC chips..........a mere US$120/m. They work very hard, but very very sad. I have stories to tell........much later.

Its really a conspiracy of the West to contain China from expansion, just like containing the Soviet Union from expansion in the Cold War days. Why is there a European Union and NATO, SEATO and other alliances? Its the post-WWII Western strategy to contain the two communist giants, a strategy which is still in force today, but rather out-dated, since Russia and China are no longer communists. Why does the US has over one thousand military bases around the world and seven fleets patrolling the seas? ( China has none.) Because the politicians in the West have to justify their governments' expenditure on the military. Because the arms dealers and manufacturers have to lobby the politicians to sell their weapons. Because the Western nations want to perpetuate a Western dominant world. Fair assessment?

200 years ago, after fallen behind the West, China was attacked by Britain first, then plundered, looted, colonized by a league of 8 nations, even conquered by Japan. The next 100 years, China suffered 2 revolutions, 2 World Wars, plus Civil War and internal struggle, China, as a nation, is flatout, downtrodden, and experiencing total collapse. All it wants now is to rebuild a country from its pieces, to give its people food, shelter, clothing, a decent life and restore some dignity to a "sick" nation. What can be more noble and humanistic than that? Many people do think China 's leaders deserve to be awarded a Nobel Peace Price for their contribution to lead a quarter of mankind out of poverty and starvation! President Gorbachev received a Nobel Peace Price for liberating the Soviet Union in 1989, a huge political change for Eastern Europe. I think China 's achievement is more internal, but economical change is just as great if not greater. Why the West are so negative about China! Fair assessment or not?

What about the arms race? The US and Russia have enough nuclear arsenal to destroy the world ten times over. But China can hardly defend itself against the real Superpowers. China just want to stand on its own two feet, and not being bullied by any other powers. If one should understand the Chinese mindset, our culture of Confucius, Mencius, Laotze, Chuangtze and Buddha, all teaches harmony among men, harmony between men and nature.........what 5000 years of history has taught us that wars and killings will not solve any problems, but will create more problems. Thats why China's leaders kept stressing China's position is not to seek the first strike in any conflict, a sharp contrast to some other country's "pre-emptive trike" mindset. China has not invaded any country in the last 200 years. China has not one soldier combating abroad today. It seems that China may not want to be a Superpower now. Its Economics 101 ......guns or butter? The answer is clear.

Guess I spoke enough.........not in defense or accusation, but to help international understanding.

Contact Eddieh at eddieh@westnet.com.au

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 6, 2010.

"So Far..."

No, I cannot say, "...so good." It's more like, "So far, we're hanging in there." Who knows what tomorrow brings.

One gets the feeling that if he could — without losing his coalition — Netanyahu would: cave on extending the freeze, that is. And so, it is the strength of those coalition members we must pray for.

It is with deliberate consideration that certain members of the coalition (and most notably members of Netanyahu's own Likud party) have spoken out publicly against extending the freeze. Take, for example, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, who said in an interview on Monday that it would be "very difficult" to renew a freeze on the basis of American assurances: "It was a unilateral gesture. You don't negotiate on unilateral gestures. You negotiate on a peace settlement." Steinitz said there was no "reciprocity" or flexibility from the PA during the freeze. "To come now and to demand more is very problematic."


Yesterday I picked up a report citing some of those ubiquitous "unnamed Israeli officials." Admittedly, the source was CNN, but consider:

"One senior Israeli official said that Netanyahu is 'determined to make sure talks go forward,' and is 'cautiously and discretely' discussing the settlement issue with the U.S. and his own cabinet. The official said Netanyahu is also considering a set of confidence-building measures to offer the Palestinians in lieu of a full settlement freeze. 'Something has to be agreed on to keep [the Palestinians] at the talks, but not put a full freeze on settlements,' another senior Israeli official said."

Confidence building measures. How weary I am of that expression. There seems to be no end to the groveling. Either the PA wants to negotiate a state, or it does not. And if it genuinely does not, then temping its leaders to come to the table is going to achieve absolutely nothing good.

What this does is shine a spotlight on what we know to be the truth: This fawning is for Obama's sake, not Abbas's.

And what is this business about Netanyahu being "determined" that talks will go forward? It takes two to negotiate, Mr. Prime Minister, and by yourself you cannot make sure of anything. This is posturing — one more effort to show the world how cooperative we are. An attempt to protect us against the day when Abbas points a finger and says the failure of talks was all our fault.


I would not want to be in Netanyahu's shoes. I am forever mindful of the difficulty of dealing with Obama, who is not only determined but ruthless. Who knows what the threats have been, and will yet be.

There are suggestions that Abbas might be biding his time until after the US midterm elections, confident that Obama, when he no longer requires the goodwill of supporters of Israel, will come down even harder on Israel.

And yet, it is time — no, past time! — to call a halt to the nonsense.

The PA is now saying that Obama is working on getting the freeze extended by three months, to save the talks. But the same question emerges here as with that letter said to have been written by Obama that sought a two-month extension. Three months is no more likely than two months to be enough time to allow the parties to resolve all major issues. (Three years, or, I daresay, three decades, would likely not be enough time.)

What would happen at the end of three months, when the Arabs would scream (guaranteed) that things were just starting to go well, and now Israel will ruin it all?


I had pondered recently why Abbas would be seeking the opinion of the Arab League on the question of continuing to negotiate, when the PLO — officially the negotiating agency for Palestinian Arabs — had already said there should not be further talks under the present conditions. The answer is that Abbas is not seeking a possible go-ahead from the Arab states; quite the contrary, he is looking for their support as he declines to negotiate.

Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the Jerusalem Post today, says that PA officials have already secured support from Jordan, Egypt, and "several other Arab countries;" announcement of this was made in Cairo after a meeting between Abbas and Mubarak.


PA negotiator Nabil Sha'ath has offered some reasons as to why the freeze is essential, and they are real winners:

First, in a replay of an old refrain, he protests that it is pointless to negotiate "land for peace" "while the land is being stolen and settlements are growing."

Everyone needs to be reminded that Abbas negotiated with former prime minister Ehud Olmert just fine every though there was no freeze.

But the most essential counter-argument here is that we are not "stealing" land because it doesn't belong to the Arabs. The land under discussion in Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land — given to the Jews by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which designated it for a Jewish homeland.

All UN resolutions on this issue (not to mention the 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan) say that determination of Israel's final border can be reached only via negotiations. And yet, the PA would have the world believe that everything beyond the Green Line (an armistice line only) already belongs to them.

The cry that we're taking all the land and leaving nothing for them because of building is a gross misrepresentation. ALL of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria combined take up less than 5% of the land, with major blocs of communities adjacent — or near adjacent — to the Green Line.

As far as taking "more land" is concerned," Israel had an agreement with the two US administrations prior to the current one that permitted us to build WITHIN existing communities, as long as the borders of those communities were not expanded. Obama refused to honor this agreement. I cannot say with certainty that no building is going on now beyond existing borders, but I do know that in the main this is not the case. The image of Israelis spreading out all across Judea and Samaria is simply erroneous. Deliberately erroneous, I will add.

The freeze, as imposed by Defense Minister Barak, was so stringent over the past months that residents of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria couldn't close in an open porch or add a bathroom to a house.


The flip side of this issue is that while Jewish building has been frozen for the last 10 months, the Arabs have been on an internationally bankrolled building spree.

Please see Caroline Glick on this in a very informative article, "Do Jews have civil rights?":

"The presumptive purpose of the freeze was to prevent Israel from creating 'facts on the ground' that would prejudice the outcome of the so-called peace talks with Fatah [the PA]. This goal is justified on the basis of the Palestinian misinterpretation of a clause in the 1995 agreement between Israel and the PLO in which they agreed that 'neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.'

"The clause was never intended to refer to construction, and 'neither side,' of course, relates to both Israel and the Palestinians.

"But since the agreement was signed, while the Palestinian misinterpretation has been widely adopted, only one side has been held to account.

"Whereas every Jewish home built since 1995 has evoked a storm of international criticism, the Palestinians have built thousands upon thousands of buildings throughout the areas. They have done so in total disregard for planning and zoning ordinances and even the basic considerations of supply and demand. For instance, a motorist traveling from Jerusalem to Ma'aleh Adumim will pass hundreds of empty five-story buildings in Issawiya and other Arab neighborhoods built for the sole purpose of preventing Israel from connecting the two.

"So too, Fatah-appointed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has been absolutely clear that the Palestinians are building the new city of Rawabi to 'change the status' of Judea and Samaria and prepare the ground for the establishment of a state outside the framework of the negotiations."
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/10/ do-jews-have-civil-rights.php


Returning for a moment to Sha'ath's "reasons" why the freeze is necessary, we find this outrage:

"No US-sponsored peace process would have credibility when the Americans can't force Israel to fulfill one of the principal obligations — to stop settlement construction."

From the time of the Oslo Accords — which permitted settlements — a "principal obligation" on the Arab side was the cessation of all incitement. To this day, PA agencies are rife with incitement. There are, of course, the textbooks, which encourage jihad and deny Jewish legitimacy in the land. But, by way of example, let's look at a song and dance routine shown several times recently — the last time less then a month ago — on PA-TV. Its lyrics:

"From my wounds, my weapon has emerged.
"Oh, our revolution, my weapon has emerged.
"There is no force in the world that can remove the weapon from my hand.
"My weapon has emerged. My weapon has emerged...
"This revolutionary people has sacrificed and offered in order to live in freedom!
"My weapon has emerged. My weapon has emerged...
"He who offers his blood doesn't care if his blood flows upon the ground...
"As the weapon of revolution is in my hand, so my presence will be forced [upon Israel].
"My weapon has emerged. My weapon has emerged."
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi= 157&doc_id=3309


While members of the US Consulate in eastern Jerusalem have routinely gone into Judea and Samaria to check on whether we are building, the Obama administration has never intervened to "force" the PA to stop incitement. This is the case even though teaching people to hate is most clearly a bigger threat to peace than building homes.

Of course the "peace process" does not have credibility, and the US administration is not an honest broker.

Yet, sadly, it is for the sake of this process and in deference to this administration that our government is panting with eagerness to proceed.


One of the things that bothers me greatly is that our own government does not speak out loudly for our rights: does not point out that Arab building has continued, or that incitement — which the PA was committed to eliminate — is still going on.

There are analysts who believe that the US is reluctant to take on the PA on some of these issues for fear of weakening the case for the "two-state solution," to which it is so committed. If the world knows what the PA is really like....

But what's our excuse?


Can it be? Is Bill Clinton really that ignorant, or is he just giving a boost to his wife's boss?

Yesterday, in a talk in Egypt, he said that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would "take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away. It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done."

His further claim, according to AP, is that the founding of Israel and the"dispossession" of the Palestinians more than six decade ago has long been a rallying cry among Arabs and Muslims in the region.

Shocking. Either way — because he's terribly misinformed, or because he is knowingly spreading dangerous untruths — he should hang his head in shame.

Can he truly not know about radical Islam's goal of a world-wide caliphate, ruled by Sharia — and that advancement of this goal precipitates terrorism? A peace treaty between Israel and the PA would have zero effect on Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or Iran's advancement towards nuclear weapons. Is he not aware that the presence of a Jewish state in the region is anathema to many Muslim states and groups for religious reasons, so that — rather than embracing it — they would be upset by a treaty that further legitimized Israel? Does he not realize that most Arabs don't really care about the Palestinian Arabs — no matter how they use the issue as a convenient rallying cry? We know this because of their failure to contribute to Palestinian Arab wellbeing via such conduits as UNRWA and their reluctance to make Palestinian Arabs welcome in their lands.

Shall we all chip in and buy Bill Clinton a "Terrorism for Dummies"?

In just a couple of short statements by Clinton there is so much to take on. But I won't deal here with the suggestion that we "displaced" the Arabs. That's a posting for another day.


"The Good News Corner"

Known for its health benefits because of a high level of antioxidants and other factors, the pomegranate — rimon — is very popular in Israel.

And so it was that in the Galil, a winery (called Rimon) for producing a unique tasting pomegranate wine was established by Gabi Nachmias. It has grown enormously, putting out a port, a bubbly wine, a dry wine and a sweet wine. Over 750,000 liters of wine are bottled annually, with some shipped as far away as Japan.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jewish Policy Center, October 5, 2010.

This was written by Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security advisor in Israel. He is a senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School and an adjunct professor at NYU. He recently completed a study on the threat of nuclear terrorism to Israel, published by the Begin-Sadat Center.


President Obama recently convened a global summit on the threat of nuclear terrorism, an issue that he considers to be the greatest danger currently facing the U.S. and the international community. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak similarly believes that the gravest threat is not posed by rogue states, such as Iran, even if it acquires nuclear weapons, but rather "...a nuclear weapon reach[ing] a terrorist group, which will not hesitate to use it immediately. They will send it in a container with a GPS to a leading port in the U.S., Europe, or Israel."

Unlike traditional terrorism, nuclear terrorism would pose a potentially catastrophic threat to states across the world. Even a bomb considered to be relatively small would have devastating consequences, with estimates ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of dead. Although Israel would survive such a strike as a state, the consequences would be devastating — and this scenario is based on the optimistic assumption that terrorists would detonate only one nuclear bomb. Should nuclear terrorists strike the U.S., the consequences while not existential, would nevertheless be extreme.

Nuclear terrorism poses a unique threat not only because of the magnitude of the destruction, but because those most likely to perpetrate an attack may be fundamentally nihilistic and therefore undeterrable — prepared to pay any cost in loss of life in pursuit of their objectives. As millennial movements for whom the crippling and even destruction of the U.S. and Israel are sacred missions, a nuclear terrorist attack where even a devastating response is assumed may be a worthy means of ushering in a messianic era.

Purpose of Nuclear Terrorism

There are several reasons why nuclear terrorism, whether against the U.S. or Israel, could serve strategic objectives and benefit those states and groups contemplating such actions. First, there is the actual use of nuclear weapons with the designed goal of dealing their victim a devastating blow. However, nuclear possession may also be used as a deterrent against an attack from the U.S. or Israel in order to counter their overwhelming military superiority. In this way, nuclear terrorism would provide an umbrella enabling the state or group to conduct lower level hostilities with the assumption that they would be spared the threat of massive retaliation.

Possessing nuclear weapons would also allow the group or country to exercise decisive influence over U.S. and Israeli decision-making in times of crisis. It could prove to be a deciding factor on fundamental policy issues as the two countries could be held hostage by the very threat of a nuclear terrorist attack. It also would serve to weaken the resilience of American and Israeli society as a result of the need to live under the shadow of nuclear terrorism. In turn, it would severely undermine public confidence in either government's ability to provide a safe environment in which to live.

A nuclear terrorist attack against either the United States or Israel could be carried out by sea, air, and land-based operations. Israel, however, faces the additional threat of rocket attacks, such as those already in Hezbollah's possession that could be fitted with nuclear warheads. Though unsuited for ordinary military purposes, these rockets could be effective weapons of terror.

Policy Options

The United States and Israel have two policy options — prevention and deterrence — that they can pursue in countering the threat.

Prevention: Prevention is the first measure in the bilateral tool-kit, including heightened intelligence, interdiction cooperation, and a variety of related offensive and defensive measures. Nevertheless, the difficulties the United States has encountered in tracking down bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives, as well as the trouble Israel faces in detecting short-range rockets in Lebanon and Gaza, are indicative of the challenges posed by the detection of a terrorist nuclear weapon. Once detected, the problem of eliminating the threat before it could be detonated would remain critical and difficult.

Part of the prevention effort is simply based on already existing U.S. policies and programs designed to deal with the threat on a global scale. Israel, for the most part, is not involved in these efforts, though highly supportive. They include the following:

* Engaging in global diplomacy to further strengthen international resolve to deal with the threat of nuclear terrorism. This includes better utilizing already existing diplomatic tools, such as UNSCR 1540; engaging with rogue states, such as Iran and Syria, on a conditional agreement with severe penalties for failure; and heightening pressure on states to deny assistance and sanctuary to terrorists.

