HOME Featured Stories September 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, September 30, 2010.

The Sofer, writing a Torah Scroll

Dancing with the Torah on Simchat Torah


The holidays of Tishrei come to a dancing conclusion this week with the Shemini Atzeret-Simchat Torah doubleheader which begins Wednesday at sundown. In Israel, the holidays occur simultaneously following the final day of Sukkot. Joyful and passionate singing and dancing with the Torah mark the conclusion of the annual reading of tis to start the cycle anew.

This week's photographs are taken from a celebration to dedicate a newly written Sefer Torah, held last year in Jerusalem. The ceremony began with members of the family which sponsored the writing completing the last verse of the Torah, with the aid of a scribe. Afterward, the new Torah and several others were paraded through the streets to the accompaniment of music and frenzied dancing. At the conclusion of the parade, the Torah was brought back into the synagogue where it will be used and placed for the first time in the Aron Kodesh.

The first image is a close up of the sofer as he puts the finishing touch on one of the letters of the final verse. The lower image captures much of the energy and excitement generated by the ecstatic participants. It is also a an excellent illustration of how a Torah dedication is always an event celebrated by the entire community, as this photo features both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Torahs, soldiers, and numerous individuals of varying religious custom all joining the celebration. Chag Sameach!


Upper Photo: Nikon D-300, 18-200 zoom at 112mm, f6.3 at 1/125 sec., ISO 400.

Lower Photo: Nikon D-300, 18-200 zoom at 22mm, f5 at 1/160 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 Jim Kouri, September 30, 2010.

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/ un-seeks-control-of-world-s-drinking-water-warn-critics


"Water is a political issue," said Daniel Zimmer, the executive director of the World Water Council. "But politicians need to understand why they should care more about water."

The United Nations General Assembly is considering a historic draft resolution recognizing the human right to "safe and clean drinking water and sanitation" initiated by the Bolivian government. Other member states have been consulted on the resolution and the final text is expected to be presented to the President of the General Assembly.

In a letter sent to all UN Ambassadors and permanent missions, global water advocate and Blue Planet Project founder Maude Barlow urges a decisive and swift passage of the resolution.

"This would be one of the most important things the UN has done since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," says Barlow, who chairs the boards of the Council of Canadians and Washington-based Food and Water Watch. In 2008/2009, Barlow served as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the UN General Assembly.

"It's time politics caught up with reality," says Barlow, noting that nearly two billion people live in water-stressed areas of the world and three billion have no running water within a kilometre of their homes. "It's time states finally recognize water as essential to life and a fundamental human right."

But this latest moved — backed by U.S. progressives — is viewed as disturbing by conservative activists such as political strategist Mike Baker.

"This is the Mother of all power-grabs on a global level and will surely be detrimental to U.S. sovereignty. And the news media are totally ignoring what should be the biggest news story of the year," said Baker.

Baker believes one of the most diabolical organizations in controlling the world's resources, including water, is the much-touted Clinton Global Initiative, the brainchild of former President Bill Clinton, an unabashed Internationalist.

Then there's Obama's science "czar," John Holrdren, who was also an attendee at Clinton's recent conference. Shortly after his confirmation as director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, it was revealed that Holdren was once a proponent of compulsory abortions and a "Planetary Regime". And in 1977, he co-authored a book that proposed the use of totalitarian regimes to curb population growth and protect the environment including the planet's water supply.

Other key figures from the days of the Clinton administration were also at the annual meeting including National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin.

Meanwhile, in an address before the UN General Assembly, President Barack Obama Wednesday outlined the Administration's new global development policy.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which handles the Senate's work in crafting the annual State Department and foreign assistance appropriations bill said of Obama's speech, "The United States has vital national security, economic, and humanitarian interests around the world, but the ways we use our limited budget to protect those interests are too often poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, and fail to produce the intended outcomes. President Obama's new Global Development Policy tackles these issues head on, recognizing that the answer is not shrinking our role as a world leader but working to build the capacity of developing countries to achieve lasting progress against poverty, conflict, environmental degradation and other major threats to global security. I hope the Congress and the Administration will join together to make these long overdue reforms."

Barlow and Blue Planet Project Organizer, Anil Naidoo, recently briefed the G77 and China on the right to water and along with an international team of water activists met with representatives of 25 countries last week to advance the issue. Naidoo will be in New York next week meeting with UN member states to build additional support for the right to water resolution.

"International and local community groups fighting for water justice have long been calling for leadership from the UN in clearly recognizing that water and sanitation are human rights," says Naidoo. "As this moves forward we are demanding that the language of the resolution remain strong and leave no doubt that water and sanitation are human rights."

"When the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights was written, no one could foresee a day when water would be a contested area. But in 2010, it is not an exaggeration to say that the lack of access to clean water is the greatest human rights violation in the world," adds Barlow in the letter.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Zvi November, September 30, 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
Ihttp://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.), 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".

Visit Zvi November's website: www.trafford.com/08-0128

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), September 30, 2010.

This was written by Paul Williams and it appeared today in FSM
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.7520/pub_detail.asp.

Paul L. Williams, Ph.D., is the author of The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, The Al Qaeda Connection, and other best-selling books. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR. Visit his website at http://thelastcrusade.org/.


Noor Almaleki, killed by her Iraq father in 2009 who ran his car over her in an honor killing. He objected to her living and dressing like an American.

"Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans", a study from Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill maintains that the terrorist threat posed by radical Islam has been greatly exaggerated. The study captured front page headlines in

Arab News and newspapers throughout the Muslim world.

Charles Kurzman, one of the co-authors of the study, maintains that fewer than three dozen murders have been committed by American Muslims on American soil.

What Kurzman fails to take into account are the number of murders committed by non-American Muslims on American soil and the homicides perpetuated by members of the Nation of Islam.

The actual figures show that Islamophobia is a justifiable stance since Muslims have been responsible for the murders of 5,000 Americans in the past fifty years.

This number includes the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 and the hundreds of victims of the so-called Zebra killings that took place in the 1970s.

Kurzman and his crew also neglect to point out that the number of Muslims in America, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is almost statistically insignificant. Of roughly 4.6 million Muslims in the Americas, more than half live in the United States and make up less than 0.8 percent of the population.

Yet Muslims have wreaked more death and destruction on American soil than the combined toll of all political, social, and religious hate groups, including the Ku Klux Khan.

The following is a very short list of incidents of Islamic violence that have taken place within America since 9/11:

Date: December 5, 2009 — Binghampton, New York — A 46 year-old graduate student at Binghamton University stabs to death his Jewish professor and mentor because he was "persecuted as a Muslim." The slain professor is the author of several books, including "Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Movements." The killer, who was writing his dissertation on early Arab culture, once told one told his roommates: "I feel like destroying the world."

Date: November 5, 2009 — Fort Hood, Texas — Major Malik Nidal Hasan, 39, a Muslim American psychiatrist, opens fire on American troops at Fort Hood, Texas in a murderous rampage that leaves 13 soldiers dead and 38 wounded. The carnage begins as approximately 300 soldiers, in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan, line up to get vaccinations and to have their eyes examined at a Soldier Readiness Center. Hasan, who worshipped at the radical Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, with several of the 9/11 ops, screams "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire with his semi-automatic pistol. Six months before the massacre, Major Hasan drew the attention of law enforcement officials for his anti-American tirades and his statements of support for the global jihad. In an Internet posting, the Muslim Major equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades. Reacting to the carnage, President Barack Obama says: "We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

Date: November 2, 2009 — A 20-year-old woman dies in Glendale, Arizona from injuries suffered when her Muslim father ran her down with his Jeep Cherokee for becoming too Westernized. The father had taken his daughter to Iraq under the pretense of visiting relatives only to marry her off to a man nearly three times her age. The young woman managed to scrape up enough to escape from her forced marriage and to make her way back to the U.S. After killing his daughter, the Muslim father sets fire to his house in Glendale. Nine people are inside the house when the fire starts.