* Creating a variety of programs designed to improve control over nuclear facilities, stockpiles and personnel in a number of countries. This is a "drying up the swamp" type approach — the fewer the number of "loose" nukes, materials, and experts, the lower the risk of nuclear terrorism.

* Heightening international cooperation in the areas of law enforcement, border security, export controls, intelligence, interdiction of WMD, and terrorist related shipments and financial flows.

* Expanding covert operations and, in some cases, a willingness to bring significant military force to bear, over and above special forces, may also be required.

As another source of prevention, Israel has an extensive homeland security system, both active ("Arrow" and "Iron Dome") and passive. Together they provide a modicum of security. However, even one nuclear warhead piercing through the system would constitute a catastrophic failure. Defense is thus not a sufficient option in the case of nuclear threats. At the same time, a potential attacker would have to take the high probability of interception into account and that Israel would presumably retaliate massively.

Deterrence: It is typically assumed that deterrence is ineffective against nuclear terrorism, due both to the nihilistic nature of the assumed perpetrators and the absence of a return address. However, this is not always the case. While the biggest question mark is al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas have both proven themselves deterrable over the years. Though certainly extremist, their commitment to their domestic audiences vies with and at times overrides their commitment to Israel's destruction. This in no way detracts from the extreme severity of the threat that would be posed by their acquisition of a nuclear capability — such as the ability to terrorize Israel's population, conduct large-scale terror attacks with relative impunity, or attempt to dictate terms — but their deterrability does place the threat in an appropriate context.

Similarly, while a precise assessment of Iran's cost-benefit analysis is unknowable, Tehran does appear to be a rational player and thus deterrable. Although Iran would presumably be willing to suffer severe consequences in pursuit of Israel's destruction, Iranian leaders will, of course, take into account that Israel is widely considered by the international community to be a nuclear power and if so, that its actions could lead to a devastating exchange for both. Iran would also have to factor in the possibility of an American response, even if Tehran solely directs its actions against Israel.

Al-Qaeda and its acolytes, on the other hand, are assumed not to be deterrable — and for good reason. Such Islamic extremists view all non-Muslims — and even Muslims that don't adhere to their strict reading of Islam — as infidels, or kufar, who must be killed for the sake of Allah. Indeed, al-Qaeda and its followers have proven their willingness, if not desire, to murder and die in order to obtain their ultimate goal of creating an Islamic Caliphate. For this reason, nuclear capabilities in the hands of al-Qaeda would pose an unacceptable danger.

As such, unless virtually irrefutable and immediate evidence exists to the contrary, Israel and the United States should adopt a declared retaliatory policy that holds Iran and/or al-Qaeda responsible for a nuclear attack regardless of the perpetrator's identity. The allies should clarify that its response will be unlimited and include not just their leaders and their families, but major population centers and all sites of value for the Muslim world, including those of major symbolic importance.

Potential perpetrators of nuclear terrorism must be convinced that the U.S. and Israel will both retaliate in a devastating fashion. For Israel, this means a "shoot first, no questions asked" policy, which holds accountable those clearly responsible for the attack (if any) as well as those reasonably suspected of involvement. There will be no room for diplomacy and Israel and the United States must respond with all means at their disposal.

As a global power, the U.S. may not be able to adopt such a "no questions asked" policy and nuclear forensics will be crucial. Nevertheless, American determination to act decisively to prevent a nuclear terrorist threat and to retaliate devastatingly against those found responsible, must be beyond question. U.S. declaratory policy on the nuclear terror threat to Israel would not need to be substantially different from its posture on the issue of nuclear terrorism generally and its commitments to Israel's security, but could be further expanded to specifically include nuclear terrorism.

A Steadfast Approach

While the list of those who might wish to carry out nuclear terrorism against either the U.S. or Israel is not long, it is also not as short as one might hope. It includes al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadi organizations, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and potentially Syria in the future.

To date, none of these players appears to have acquired a nuclear weapon, although Iran is certainly well on its way. To be sure, although the threat probability is considered low at this time, that assessment is likely to change significantly in the coming years. The United States and Israel must take into account that a nuclear terrorist threat could emerge in the foreseeable future, and act accordingly to minimize that threat using prevention and deterrence. Indeed, the potential costs of nuclear terrorism are appallingly high.

The InFocus Quarterly is published by the Jewish Policy Center. This article is archived as
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1745 /threat-of-nuclear-terrorism

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, October 5, 2010.

Jews throughout the world should put on sackcloth and sit in the streets mourning the enabling of the destruction of a holy grave site just outside of Jerusalem by the Jewish government in Israel. Turning over Neve Samuel to the Arabs is a death sentence for the site. It will be burned and destroyed like the grave of Joseph was desecrated when it was given over to Arab control. The complicity of trusted organizations like JNF in the destruction of a Jewish farm in Israel, as well as the failure of Israeli police and security to protect Israeli farmland, is disgraceful and shameful. This situation is being replicated throughout the Negev and the Galilee. Volunteer groups like the Shomrim are trying desperately to prevent the loss of Jewish farms. Concerned parties should write to PM Netanyahu: memshala@pmo.gov.il; bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il; pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il to protest this deplorable action and inaction on the part of the government.

This is called "Legacy of Arab Attacks on Jewish Farm" and it was written by Tzvi Ben Gadalyahu. It appeared today in Arutz-7


(Israelnationalnews.com) Israel is surrendering to Arabs the traditional burial site of the prophet Samuel, known as Neve Samuel, as it once did with the Tomb of Joseph. The holy site is located a short distance to the north of the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramot, near the site of a farm that was torched twice by Arabs in the past four days.

Yisrael Orbach told Israel National News that Arabs set part of his orchard on fire on the Sabbath and tried to burn it down again on Monday. An indication of Israel's willingness to surrender sovereignty over the site was reflected in a decision to close the burial site at night because authorities say they cannot insure the public's safety during the evening hours.

A prayer session was held Monday night to protest the decision.

The Palestinian Authority would take control of Neve Samuel under a previous informal agreement with the former Olmert government. The government tourist information site lists Neve Samuel along with other holy sites but unlike the others, there is no link for details on travel directions. It is located next to the Givat Ze'ev highway northwest of Jerusalem.

Orbach says the latest attempt to destroy his farm is only one of countless attacks on it and on the traditional burial site, where Jewish holy items have been desecrated in the past, as pictured. "Since the freeze, the Arabs have staged a kind of Intifada against us," he said.

He used to herd sheep but was forced to give that up after numerous thefts by Arabs, including those from a nearby village which he reports is filled with members of Hamas. He now grows pomegranate, olive and fig trees, among others, but the Arabs have tried to destroy them, as well.

"Last Shabbat, when we returned home, we smelled smoke and rushed to discover that the lower part of the farm was on fire," according to Orbach. The blaze destroyed dozens of trees, and the flames reached the edge of a memorial tent he has erected in memory of his daughter, who was killed several years ago by Arab terrorists.

Orbach says the forest that once surrounded the areas has disappeared. "For years, the Arabs cut down and burned the trees.

They destroyed the trunks by peeling off the bark and then chopping them down, claiming the trees are theirs. Now the forest is gone."

He charges the police with not only ignoring the situation but also with hindering volunteers who try to help Orbach. "On Shabbat, a policeman arrived and said to us, 'Make sure there is no commotion here or there will be problems for you.'"

Orbach says he longer goes to the police station to file a complaint because police officers previously have turned the tables and blamed him for incidents.

"Police officers come and laugh at us, and detectives humiliate visitors and then charge us with false accusations," he added.

Orbach also revealed that the Jewish National Fund's work force includes several Arabs from the nearby Hamas village who illegally chop down the trees and sell the wood. "The trees from the forest became charcoal for stoves in Hevron," according to Orbach. "We are giving the Arabs the Neve Samuel site like we gave them Joseph's Tomb."

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 Gabrielle Goldwater, October 4, 2010.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield who blogs at


On a late summer evening, Omar Rivera stumbled over to a local mosque, clutching a beer bottle in his hand and looking for a place to answer nature's call. He chose the Al-Imam Mosque and proceeded to urinate around its exterior, where there were apparently some Muslim prayer rugs lying around. Omar had committed what was a fairly commonplace act of vandalism in the city, public urination. When suddenly he became the poster child for the rise of a "New Islamophobia".

Along with a drunken liberal arts student who slashed a Muslim cabbie, the media transformed poor Omar into the face of a new and terrible wave of hate directed against Muslims. Initial news stories claimed that he had called the mosque denizens, "Terrorists", before peeing on their rug. The NYPD later explained that it had never happened, and that he never said anything for or against Muslims.

After a five-day drunk, Omar probably didn't even know his own name by that point. Neither did Michael Enright, the cabbie slasher, who had a long history of drinking problems. After the attack, he sat down in the middle of traffic, rather than trying to make an escape. Rather than being motivated by any animus toward Muslims, Riviera and Enright were driven by their blood alcohol level and drinking problems. There was no wave of Islamophobia, just two drunk guys who needed to become Friends of Bill.

But the facts didn't matter, by then liberals had begun to construct their own narrative. Omar had clearly been influenced by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Their hateful rhetoric had induced Omar to go and piss on some Muslim rugs in order to show his patriotism and bigotry. This was undoubtedly Islamophobia. And while Mayor Bloomberg did not invite the pissed on prayer rugs to City Hall, as he had the slashed cabbie — liberals bravely sprung into action to show their support for the micturated upon furnishings.

The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good adopted a statement at the ISNA Emergency Interfaith Summit, warning about a tide violence and condemning "the desecration of Islamic houses of worship". The ISNA is the Islamic Society of North America, an organization that was created by Muslim Brotherhood members. The Muslim Brotherhood, which drew inspiration from Nazi Germany, was also behind such philanthropic organizations as Hamas and Al Querida. But that didn't stop various liberal clergy from co-signing a statement with an organization linked to Islamic terrorists, calling for "tolerance".

One of the signers, Rabbi David Saperstein proclaimed, "We know what it is like when people have attacked us physically, have attacked us verbally, and others have remained silent. It cannot happen here in America in 2010." Of course it can happen here, just not to Muslims. It can happen to the Jews of Malmo or Paris. It can happen to Hindus in Bangladesh and Christians in Egypt. And it can even happen even in New York. While Saperstein was pontification about tolerance, the trial of four Muslim terrorists who had plotted to bomb synagogues in New York was going on. New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good had nothing to say on the subject. They remained silent. Because petty things such as synagogue bombings or Copts being lit on fire are nothing compared to the smell of an infidel's recycled Heineken on a sacred Muslim prayer rug.

When infidels are murdered by Muslims, no one calls for an emergency summit. But when a Muslim prayer rug is pissed upon, everyone had better jump into the Dhimmimobile and denounce that rising wave of hate.

Meanwhile in support of the rugs themselves, J-Street collaborator, Rachel Barenblat of Velveteen Rabbi seized on the chance to promote herself by "passing the hat" and raised over a thousand dollars to replace the urine soaked rugs. At the same time as Rachel was passing the hat for the rugs, five people were murdered in Israel by Muslim terrorists. They left behind six orphans. Rachel Barenblat did not volunteer to "pass the hat" for them, because how can a few Jewish orphans compared to the sacred rugs of the Al-Imam Mosque? She didn't even appear to acknowledge their murders. Unlike the rugs, they were non-people.

And so we are witness to the spectacle of an enlightened post-modern era, in which Jewish liberal clergy have decided that soiled rugs have more personhood than Jewish orphans.

Hate can wear many faces, but tolerance is one of the masks it likes best. Witness he radical left wing members of Rabbis for Human Rights terrorize Jewish farmers in the name of "human rights" or Rabbi David Saperstein warning that we will not tolerate intolerance at a summit called by a front group for one of the most intolerant organizations on the face of the earth. Meanwhile Rachel Barenbalt announced she was going to study the Koran for the High Holidays (inspired by "Rabbi Phyllis Berman" who sits on J Street's Rabbinical Council). That last part isn't a surprise. The only real question is why she would ever bother studying anything else.

Let us turn back for a moment to the scene of the crime. The pissed upon rugs at the Al-Iman Mosque. The tidal wave of urinary Islamophobia threatening to drown all of America's hapless put upon Muslims in hate and violence.

The Egyptian Al-Iman Mosque or the Al-Marwa Center in Queens whose rugs were so horrifyingly bepissed, appears to be a satellite of the Brooklyn Islamic Center, operating mosques and a school as the Al-Iman Center. Here's a sample of some of the tolerant teachings to be found on the Al-Iman website about who's responsible for causing AIDS. If you guessed the Jews, congratulations. You win a nickel.

Already, we find that working together in secret... driving the global media and international organizations under the names and titles made to appear compassionate, while inflicting devastation and destruction for generations in order to get global laws allow adultery and protect homosexuality...

They must be planning something diabolical... And Iblis (Satan) is behind the scenes again ... What we see today did not happen on its own... It is the results of the hellish schemes that do not want young people to be good... to have only oppression and infidelity... It works like this ... It is still the Zionist movement, where it says in its Protocols (Protocols of the Elders of Zion): we must work to break down morality everywhere thus facilitating our control.

For bonus tolerance, their parent, the Brooklyn Islamic Center, was being fundraised for by highlighting the center as a way to drive Jews out of the neighborhood.

Anti-Semitism, Homophobia and Nazi derived conspiracy theories. They've got it all. I wonder if the liberal Jews like Barenblat who "passed the hat" for the Al-Iman mosque and its pissed upon rugs would have raised the money if they knew about this. My suspicion is that indeed they would have. And even more money. The same people who parse every sentence by a Republican to find a hint of intolerance in it, will just shrug and look away at this unwelcome information. "These are not the hateful religious fundamentalists we are looking for."

Because if you peel back the layer on most mosques in America, you will find the very same thing. Islamism, bigotry and hate.

On the eve of WW2, some of Europe's most prominent liberals were demanding tolerance for Germany's growing aggression. Many people know Oswald Mosley as a despicable fascist, far fewer know him as the most progressive member of the British Labour Party, whose solution to Britain's economic problems in the "Mosley Memorandum" consisted of virtually the same collection of "road building projects" and social welfare entitlements now being proposed by the Obama Administration. When Goebbels' The Eternal Jew went to the Venice Film Festival, it wasn't booed loudly by an enlightened audience. Michelangelo Antonioni wrote, "If this is propaganda, then we welcome propaganda. This is an engaging, penetrating, extraordinarily effective film." Antonioni was no Nazi. He was a Marxist.

Today propaganda is widely welcomed as well. So when a drunk pisses on a Muslim prayer rug, it certainly is welcome propaganda for those who are driven to cover up Muslim violence against Jews, Hindus, Christians and many others. Just as when Israeli soldiers fire in self-defense against attackers trying to murder them, that too is welcome propaganda for those whose sympathies lie with their attackers. In one breath we are told that the victims of September 11 have no right to their sensitivities about the Ground Zero Mosque, and in another we are told that burning the Koran offends Muslim sensitivities and is a crime. Had four Jews or Christians tried to blow up mosques, we would have never heard the end of it. But when four Muslims plot to blow up synagogues, it's unwelcome news. The report is hushed like a noisy patron in a theater. "Be quiet, don't you know this isn't the movie we want to see."

The Nazis would have understood the sentiment that a Muslim prayer rug is worth more than the lives of five Jews. It is a point of view that they hold themselves. The Hebron Massacre happened when Muslims were offended by the Jewish claim to the site of the Jewish temple. And naturally they reacted as groups that fancy themselves superior to the "descendants of pigs and monkeys" usually do. With a massacre that featured horrifying acts of brutality, rape, castration and mutilation. Some of the victims were left to die in a bank or in homes, while Muslim children followed after, sticking them with knives to see if any needed finishing off. Ask a liberal about the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and you get a blank stare. Ask them about Deir Yassin and you get vile enthusiasm.

Reading the liberal press, you come away with a strange view of the world that is as alien as anything that German newspapers could have turned out in the 30's. As Americans remembered 3,000 people killed by Muslim terrorists, the newspapers screech on about Islamophobia because of a drunken stabbing and a drunken act of public urination. One could just as easily have unfurled a copy of Der Sturmer to learn that millions of Jews had to die because Horst Wessel had been killed by his girlfriend's pimp. Like the mythical Polish soldiers about to stream over the border, we are barraged with propaganda about the rising threat of Islamophobia. Any moment now those Polish soldiers will be crossing the border to torch mosques and slash innocent Muslim cabbies. Even if we have to pluck up a drunk pissing on a rug as our Gleiwitz Incident.

After 9/11, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Imam who had counseled the 9/11 hijackers and is now a wanted member of Al Queda with a kill order on his head, led services for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association. Today while Al-Awlaki is on the run, liberal organizations led by the ACLU fight to remove the kill order, in cooperation with Al-Awlaki's father whose tribe is allied with Al Queda in Yemen. It puts one in mind of American Anti-War activists who were members of Communist front groups agitating against war with Nazi Germany, during the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and war with Soviet Russia, after WW2. They claimed their activism was in support of peace for all mankind, not in support of Hitler and Stalin. But of course the only ones who benefited from their activism were Hitler and Stalin. Today liberal groups and activists insist that they're not working to support terrorists, even when they're fighting to free them from American prisons.

It wasn't about peace or tolerance then, it's not about peace and tolerance now. One-sided peace and one-sided tolerance are lies. Part of the pretty mask that hate wears to justify its atrocities. The appeal of the mosque, like the appeal of the Nazi parade, has little to do with tolerance, and a great deal to do with the appeal of the id, the violent undercurrent of senseless brutality churning underneath. And at its side, those who profess peace and tolerance, hiding their own hate behind phony sanctimonious smiles.

This is not about peace or tolerance, or pissed on rugs. It's about feeding hate under the guise of tolerance. It is about persecution in the guise of activism. Rabbi David Saperstein signs on to a statement from an organization with ties to Muslim terrorists who have murdered countless Jews, and then primps self-righteously and proclaims; "We know what it is like when people have attacked us physically, have attacked us verbally, and others have remained silent. It cannot happen here in America in 2010." But it is happening here in America. In 2010. And all over the world. With the aid and abetting of people like Saperstein, who help and promote the very people who are attacking us physically and verbally. Who are bombing our synagogues, murdering our families and spreading hate against us. And then Barenlat, and those like her go on and pass the hat for people who promote the idea that an International Jewish Conspiracy is spreading AIDS.

Kill as many Jews as you want, but never piss on a Muslim's sacred rug. Truly, Islamophilia has become the new Anti-Semitism.

(If you like would to donate to the orphans, rather than the rugs, visit the One Family Fund website at https://secure.onefamilyfund.org/.)

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 4, 2010.

Published today (updated) 03/10/2010 21:58 Amman,

Jordan (Ma'an) — Jordan issued over 51,000 temporary passports to Palestinians in 2010, the head of Jordan's Passport and Civil Affairs department told Ma'an on Sunday.

Marwan Qteishat said 31,961 passports were issued to Palestinians from the West Bank, and 20,622 passports and 9,000 temporary residency cards for Gaza Strip residents.

The official said Jordan has been "giving facilitation" since 1948 to enable Palestinians traveling to Saudi Arabia for the Muslim pilgrimage of Hajj, in order to pass easily through the kingdom, adding that "Jordan treats the

West Bank and the Gaza Strip residents equally depending on the historic national relationship between Jordan and Palestine."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, October 4, 2010.

Dear People:

We are the SC4Z; we asked Jennifer Mizrahi, the founder of the organization doing business as "The Israel Project," some straightforward questions. Our questions are below, under the heading "What are you really advocating?"

We thought you would be interested to know how Jennifer dodged our questions and merely stated: "We support the democratically elected government of Israel and the 7 million citizens of it."

We say: Hmmmmmmmm. Wasn't Hitler "democratically elected"? And Hamas, too? We wonder why The Israel Project won't touch on the issues we raised.

Ms. Mizrahi's reply to SC4Z:

From: "Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi" Date: October 4, 2010 2:43:46 AM PDT
To: Subject: RE: What are you really advocating?

We support the democratically elected government of Israel and the 7 million citizens off it.


--Original Message-----

From: lademain@verizon.net [mailto:lademain@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:56 AM
To: Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
Subject: What are you really advocating?

Dear Jennifer:

Simple question. Do you advocate carving a new Islamic-arab out of the already diminished lands allocated to Israel?

Did you read Prof. Howard Grief's treatise on international law establishing the boundaries of Israel last century?

Do you support peace at any price?

We agree, war is hell. But war against fascism is necessary because fascism is worse than hell. And believing that radical Islam isn't fascism is in our opinion akin to living in fantasy-land.

We saw that a big smile and long locks and a fine complexion didn't stop Hitler from slaughtering women if they were Jews and the same can be said about radical muslims who see themselves as good Muslims because they want to and will kill pretty Jews, especially if they are pregnant.

We are not afraid to oppose the arabs who claim they are palestinians. We are opposed to arabs who re-invented themselves as "palestinians" because this is their ploy and it is dishonest to the core. We are dismayed by Jews who fail to respect the rights of the Jews who were born for centuries in the lands referred to as Palestine. These Jews forgot, or rather don't seem to want to remember that Palestine was once known as the Jewish Homeland. The invading arabs were quick to pick up on this gaffe.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we support the Patriots of Israel who are battling to save their entire homeland, not just the parts of it some New York Jews think they should be satisfied with.

We approve of your opposition to J Street and the dishonest, corrupt Goldstone Report. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 4, 2010.

To all those who wrote to me with words of enthusiasm because of the sermon EHR KUMT that I put out last week: You are most welcome and I'm delighted to see this material shared.


The "other shoe" I'm referring to is the end result of the whole business of extending the freeze, or part of the freeze, or whatever, so that face-to-face negotiations might continue. There is the sense that where we sit now is not the end of it all. (In the vernacular, "waiting for the other shoe to drop" means having heard one shoe hit the floor as its wearer pulled it off, and knowing that there has to be another shoe yet to come.)

I put a question mark after it because I'm not entirely sure there will be another shoe, although it's clear that Obama is not finished pushing and will not let go easily.

Last week, after the news broke about the Obama letter intended to entice Netanyahu into a 60-day extension of the freeze (the letter that Obama denies having written), there was a deluge of reports and analyses, replete with the usual quota of rumors and speculations.

It would be unwise to even try to share all of it here, but it is perhaps valuable to touch a few bases:

What caught my eye was a report from Ben Caspit and Eli Bardenstein, writing (originally in Hebrew) in YNet:

"Alongside a letter to Israel, President Obama sent a letter to Mahmoud Abbas promising that if the Palestinians continued with the direct peace talks, the U.S., and Obama personally, would pledge to support the establishment of a Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 lines [the 1949 armistice lines] with land swaps."

At this point, the word "duplicitous" comes to mind. Earlier reports had indicated that this is something he was threatening to do if we didn't freeze. But it seems he didn't wait for Israel's answer, and is quite content to offer whatever he imagines will be enticing — as long as he gets everyone to the table before elections next month. As Barry Rubin has pointed out, for example, Obama offered in his Israel letter to allow the IDF to remain in the Jordan Valley, for security reasons, after a state is formed — but this is a vacuous promise because it's a given that the PA would balk and there is no expectation that Obama would actually push the issue.


Several people ventured guesses as to why Netanyahu was refusing the offer made in Obama's letter.

There is the thought that Netanyahu is holding tight because he won't break his pledge to the people — but I would call this the weakest of the speculations.

Several commentators have observed that Netanyahu's position is that there were supposed to be reciprocal actions that have not been forthcoming; that the Palestinians wasted nine months after the freeze started by not opening direct talks; and that the focus on settlements is excessive, when far greater issues must be dealt with. All are valid arguments, and all have been advanced by Netanyahu.

However, what is also clear is that Netanyahu is constrained by fear of a breakdown of his coalition. (More on this.)


A couple of very reputable analysts pointed a finger at Obama.

Evelyn Gordon, writing in Commentary, observed that "Obama's Repudiation of Promises to Israel Comes Back to Haunt Him."

Whatever excuses Netanyahu has given for not renewing the freeze, she says, "the real reason is too undiplomatic to state publicly: Obama, by his own actions, has shown he views presidential promises as made to be broken. And Israel's government is loath to incur the real damage of extending the freeze...in exchange for promises that will be conveniently forgotten when they come due.

"Israel, after all, received its last presidential promise just six years ago, in exchange for leaving Gaza. In writing George W. Bush said the Palestinian Authority must end incitement and terror, voiced support for Israel "as a Jewish state," vowed to 'strengthen Israel's capability' to defend itself, and said any Israeli-Palestinian deal should leave Israel with the settlement blocs and 'defensible borders"'and resettle Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian state rather than Israel. He also promised orally that Israel could continue building in the settlement blocs.

"But when Obama took office, he denied the oral pledge's very existence, infuriating even Israeli leftists. As Haaretz's Aluf Benn wrote, it was possible to argue the policy should change, 'but not to lie.' "And while Obama hasn't denied the written document's existence, he's nullified it de facto through his every word and action: he's never challenged PA incitement; he's advocated the indefensible pre-1967 borders, including in East Jerusalem (where he bullied Israel into halting construction even in huge Jewish neighborhoods that will clearly remain Israeli under any deal); he hasn't publicly demanded that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state or said the refugees can't be resettled in Israel; and far from strengthening Israel's defensive capabilities, he's condemned Israel's enforcement of an arms blockade on Hamas-run Gaza, bullied Israel into accepting a UN probe of its raid on a blockade-busting flotilla, imposed unprecedented restrictions on Israel's purchase of F-35 fighters, and more..."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/366341

While Martin Peretz pointed out in The New Republic that "Obama Made The Construction Moratorium The Issue That It Is. Now the Palestinians Are Stuck With It. And So Is He."


It is Barry Rubin, however, who most effectively poked holes in the Obama offer.

First, he says, Netanyahu's coalition is not in favor of continuing the freeze, and the sort of enticements Obama is making are not going to change the minds of those opposed. Sort of makes it all moot.

But there is more:

Obama has said that all that was being asked is a two-month freeze, and that the administration would not seek a further extension after that. Asks Rubin: "Why two months, why not three or four? Why not two weeks?

"Hmm, readers, what is happening within two months? The U.S. election! The implication is that the Obama Administration is offering Israel the following basic deal: Make us look good until the vote and we will give you a pay-off.

"That's it. Because the only alternative view is that the United States believes that the once-every-two-week talks will make such dramatic progress in two months that both Israel and the Palestinians will be on the verge of peace or an end to the freeze won't matter.

"Is that credible? No...

"The Obama Administration cannot bash Israel between now and the elections but it might seek to get revenge in 2011."
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama- administration-tells-israel-make.html?utm_source=f eedburner&utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Rubinreports+ %28RubinReports%29


And where are we now?

On Saturday, Abbas met with the Executive Committee of the PLO, and they told him there should be no talks until settlement construction is frozen. Yesterday, Abbas declared that the talks were on hold.

If only this were the end of the story...

Word coming out from the Israeli government is that all sorts of compromises are being explored in communication with the US administration, in order to find a way out of this impasse.

Oi! The other shoe slips a bit lower.

However, political wisdom here has it that not only is 54% of the Israeli public against an additional freeze (according to a Dahaf Institute poll), but neither does Netanyahu have support for a freeze in his full Cabinet (with 15 out of 30 opposed, and 7 undecided, according to Yidiot Ahronot) or in the security Cabinet (with eight of 15 opposed), or the Septet (with four out of seven opposed).

Cabinet members who are mentioned as having come out publicly as opposed include finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, and Communications Minister Moshe Kahlon. Others who have not gone public but are presumed to be opposed include Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon and Minister without Portfolio Benny Begin. I would guess that Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom is opposed; and clearly Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is. On it goes.

If our prime minister's back stays strong, it will be because of others standing behind him, lending that critical support.

Undoubtedly he has noticed that the Dahaf poll mentioned above also indicates that if elections were held today, Labor would go from 13 seats to six. Doesn't do much for Defense Minister Ehud Barak's standing.


Abbas still plans to meet with the Arab League in a few days. I confess to a bit of confusion here, however: technically, at least, our negotiations are with the PLO. If this group has declared a halt if we build, I'm not sure how Abbas could proceed even if the League gave him a go-ahead.


While we are still on hold, there are other analyses worth looking at:

Prime Minister Netanyahu has insisted in the course of talk about a Palestinian state, that for sake of the security of Israel, such a state would have to be demilitarized.

Louis Rene Beres, an expert in international law, warns us — in "Why A Palestinian State Would Never Be 'Demilitarized'" — that this is not likely to be possible.

"Any rejection of demilitarization, he says, "could find fully authoritative support in pertinent international treaties."

What is more, "There are hidden and very significant dangers to demilitarization. This is because the grave threat to Israel of any Palestinian state would lie not only in the presence or absence of a particular national armed force, but also in the many other enemy armies and insurgents that would inevitably compete for power in the new and fragile Arab country.

In addition, "There is another less obvious reason why a demilitarized Palestine would present Israel with a substantial security threat: International law would not necessarily expect Palestinian compliance with pre-state agreements concerning armed force. As a new state, Palestine might not be bound by any pre-independence contracts, even if these agreements had included certain U.S.guarantees to Israel.

The lesson: avoid a Palestinian state.


Khaled Abu Toameh has written a piece for Hudson NY entitled, "Ask the Arabs of East Jerusalem: Should Jerusalem Be Redivided?"

The answer, of course, is that a majority of the Arabs living in eastern Jerusalem wouldn't want the city re-divided (i.e., as it was from 1948-67). Many of the reasons given are predictable:

"Most Arabs in the city prefer to live under Israeli rule for a number of reasons. First, because as holders of Israeli ID cards they are entitled to many rights and privileges that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip don't enjoy. They include freedom of movement and social, economic, health and education services that Israeli citizens are entitled to.

"Redividing Jerusalem means bringing either the Palestinian Authority of Hamas into the city. The Arab residents of Jerusalem have seen what happened in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the past 16 years and are not keen to live under a corrupt authority or a radical Islamist entity.

"Over the past few years, many Arab residents of the city who used to live in the West Bank have abandoned their homes and returned to Jerusalem. They did so mainly out of fear of losing their rights and privileges as holders of Israeli ID cards.

"But many of them also ran away from the West Bank because they did not want to live in territories controlled by militiamen, armed gangs and corrupt leaders and institutions."

But there are other reasons given by Abu Toameh that would impinge upon all of the residents of the city, and these are reasons that we should pay close attention to. They argue against division of the city no matter what:

"Both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators need to take into account that it's completely unrealistic to talk about restoring the pre-1967 situation where Jerusalem was divided into two cities.

"The division was bad for Jews and Arabs back then and it will be worse if it happens once again.

"Jerusalem is a very small city where Jews and Arabs live across the street from each other and on top of each other. Since 1967, Israel has built many new neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city, rendering it impossible to imagine a reality where Jerusalem would exist as a divided city.

"Redividing Jerusalem will turn the lives of both Jews and Arabs into a nightmare, especially with regards to traffic arrangements. Every day, tens of thousands of Jews and Arabs commute between the two parts of the city freely.