Date: October 29, 2009 — Brighton, New York — A 37 year-old Muslim housewife slits the throat of her sleeping husband at the couple's home in Brighton, New York. She tells the police that she was forced to commit the crime because her husband was not a devout Islamist. She says that he pressured her to eat pork and even attempted to give her a drink that contained alcohol.

Date: August 21, 2009 — Three members of a Somali street gang travel from Columbus, Ohio to Grand Island, Nebraska, where they gun down two Sudanese men at the Autumn Wood Apartments. The local television station reports that the motive of the shootings, which leaves one dead and another critically wounded, is religious. The gunmen are Muslims; the victims Christians.

Date: June 1, 2009 — A Muslim convert opens fire at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, killing one young soldier and wounding another. The convert — Carlos Bledsoe, 24 — says that he "is mad at the U.S. military" because of what American soldiers "had done to Muslims in the past." The killing, he says, was for the sake of Allah. "I do not feel I am guilty," Bledsoe further tells Little Rock police officers. "I don't think it was murder because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason. U.S. soldiers are killing innocent Muslim men and women. We believe we have to strike back. We believe in an eye for an eye."

Date: February 14, 2009 — The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway of his studio in Buffalo, New York when he learns that she is seeking a divorce. Despite the heinousness of the crime, Muzzammil Hassan is only charged with second degree murder. Hassan had been hailed by the Buffalo community as a model example of a moderate Muslim. Bridges TV — Hassan's television station — had been established "to fuse American culture with the values of Islam in a healthy, family-oriented way."

Date: January 1, 2008 — A Muslim cabdriver in Irving, Texas shoots and kills his two teenage daughters in his taxi upon discovering they had dated non-Muslim boys. He had plans for Amina, his eldest daughter, to marry a man three times her age in Egypt. Discovering that she is no longer a virgin, he withdraws a 9 millimeter pistol and shoots her twice at point blank range in the chest, severing her spinal cord. Then he turns the pistol on Sarah, his younger daughter, who is sitting in the backseat of the taxi. He pumps nine bullets into her body before abandoning the cab in the parking lot of the Omni Mandalay Hotel. He escapes arrest and remains at large. Many believe that he has returned to the welcoming arms of his family and friends in Cairo.

Date: July 6, 2008 — A distraught Muslim smashes his daughter's skull with an electric iron and strangles her to death with a bungee cord when she expresses her unhappiness over her arranged marriage. The incident takes place in Jonesboro, Georgia. Ajay Nair, Associate Dean of Multicultural Affairs at Columbia University, sugar-coats the killing by saying to CNN: "I think there are ways that we can rationalize it and make sense of it particularly in thinking about new immigrant communities in the U.S. and thinking about some of the struggles that they face."

Date: February 12, 2007 — An 18-year-old Muslim refugee goes on a shooting rampage at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City — targeting shoppers who are buying Valentine's Day cards. Five shoppers are killed; four more critically wounded. Witnesses say that the shooter — Sulejman Talovic — had a smile on his face every time he took aim, pulled the trigger, and cried out: "Allahu Akbar." His aunt tells reporters: "We don't know what happened, just like you guys. We know him as a good boy. He liked everybody, so we don't know what happened." Others claim to know what happened. Robert Spencer, noted author and journalist, says that Talovic is a victim of "sudden jihad syndrome" — a malady increasing common among Muslim men, ranging in age from 14 to 40. The warning signs of this disorder are growing a beard, wearing long Islamic robes and skullcaps, going to mosques, and reading the Koran.

Date: October 6, 2006 — In Louisville, Kentucky, a Somali Muslim, clubs his estranged wife with a blunt object, leaving her for dead, and then proceeds to murder their four children for adopting American lifestyles. The children range in age from 8 to 3. The youngest of the children — a boy and a girl — are stabbed to death while sleeping in their bedroom; the other two girls are killed in the kitchen — their bodies bearing defensive wounds on their hands and arms. The father tells the arresting police officers that he was compelled to kill his family because his wife had treated him with disrespect.

Date: September 20, 2006 — A self-professed Black Muslim shoots and kills a plain clothes police officer in Aurora, Colorado. He says that God wants him to kill. His mother later testifies that her son became transformed into a killer by reading the Koran.

Date: August 20, 2006 — An unemployed Muslim automobile worker uses his black Honda SUV to run down 18 pedestrians through the streets of San Francisco — one is killed. When the police arrive to take him into custody, the Muslim says: "I am a terrorist. I don't care. Everyone needs to be killed." A jury disagrees with the killer's self assessment and rules that he is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Date: July 28, 2006 — An angry Muslim American, making use of a 14 year-old girl as a hostage, breaks into a Jewish Center in Seattle, Washington. He selected his target by researching "something Jewish" on the internet and purchased two semi-automatic pistols from a local arms dealer. Upon entering the Center, he announces to the receptionist, "I'm a Muslim American and I'm angry at Israel" and shoots her. He proceeds to walk down the hallway, firing at women as they sit at their desks. Three of the workers are shot in the abdomen; one in the chest; and another in the head. He fires another shot at the stomach of an employee who is five months pregnant. The bullet misses and strikes the arm which she has raised for protection. He orders the pregnant woman to pick up her phone and to dial 911. He tells the operator: "I am tired of our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East." The police arrive at the scene and persuade the angry Muslim to surrender. In the wake of the carnage, six women are hospitalized — three in critical condition — one is paralyzed by a shot to the spine; another is near-death with wounds to the liver, pancreas, kidney, and heart. A seventh victim — the director the Center — is found dead at the scene. An FBI spokesperson later says that the shooting rampage was "the work of a lone gunman" who was "acting out his antagonism" against the system. Media coverage of the incident is eclipsed by the news of actor Mel Gibson's DUI arrest.

Date: July 25, 2006 — A Muslim warehouse worker in Denver, Colorado — announcing it is "Allah's Choice — shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer with a long-barreled handgun. One is dead, the others critically injured, before a SWAT team arrives to take out the shooter who greats them with a hail of gunfire. The Muslim's sister later explains to the police that her brother was upset because people at the warehouse were making fun of his religion.

Date: June 16, 2006 — A 24 year-old Muslim gunman goes to a movie theater on the outskirts of Baltimore and opens fire with his .367 Magnum at the packed audience as they watch "X-Men: The Last Stand." One man — a 62 year-old Jewish medical supply salesman is dead at the scene. The Muslim lives in a multi-million dollar home and has no criminal record. He graduated with a degree in biology from Loyola College in Baltimore. He provides the police with no motive for his act. Tried for 1st degree murder, the Muslim receives no prison time. He is rather sent for an extended stay at a Maryland psychiatric clinic.

Date: March 3, 2006 — An irate Iranian Muslim, experiencing sudden jihad syndrome, presses the pedal of his SUV to the metal in order to mow down nine students on the campus of the University of North Carolina. After striking each victim, he cries aloud: "Allahu Akbar." The Iranian explains his actions by saying: "Allah's followers have permission to attack those who have waged war against them with eternal paradise as an expected reward."