"Redividing Jerusalem will result in the establishment of checkpoints and border crossings inside many parts of the city. Jews and Arabs will find themselves confined to their homes and neighborhoods, which will be surrounded by security barriers and checkpoints."

Abu Toameh says, additionally, that:

"Those who think that Jerusalem can be split into two are living in an illusion and clearly do not know what they are talking about. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, like most Palestinians, is aware of this reality. However, that is not going to stop him and others from continuing to demand that eastern Jerusalem become the capital of a Palestinian state."
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1575/ jerusalem-redivided


Now this is something to bring to your elected representatives in Congress. Provide the URL, give brief and salient facts, and ask why your government is supporting a policy that isn't workable.

For your Congresspersons:
http://www.house.gov/house/ MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

For your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm


"The Good News Corner"

Tomorrow Israel Aircraft will unveil the Panther, a new type of UAV that can lift off and land like a helicopter.

Panther UAV takes off like helicopterf


This Thursday a mass rally entitled "For the truth, for Israel" will be held in Rome. It has been organized by Fiamma Nirenstein — who is a journalist, a member of the Italian Parliament, and MP, and vice president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Italian Chamber of Deputies — in cooperation with other leading European figures.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 4, 2010.

This was written by Geert Wilders, who is a Member of Parliament in The Netherlands, 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.


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.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know; it is so very important.

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 Ted Belman, October 3, 2010.

With all the talk about the freeze, announced or de facto, I decided to write an article on the genesis of the freeze thinking it began with the Mitchell Report in the early nineties. Prof Barry Rubin set me straight and advised that in 1993 Israel agreed or at least announced, a freeze. She would not build new settlements but would do infilling of existing settlements.

My research led me to this very important resource, Statements on American Policy toward Settlements by U.S. Government Officials — 1968-2009


The policy of all Israeli governments since 1967 of settling Israeli citizens in the territories Israel occupied in the 1967 war is regarded by most governments as a violation of international law defined by the "Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." In 2004, the International Court of Justice confirmed this in an advisory opinion. The United States supported the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the unlawful character of settlements until February 1981 when President Ronald Reagan disavowed this policy by asserting that settlements are "not illegal."

President Reagan's policy has been sustained, implicitly, by subsequent U.S. administrations, all of whom have declined to address the legal issue, although they have all opposed, with varying emphasis, settlements or settlement expansion. However, on April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, in a further retreat from past policy, told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..."

I presented the truth about the occupation and the settlements in an article in which I concluded that the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) does not apply and even if it did, there was nothing to prevent Jews from voluntarily settling in the "occupied territories". Today Yaalon agreed

The first statement of the US government on the matter came in April 8, 1968

The Johnson Administration

"Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question.

You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol's Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

September 10, 1968

"Arab governments must convince Israel and the world community that they have abandoned the idea of destroying Israel. But equally, Israel must persuade its Arab neighbors and the world community that Israel has no expansionist designs on their territory."

Already the US government took the position that the FGC applied and that the West Bank was Arab territory; both dubious propositions.

The Nixon Administration, July 1, 1969

The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property.

The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.

"My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. ..."

Thus the US has consistently refused to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

This position with the exception of the Reagan recalibration and the Bush '04 letter, mentioned above, continued until today.

What drove the US policy from the beginning was the desire to prevent anything which would "prejuudice the search for peace". This search for peace started with the assumption that the territories were Arab lands and not disputed lands as Israel from time to time asserted. Obviously they were serving Arab interests.

This is the reason that Israel never asserts her rights to the land. She doesn't have any in the eyes of the world. She is left to only claim concessions in the name of security. Through out most of the time since the '67 war, Israel has accepted the American limitations on settlements and simply looked for wiggle room.

Israel has always taken the position that the FGC does not apply and that she would voluntarily be ruled by its humanitarian provisions. Were Israel to have accepted that it applied, she would in effect have accepted that the territories were lands of another party. This she wouldn't do. Nevertheless she never asserts her rights to them.

Why not? By agreeing to construction limitations for almost thirty years, she was acknowledging that she wasn't entitled to build.

Today the whole thing is so bizarre. Israel claims the right to build but only within the limitations that she originally accepted. The issue is whether she is entitled to build anywhere. By not exercising her right to build anywhere she has forfeited that right has she not.

Actually the problem goes back to Res 242. Why did Israel ever agree to withdraw to "secure and recognized borders" after the preamble to the resolution cited "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". I believe there is an exception to this rule, namely that if you acquire territory in a defensive war, you can keep it.

In any event the Roadmap requires the settlement to be in accordance with Res 242 at best and the Saudi Paln at worst.

So I ask you, re the territories disputed or not. I believe that Israel has relinquied its rights to Judea and Samaria granted in the Palestine Mandate. But I am also happy that Min Yaalon is trying to reclaim that right.

It is time for the government of Israel to start assesting our Mandate rights to Judea and Samaria as Min Yaalon just did. It is not too late to reject Res 242 as the basis of settlement.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Tom McLaughlin, October 3, 2010.

Tom write, "This is my favorite shade of red in geraniums. It's rich. My wife saves these each fall — brings them inside for the winter and puts them back out."

Tom McLaughlin is a teacher and columnist who lives in Lovell, Maine. His column is published in Maine and New Hampshire newspapers. Email: tommclaughlin@fairpoint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, October 3, 2010.

Some years ago, posing as a supporter of the PLO, I infiltrated an Arab anti-Israel meeting held in a room above a London pub. There were mostly Arabs present with a sprinkling of non-Arabs, mostly local Brits.

Among the Brits was a man who told the audience that he was also a Jew and hated Israel. His self-loathing was limited to his Jewish ancestry, for he displayed no lack of modesty as he stood up and spewed hate against his own people and hostility towards the increasingly embattled Jewish state.

But in all the bile that fell from his lips, he revealed a total lack of knowledge about Judaism and Jewish history — certainly he exhibited no understanding of the rebirth of Israel in its ancestral and biblical homeland or of the immense odds of its survival in the face of enormous Arab and Muslim aggression. His trope was merely to echo the fashionable Arab and pro-Arab propaganda of "the poor Arabs and the nasty Israelis."

All he seemed to want to do was ingratiate himself with those Arabs in the misguided belief that they would award him with what he personally lacked in his own sad life: fame and name recognition. If he could achieve that by denigrating and abusing the people from whom he sprung, then so be it. For him, the means justified the ends. What he did not realize was that the Arabs looked upon him with no respect; rather, they treated him with contempt, using him as a useful idiot.

I thought of him when I considered the U.K. pro-Palestinian group of Jews — overwhelmingly leftists — who attempted to sail to Gaza from the Turkish-occupied north of Cyprus in order to bring aid and comfort to the Hamas occupiers of the Gaza Strip.

Among the left-wing British Jews was one Yonatan Shapira, who defaced a wall near the Warsaw Ghetto monument with a slogan describing the Arabs in Gaza as suffering like the Polish Jews in the ghetto. However, unlike the Arabs in Gaza, the Jews were slaughtered, and the few survivors gassed, during the Holocaust.

Before boarding the yacht, the Israeli Navy transmitted two warnings to the boat, which refused to turn back and sailed farther into the blockade area. According to the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Andy David called the left-wing Jews' claim to be bringing aid to Gaza "ridiculous" and labeled the voyage "a politically motivated provocation."

Emanuele Ottolenghi, in a commentary, said, "There is a certain irony in the fact that a boat full of "Jews for Justice for Palestinians" set sail for Gaza from Northern Cyprus.

Northern Cyprus is an illegally occupied territory that belongs to EU-member Cyprus, seized by force in 1974 by the Turkish army. Its legal status as a fictionally independent state is only recognized by Turkey. The Turkish military forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of ethnic Greeks from that territory and settled its own population to permanently alter the ethnic balance of the area.

And this arrival of "The Ship of Fools" occurred even as Hamas thugs shot yet another nine-month pregnant Jewish woman in Judea and continue firing lethal missiles from Gaza into Israeli villages and towns. Thankfully, unlike the poor pregnant woman and four other Jewish civilians who were slaughtered two weeks earlier in Judea by Hamas gunmen, she survived and gave birth to a healthy baby after a c-section.

I also thought of the man in the room above the London pub when I recently read that an Israeli self-hater, Professor Illan Pappe, was visiting India in order to demonize Israel and encourage a boycott by Indians of the Jewish state.

Professor Pappe, well-known as an extreme leftist and one of a handful of Israeli professors who support an academic boycott of Israel, criticized the Arab world for "not doing anything" against Israel. In view of the decade's long history of barbaric terrorism perpetrated by Arabs against Israeli civilians, this was an oxymoronic statement if ever there was one.

Another speaker at the event in India was Richard Falk, formerly the United Nations Human Rights Council envoy to Gaza and to Judea and Samaria (or what most of the world calls by its Jordanian Arab name, the West Bank).

During his term with the grotesquely misnamed U.N. Human Rights Council, Falk was the envoy for this despicable organization, one made up of the most egregious rogue states on earth and worst human rights abusers. This committee spends all its time ignoring the horrors perpetrated by its own members and concentrates solely and obsessively on heaping slanders and falsehoods upon Israel.

Falk, yet another Jewish self-hater, had no conscience in condemning Israel for such actions as dismantling illegally built Arab structures in Jerusalem and deporting four senior Hamas terrorists from the city. Indeed, Israeli officials criticized Falk as "redundant at best and malicious at worst" and accused him of lacking any objectivity.

Predictably, this same Falk had no condemnation for the Muslim terrorist attack in Mumbai in 2008, during which the terrorists deliberately attacked Chabad House and cruelly murdered eight Jews, including a rabbi and his young wife.

I mention this only because it reveals the depths of the pathological sickness the Jewish self-haters are consumed by. But we have to understand that this is not something new that has existed only since Israel was reconstituted in 1948 in its ancient homeland.

For centuries, since the destruction of Jewish Judea in 70 AD and the second uprising against the Roman Empire, which lasted from 132 to 135AD, the Jews were stateless, seeking refuge wherever they could find it within Christendom and the Islamic world.

The relentless persecution of the stateless Jews during the following nineteen hundred years or so led to some individuals wishing to shake off the crushing burden. Unlike the vast majority of Jews who endured endless torment, often through martyrdom, a few sought to evade it by converting or, in many instances, aiding and abetting the very persecutors of their fellow Jews.

Like the man in the room above the London pub, they sought to ingratiate themselves, but, again like him, they were considered "useful idiots."

In this last year of the first decade of the 21st century, it seems that there is an endless procession of such secular, left-wing men and women who spring from the Jewish people but who know very little if anything about their faith and history. I call them the un-Jews.

These people are from mostly the higher strata of society: academics, writers, musicians, the intelligentsia, etc. But the glue that binds them is their total ignorance and arrogance. They are drawn overwhelmingly from the Left — a spurious and problematic home from which venomous attacks upon Israel routinely emanate.

Again these un-Jews feel compelled to find acceptance in this Theater of the Absurd that is known as the Left. The un-Jews thus, yet again and again, seek to ingratiate themselves with their non-Jewish cronies by railing against only the Jewish state — ignoring all the horrors of the Sudan, of Iran, and of the despotic Arab and Muslim world. They care not for the disinherited Tibetan people who live under Chinese occupation. They care not for the Serbian people who see their own ancestral heartland of Kosovo snatched from them by Muslims.

Only the struggle by Israel, the one and only beleaguered Jewish state, attempting against great odds to survive and seek its own self-determination in a hostile world, inspires within the un-Jew such demented loathing.

It is the vile behavior of the un-Jews towards Israel that allows the non-Jewish anti-Semites to be open about their own deep-seated pathology and bigotry. After all, they can say with equanimity, Jews themselves are criticizing Israel, so that gives us a free pass to libel the Jewish state and support the Muslims and Arabs in their genocide against the Jews. You can find a list of these miscreants, these un-Jews, in an article by David Solway in Front Page.

Writer Ruth Wisse describes how the liberals and leftists are undermining the Jewish people's own liberation and self-determination movement, Zionism — the return to Zion and Jerusalem, words which are synonymous with each other. Her extraordinary book, a must-read, is titled The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.

Michael Savage, the conservative talk show host, aptly describes liberalism as a "mental disorder." The un-Jews who endlessly spew their venom against their own people are at the forefront of creating organizations that are patently one-sided shills for the Arab and Muslim terror and genocide machine.

Such organizations are readily transparent by their names, which always include words such as "justice" and "peace." These once-precious words have been bastardized by the leftist and peacenik organizations — home to so many of the un-Jews. Now those two words, epitomizing the higher ideals of humanity, have become bitter ashes in the mouth.

What is most egregiously and lamentably insulting is how the un-Jews claim to espouse authentic Jewish ethics and morality. They do not. They exhibit a devastating ignorance and profound shallowness of what Judaism teaches. Their breathtaking ignorance misrepresents the divinely inspired Jewish ideals and love of life, which is in such stark contrast to the Muslim worship of death.

Yet the un-Jews would willingly see Israel destroyed. They would then march into the unparalleled darkness of Sharia law and dhimmitude. They are a plague unto themselves.

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of volumes One and Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, October 3, 2010.

Contents of a White House letter have been published saying what the Obama Administration will offer Israel if it extends the moratorium on building inside West Bank settlements for two months. The specific proposals reveal again how the White House doesn't seem to understand the situation, or perhaps is thinking of something other than the Israel-Palestinian peace process.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't continue the freeze because there isn't enough support in his coalition for doing so. Thus, minor U.S. offers don't change that fact in any way. Moreover, the main underlying problem is lack of confidence that the Palestinian Authority (PA) wants peace with Israel, is willing to compromise, or will implement commitments in future. As you read this, keep in mind all of the problems I've written about which Israel must keep in mind in making any peace agreement.

When we consider the specifics, then, the U.S. offer isn 't relevant. But there are more problems:

First, the administration offers not to seek an extension of a two-month freeze. Why two months, why not three or four? Why not two weeks?

Hmm, readers, what is happening within two months? The U.S. election! The implication is that the Obama Administration is offering Israel the following basic deal: Make us look good until the vote and we will give you a pay-off.

That's it. Because the only alternative view is that the United States believes that the once-every-two-week talks will make such dramatic progress in two months that both Israel and the Palestinians will be on the verge of peace or an end to the freeze won't matter.

Is that credible? No. And so when press reports say that the White House is angry that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the offer we can well understand why this is so. The U.S. government certainly isn't going to pressure the PA to give in, which is the other alternative. The collapse of the peace talks on the verge of the November elections won't make it look good. But if the PA walks out in December won't matter in terms of American politics.

The Obama Administration cannot bash Israel between now and the elections but it might seek to get revenge in 2011.

Back to the U.S. offer. Second, the United States offers to support measures to prevent the smuggling of weapons and terrorists into Israel after a Palestinian state is established. This is interpreted as allowing for Israeli forces to stay in the Jordan valley and guard the border with Jordan for several years.

This is nice but Israel knows that the PA would never agree to this idea and that the U.S. government isn't going to do a lot of arm twisting to get it to change its position. Moreover, while Israeli leaders in the past have spoken about maintaining a security zone with Jordan, that was always linked with holding on to the Jordan Valley's territory. The U.S. proposed temproary idea would set up a situation in which an isolated Israeli force would be subject to attack by terrorists on a regular basis, with international condemnation when it had to intercept or kill terrorists.

While not exactly the same thing, the United States and the "international community" promised to stop cross-border weapons' smuggling into Lebanon in 2006 and four years later not a single weapon has been intercepted. True, in this case Israeli troops would be doing the work but the skepticism of their getting international support remains.

Third, the letter promises the U.S. government would veto any UN Security Council resolution against Israel for the next year. This is insulting. Historically, the United States has watered-down, blocked, or vetoed such resolutions. So this "concession" in fact takes back a previous policy. It signals to Israeli leaders that the current administration isn't exactly reliable. And, of course, it suggests that after the year is over Washington will not veto such resolutions, a big step backward.