Date: January 11, 2005 — A quiet Muslim man, working as a housekeeper, at a retirement facility in Alexandria, Virginia, transforms into a homicidal maniac and commences to strangle, stab, and slash six elderly patients. One patient suffers a broken neck; another requires more than 200 stitches. Taken into custody, the Muslim, now subdued, reportedly recites the shahadah.

Date: August 6, 2004 — Houston, Texas — A Saudi college student, upon receiving a so-called "religious awakening," slashes the throat of his Jewish room-mate with a 4 inch butterfly knife, and nearly decapitates him. After the murder, the Saudi visits a mosque to give praise to Allah. Authorities refuse to treat the homicide as a hate crime. The Saudi is granted a deal which allows him to plead guilty to second degree murder and escape the mandatory death sentence. No motive for the crime is ever given.

Date: September and October 2002 — Muslim snipers in the name of Allah killed ten people in suburban Washington D.C. for no apparent reason, save jihad. They critically wounded 3 more. Previous to this, the so-called Beltway snipers were responsible for additional murders in California, Georgia, Alabama, and the state of Washington.

Date: July 5, 2002 — An Egyptian Muslim, living in Irvine, California, decides to celebrate his 41st birthday by going on a one-man jihad in order to gain martyrdom, entrance to 7th heaven, and the award of the 72 awaiting houris. He heads off to the Los Angeles International Airport, where he proceeds to shoot and kill a 24 year old ticket agent and a 61 year old diamond merchant. He critically wounds four more people before being gunned down and killed by security guards.

Date: September 11, 2001 — Muslim terrorists conduct coordinated attacks that results in 2,993 deaths.

The carnage, listed above, could have been much worse, since of host of other attacks have been prevented by watchful law enforcement officials.

This list includes plots to set off radiological bombs in midtown Manhattan, to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge and the Sears Tower in Chicago, to down commercial American aircraft, to kill U.S. troops at Fox Dix, to attack National Guard facilities, to bomb transit systems and subway stops, and to ignite jet fuel arteries leading to the JFK Airport on the outskirts of New York.

Prior to 9/11, scores of additional eruptions of Islamic jihad have taken place throughout the country, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the homicidal rampage of numbers of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and the above-mentioned Zebra killings.

The new study also fails to take into account the fact that four Islamic attacks take place every day throughout the world; that Muslims have been responsible for 16,132 attacks since 9/11; and that every conflict within today's world from China to Chechnya, from Somalia to the Sudan, from Afghanistan to Argentina, from the Balkans to the Philippines, from Indonesia to India, from Iran to Iraq, from Pakistan to Denmark, from Britain to Bangladesh involves a manifestation of Islam.

Editor's Note: This is a reader's comment:

Interesting article.

Let's not confuse crimes with active terrorism. I accept not all Muslims are terrorists.

However the only modern day terrorists threatening the world are Muslims.

Let me ask some basic questions.

Why is the Islamic community allowing terrorists to hijack their religion to justify hideous attacks on western countries?

What are the "moderate muslims" doing to prevent abuse of their religion by their radical brothers and sisters in Islam?

When the muslim community continually complain about us reacting to the radical elements in Islam, labeling us "islamophobics", what do they expect us to do?

Do they agree, it is the responsibility of every moderate Muslim to claim ownership of Islam, and openly denounce any Muslim abusing or using the Koran to ratify their evil acts?

Do they agree that when civilized Muslims takes control of Islam, people might view them in a different light?

Do the Muslims nations agree it should not up to the western nations to clean up the mess left behind by radical Islamists?

Do they accept as a direct result of the inaction of the Islamic community, we in the west have no option but to protect ourselves?

Are they aware everyone has the right of self defence; this is not solely an Islamic or koranic teaching?

Do the educated moderate Muslims feel ashamed and embarrassed by the 100,000's of YouTube videos and internet sites where your religious leaders are promoting absolute vile draconian and evil doctrines in the name of Islam?

Do you think these so called Islamic leaders are helping the cause of moderate islam?

Do you acknowledge and agree that these people are the ones totally damaging the name of islam and turning the west against islam?

What is the Muslim community doing about them or going to do about them and when?

When is islam going to accept responsibility for the evil actions of radical muslims acting in the name of ALLAH?

What does the Koran tell the muslims about dealing with any muslim perverting the word of the koran?

The Hypocrisy is, when one pastor threatened to burn a koran, the islamic community went into a frenzy, yet when muslims come out and threaten western nations and post evil inciteful speeches based on the koran, and calling god is great, there is not a whisper from any muslim, moderate or otherwise.

What are Islamic scholars going to do about the suras in the koran that incite violence, call for the killing of Jews and Christians, and prohibiting people from leaving islam, and condone lying to us infidels?

It is time for islam to stop pointing the finger, claim ownership of islam, control the muslims and clean out their own house. If the islamic leaders and community takes direct firm action against the radicals, there would be no need for external intervention.

Finally islamic leaders must condemn and excommunicate the entire "Islamic brotherhood" in Egypt. They are the chief promoters of Jihad, shariah and terrorism all over the world. Islam can not wash their hands of the root causes and blame every one else. The greatest difficulty is, as an infidel how do I know if a muslim is been honest or lying to me as taught by Mohammed. Lets be honest.

posted by: ibstar
Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 05:14 AM

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Behind the News, September 29, 2010.

This was written by Lenny Ben David and it was published yesterday in The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=189445 and is also archived at
http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/ content.cgi?ID=4151&q=1

The writer served as a senior diplomat in Israel's embassy in Washington. He is a public affairs consultant and blogs at www.lennybendavid.com.


The organization succeeded in identifying a leftist constituency looking for a voice in Washington. But 'The Washington Times' exposé is so devastating to its credibility and standing that its constituency needs a new champion

Bravo to The Washington Times's national security correspondent Eli Lake for his exposé of J Street over the weekend. The so-called pro-Israel organization is bursting with scandals about the identity of its contributors, its decision-making process, its conflicting policies on Iran sanctions, its ties to pro-Iranian and Arab American organizations and more. But many reporters have been reluctant to shine a spotlight on it, fearful of running afoul of the White House, for whom J Street proudly serves as President Barack Obama's "blocking back."

Since J Street's founding, Jeremy Ben-Ami has repeatedly lied about his organization's dependence on Israel's super-critic George Soros. Lake revealed that J Street's US tax records prove that Soros and his family are major contributors.

J Street's tax form 990 for the year ending in June 2009 showed that Soros contributed $145,000, daughter Andrea Soros gave $50,000 and son Jonathan an additional $50,000. That's a significant percentage of J Street's budget in its first years.

Despite all J Street's denials, it's clear that the organization abides by the "golden rule — he with the gold rules." J Street's policies strive to actualize Soros's 2007 manifesto "On Israel, America and AIPAC" that appeared in the New York Review of Books. Soros' influence goes a long way in explaining J Street's very existence, its frequent criticism of Israel, its refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report, its flirtation with Iran, its refusal to support Israel's Gaza operation and its active opposition to some American Jewish organizations.

The IRS tax returns also showed that J Street paid its vice president Jim Gerstein $61,000 for "consulting" services by the Gerstein-Agne company. Elsewhere, J Street listed $46,000 for polling expenses, presumably to Gerstein's polling firm, which has published several polls for Ben-Ami's lobby. Whether the polling fees were part of the consulting fees is irrelevant. The "business transactions involving interested persons," to use the IRS phrase, is a questionable corporate practice by a supposedly not-for-profit organization. It also totally destroys the credibility of J Street's self-serving polls.

The IRS forms also list J Street's five officers and directors — something J Street never before publicized. For good reason. The fifth listed is Mort Halperin, a veteran Washington foreign policy hand who also serves as senior adviser at Soros' Open Society Institute. In October 2009, at the height of congressional condemnation of the Goldstone Report, Judge Richard Goldstone sent a letter to members of Congress defending his criticism of Israel. One enterprising reporter checked the document's "properties" and discovered the real author: Mort Halperin.

BEYOND THE Soros contributions to J Street, equally troubling is a huge $811,697 contribution from a "Consolacion Esdicul" from Hong Kong. It appears that Consolacion is "Connie" Esdicul, who Google reveals is a member of the Hong Kong Rotary Club, living in the Happy Valley section of Hong Kong. But little is known about the woman. J Street claims she was solicited by Bill Benter, "a prominent J Street supporter from Pittsburgh."

Actually, Benter, who is not Jewish, is considered the world's most successful bettor on horse races, and hangs out at the Happy Valley track. Racing sheets report that Benter places $250,000 bets. According to Wired.com, "Nobody's more skilled at making bets than Bill Benter, regarded by many of his peers as the most successful sports bettor in the world."

Esdicul's contribution is a strange number, unlike all the others which are rounded off to three zeroes. The figure may make sense, however, if it were a foreign currency conversion. What currency does $811,697 equal? We can only speculate. Using today's rates, Esdicul's contribution equals 6,298,308 Hong Kong dollars, or 606,491 euros, or 517,388 British pounds or 3,044,756 Saudi riyals.

Why would a Hong Kong individual contribute as much as onehalf of J Street's budget? Actually, Esdicul's contribution is in line with J Street's corrupt taking of money from pro-Saudi activists, Arab-American leaders, Muslim activists, State Department Arabists, a Palestinian billionaire and even a Turkish American who helped produce the anti-American and anti-Semitic film Valley of the Wolves.

According to the US Federal Election Commission, the largest contribution to J Street's Political Action Committee is $36,000 from a Latin teacher in Teton Village, Wyoming named Bob Morris. How do you say "strange" in Latin? With such contributions, it's easy to understand how J Street's operation on Capitol Hill grew exponentially in the past 12 months.

According to lobbying records on file at the clerk of the House of Representatives and the secretary of the Senate, J Street's lobbying budget went from under $5,000 in the first quarter of 2009, with one registered lobbyist, to $130,000 in the first quarter of 2010, when J Street registered six lobbyists.

The $811,687 contribution from Hong Kong should raise the question whether the lobbyists need to register as foreign agents and not domestic lobbyists.

Last week J Street published ads in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal demanding that Israel "freeze settlement growth." (There were no parallel J Street demands on the Palestinians to stop jihadi incitement in the PA's newspapers, radio and television networks.) "I would guess the two ads cost J Street a few hundred thousand dollars," wrote one Jewish anti-Israel writer.

Now we know who pays for J Street's ads, and running ads or hiring lobbyists to influence American policy could require foreign agent registration.

In recent months J Street endorsed several dozen candidates for congressional elections, and its political action committee has distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to its favorite candidates.

How many of the endorsees will rush to reject the J Street favors now that the organization has emerged as a Soros and foreign front? Give J Street credit, though: It did succeed in identifying a leftist constituency looking for a voice in Washington. But The Washington Times exposé is so devastating to J Street's credibility and standing in Washington that its constituency needs a new champion, one free of intrigues, lies and corruption.

To Go To Top

Posted by Rand H. Fishbein, September 29, 2010.

This was sent by Rand H. Fishbein who writes:

"This was George Soros' interview on 60 minutes. Here is a partial transcript from an interview done by Steve Kroft for CBS' 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/george-soros-on- helping-the-nazis-during-the-holocaust"

Of course most of us here are already aware of Mr. Soros' highly questionable actions during the Nazi occupation. (Though the public at large undoubtedly has a different perspective, if they know anything about his earlier days at all.)

But the statements he made in this interview to my mind are quite chilling. He forgives himself everything. He says that if he hadn't done it somebody else would have.

All of which would seem to indicate that Mr. Soros has no conscience. A lack of conscience is said to be a common symptom of sociopaths.


When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)

KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.

(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew...

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

KROFT: (Voiceover) ...who escaped the Holocaust...

(Vintage footage of women walking by train)

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

(Vintage footage of people getting on train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) ...by — by posing as a Christian.

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and — and anticipate events and when — when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a — a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't — you don't see the connection. But it was — ; it created no — no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c — I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets — that if I weren't there — of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, September 29, 2010.

This was written by Fern Sidman.


(Israelnationalnews.com) Chants of "Not One Inch" could be heard in midtown Manhattan Tuesday afternoon as members of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI) joined forces with members of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, representing the World Committee for the Land of Israel.

More than 200 people gathered outside the Israeli Consulate in a spirited demonstration of support for the abrogation of the 10-month moratorium on Jewish building throughout Judea and Samaria. The building freeze expired earlier this week.

The crowd held aloft signs saying, "No Freeze, No Appease, Bibi Stay Strong", "Build !! Don't Destroy Jewish Homes and Synagogues", "The Land of Israel Belongs to G-d: Do Not Relinquish it" and "Jerusalem, Hebron, Golan, Judea and Samaria: Ours Forever."

Helen Freedman, executive director of Americans for a Safe Israel told the supporters for Israel, "We are here today to celebrate the renewal of building in Israel. We congratulate Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for resisting the pressure from President (Barack) Obama and (Palestinian Authority Chairman) Mahmoud Abbas to extend the construction freeze in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

"We must call on Prime Minister Netanyahu to remember that nations rise and fall, but the Jewish people have maintained their right to the entire Land of Israel for nearly 4,000 years."

Interspersed during the speakers, Lubavitch members led the demonstrators in an emotional recitation of several chapters of Tehillim, prayers from the Book of Psalms; while beseeching G-d's mercy and protection for the Jewish people and the land of Israel.

The male and female demonstrators were separated by a mechitza, according to Jewish law that prohibits unnecessary public mingling of genders. Young men from Lubavitch carried their sets of the Four Species, known in Hebrew as the Arba Minim, exhorting Jewish passersby to recite the blessing while holding them.

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 Truth Provider, September 29, 2010.
Dear friends,

Interesting things are happening at the UN.

Yesterday (Tuesday, Sept 28) at the UN General Assembly, Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, said what no Israeli Foreign Minister or Prime Minister have dared say: The TRUTH!!!

In front of some 140 hostile to Israel delegations, he stated his opinion that real peace between Israel and the "Palestinians" will take decades to materialize.

PM Netanyahu said that Lieberman's speech was not coordinated with him. If that is true (and it is not necessarily so), it may cost Lieberman his job, or his FM position. If he is fired, as the entire Israeli left and left media is demanding, he will have the satisfaction that for once and maybe once only, the UN podium was used for stating the truth.