Fourth, the administration pledges to talk with Israel and Arab states about a, "regional security architecture." Wow, that can be expected to yield precisely...zero.

And finally, the United States will sell more weapons to Israel after there is a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state. Well, that's pretty obvious, isn't it? Again, suggesting that this would happen if Israel freezes construction for two months also simultaneously suggests that it won't happen otherwise. Like the veto point, it actually withdraws something Israel was previously expecting.

According to media reports, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu politely pointed out that when the United States originally demanded the freeze it promised that it would secure concessions from Arab states. This didn't happen. It also promised that the Palestinians would be responsive and fulfill their commitments. That didn't happen either. Indeed, I should point out, they refused to negotiate until the last minute and then did so mainly to get the freeze extended still further without any concession or advancing the negotiations on their part.

Netanyahu's right. But it isn't his job to point out what I'm telling you couldn't be more obvious: this is a deal motivated by domestic political benefit for the administration, not the strategic interests of the United States or the cause of peace.

PS: The Obama Administration denies there was an official letter or that a letter was sent to Netanyahu. Of course! This is a standard diplomatic lie. It was a draft letter, that would only have been sent officially if Netanyahu had agreed. So it wasn't sent officially, that is, the administration can deny that there was an official letter or that anything was officially sent. But my article above is completely accurate.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by BenAmi, October 2, 2010.

This was written by P. David Hornik, a writer and translator in Beersheva, Israel, blogging at PDavidHornik.typepad.com.


Not surprisingly, Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman's speech to the UN General Assembly this week drew condemnations, with Palestinian delegates walking out on the speech.

Israel's left-wing daily Haaretz ran an article claiming U.S. Jews were "outraged." It quotes extreme-dovish activist Seymour Reich as saying, "If Lieberman can't keep his personal opinions to himself, he ought to resign from the cabinet," and an unnamed "leader" as saying, "Every time...Lieberman voices his skepticism about achieving peace, he undermines Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's credibility."

In Israel, among prominent commentators denouncing the speech was Ron Ben-Yishai in Yediot Aharonot, the country's largest daily. In a piece called "Time to Fire Lieberman," Ben-Yishai, who usually writes on military affairs and is often quite reality-cognizant, bitterly accused Lieberman of showing "chutzpah and contempt" toward Netanyahu, "undermin[ing] Israel's image as a democratic, enlightened state," and "grant[ing] a diplomatic victory" to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.

Ministers from the left-of-center Labor Party — part of Netanyahu's coalition — also skewered the speech.

Now, what did Lieberman actually say? A perusal of the short address reveals nothing morally or intellectually objectionable.

After the opening pleasantries, Lieberman asked: "why, during the seventeen years since we signed the Oslo Accords, have we not arrived at a comprehensive agreement signifying the end of the conflict [with the Palestinians]?"

He went on to contest "the prevalent view that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the heart of the instability in the Middle East," noting that:

More than ninety percent of the wars and war victims of the [region] since the Second World War did not result from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are in no way connected to Israel, stemming rather, from conflicts involving Muslims or conflicts between Arab states. The Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war, the wars between North and South Yemen, the Hamma atrocities in Syria, and the wars in Algeria and Lebanon, are just a few examples of a list that goes on and on.

Anything wrong there? Nope; I could have said it myself.

Lieberman then turned to the "second flawed explanation" for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, namely, "the so-called 'occupation,' the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the settlers themselves." He pointed out:

Firstly, all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were under Arab control for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967. During these 19 years, no one tried to create a Palestinian state.

Peace agreements were achieved with Egypt and Jordan despite the presence of settlements. And the opposite is also true: we evacuated twenty-one flourishing settlements in Gush Katif [in Gaza], and we transferred more than 10,000 Jews and in return, we have Hamas in power and thousands of missiles on Sderot and southern Israel.

Again, all quite accurate.

Lieberman went on:

The other misguided argument is the claim that the Palestinian issue prevents a determined international front against Iran.... In truth, the connection between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is precisely reversed. Iran can exist without Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, but the terrorist organizations cannot exist without Iran.... [I]n searching for a durable agreement with the Palestinians...one must understand that first, the Iranian issue must be resolved....

Adding that "this is not a sufficient condition [but] it is nevertheless a necessary one," Lieberman was again spot-on.

He then came to some remarks that indeed diverge from Netanyahu's — recently — stated positions. Referring to the conflict's underlying "emotional problems" such as the "utter lack of confidence between the sides," Lieberman said:

[W]e should focus on coming up with a long-term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades. We need to raise an entire new generation that will have mutual trust and will not be influenced by incitement and extremist messages.

As is true everywhere, where there are two nations, two religions and two languages with competing claims to the same land, there is friction and conflict. Countless examples...confirm this, whether in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Africa, the Far East or the Middle East. Where effective separation has been achieved, conflict has either been avoided, or has been dramatically reduced or resolved. Consider the cases of the former Yugoslav republics, the split-up of Czechoslovakia and the independence of East Timor....

Thus, the guiding principle for a final status agreement must not be land-for-peace but rather, exchange of populated territory. Let me be very clear: I am not speaking about moving populations, but rather about moving borders to better reflect demographic realities.

...This is not an extraordinary insight [nor] a controversial political policy. It is an empirical truth.

Again, this is reasonable thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both well grounded and out-of-the-box. It's inconsistent with what Netanyahu has lately been saying in two regards: the prime minister's declared optimism that an agreement with the Palestinians can be reached within a year; and his seeming acceptance of the dominant land-for-peace paradigm now considered (wrongly) to be based on the 1967 borders.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu's reaction to his subordinate's talk was mild. His office stated that Lieberman's address was not coordinated with him, and that "the prime minister is the one who is heading the negotiations on behalf of the State of Israel. Issues related to the peace process will be discussed and decided on at the negotiation table, not anywhere else."

It was a distancing but not a repudiation, and the question is why. One thing to point out is that Lieberman is not from Netanyahu's Likud Party but, instead, the leader of his own Yisrael Beiteinu faction. As such, in Israel's parliamentary system, Lieberman's independence of Netanyahu could be seen as less jarring. This is, however, a nicety that may not be appreciated abroad.

Also to be mentioned is Netanyahu's wish to avoid rocking the boat of his so-far stable coalition. So is the need to project that he's in charge, hence not react too sharply to Lieberman's seeming defiance.

But there may be another factor at play as well.

Few observers believe Netanyahu is actually a convert to Pollyannaish views of Israel's conflict with its environment. More likely, his approach to the Palestinian issue is aimed at managing the relentless pressure from a U.S. president for whom it's an obsession, and who in his own recent UN speech devoted ten paragraphs to it compared to two paragraphs for international terror and two for the Iranian threat.

It could well be that for Netanyahu, too, Lieberman's words were a breath of fresh air. Someone needs to tell the truth.  

Contact Benami at farmer@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, October 2, 2010.

The Head of the UN, Ban Moon, wants Israel to diminish and humiliate itself again. For hissake. For pissake. Whatever. He wants Netanyahu to behave like a melting marshmallow in his hands. Hillary just wants to strafe Netanyahu because he's a Jew and she's apparently become a Carter-style Baptist.

Tell Moon to give the arabs who invaded Israel (thanks to YOUR invitation, Mr. Polish-immigrant-Peres) a piece of Korea ... his country. Yehrite. Let's see buy peace with a piece of his own soil. After all, the arabs have no legal claim to the land of Israel and no legal right to carve up Israel into a state for themselves ... so they can all be resettled if they don't like Israel.

The scaredy-Jews of Israel and their seditionist arab friends have no more right to secede from Israel than the South had a right to secede from the Union. (Remember our civil war?) Well, if the Israelis once again behave like putty in the hands of the US State Department, that's what's gonna happen throughout the Middle East: Everyone will use Moon's rationale to snatch a bite out of its neighbor. There's no excuse for Hillary's ignorance about international law. She's a lawyer, for crissakes. Hey Hillary, how 'bout respecting international law and the San Remo Resolution that established the boundaries of Israel during the Twenties!? Old law. Still good law. And its the law that still binds the US and Europe and the UN. Somebody needs to rub the noses of Israel's High Court in it. Or better still, give these messed-up old gals the boot.

We no longer can ignore the fact that the British brazenly violated established international law for to curry favors from the Saudis. They did this because no one, not even the US, was strong enough (or sufficiently upright) to stop them. Like bad kids, the Britz knew they could get away with doing bad. The Jews who knew the law that had established the boundaries of Israel were burned at Auschwitz, as the Britz well knew, when they proceeded to carve up the Jewish Homeland and make a gift of the Jewish Homeland to the Hashemite "royals". This land was occupied by the arabs and the Hashemite royals confined them to ghettos — these arabs are the ones who suddenly began to call themselves "palestinians" even though most of them originate in other arab states, such as Syria and Tunisia and former Saudi tribes.

Opportunistic foreign Jews like Shimon Peres (born in Poland) who came along later and took over after Rabin was assassinated courted and cuddled the arab invaders to prove what? That they were "noble" Jews? That out of the wonderfulness of their big bleeding hearts they were willing to forgive the arabs who murdered Jews for sport? The only thing these self-proclaimed Jews proved was their ignorant unctuousness, which flaw played straight into the hands of the more clever Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat and his dear Baptist friend, Jimmy Carter. What with all the arm-twisting and revisions of history by the British propaganda mills (BBC, Guardian UK, British Media, Reuters, et al.) it's a wonder the entire middle east hasn't already exploded in flames. But, if it does, the British and the arabist flacks in the British Foreign Office will be held responsible for tossing gas on the fire they lit during the Forties when they sucked up to the arabs ... and not for peace, but for power over oil!

Saudi Arabia is not a US ally. It is a vendor. Is that why BHO knelt down before Abdullah? Or did he humiliate our nation for his personal satisfaction? The media reported that BHO visited Saudi Arabia on a whim — that is, his visit to the king was not part of his planned itinerary. BHO and all presidents have protocol consultants so it's hard to believe he bowed and bent his knee to king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia out of ignorance. He bowed to the emperor of Japan as well. But he didn't bow down or curtsy to the Queen of England.

Does BHO really think Americans will forget his behavior if he talks-the-talk and whips up a few more magic tricks and illusions six weeks before the election? Curious minds want to know.

SC4Z: We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we support Israel for the sake of JUSTICE and FREEDOM from Sharia.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Zvi November, October 2, 2010.

Two weeks ago Israel Radio broadcast a two hour review commemorating the Yom Kippur war of 1973. At the program's conclusion, one of the academic experts was asked to sum up the war's consequences. He said, "Israel lost its self-confidence".

The loss of self-confidence (and, perhaps self-respect) has, over the past thirty-seven years, taken the form of an obsession with peace. Popular music focused on peace; Abie Nathan launched his floating 'Voice of Peace' radio station; films depict Israel's military in a negative light; NGOs fight for "Palestinian rights" while ignoring terror attacks on Jewish civilians and activists illegally met with PLO representatives before 1993.

The Arab side/enemy also has an obsession: to destroy Israel and replace it with Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. The various Arab/Palestinian organizations all share the same objective but differ on strategies for achieving their goal. Palestinian television has one major theme: Jews, it is claimed, have no connection whatsoever to the Land of Israel. (See www.palwatch.org). Any agreement between Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian "president" and the Israeli government will automatically grant recognition to Israel's sovereignty within the 1949 ceasefire lines. Any Arab/Palestinian who signs such a document is ipso facto a traitor and will be signing his own death warrant as Arafat himself explained after he rejected the 2000 Camp David peace proposals. Indeed, ever since the creation of the PA (Palestinian Authority) right after the 1993 Oslo 'Declaration of Principles' and follow-up in Cairo in 1994 selling land to a Jew is a capital offense. Arabs who have sold land to Jews have been executed.

As Professor Barry Rubin elaborates in his daily blog

it is highly unlikely that any agreement will be endorsed and even if an accord is signed, it will probably be violated in the near future. The rejectionist camp that includes Hamas (supported by Iran), independent terror groups such as the PFLP and the PFLP-General Command as well as Fatah (Abbas' own organization) internal opposition will not abide by any treaty. Furthermore, as Rubin recently pointed out, George Mitchell and the American facilitators have completely forgotten about the Gaza problem as if it does not exist.

Most Arab countries have constitutions that declare that they are culturally Arab and their laws are inspired by Islamic sharia law. Saudi Arabia is an exception as the Koran serves as its constitution. By contrast, Israel's demand that Arabs recognize it as a Jewish state is adamantly rejected. The Abbas led "moderates" reject any recognition of Jewish rights to a Jewish state because if they accede to this, then they will have to divert the refugees elsewhere. This is simply out of the question.

The so-called "peace process" is founded on Israeli concessions and capitulation. Once it was Israel's policy NOT to negotiate with terrorists. In 1993, this principle was thrown out. Previously, Israel leaders including the left-wing labor party and Yizhak Rabin objected to the creation of a Palestinian state saying that the Palestinians would get something that falls between autonomy and statehood. In a Hebrew language book entitled 'Yizhak Rabin's Peace Speeches' (1995), Rabin lays out his red lines: Large Jewish population centers adjacent to Israel proper will be incorporated into Israel, Jerusalem will never be re-divided again and the Jordan Valley will remain Israel's eastern line of defense. Unfortunately, Rabin's principles have been abandoned by today's politicians. Even, "right-wing" Netanyahu appears ready to make, as the media says, 'painful concessions'. Of course, the public never knows for certain what's going on because negotiations are kept secret.

The Obama administration wants negotiations at any price so no one asks if Abbas really represents the "Palestinian people". Obviously, he does not represent anybody in Gaza. As Khaled Abu Toameh, the Jerusalem Post Arab affairs correspondent points out (Abu Toameh's articles can be found at www.hudson-ny.org ) Abbas' home on the Gaza beachfront has been confiscated by Hamas and is now a detention center where Fatah activists are held and reputedly tortured. It should be recalled that Abbas' Fatah 'party' actually lost the last parliamentary elections to Hamas. In addition, the fact is that Abbas' term of office has expired. Researchers like Dr. Mordecai Kedar of Bar Ilan University believe that Abbas enjoys little support on the "West Bank".

The "peace process" is founded on the supposition that a Palestinian state is going to live in peace with Israel. Facts on the ground, however, contradict this assumption. Hizbullah-dominated Lebanon is extremely belligerent (remember the 2006 mini war?), Syria is an ally of Iran and deploys thousands of missiles aimed at Israel, Hamas rules Gaza and is religiously dedicated to Israel's destruction and the peace with both Egypt and Jordan is ice cold. Astute observers believe that a Palestinian state in the "territories" will most likely be taken over by Hamas and threaten nearby Israeli population centers. Only blind dreamers can envision Palestine (devoid of Jews) living in peace with Israel.

These uncomfortable facts are ignored by the Kadima opposition party and the "peace" camp. They advocate "peace" even if this entails expelling half a million Israelis from their homes in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, the historical homeland of the Jewish people. When the Netanyahu government agreed to freeze construction in Jewish settlements ten months ago it made an enormous mistake. The freeze, in effect, announced to the world that this is not Israeli land upon which it is free to build. The government even demolished Jewish homes that were purportedly built without the requisite permits but ignores tens of thousands of Arab buildings on both sides of the old 'green line' that have been constructed illegally, some on public land.

Only a nation bent on self-destruction would act as Israel has done over the past seventeen years. But this is a 'peace process".

Contact Zvi November at zvinove@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Pipes, October 2, 2010.

From a novel by Salman Rushdie published in 1989 to an American civil protest called "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" in 2010, a familiar pattern has evolved. It begins when Westerners say or do something critical of Islam. Islamists respond with name-calling and outrage, demands for retraction, threats of lawsuits and violence, and actual violence. In turn, Westerners hem and haw, prevaricate, and finally fold. Along the way, each controversy prompts a debate focusing on the issue of free speech.