In the article below, please pay attention to the fact that the left-liberal Haaretz keeps referring to Lieberman's plans as "controversial scheme" while never using these words for the Left's scheme to uproot 300,000 Jewish residents from Judea & Samaria. It was written by Barak Ravid and it appeared yesterday. It is archived at
www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lieberman- presents-plans-for-population-exchange-at-un-1.316197

Also see


Controversial scheme would see part of Israel's Arab population moved to a newly created Palestinian state, in return for evacuation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday presented the United Nations with his draft for a population and territory swap, as part of an eventual peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Under Lieberman's controversial scheme, part of Israel's Arab population would be moved to a newly created Palestinians state, in return for evacuation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Photo: Tess Scheflan)

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday presented the United Nations with his draft for a population and territory swap, as part of an eventual peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Under Lieberman's controversial scheme, part of Israel's Arab population would be moved to a newly created Palestinians state, in return for evacuation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

"A final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has to be based on a program of exchange of territory and populations," Lieberman told the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The foreign minister stressed that his proposals did not represent a scheme for "populations transfer", a phrase that evokes historical proposals by Israel's extreme right to evict Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza altogether.

"We are not talking about population transfer but about defining borders so as best to reflect the demographic reality," said.

But the ideas are nevertheless likely to provoke an angry reponse, especially from Israeli Arabs, who make up some 20 percent of the country's population.

This is not the first time that Lieberman, whose ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party is the second-largest in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, has put forward the controversial proposals.

But his decision to place them before the General Assembly in his role as foreign minister will raise speculation over whether they are his private plan, or the official policy of the Israeli government, and Netanyahu is likely to face international calls for clarification.

A latest round of peace talks, which kicked off in Washington in early September, hit a deadlock at midnight on Sunday when Israel's self-imposed freeze on settlement building expired. It remains uncertain if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will carry out threats to walk out of negotiations unless the freeze is renewed.

Lieberman,the firebrand leader of the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party and himself a resident of a West Bank settlement, has said repeatedly he will evacuate his home in the event of a peace agreement.

Yet Lieberman believes peace with the Palestinians could never be achieved until the Middle East confronts a greater threat, Iran.

"Iran can exist without Hamas but Hamas can't exist without Iran," he told UN delegates.

Hamas militants seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 and receive financial backing from the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"In order to solve a range of problems in the Middle East, not just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you have to solve the Iranian problem first," he said.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il. Visit his website at www.truthprovider.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, September 29, 2010.

This was written by Nidal al-Mughrabi and was written for Reuters


Business has become so bad for Gaza's smuggler barons since Israel relaxed its blockade that tunnel traders have given up spiriting goods into the enclave, and some have even turned underground exporters.

Smugglers had made fortunes hauling all manner of goods from Egypt through tunnels into Gaza, supplying 1.5 million Palestinians badly hurt by Israel's clampdown imposed in 2007 after the Islamist Hamas group took over the tiny territory.

But in June Israel eased the blockade, originally intended to weaken Hamas and prevent its Islamist backers supplying weapons to Gaza, in response to international pressure.

Over-priced clandestine imports from Egypt lost their allure as cheaper goods brought in through Israeli border crossings became available. Many smugglers went out of business and most of the roughly 2,500 tunnels have been closed or mothballed.

But a few entrepreneurs have adapted and reversed the flow, exporting through the remaining tunnels from an enclave once starved of basic goods to Egypt, Gaza's only market.

"This business is very profitable, since there's no exporting at all through Israeli crossings," said Abu Khail, a Gaza Strip tunneller. He reckons 15 to 20 tunnels are now shipping to Egypt, each employing at least 12 workers.

"We're exporting raw materials like aluminum, copper, scrap metal, plus eggs, ducks and chickens," said one masked worker who was packing bags for the short trip underground from Rafah to Egypt, which prohibits overt commercial trade with Gaza.

While Israel's blockade failed to break Hamas's lock on Gaza, easing it has led to a collapse of unofficial tax revenues which the Islamist group earned from the tunnel trade.


For Gaza Palestinians, the smugglers' reversal of fortune is welcome. For three years they paid exorbitant prices for everything Israel forbade, which used to be a very long list and is now much reduced, allowing for an influx of legal imports.

The Israelis relaxed their grip after taking a hammering in the court of world public opinion when their commandos killed nine pro-Palestinian activists in a melee aboard a Turkish ship trying to bust the Gaza blockade on May 31.

A United Nations report in August said the volume of supplies to Gaza now averaged 1,006 truckloads a week, up 80 percent since June.

But the U.N. said these "positive developments" were not enough to make up for the fact that imports remained far below the weekly average before the closure was instituted in 2007.

Moreover, Gaza still cannot export openly, and until enough steel and cement is allowed in it cannot rebuild the factories that once made exportable items, the U.N. said.

Most plant was smashed in Israel's offensive of late 2008 and early 2009, launched to stop Islamist firing into Israel.

Manufacturing jobs remain scarce and the tunnel business is as dangerous as ever for those still laboring underground.

Workers must abandon the area whenever Gaza Islamist militants shoot rockets into Israel, knowing that the tunnels are a favorite target of retaliation by Israeli warplanes.

Earlier this month one worker died and two others were wounded when an Israeli plane fired a missile into a tunnel.

The U.N. says Gaza needs a legitimate export trade. Unemployment is rampant in Gaza, it depends more heavily than ever on aid, and long-term economic sustainability is impossible in current circumstances.

(Editing by Douglas Hamilton and David Stamp)

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 Barry Rubin, September 29, 2010.

After acceding to U.S. requests for nine months by freezing construction on existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank and also not building over the pre-1967 frontier in Jerusalem, Israel got nothing.

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed willing to continue it in some form, pressures from within his coalition made that impossible.Therefore, the freeze is coming to an end, though Israel is still ready to discuss limits on new construction. Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas is threatening to walk out of the once-every-two-weeks direct talks.

So what has been the reaction?

First, 87 U.S. senators, that's 87 percent of the membership, have urged Obama to keep Abbas from walking out of talks. They have not blamed Israel for the crisis.

The Obama Administration is approaching the issue calmly and there has been no bashing or even criticism of Israel. Why? Lots of reasons, one being the impending November elections and the government's eagerness to show it has achieved something in international affairs. Another is that officials now realize that the PA has been their real headache, refusing to talk for 20 months, constantly setting new preconditions, and eagerly looking for some way to walk out of negotiations. Europe is being pretty quiet also about blaming Israel.

Even Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, a frequent critic of Israel in the past, gets it, criticizing the Obama Administration — not Israel — for its handling of the settlements' issue. And Ben Smith at Politico writes a story headlined, "In blame game, arrow tilts to Abbas."

These statements and articles generally miss the deeper story: incitement to kill Israelis and destroy Israel continues at full speed in the PA media and institutions; the PA's Fatah leadership neither wants nor can deliver a compromise two-state solution at present; Hamas's control of the Gaza Strip poses an insuperable obstacle; nothing has been done by the PA to prepare Palestinian public opinion for compromise (quite the contrary); and Israel wants peace on reasonable terms. But a lot of people in the U.S. government and media now understand — at least temporarily — the symptoms indicating all of these factors.

Overarching all of this is the real main issue: the great struggle in the Middle East between Islamists and nationalists, the efforts by the Iran-led radical bloc and local revolutionary Islamist groups (using terrorism or even electoral means) to overthrow the relatively moderate regimes and drive U.S. influence out of the region.

In another indication of this fact, in still another example of strong U.S.-Israel military cooperation, the U.S. Defense Department has agreed to help Israel develop a short-range anti-missile system aimed against the kind of barrages fired in the past by Iran's clients, Hizballah and Hamas.

Of course, there are limits, some due to understandable diplomatic maneuvering, some due to lack of comprehension. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was mild in saying that the United States was "disappointed" by the Israeli decision and praised Abbas for not immediately walking away from the talks.