I shall argue two points about this sequence. First, that the right of Westerners to discuss, criticize, and even ridicule Islam and Muslims has eroded over the years. Second, that free speech is a minor part of the problem; at stake is something much deeper — indeed, a defining question of our time: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault by Islamists, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class citizenship?

The cover of the book that prompted the Rushdie Rules.

The era of Islamist uproar began abruptly on February 14, 1989, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's supreme leader, watched on television as Pakistanis responded with violence to a new novel by Salman Rushdie, the famous writer of South Asian Muslim origins. His book's very title, The Satanic Verses, refers to the Koran and poses a direct challenge to Islamic sensibilities; its contents further exacerbate the problem. Outraged by what he considered Rushdie's blasphemous portrait of Islam, Khomeini issued an edict whose continued impact makes it worthy of quotation at length:

I inform all zealous Muslims of the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses — which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran — and all those involved in the publication who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death.

I call upon all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they may be found, so that no one else will dare to insult the Muslim sanctities. God willing, whoever is killed on this path is a martyr.

In addition, anyone who has access to the author of this book but does not possess the power to execute him should report him to the people so that he may be punished for his actions.

This unprecedented edict — no head of government had ever called for the execution of a novelist living in another country — came out of the blue and surprised everyone, from Iranian government officials to Rushdie himself. No one had imagined that a magical realist novel, replete with people falling out of the sky and animals that talk, might incur the wrath of the ruler of Iran, a country to which Rushdie had few connections.

The edict led to physical attacks on bookstores in Italy, Norway, and the United States and on translators of The Satanic Verses in Norway, Japan, and Turkey; in the last case, the translator and 36 others perished in an arson attack on a hotel. Other violence in Muslim-majority countries led to more than 20 fatalities, mostly in South Asia. Then, just as the furor wound down, in June 1989, Khomeini died; his death made the edict, sometimes inaccurately called a fatwa, immutable.

The edict contains four important elements. First, by noting "opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran," Khomeini delineated the wide range of sacred topics that may not be treated disrespectfully without invoking a death sentence.

Second, by targeting "all those involved in the publication who were aware of its contents," he declared war not just on the artist but also on an entire cultural infrastructure — including the thousands of employees of publishing houses, advertisers, distribution companies, and bookstores.

Third, by ordering Rushdie's execution "so that no one else will dare to insult the Muslim sanctities," Khomeini made clear his purpose not only to punish one writer but also to prevent further instances of ridicule.

Finally, by demanding that those unable to execute Rushdie "report him," Khomeini called on every Muslim worldwide to become part of an informal intelligence network dedicated to upholding Islamic sanctities.

These four features together constitute what I call the Rushdie Rules. Two decades later, they remain very much in place.

The edict set several precedents in the West. A foreign political leader successfully ignored conventional limits on state powers. A religious leader at will intervened directly, with little cost or resistance, in Western cultural affairs. And a Muslim leader established the precedent of applying an aspect of Islamic law, the Shari'a, in an overwhelmingly non-Muslim country. On this last point: Western states have, at times, served as Khomeini's effective agents. The government of Austria imposed a suspended prison sentence on a person who defied the Rushdie Rules, while the governments of France and Australia brought charges that could have meant jail time. Most strikingly, authorities in Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Finland, and Israel actually jailed Rushdie-Rule trespassers. It takes effort to recall the innocent days before 1989, when Westerners freely spoke and wrote about Islam and related subjects.

The Rushdie Rules had an immediate impact on Muslims living in the West, whose outbursts of insults and violence generated a newfound sense of power. From Sweden to New Zealand, Islamists responded with joy that, after centuries on the defensive, Muslims had found their voice and, from the belly of the beast, could challenge the West. Most of the violence that followed was of the indiscriminate sort, on the model of 9/11, Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and London, in which jihadists killed whoever happened to cross their paths; TheReligionOfPeace.com documents on average five indiscriminate Islamist terrorist attacks per day around the world.

Less common but more intimidating is the violence that targets those who defy the Rushdie Rules. Let us limit examples of this phenomenon to one country, Denmark. In October 2004, an instructor at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute at the University of Copenhagen was kicked and hit by several strangers as he left the university. They informed him that he had read from the Koran, which as an infidel (kafir) he had no right to do. In October 2005, Jyllands-Posten editor Flemming Rose was threatened for having commissioned cartoons depicting Muhammad. Two of the cartoonists had to go into hiding. One of them, Kurt Westergaard, subsequently narrowly escaped physical attack inside his home. In March 2006, Naser Khader, an anti-Islamist politician, was threatened by an Islamist who warned that if Khader became a government minister, he and his ministry would be blown up.

The Danish experience is typical. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Across Europe, dozens of people are now in hiding or under police protection because of threats from Muslim extremists." Even Pope Benedict XVI received a flurry of threats in the aftermath of his quoting a Byzantine emperor on the subject of Islam. In the Netherlands alone, politicians reported 121 death threats against them in just one year. The November 2004 execution on an Amsterdam street of Theo van Gogh — a well known libertarian, filmmaker, talk show host, newspaper columnist, and mischief-maker who had ridiculed Islam — traumatized his country and led to a brief state of insurrection.

Westerners generally perceive this violence as a challenge to their right to self-expression. But if freedom of speech is the battlefield, the greater war concerns the foundational principles of Western civilization. The recurrent pattern of Islamist uproar exists to achieve three goals — not always articulated — that go well beyond prohibiting criticism of Islam.

A first goal consists of establishing a superior status for Islam. Khomeini's demands for the sacred trinity of "Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran" imply special privileges for one religion, an exclusion from the hurly-burly of the marketplace of ideas. Islam would benefit from unique rules unavailable to other religions. Jesus may be sacrilegiously lampooned in Monty Python's Life of Brian or Terry McNally's Corpus Christi, but, as one book's title puts it, "be careful with Muhammad!"

This segues to a second goal — Muslim supremacy and Western inferiority. Islamists routinely say and do things more offensive to Westerners than anything Westerners do vis-à-vis Muslims. They openly despise Western culture; in the words of an Algerian Islamist, it's not a civilization, but a "syphilization." Their mainstream media publishes coarser, viler, and more violent cartoons than anything commissioned by Flemming Rose. They freely insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism. They murder Jews just for being Jews, like Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, S Ä©bastian Sellam and Ilan Halimi in France, and Pamela Waechter and Ariel Sellouk in the United States. Whether because of fear or inattention, Westerners assent to an imbalance whereby Muslims may offend and attack while they themselves are shielded from any such indignities or pains.

Should Westerners accept this imbalance, the dhimmi status will follow. This Islamic concept permits "people of the book," monotheists such as Christians and Jews, to continue to practice their religion under Muslim rule, subject to many restrictions. For its time, the dhimmi status offered certain benefits (until as recently as 1945, Jews generally had better lives in Islamdom than in Christendom), but it is intended to insult and humiliate non-Muslims, even as it exalts Muslims' superiority. Dhimmis pay additional taxes, may not join the military or the government, and suffer from encompassing legal disabilities. In some times and places, dhimmis could ride on a donkey but not on a horse, wore distinctive clothing, and an elderly dhimmi on the street was required to jump out of the way of a Muslim child. Elements of the dhimmi status have recently been applied in such varied places as Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Clearly, Londonistan and beyond are also in their sights.

In turn, re-establishing the dhimmi status is one step toward the Islamist's third and ultimate ambition, applying full Shari'a law. Closing down discussion of Islam paves the way toward this end. Conversely, retaining free speech about Islam represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order. Keeping our civilization requires open discussion of Islam.

The Shari'a regulates both private and public life. The private dimension includes such intensely personal matters as bodily cleanliness, sexuality, childbearing, family relations, clothing, and diet. In the public realm, the Shari'a regulates social relations, commercial transactions, criminal penalties, the status of women and minorities, slavery, the identity of the ruler, the judiciary, taxation, and warfare. In brief, Islamic law includes everything from toilet etiquette to the conduct of warfare.

Yet the Shari'a contradicts the deepest premises of Western civilization. The unequal relations of male and female, of Muslim and kafir, of owner and slave cannot be reconciled with equality of rights. The harem cannot be reconciled with a monogamous order. Islamic supremacism contradicts freedom of religion. A sovereign God cannot allow democracy.

Islamists all concur on the goal of applying Islamic law globally. But they differ on whether to achieve this through violence (the preference of bin Laden), totalitarian rule (Khomeini), or by politically gaming the system (the Swiss intellectual Tariq Ramadan). However done, were Islamists to achieve a Shar'i order, they would effectively replace Western civilization with Islamic civilization. In American terms, allowing the Koran to trump the Constitution ends the United States as it has existed for more than two centuries.

The Muslim Council of Britain wishes to transform schools in the United Kingdom.

Accepting the Rushdie Rules, in other words, implies a process that culminates with full application of the Shari'a. Were Khomeini to have his way, those of us who value Western civilization could not argue against Shari'a. To understand the consequences of closing the debate about Islam, note what appears to be an innocuous report published in 2007 by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), a leading Islamist institution in the United Kingdom. Titled Towards Greater Understanding, it advises British authorities on how to deal with Muslim students in taxpayer-funded schools.

The MCB seeks to create an environment in schools in which Muslim children do not make "inappropriate assumptions" that "to progress in society they will have to compromise or give up aspects of who they are, and their religious beliefs and values." Toward this end, the MCB proposes a jaw-dropping list of changes that would fundamentally alter the nature of British schools, transforming them, in effect, into Saudi-like institutions. Some of its suggestions:

* Prayers: Provide (1) extra "water cans or bottles" for washing before the prayers and (2) prayer facilities, ideally separate ones for boys and girls. Schools should also make available "a suitable external visitor, a teacher or an older pupil" to lead the communal Friday prayers and give the sermon.

* Toilets: Water available in water cans or bottles for cleansing purposes.

* Social customs: No pressure to shake hands with members of the opposite sex, whether students or teachers.

* Scheduling: Vacation days for all on the two major Muslim holidays, the Eids.

* Holiday celebrations: Involve non-Muslim students and their parents in Islamic holiday rituals. During Ramadan, for instance, all children, not just Muslim ones, should celebrate "the spirit and values of Ramadan through collective worship or assembly themes and communal Iftar (the breaking of the fast)."

* Ramadan: (1) No examinations during this month, "since the combination of preparing for exams and fasting may prove challenging for some pupils" and (2) no sex education, to respect strictures against sex during that month.

* Food: Provide halal meals. Permit students to eat with their right hands.

* Clothing: Accede to the wearing of hijabs and even jilbabs (a long outer garment down to the ankles). In swimming pools, Muslim children should wear modest swimwear (e.g., for girls, full leotards and leggings). Islamic amulets must be permitted.

* Beards: A right for male students.

* Sports: Sex-segregation where there is physical contact with other team players, as in basketball and football, or when exposed, as in swimming.

* Shower rooms: Separate stalls needed, so Muslims are not subject to the "profound indignity" of seeing or being seen in the nude.

* Music: Should be limited to "the human voice and non-tuneable percussion instruments such as drums."

* Dancing: Excluded, unless it is done in a single-sex environment and does not "involve sexual connotations and messages."

* Teacher and administrator training: Staff should undergo Islamic "awareness training" so that schools are "better informed and have greater and more accurate appreciation of their Muslim pupils' needs."

* Art: Exempt Muslim pupils from producing "three dimensional figurative imagery of humans."

* Religious instruction: Pictures of any prophets (including Jesus) prohibited.

* Language instruction: Arabic should be made available to all Muslim students.

* Islamic civilization: (1) Study the contribution of Muslims to Europe in history, art, mathematics, and science classes and (2) emphasize common aspects of European and Islamic heritage.

One response to the Muslim Council of Britain booklet.

The imposition, explicit or implicit, of Rushdie Rules would render impossible any criticism of a program such as the MCB's. I could not write this article, Commentary could not publish it, and you could not read it.

Overhauling schools is just one of a myriad of planned changes. Step by step, piece by piece, Islamists wish to trump the premises of Western life by infusing its education, cultural life, and institutions with a concurrent Islamic system that in time overrides secular institutions, until an Islamic order comes operationally into being. Some changes are already in place and extend to many aspects of life. A few pungent examples:

Polygamous marriages are valid under certain circumstances in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Australia, and the Canadian province of Ontario. Muslim women-only swimming sessions exist in municipal pools in Washington State. Women-only classes are being offered at Virginia Tech, a taxpayer-supported university. Women can have their drivers license photographs taken wearing hijabs in three U.S. states. If they work at IKEA or for the London police, women can wear branded hijabs provided by their employers.

Piggybanks have been banned as a symbol of saving at two major British banks. "Any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith" may not be sent via the U.S. postal system to soldiers serving in the Middle East. Medical personnel may not eat or drink in the presence of Muslim patients or colleagues during the month of Ramadan in a Scottish hospital. The City of Boston sold public land at a discount price to build an Islamic institution.

IKEA, the furnishings store, provides branded hijabs for employees in Great Britain.

These steps, large and small, toward Islamization undermine Western values and mores. They are unacceptable: Muslims are entitled to equal rights and responsibilities but not to special privileges. They must fit into the existing order, not remake Western societies in the Islamist mold. Increasing freedom is welcome, regressing to the medieval norms of the Shari'a is not.

In retrospect, responses to the Rushdie edict among intellectuals and politicians in 1989 were noteworthy for the support for the imperiled novelist, especially on the left. Leftist intellectuals were more likely to stand by him (Susan Sontag: "our integrity as a nation is as endangered by an attack on a writer as on an oil tanker") than were those on the right (Patrick Buchanan: "we should shove his blasphemous little novel out into the cold"). But times have changed: Paul Berman recently published a book, The Flight of the Intellectuals, that excoriates his fellow liberals for (as the dust jacket puts it) having "fumbled badly in their effort to grapple with Islamist ideas and violence."

At the time, François Mitterrand, the socialist president of France, called the threat to Rushdie an "absolute evil." The Green Party in Germany sought to break all economic agreements with Iran. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister, endorsed a European Union resolution supporting Rushdie as "a signal to assure the preservation of civilization and human values." The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution that declared its commitment "to protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy, and read books without fear of intimidation and violence" and condemned Khomeini's threat as "state-sponsored terrorism." Such governmental responses are inconceivable in 2010.

For every exercise in free speech since 1989, such as the Danish Muhammad cartoons or the no-holds-barred studies of Islam published by Prometheus Books, uncountable legions of writers, publishers, and illustrators have shied away from expressing themselves. Two examples: Paramount Pictures replaced the Hamas-like terrorists of Tom Clancy's novel The Sum of All Fears with European neo-Nazis in its movie version of the story. And Yale University Press published a book on the Danish cartoon crisis without permitting the cartoons to be reproduced in the study.

The reasoning of those who capitulate is as unexceptional as it is dismal: "This decision was based solely on concern for public safety"; "the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority"; "I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat"; "If I would have said what I actually think about Islam, I wouldn't be in this world for long"; and "'If this goes down badly, I'm writing my own death warrant."

Changes since 1989 result mainly from the growth of three isms: multiculturalism, left-fascism, and Islamism. The multicultural impulse regards no way of life, belief system, or political philosophy better or worse than any other. Just as Italian and Japanese food are both delicious and filling, so environmentalism or Wicca offer equally valid alternatives to Judeo-Christian civilization. Why fight for one's way of life when it has no claim to superiority over any other?

But perhaps one way is worse: if Western imperialism and the white race pollute the world, who wants Western civilization? A sizable movement of left-fascists, led by Hugo Ch&aum;vez, sees Western power, which they call "Empire," as the world's main threat, with the United States and Israel viewed as the chief offenders.

Islamism has grown spectacularly since 1989, becoming the most powerful form of radical utopianism, forming an alliance with the left, dominating civil societies, challenging many governments and taking over others, establishing a beachhead in the West, and smartly advancing its agenda in international institutions.

The yin of Western weakness, in short, has met with the yang of Islamist assertion. Defenders of Western civilization must fight not just Islamists but also the multiculturalists who enable them and the leftists who ally with them.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, and a columnist at National Review. He delivered an earlier version of this text on receiving an award from the Danish Free Speech Society.


Late Breaking Rushdie-Rule Developments
by Daniel Pipes
October 1, 2010

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2010/10/ late-breaking-rushdie-rule-developments

Several important developments took place right after my article, "Two Decades of the Rushdie Rules," went to press,:

(1) Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida planned to burn hundreds of Korans on Sep. 11, but then submitted to pressure and canceled the bonfire. When his intention became international news, it lead, according to established pattern, to unrest and threats in the Muslim world and to at least 18 deaths (5 in Afghanistan, 13 in Kashmir). Under pressure from U.S. government officials, Jones relented and did not burn Korans.

I argued in a column, "'Rushdie Rules' Reach Florida," that the novelty and significance of this incident lies in the full weight of the U.S. government, from Barack Obama on down, bearing down on Jones. In distinct contrast to Margaret Thatcher in 1989, when the Rushdie affair broke, or Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2006, when the Danish cartoon affair occurred, American authorities took upon themselves the role of protectors of Islam and executors of the Shari'a. In so doing, they extended the Rushdie Rules to the United States.

Mollie Norris' cartoon that ended her normal life and began her "ghost" existence.

(2) Mollie Norris, the cartoonist who devised "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" went into hiding. As her editor, Mark D. Fefer, at the Seattle Weekly put it,

You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly. The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program — except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.

That "appalling fatwa" was posted in July by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who lives in Yemen. He wrote:

A cartoonist out of Seattle, Washington, named Molly Norris started the 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'. This snowball rolled out from between her evil fingers. She should be taken as a prime target of assassination along with others who participated in her campaign. This campaign is not a practice of freedom of speech, but is a nationwide mass movement of Americans joining their European counterparts in going out of their way to offend Muslims worldwide. They are expressing their hatred of the Messenger of Islam through ridicule

Katherine Kersten discusses the American response to this outrage:

Surely, you say, American journalists and media moguls — always staunch defenders of the First Amendment — are proclaiming outrage and rallying round this young woman? On the contrary. The media have largely been silent about her nightmarish plight. When the Washington Examiner, an on-line newspaper in Washington, D.C., asked the American Society of News Editors for a statement about Norris, none was forthcoming. Ditto for the Society of Professional Journalists. This, despite the fact that the editors group's mission statement extols "the First Amendment at home and free speech around the world," while the journalists claim to stand for "the perpetuation of the free press as the cornerstone of our nation and liberty."

This incident suggests that Awlaki has the power to turn any American's life upside down by simply uttering a threat against him. This is no longer a battle of giants, Khomeini v. Rushdie, but of pygmies, Awlaki v. Norris. One can imagine the threats proliferating so that any person critical of "Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran" will be in danger of having to "go ghost."

(3) Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff proposed an important reply to some of the wanton threats against Americans in "It's Time to Fight Back Against Death Threats by Islamic Extremists," Los Angeles Times, Sep. 27:

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's playbook. In the 1990s, abortion providers faced the same sort of intimidation tactics and did not succumb. Instead, they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE, passed in 1994 by solid bipartisan margins. A similar act is needed to cover threats against free-speech rights.

A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights. —

Existing state laws prohibiting intimidation are inadequate. On the criminal side, the heightened standard of proof deters prosecutors from investing scarce resources. Explicit grounds for a civil action do not always exist, and damages can be difficult to quantify. By contrast, the FACE Act, which provides the model for the proposed legislation, lets victims opt for preset damages.


To Go To Top

Posted by Sheik Yer Mami, October 2, 2010.

Vlad Tepes presents:

Here is a rather stunning scam being run by immigrants to France. If you are an honest tax paying hard working fellow and up till now, have managed not to be too pissed off about it, well you may not want to watch this. Even petty criminals will feel like chumps when they see this short news report from France. click here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, October 1, 2010.

This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh and it appeared September 28, 2010


The future status of Jerusalem is back on the negotiating table between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and Israel. It is being described as one of the "core issues" in the US-sponsored direct talks that were launched in early September.

Both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators need to take into account that it's completely unrealistic to talk about restoring the pre-1967 situation where Jerusalem was divided into two cities.

The division was bad for Jews and Arabs back then and it will be worse if it happens once again.

Jerusalem is a very small city where Jews and Arabs live across the street from each other and on top of each other. Since 1967, Israel has built many new neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city, rendering it impossible to imagine a reality where Jerusalem would exist as a divided city.

Redividing Jerusalem will turn the lives of both Jews and Arabs into a nightmare, especially with regards to traffic arrangements. Every day, tens of thousands of Jews and Arabs commute between the two parts of the city freely.

Redividing Jerusalem will result in the establishment of checkpoints and border crossings inside many parts of the city. Jews and Arabs will find themselves confined to their homes and neighborhoods, which will be surrounded by security barriers and checkpoints.

In addition, the negotiators must concede the possibility of asking the Arab residents of the city about their preferences. There is no reason why more than 200,000 Arabs in Jerusalem should be denied the right to voice their opinion on a matter that has a direct affect on their lives and future.

This can be done through a referendum where the Arab residents would be asked if they would like to live in a divided city under the rule of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. Most likely, a majority of the Arab residents would say that they prefer the status quo to the other options.

Most Arabs in the city prefer to live under Israeli rule for a number of reasons. First, because as holders of Israeli ID cards they are entitled to many rights and privileges that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip don't enjoy. They include freedom of movement and social, economic, health and education services that Israeli citizens are entitled to.

Redividing Jerusalem means bringing either the Palestinian Authority of Hamas into the city. The Arab residents of Jerusalem have seen what happened in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the past 16 years and are not keen to live under a corrupt authority or a radical Islamist entity.

Over the past few years, many Arab residents of the city who used to live in the West Bank have abandoned their homes and returned to Jerusalem. They did so mainly out of fear of losing their rights and privileges as holders of Israeli ID cards.

But many of them also ran away from the West Bank because they did not want to live in territories controlled by militiamen, armed gangs and corrupt leaders and institutions.

These are only some of the reasons why Jerusalem can't be redivided, at least not under the current circumstances. Instead of talking about tearing the city apart, it would be better if the negotiators started thinking of ways that enable Jews and Arabs to share, and not divide, the city.

Those who think that Jerusalem can be split into two are living in an illusion and clearly do not know what they are talking about. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, like most Palestinians, is aware of this reality. However, that is not going to stop him and others from continuing to demand that eastern Jerusalem become the capital of a Palestinian state.

No one asked the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before signing the Oslo Accords on 1993; will everyone really continue to ignore the opinion of the Arab residents of Jerusalem?

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 Arlene Kushner, October 1, 2010.

Several of my readers have sent me a most excellent Rosh Hashana sermon by Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in Atlanta. Entitled "EHR KUMT" (he is coming!), this stunning sermon is everything I was told it was, and more:

"...as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard. And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express. I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious. I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.

"We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn't know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn't refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn't call the Gestapo, militants. We didn't see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people. We did not apologize for Dresden, nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein, nor for D-Day.

"Evil — ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake. It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tubruk, not just Vienna, not just Casablanca. It was the entire planet. Read history and be shocked at how frighteningly close Hitler came to creating a Pax Germana on every continent. "...In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win..... to rid the world of malevolence.

"We are at war... yet too many stubbornly and foolishly don't put the pieces together and refuse to identify the evil doers. We are circumspect and disgracefully politically correct.

"Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

"To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable. "...The sages teach — 'Aizehu chacham — haroeh et hanolad — Who is a wise person — he who sees into the future.' We dare not wallow in complacency, in a misguided tolerance and naïve sense of security.

"We must be diligent students of history and not sit in ash cloth at the waters of Babylon weeping. We cannot be hypnotized by eloquent-sounding rhetoric that soothes our heart but endangers our soul. We cannot be lulled into inaction for fear of offending the offenders. Radical Islam is the scourge and this must be cried out from every mountain top.

From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience. Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America? None. After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America? None. After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America? None. And yet, we apologize. We grovel. We beg forgiveness.

"Israel is the laboratory — the test market. Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy. It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West.

"In the Six Day War, Israel was the proxy of Western values and strategy while the Arab alliance was the proxy of Eastern, Soviet values and strategy. Today too, it is a confrontation of proxies, but the stakes are greater than East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel in her struggle represents the civilized world, while Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Iran, Islamic Jihad, represent the world of psychopathic, loathsome evil.

"As Israel, imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel's galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt. Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel's galling plight ultimately will be ours. Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew. We are the trial balloon. The canary in the coal mine. If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from "good guys" then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda.

"Moral confusion is a deadly weakness and it has reached epic proportions in the West; from the Oval Office to the UN, from the BBC to Reuters to MSNBC, from the New York Times to Le Monde, from university campuses to British teachers unions, from the International Red Cross to Amnesty International, from Goldstone to Elvis Costello, from the Presbyterian Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

"...Democracies don't always win. Tyrannies don't always lose.

"My friends — the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. 'EHR KUMT.'"


Indeed! We must awake from our slumber. Time grows short.

You can — and, I will suggest, should — read the entire sermon. You can also access it by going on to the synagogue website at
http://www.etzchaim.net/ and clicking on EHR KUMT. Read it, read it a second time and a third time if necessary. Absorb its message.

I then urge you to share this with as many others as possible Give them the URL. Copy and past my summary, above, along with it, if you wish. Or simply forward this posting.


A thanks to all who sent this to me. And a special thanks to Rabbi Lewis, first, of course, for writing and delivering this powerful material, and then for graciously arranging for it to be placed on his synagogue's website so that I might share it (and the URL) with all of you.

(For the record: In some versions of the sermon circulating on the Internet the rabbi's name is given as Shlomo. It is properly Shalom. The term "ehr kumt" is explained in the full sermon.)


The holiday season is now ended, and here in Israel it's back to normal, whatever that means. I begin with a look at the last few days:

On Wednesday, journalist Eli Brodenstein, writing in Maariv, reported that Obama had sent a letter to Netanyahu offering several US gestures in return for a 60 day renewed freeze on construction. Brodstein wrote that this proposal was expected to be rejected by Netanyahu.

A major part of the proposal, as described, was an offer to block all Arab initiatives to raise the matter of a Palestinian state before the UN Security Council in the coming year [the time during which, presumably, a "peace" would be negotiated].

In analyzing this proposal, Dr. Aaron Lerner, of IMRA, noted that most media reports missed the crucial fact that this offer was only for one year:

"Until now, official American policy, as expressed both by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, is that a Palestinian state could only be achieved via direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Rather than bolster this commitment, the Obama letter, if put into effect, would constitute a very significant deterioration in the American position.

"Simply put, under the Obama proposal, Israel would be 'rewarded' for extending the freeze by 60 days by having an American gun put to the Jewish State's forehead with the warning: 'make a deal with the Palestinians within a year or the Palestinians will unilaterally be rewarded with a sovereign Palestinians state.'

"The introduction of this American threat would irreparably doom the prospects of Israel actually reaching an agreement with the Palestinians during the course of the negotiations since the Palestinians would know that they could bring to the UNSC whatever Israeli concessions were put on the table during the course of the year when they go to the USNC for an imposed solution."

This is not a new concern — I have written about it before. If Israel, at the table, were to even tentatively agree (Heaven forbid): OK, if all other pieces fall into place, we will concede these and these borders, or that you can have Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, or whatever, the PA could then decline to make any concessions of its own in order to achieve an agreement and instead march to the Security Council and request a state predicated on the concessions Israel has already "offered."

Negotiations are, it seems, not only an exercise in futility, they present a real danger to Israel. Until now, there has been evidence that this is a plan the PA is seriously considering. But now Obama — an enemy of Israel — has shown himself ready to facilitate it.

As if this were not enough, Lerner additionally noted that:

"...Brodenstein adds that Mr. Obama also threatens that if his offer is not accepted that the U.S. will make what he terms a major gesture to the Palestinians damaging Israel: formally taking the stand that the final borders should be based on the '67 lines with adjustments."


Well, the good news is that Netanyahu has apparently refused the US offer.

By Thursday, Obama had come out with a denial, saying there was no offer. He never sent a letter with a proposal, he insisted; it was just a draft, being worked on by both sides.

It is exceedingly difficult for me to swallow this. David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which has close ties with the administration, has said that a letter was sent. Of course, Makovsky couched it in positive terms, but no matter: Obama's denial rings false.

Wrote Makovsky: "the letter explicitly mentions the need to ensure a complete ban on the smuggling of rockets, mortars, arms, and related items, as well as the infiltration of terrorists into Israel."

Are we expected to take this seriously? Does Makovsky? Just how would it be possible to "ensure a complete ban on the smuggling of rockets and infiltration of terrorists" after the founding of a Palestinian state? Even the IDF, operating with an impressively high degree of effectiveness in Judea and Samaria, does not achieve 100%. Although, of course, we might come close if the PA "security forces" were gone and we operated everywhere from a position of strength and impunity — which fact is at the core of the security issue.


Two names are being mentioned on the Israeli side with regard to discussions on this letter. These are people who apparently signed off on sending such a letter to Netanyahu. One is Ehud Barak, our defense minister. No surprise there. This is the guy who offered Arafat the store in 2000.

The other is Yitzhak Molcho, a key Netanyahu advisor and negotiator. His involvement is problematic, because it becomes a question of what advice he is giving his boss. Warns Yaakov Katz, chair of the National Union party:

"The offer of advisor Molcho is like the advice of Achitofel, which will bring about the downfall of Netanyahu for the same reason he fell a decade ago." Achitofel was considered a wise man, but gave King David disastrous advice. Apparently sensible suggestions that are fraught with disaster are alluded to as "advice of Achitofel."


We can be certain that the issue of continuation of the freeze has not yet seen its end. Mitchell will be meeting, once again, with Netanyahu and Abbas today. And the EU is getting into the act, with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton having arrived here as well.


PA prime minister Salam Fayyad, the darling of the West and the PA official touted as most moderate, was in New York about ten days ago, While there, he met with Israeli deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, and a Norwegian representative had responsibility for drafting a summary of the meeting.

The summary referred to "two states," and Ayalon, inquiring as to what that meant — "One Palestinian state and one bi-national state, or another Palestinian state?" — insisted that the summary say "two states for two peoples."

The mere suggestion of this so outraged Fayyad that he stormed out of the room, and a press conference that had been scheduled had to be cancelled.

Our "peace partner."


I have read criticism of Netanyahu for demanding that the PA recognize us as a Jewish state. We do not need their recognition or sanction, goes the criticism — all that matters is that we know we are a Jewish state.

Well...yes, and no.

Of course what is primary, and deeply essential, is that we know who we are. That is another issue: something to be worked on if we are to retain pride in our heritage.

But I don't think Netanyahu is suggesting in any way that we need the Arabs to tell us who we are. And from the perspective of diplomacy and negotiations his demand is very much on the mark. The Arabs have to acknowledge what we are.

It should have been simple for Fayyad to say, certainly, let's call it two states for two people. But this most "moderate" of PA officials did not dare to do this because there would have been hell to pay back home.

Ayalon — and more power to him for raising the issue so pointedly — was on the mark, when he asked, "One Palestinian state and one bi-national state, or another Palestinian state?" Something like this is precisely what they are after. And we cannot afford to lose sight of this, ever.


Khaled Abu Toameh has a major analytic piece in today's Jerusalem Post on "Abbas's credibility problem":

"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's credibility has been damaged to a point where it's hard to envision a situation where he would be able to convince even a handful of Palestinians to accept any agreement he strikes with Israel.