But will they praise him if he walks out in a week or so?

Meanwhile a new, very potent computer virus has hit Iran, reportedly targeted especially at its nuclear program. Wonder where it could have come from? Additionally, to their credit, the Obama Administration and most of Europe have toughened sanctions to the point where they are hurting the Tehran regime. The regime is far from falling or changing but it is shaking up and some of the elite is starting to ask whether an aggressive foreign policy and a nuclear weapons' drive isn't a big mistake.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. This article is archived at
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/9/ us-government-and-west-start-to-comprehend

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 28, 2010.

I begin here with a correction regarding yesterday's post, with thanks to the several people who caught it.

This particular error was not insignificant because it might have inadvertently misled some people with regard to the history I was recounting. Hopefully, most of you reading it understood that I was simply — and temporarily — off base. Sort of a typo of the brain. The correct information is this:

Jordan captured Judea and Samaria in 1948 (not during the Six Day War), and we secured control of the area after the Six Day War in 1967. The 19 years during which Jordan made it Judenrein — thus creating the impression that the region was Arab — were 1948-67. [Ed Note: corrected info]


There has been no official statement from Netanyahu with regard to a continuation of the freeze. Although Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren has told US media that construction will be "responsible, restrained and limited." (Uh oh)

Mitchell is here now, and will be meeting Netanyahu tomorrow. Reports are that Netanyahu is also on the phone a good deal of the time, reaching for that "compromise." He won't be meeting with the cabinet to discuss this until next week, at about the same time that Abbas will be meeting with the Arab League. Apparently he will also be meeting with the PLO and Fatah.


Meanwhile, PA Negotiator Nabil Shaath is still saying that they will walk if we start building: "Maybe the Israelis will reassess their position and see the whole world is against the continuation of settlement activities."


Sometimes it does feel like the whole world is against us. France, in a lovely gesture intended to frighten us, recently informed us that this was the case. (Sarkozy is now proposing a peace summit in Paris, which will fix everything.) And the UN's Ban Ki-Moon has referred to our resumption of building as "provocative."


But in truth, there are people with us. We've got 87 US Senators (a very solid percentage of 100!) who just days ago signed on to a letter to Obama stating "Neither side should make threats to leave just as the talks are getting started." With this oblique reference to Abbas comes a call for Obama to publicly pressure him.

Then there is Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) who just released a statement that said in part:

"Upon the lapsing of the moratorium on new settlements, State Department representatives expressed the Obama Administration's 'disappointment' that Israel would resume its construction of houses in the West Bank. Unfortunately, I believe the Administration's disappointment is seriously misdirected.

"Comments such as those coming from the State Department are not at all unexpected, as the Obama Administration has consistently shown an unprecedented degree of antagonism toward Israel. A few months ago, the Administration chastised Israel for building homes in Jerusalem, despite the fact that Jerusalem is not a settlement, but the capital of the nation of Israel, which was founded and built by the ancient people of Israel 3000 years ago.

"Indeed, it is highly ironic and bewildering that Israel has received more open rebuke from the Obama administration for plans to build houses in Jerusalem than the Iranian regime that threatens Israel with annihilation has received for building a secret uranium enrichment facility to produce nuclear weapons... "As Israelis celebrate their ability to resume construction on the thousands of dwellings that have sat unfinished throughout this moratorium, I urge President Obama to at long last embrace, rather than alienate, the most vital ally America has in the world."


And, at least for the moment we even have Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.

I was (most pleasantly!) surprised by a column he just wrote. Suffice it to say that he has not been one of Israel's more eager supporters. But things are so bad that — in a column called "Obama demands more than Israel can give" — he truly gets it. In fact, he does a good job of making our case in ways I would have not expected:

"The arena of the Obama administration's incompetence is the issue of West Bank settlements. This is something of a misnomer since some settlements are indistinguishable parts of Jerusalem. Even in the Middle East, common sense can play a role. The Jerusalem-area settlements are not going to be abandoned by Israel. Settlements are how Zionists settled Israel — and the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria are the heart of biblical Israel...

"...The government of Benjamin Netanyahu complied, under extreme pressure, but only to a 10-month moratorium. For Netanyahu, this was a major concession. He heads a coalition that takes settlements very seriously...

"From the very start, the president has taken a very hard line against settlements, refusing to distinguish between an apartment in Jerusalem and a hilltop encampment deep in the West Bank. He also seems not to understand their religious, cultural or historical importance to some Jews. The Obama approach has been counterproductive. Obama has to husband his credibility. He foolishly demanded something Israel could not yet give. It was bad diplomacy."
/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2010/09/27/AR2010092704656.html


Meanwhile, building has begun on some hundreds of homes in Judea and Samaria: in Tekoa, Efrat, Oranit and other communities. Normally such construction work would not be done on the intermediate days of Sukkot. But it is being done because there is a sense of urgency — a fear that the freeze that has just been lifted might be reinstated at any time.

Perhaps the nicest news involves the start of construction on some 50 housing units in Ariel, in Samaria, that are designated for people who had been expelled from their homes in Netzarim, in Gaza in 2005.


I heard MK Danny Danon (Likud) — a passionate opponent of the freeze — speak tonight.

He said most clearly it was the case that Netanyahu declined to extend the freeze because he recognized that it was not a viable option politically. Thus maintaining that pressure on him within Israel remains important.

Danon is opposed to a referendum, should there be a deal of sorts with the Palestinian Arabs, because it is too unpredictable, depending, for example, on how the wording is done. His choice would be a call for elections.

He also spoke about the need to attend to Jerusalem and keep her united. There is a great deal of critical importance to say about this, and I will table it for another day.


I've seen in the news twice now reports that Fatah and Hamas are close to reconciliation. There are tensions between these groups that would render any unity coalition established for the sake of governing all of the Palestinian areas very shaky. But I think it is not a coincidence that this is being raised right now.

Egypt had put forward an agreement for reconciliation quite some time ago. Fatah signed it, but Hamas never did. Now it's being revisited, with, we are being told, many issues resolved. The "only" outstanding issues are the question of when to hold elections — both for the legislature and for the president, and how the respective security forces would be handled — whether they'd be merged and who would be in charge of what.

You should not hold your breath waiting for agreement on these issues. However, I've been speculating on how it might serve these two parties to come to some sort of a merger or cooperative coalition at this time. Hamas is opposed to negotiations: would they use this to undermine them? Abbas wants out: would this provide him with what he is seeking?

I have the feeling now that, if I may use this expression, the inmates are running the asylum. The world is crazy. But if Hamas and Fatah should reach agreement, watch for it to get even more irrational, with the members of the Quartet twisting themselves into pretzels in order to find ways to legitimize Hamas as a negotiating partner.


J Street — the ostensibly pro-Israel organization that has been blatantly anti-Israel from the time of its founding — has been exposed. And that exposure is quite something. Please see Lenny Ben-David's piece — "J Street's Crooked Road — on his blog, for significant details: http://lennybendavid.com/2010/09/ j-streets-crooked-road-lies-and.html


The most joyous of religious seasons is about to come to an end, with a holiday of celebration: Simchat Torah: We will dance with our Torah, and then end an annual cycle of reading from the Torah scroll, and begin anew. Here in Israel, this falls on Wednesday night and Thursday. (Outside of Israel, the holiday is extended through Friday.)

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, September 28, 2010.

Happy Sukkot to All!