"It's Abbas's repeated zigzagging, double-talk and empty threats that have been most devastating for him.

"This week, with the expiration of the moratorium on settlement construction, Abbas's credibility suffered another severe, if not fatal, blow.

"...Not surprisingly, at the same time that he was threatening, in Arabic, to pull out of the talks, the messages he and his aides were sending, in English, to Washington and Western governments was that they had no intention of suspending the negotiations."
http://www.jpost.com/Home/ Article.aspx?id=189790


Once more, the High Court has found in favor of petitioning Jews, ruling that property in the eastern part of Jerusalem belongs to them.

Until now, in the neighborhood known as Shimon HaTzadik (Sheikh Jarrah), on the eastern side of Nablus Road, three Arab families have been evicted because the court found that the property was Jewish-owned.

Now, with regard to a 10 dunam parcel of land on the other side of the Road, the High Court, upholding a lower court, has ruled that it belongs to Jews, with Jewish ownership going back to 1892. As their leases expire, it is anticipated that several Arab occupants of the buildings on this land will be required to leave.

Much is made of this by Arab activists and sympathizers. One community leader says this proves Israel is not a partner for peace. (Note: We're supposed to give carte blanche to Arab residents usurping the rights of Jewish property owners, but "peace" as defined by such people as this Arab leader would require all Jews in Judea and Samaria to leave their homes.) We can expect a good deal of noise about this in months ahead.

As I mentioned just the other day, in 1948, when Jordan took eastern Jerusalem, it was rendered Judenrein: All Jews were banished and their properties usurped. Thus did eastern Jerusalem become "Arab." In recent years, Jews have been reclaiming their right to properties taken from them or their families.


You might find this article by Steve Emerson, terrorism expert and director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, on "Washington's Schizophrenic Approach Towards the Muslim Brotherhood":

"...Washington has no policy for dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, despite evidence that the group's agenda is hostile to the United States. In some cases around the world, there may be little choice but to do so. But a number of people who study the issue contend that the U.S. government is needlessly legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood.

"...'They're bullet-proof. It's horrible,' veteran journalist Douglas Farah said regarding the political strength of Brotherhood-affiliated groups like CAIR and ISNA. U.S. policy 'empower[s] groups whose ultimate goal is the creation of an Islamic nation in the United States.'"
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/ publications/id.7506/pub_detail.asp


"The Good News Corner"

The Israel National Roads Company announced a new initiative this past week that will enable bus riders at certain key locations to know when the next bus is coming. Solar-powered digital signs at selected bus stops would be linked to GPS transmitters aboard the buses.


Little Israel, with all her problems and challenges, is doing something very right with regard to health care. The life expectancy for Jews in Israel is longer than the average for the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — in fact, it's longer than for all countries in the world except four.

Non-Jews in Israel (primarily Arabs) have a lower life expectancy, but theirs as well is longer than for Americans (fascinating, no?), and the gap between non-Jewish life expectancy and Jewish life expectancy is being addressed, and closed.

Additionally, while 40 years ago infant mortality rates for Israeli Jews, Americans and residents of other OECD countries was almost identical — with Arab rates higher, in the years since, the decline in infant mortality rates in Israel has been the greatest, exceeding the decline in either the US or the other OECD nations. The decline in infant mortality rates for the Arab Israeli population was the greatest of all and their levels are now equitable with American levels.

This information is from the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Jerusalem.

I hasten to point out that Arabs who are Israeli citizens have access to the same health care as Jewish citizens do. We are not looking at any official bias. One only need visit an Israeli hospital to see Arabs in large numbers availing themselves of medical services. There are probably several reasons for the disparity in life expectancy levels, many or most cultural. (There is, for example, a tendency in Arab communities for cousins to marry, which considerably increases the prevalence of genetic diseases.) That we are addressing and reducing the disparity is also to our credit. (Taking the same example, I know of research done within the Bedouin community in particular to identify and address genetic problems.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Various Readers, October, 2010.

IDF Interview with Lawrence Korb

From Justice for Jonathan Pollard (31oct10)

The United States must free Jonathan Pollard immediately, the former American deputy defense secretary at the time of Pollard's arrest told Army Radio on Sunday. Pollard, a former civilian intelligence analyst, was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 on charges of spying in the U.S. for the benefit of Israel. If justice is not finally done in this case, on November 21, 2010 Pollard will complete his 25th year of a life sentence and begin year 26 as the only person in the history of the US to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally. Lawrence Korb said that Pollard should be freed immediately because his punishment is grossly disproportionate for the offense he committed.

Korb's testimony.

Stunning testimony at the trial of Geert Wilders

From Gabrielle Goldwater (30oct10)

This testimony, written by Hans Jansen, is the most blunt and insightful of all. Yes it is nearly an hour, but well worth it. Jansen does not mince words and responds to all the questions asked of him with tremendous clarity eliminating irrelevant assumptions from the questions and then discussing the pertinent aspects of Islam relative to the charges against Geert Wilders directly. This really is an excellent watch. Hans is an Arabist with world class credentials on Arabic and Islamic history and cultur

Geert Wilders trial Hans Jansen testimony 1 of 4

Geert Wilders trial Hans Jansen testimony 2 of 4

Geert Wilders trial Hans Jansen testimony 3 of 4

Geert Wilders trial Hans Jansen testimony 4 of 4

New Kone Video Responds to Nadler

From Josh (29oct10)

Responds To Nadler’S Dismissal Of Criticism On Israel Policy

NEW YORK: In a new video, congressional candidate Susan Kone (R - 8th District) today responded to Congressman Nadler's cavalier dismissal of criticism over his poor record on supporting Israel. On October 27th, when Kone called his record on Israel into question, a Nadler spokesman dismissed the criticism as 'Absurd.'
(http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/ new_york/challenger_nadler_not_pro_israel)

Cone on Nadler

Beauty, Inspiration and Hope

From Truth Provider (28oct10)

Today, no politics, no Middle East, just beauty and hope and more beauty.

I am talking about the miracle called Alice Sommer. I have known Alice for well over half a century. Her son, the famous cellist Raphael Sommer, we called him Rafi, was with me in Israel's Gadna youth orchestra and the IDF orchestra. Rafi was one of my closest friends.

I am the proud God-father of his wonderful two boys. Rafi died untimely death in 2001, but his mother Alice is alive and well. In November she will celebrate her 107's birthday.

Her life and survival through the Holocaust is a deep source of inspiration to all who are lucky enough to know her. Even the word miracle does not do her justice.

Those of you who wish to read the wonderful book about her, it is available here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Garden-Eden-Hell- Alice-Herz-Sommer/dp/0330451596

Please watch this touching and inspirational video. Alice still plays the piano and you can hear her right now.
you can hear her right now.

Peace Talks with Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat

From Gabrielle Goldwater (26oct10)

GAZA - myths, facts & aftermath

Video of Tea Party Express Rallies

From Tea Party Express (26oct10)

The videos, including archives of rallies that have already happened are being
provided online

As an example of what you'll see, here's the great footage they shot of of the unannounced visit to the Tea Party Express rally in Phoenix, AZ
Gov. Sarah Palin made.

Rafi Eitan reveals deal with US for Pollard

From Justice for Jonathan Pollard (25oct10)
Info series by Boxerbros Productions: Video #6

Rafi Eitan talks about the secret deal that was made with the US at the time of Pollard's arrest and conviction that he would serve
no more than 10 years.

Keyes sharply criticizes Saudi arms deal live on Russian TV

From CyberDissidents (22oct10)

CyberDissidents.org director David Keyes was interviewed on RT, one of Russia's largest television stations broadcast in over 100 countries.

Keys criticizes arms sale to Saudis

Video story

From (1oct10)


he Ft. Hood Killer

From Fred Reifenberg (22oct10)

Excellent video

Three new pieces of important media

From Walid Shoebat (21oct10)

Friends we have added three different news items that appear on our blog

Baptist Church in Judea that stands with Israel

Defining Islam with Nazism

How our FBI does not get it!!

Finally quote of the day by Rush Limbaugh in response to PC and the Firing of Juan Williams by NPR: "We cannot call Muslim even Muslim we need to call them 'Middle East Liberals.'"

Please help spread these stories to your lists,

Judge Napolitano message to all Americans

From Betty K. (20oct10)

Gotta like and respect the dude, one bright light amongst a whole nest of bats that wouldn't know the light even if they experienced it and certainally would not be supportive of it.

ANd like he sez, to be given the opportunity to stand for truth when it is an unpopular item in the world, that is a great opportunity and honor the good Lord bestowed on those who would embrace the truth.

Andrew P. Napolitano is a 59 year old former New Jersey Superior Court Judge. He is a graduate of Princeton University, and Notre Dame Law School. At Princeton he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton along with Justice Samuel Alito.

Andrew P. Napolitano

Islam from a Muslim

From BenAmi (18Oct10)

A survivor of sharia.

Song 'Justice Denied'. Free Jonathan Pollard

From Justice for Jonathan Pollard (16oct10)

We encourage everyone to continue contacting the White House daily by telephone, fax or regular mail until Jonathan is released. We discourage email or sms messages because they do not have the same impact as telephone calls, faxes or regular mail and are not counted. Find contact info here.

The plight of Jonathan Pollard

Suicide activist on the Gaza Flotilla

From Gabrielle Goldwater (16oct10)

The peaceful sheik

Jackie Mason - "Israel's Worst Enemy? Liberal Jews"!

From Ralph Rubinek (15oct10)

Jackie Mason and I have had it... Jews can no longer tolerate liberal Jews. Listen, please listen why...

Jackie Mason

Something worth watching, worth knowing about

From Paul Rotenberg(15oct10)

Thanks to David Diamond,
Shabbat Shalom,

Holocaust memorial in Lithuania

Muslim Jew-Hate and Holocaust Praise

From Gabrielle Goldwater (14oct10)

From Sheik Yermami
(1) by Yigal Carmon

KitmanTV: "A Muslim Policeman in Britain does not have to protect a Jew"
(2) British Muslim policeman allowed to refuse to guard Israeli Embassy.

See also: Britain is making a mistake.

PA Minister of Religious Endowments Mahmoud Al-Habbash

From Gabrielle Goldwater (14oct10)

From MEMRI: An interview with Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Endowments Mahmoud Al-Habbash, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on September 6, 2010.

Al-Habbash interview

LTC Allen West in support of Israel

From UCI (12oct10)

Original borders and original inhabitants

Israel: we can be proud!

From Arlene Peck (12oct10)

We can be proud.

America wake up !!! Listen to this woman, Dr. Wafaa Sultan

From Gabrielle Goldwater (12oct10)

Latest from Dr. Wafaa Sultan.

Muslim caller and radio host Neil Boortz

From Arlene Peck (11oct10)

An Angry Neil Boortz. Watch the video and do not miss reading comment under the Video.

Boortz and Muslim caller.

Video of Israel's reality

From Gabrielle Goldwater (11oct10)

This is worth a few minutes to watch.

No more fitting rooms

From Sheila Nadler (10oct10)

I continue to be amazed by technology......enjoy. It would sure beat having to mess up your hair and taking your shoes off and putting them back on. The end of fitting/dressing rooms in stores. Could this be in our future? They already have this in Japan

computer-aided shopping


From Beth Gilinsky (8oct10)

Vote now.

From Jeff Davis(10oct10)

Newt Gingrich recently grabbed national headlines by saying the decision that awaits American voters this November is a choice between paychecks and food stamps.

Video comparing and contrasting the options before the American people.

UN Watch Takes on Flotilla Probe's Disregard of 'Shahid' Evidenc

From Gabrielle Goldwater (7oct10)

U.N. Flotilla Probe: "Even If Bin Laden Himself Were on Ship, Israel's Blockade Still Illegal"
(1) UN kangaroo court probe of Flotilla farce.

Ignoring evidence, UN Flotilla Chair says: "I never heard the word 'Shahid' before"
(2) UN Watch and UN Human Rights Council.

"Securing America's Future

From Jewish Policy Center(7oct10)

This is a recording of the recent forum we hosted on September 26 in Los Angeles.

Michael Medved, David Horowitz, Cliff May and Mona Charen.

Russian-Israeli cooperation

From BenAmi(6oct10)

Russia and Israel sign military agreement

New recruiting video features German Jihadists

From Gabrielle Goldwater (6oct10)

German Jihadists

National Museum of Jewish History

From Truth Provider (5oct10)

Jews who contributed to America's history.

UN Watch Takes on Iran & Saudis on Women's Rights

From Gabrielle Goldwater (5oct10)

U.N. Human Rights Council debate on discrimination against women

Former terrorist now spokesman for Israel "good ideology" and against any concessions

From Evelyn Hayes (5oct10)

Former terrorist Dr Hamid Tawfik

Sharia watch: The latest from Europe

From Boris Celser (4oct10)

Sharia watch

I am Israel

From Arlene Peck (3oct10)

Every Jew on the planet should watch this.... (actually, every PERSON on the planet should watch this)

I am Israel

Images of the Yesha communities

From Ben Avraham (3oct10)

Yesha community


From Gabrielle Goldwater (1oct10)

Latma's is great satire. Here's one from the New Year: Yom Kippur Apologies & Peace with Iran

We also feature Yariv Googleheimer from Peace Now who presents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il and Osama Bin Laden's words of peace for the Jewish people.

Here's the whole episode.


6th graders praying at mosque!

From Wake Up Americans (1oct10)

The video, released by Americans for Peace and Tolerance reveals, among other things, students participating in Muslim prayer — and not a single teacher objecting or trying to stop it!

Public school students on field trip praying at a mosque

For the past three years we've been sounding the alarm about the radical leadership and Saudi funding of the Boston mega-mosque and the organization that runs it, the Muslim American Society, which has been labeled by Federal prosecutors as "the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America."

The Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who is currently serving 23 years in jail on terror charges. For years, its board of trustees included Yusuf al Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who was banned by Bill Clinton from the United States in 1999. Qaradawi now chairs the Muslim American Society's university, which offers classes inside the mosque. Over half the mosque's $15.5 million price tag was funded by wealthy Saudis and since it opened, several of its leaders, donors and members have been implicated in Islamic extremism.

Oussama Ziade, a big donor to the mosque, is now a fugitive in Lebanon after being indicted in 2009 for dealing in the assets of an Al Qaeda financier. Ahmad Abousamra, the son of the Boston Muslim American Society's former vice-president Abdulbadi Abousamra, is now a fugitive in Syria, fleeing the country before being indicted in 2009 on charges of aiding Al Qaeda. One of the mosque's imams, Abdullah Faaruuq, was captured on tape in 2010 telling followers to "pick up the gun and the sword" and to defend another local terrorist Aafia Siddiqui from the U.S. government. Siddiqui, who was one of the imam's congregants, is an MIT graduate and Al Qaeda member awaiting sentencing for attempting to murder FBI agents in Afghanistan while shouting "death to America."

The mosque leadership continues to be embraced by top Massachusetts political and religious leaders. These include Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, as well as a group of local progressive rabbis and Christian clergy, who all insist despite evidence to the contrary that the mosque is moderate and its critics are just bigots.

Indeed, this is a familiar refrain by leaders nationwide in response to the increasing public realization that Islamic leaders are not as moderate as they present themselves. Radicalism is growing and many moderate Muslims have been silenced. In various parts of the country, public schools are allowing Muslim extremists to promote Islam to our children. Something's broken here. Our leadership is failing. It's now up to ordinary citizens to fix it.

Women of Courage

From Yaacov (1oct10)

Alice, the lady in apartment #6. At 106, she is the world's oldest Holocaust survivor. She still plays her classical music on the piano every day -- the music that saved her in Theresienstadt.

After you see this, you will not forget her.

"Alice", the film.

To Go To Top

Home Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web