It is the symbol of Jewish unity, a lulav and etrog brought together, is needed During Sukkot for Jews to pray for peace of all nations, including Arab ones. It is Jewish unity alone that will break the vicious cycle of international hypocrisy and make the reunification of Eretz-Israel a reality!

Broken Promises Promote Wrongs Against Israel. by Anne Bayefsky

In Geneva during the current session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Obama administration became a willing participant in the UN's imposition of an apartheid-style ban on representatives of the state of Israel. Despite promises made by the administration that by joining the Council the United States would not become part of the problem, U.S. Ambassador to the Council Eileen Donahoe chose to attend and fully participate in a meeting that deliberately excluded anyone representing the Jewish state. Israel is the only UN member state not permitted to be a full member of any of the UN's five regional groups. Throughout the Human Rights Council sessions, these groups hold key planning meetings in which countries negotiate and share important information behind closed doors. Even the Palestinian Authority, though not a state, is permitted into the Asian regional group.

While Israelis are left standing in the hall during the Council's regional group meetings, this week for the first time Libya took its seat as a full-fledged Council member. Other full voting members of the UN's lead human rights body includes such 'model citizens' as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia and Kyrgyzstan. (During the last 100 years 'friends' of Jews have b roken many promises. Israel can't trust assurances made by the US or International hypocrisy in any deal with the Islamic enemies of the Jewish state!)

PA has Chosen Terror — Talks Break Down

Mahmoud Abbas flew out of New York standing by his ultimatum for Jerusalem to announce continuation of the temporary freeze on building in West Bank settlements. Even 'optimistic' about talks the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave up trying to persuade him to accept a compromise after learning that Abbas opted for secret talks with Hamas terrorist planners in Damascus.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Many 'friends' of Israel insist on "settlements freeze". They do not demand the freeze on terror attacks against Israel or recognition of the Jewish state by Arabs! Funny how they think, isn't it?

Despicable Behaviour of the 'Peace partner'

A PA judge, Ta'et at Twil, ruled that selling or attempting to sell land to a "foreign country was a criminal offense which could result in the death penalty". The Current law, which says courts can choose from either life in prison or death, was not tough enough. (Arabs will never change their hateful attitude, not just towards Israel. It is time to take the enemies out of Jewish land.)

They do not Care about International Opinion. French President Nicolas Sarkozy upended a European Union summit a week ago to defend his nation's honour, vowing to keep clearing illegal immigrant camps despite accusations that France's policy is racist and unfair. (Why must Israel care about the opinions of her enemies? In order to achieve peace, Israel is obliged to clear Jewish land from Islamic occupation!)

Confession of the Traitor

Ehud Olmert wrote in his new autobiography that in negotiations with the PA he agreed to divide Jerusalem and give Arabs control over Judaism's holiest site — the Temple Mount.

Hamas Profiteering from Aid

A journalist, Mitchell Prothero who had visited Gaza, found that Hamas is confiscating humanitarian goods donated by the international community and forcing Gazan Arabs to pay for them.

Israeli Arabs Belong to 'Palestine'

Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has rejected the traditional formula of trading land for peace, which has defined the peace process for two decades. Lieberman said peace talks with the Palestinians should take a different approach, namely, an exchange of populations. (The PA insists that Jews must leave Judea and Samaria. It is only logical for Israel to insist that all Arabs must leave Jewish land. The Sinai is the perfect place for a new, internationally sponsored, Islamic terror state!)

PA's Negotiation Approach

Senior Palestinian Authority negotiator Nabil Shaath, has announced that the PA will never accept Israel as a Jewish state. In addition, he threatened war if the PA fails to obtain its demands through negotiations: "A Palestinian state will arise, either through negotiations or through armed resistance." (It means "terrorism"!)

"No Room for Israel in the Middle East"

Iranian and Syrian leaders met for two hours at Damascus airport on Yom Kippur. Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinajad repeated what he has said countless times in the past, that Israel has no place in a future Middle East. He also stated that Iran-Syria relations were "solid and strategic with a unified view on all issues." (The meeting took place just two days after US Middle East envoy George Mitchell visited Damascus, in delusional expectation of a comprehensive peace between Syria and Israel.)

It is not Israel — Press is Mute!

The government of Mexico is now constructing its own wall to protect its southern border that separates Mexico from Guatemala. Several months ago Mexican President Felipe Calderon addressed the US Congress criticized the state of Arizona. (The United States has also built a fence along southern border to stop illegal aliens. Israel built security fence to stop infiltration of suicide bombers — What a difference in international response Jews make!)

Clear Intention, not just Warning!

Egyptian cleric, Salem Abu Al-Futuh, confidently predicted that Islam will take over the entire West, beginning specifically in Italy and ending in North and South America: "The nation of Islam will return — despite our current crisis and despite the arrogance of the West. The West is bound to be destroyed. Just like Allah destroyed the Byzantine and Persian empires, he will destroy the West at the hands of the Muslims. This is an unequivocal promise. These countries will convert to Islam. Islam will reach these countries." (How many more warnings do Western liberals need to realise the dangers that Islam is presenting to our democratic way of life?)

Hamas Destroyed Popular Resort

The administrative building and restaurant of a well known Gazan beach club which had earlier been ordered closed by the territory's Hamas rulers, was burned to the ground. (The existence of this luxurious club was never mentioned in press reports, but rather about 'poor' Palestinians and the people of Gaza who are "deprived of basic goods"!)

Hypocrisy in Action:

"An increasing number of the young people in the IDF are the children of Russians and settlers, the hardest-core people against a division of the land. This presents a staggering problem. It's a different Israel. Sixteen percent of Israelis speak Russian." — Former United States president Bill Clinton — This 'honest ' broker has shown, like his wife before him, his true colours. 'Russians' and 'settlers' are Jews! Fortunately for Israel they still remember that the objective of all anti-Semites, including Arabs, is the destruction of Israel. All Jews must understand this!

Making Muddy Waters even Muddier

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "We are seeking to determine what direction we can head in order to pursue peace between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon." (Syria is not a peace partner! Hillary Clinton, like all her predecessors, can't even handle the PA. The move is designed to complicate and procrastinate the useless peace process. Keeping the status quo is the true objective!)

Yin and Yang of ME Politics by Steven Shamrak, July 2005

Just one day after the London bombings by Islamic terrorists, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced, quite inappropriately, the G8's 9 billion dollar 'aid package' to the Palestinian Authority (PA). For the next three years the infrastructure of terror will receive an extra 3 billion dollars a year from Western countries. Arab Palestinian terrorists are so happy and grateful for this generous gift! To leave no doubt of their appreciation they unleashed suicide bombers and a rain of rockets on the Israeli population.

What a 'wonderful' gift! I wonder how many more Jews will have to die from bombs purchased using the money from Israel's 'friends'? How many families of suicide bombers will receive generous pensions for the 'achievements' of their sons? How many Arab schools — actively propagating hate, martyrdom and Jihad — will benefit from this disgusting 'generosity'?

Nobody pays attention to the fact that the same ideology of hate motivates Arab Palestinian terrorists in Israel and Al-Qaida 'militants' worldwide. Billions of dollars are flowing into the hands of PA terrorists each year. They promised peace at Oslo. But the terror never stopped!

In 1992, United Nations Security Council Resolution 799 reinforced the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to all the 'Palestinian' territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and affirms that deportation of (any) civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention. The resolution does not exclude Jews. Sharon and his cronies are in the process of violation of International Law! They must be charged with crimes against humanity and stand trial! The silence and inaction of the UN has exposed the deep anti-Semitic nature of the organisation and has nullified the Law, which was adopted with the prime purpose of preventing Jews from taking control of Jewish ancestral land.

Since the International community has not objected, but actually strongly supported, the forceful deportation of Jews from Gaza by Sharon government, the option of re-settlement of Arabs from the Jewish lands has become appropriate and legitimate from the point of view of International Law! The money can be better spent on repatriation of all Arab population from Jewish land to 22 Arab states or Sinai. This is a viable option, not racism, and it has been used many times to resolve international conflicts. This could stop the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nothing else has worked so far!

This decisive action could send a strong message to Islamic terrorists and their masters in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria etc& — subscribers to the Islamic Expansionism, that Western democracies are serious about War on Terror! But are they?  

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 Ted Belman, September 28, 2010.

This was written by Kristin Cuff and it appeared on CNN
(http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/23/ poland.jewish/archives/oldindex.html). The original has a link to a powerful video about "the Polish Jews who are stepping out of the shadows." To see it, you can also click here.


Warsaw, Poland (CNN) — Pawel sits in the synagogue learning the Torah, praying and getting advice from his rabbi.

He appears to be enjoying a happy life married to his childhood sweetheart and the mother of his two children.

But he and Ola have traveled further than most — from hate-filled neo-Nazism through the shock and anger of learning their heritage was Jewish to taking their place in the synagogue as Orthodox Jews.

They met at school in Poland's capital, Warsaw, when they were 12, but as their teen years passed Pawel first and then Ola grew into the neo-Nazi scene.

At 18 they married and a few years later Ola was nagged by a conversation with her mother that she barely remembered — something about Jewish roots.

She found her answer at the Jewish Historical Institute, which says it has collections documenting 10 centuries of Jewish experience in Poland.

While there she said she felt compelled to also check Pawel's family history — and he too came from a Jewish background.

"Something told me to... It was unbelievable — it turned out that we had Jewish roots. It was a shock. I didn't expect to find out that I had a Jewish husband," she said.

"I didn't know how to tell him. I loved him even if he was a punk or skinhead, if he beat people up or not. It was a time in Poland when this movement was very intense."

Reeling from the news, she had to return home to her neo-Nazi husband and tell him of their Jewish heritage.

There were 350,000 Jews in Poland after World War II — about 10 percent of the Jewish population before the war.

In the 25 years after WWII ended the overwhelming majority left to escape persecution by the Soviet-controlled government.

For those who stayed, their Jewish heritage was hidden often even from their own children.

It provided a culture where anti-Semitism could thrive and in 1980s Poland, Pawel was embracing the hate festering in the concrete tower blocks of Warsaw.

When Ola brought home the documents to show Pawel his own history, he rushed to confront his parents, and they told him the family secret.

"I was a nationalist 100 percent. Back then when we were skinheads it was all about white power and I believed Poland was only for Poles. That Jews were the biggest plague and the worst evil of this world. At least in Poland it was thought this way as at the time anything that was bad was the fault of the Jews..." he said.

"Emotions, it is difficult to describe how I felt when I found out I was Jewish... my first thought was what am I going to tell people? What am I going to tell the boys? Should I admit it or not? I was angry, sad, scared, unsure."

Over time, Pawel's anger and confusion subsided and he approached Chief Rabbi of Poland Michael Schudrich.

Speaking in the synagogue where he now worships, Pawel said: "The mirror was a big problem. I couldn't look at myself. I saw a Jew. I hated the person in the mirror then I grew accustomed to it, came to terms with it somehow.

"I came here to the rabbi and said, "listen, they are telling me I'm a Jew, I have this document in my hand, my mom and dad have said something. Who is this Jew and what is it? Help me because I am going to lose my mind otherwise.'"

In the years that followed they became friends with the chief rabbi and he has been a mentor to them.

Pawel, now 33, said: "I'm not saying that I don't have regrets but it's not something that I walk around and lash myself over... I feel sorry for those that I beat up... but I don't hold a grudge against myself. The people who I hurt can hold a grudge against me."

Today, they're active members of the Jewish community in Warsaw. Pawel is studying to work in a slaughterhouse killing animals according to the Jewish Kosher requirement and Ola is working in the synagogue's kitchen as a kosher supervisor."

Schudrich said:

"The fact that they were skinheads actually increased the amount of respect I have for them. That they could've been where they were, understood that that was not the right way, then embraced rather than run away the fact that they were part of the people who they used to hate."

"I think also it says on a personal level, never write somebody off. Where they may be 10 years ago doesn't have to be where they are today. And the human being has this unlimited capability of changing and sometimes even for the better."


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 Fran Waddams, September 28, 2010.

We hope you will be encouraged to hear that Anglican Friends of Israel' CEO, Simon McIlwaine was approached by WalesOnline for comment on the Archbishop of Wales' recent speech in which he attacked Israel as an apartheid state. Simon's objections to Dr Morgan's charmless speech were covered in
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/ welsh-politics-news/2010/09/23/archbishop-attacked-for- linking-israel-to-apartheid-91466-27324244/. [The article is posted below.]

In fact, AFI's concerns framed the headline of the piece, which also appeared in the Western Mail.

As a result, the Church Times quoted Simon's comments in their article covering Barry Morgan's comments in last week's Church Times.

We hope you're encouraged that persistence can be rewarded even in today's hostile media atmosphere. If you wanted to write in support of AFI's concerns about Barry Morgan's speech, the address is

readers@mediawales.co.uk (Walesonline and the Western Mail)

and letters@churchtimes.co.uk


Fran Waddams


"Archbishop attacked for linking Israel to apartheid"
by David Williamson
Western Mail
Sep 23 2010

THE Archbishop of Wales was accused of "deeply offensive" comments last night after making a speech in which he compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.

In a speech to the Governing Body of the Church in Wales in Lampeter, Barry Morgan warned that moderate Palestinians were in danger of being radicalised due to Israel's policies and the deprivation in Gaza.

The Israeli Embassy described Dr Morgan's comments as "troubling" and said the Islamist Hamas authorities in Gaza were responsible for the conditions.

And Anglican Friends of Israel said Dr Morgan's remarks were offensive and said Israel was "clearly not an apartheid state".

Dr Morgan said the running costs of a mobile dental unit funded by the Church in Wales had increased because it depended on fuel and supplies smuggled on the black market through tunnels into Gaza.

He said: "Now, I realise that whenever I say anything about this matter, I will be accused of being anti-Semitic, but our own Prime Minister has described Gaza as a prison camp... The situation resembles the apartheid system in South Africa because Gaza is next to one of the most sophisticated and modern countries in the world — Israel.

"Whereas Israel has excellent technology and infrastructure, in Gaza people carry goods by horse and cart. Whereas Israel has an educational system second to none, next to it live children who are denied even a basic education because their schools have been bombed."

In his speech, Dr Morgan said he was not defending Hamas, but argued that the poor living conditions in Gaza made the region more dangerous for Israel.

He said: "The blockade in Gaza has destroyed public service infrastructure and hospitals have power cuts for 12 hours a day, emergency medical treatment for residents of Gaza is denied, and 40m litres of sewage is being discharged every day into the sea because of lack of fuel to pump or treat human waste. Family members in Gaza have been separated from relatives living in the West Bank and elsewhere.

"Now, no-one denies that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, and it is indeed surrounded by states that want its destruction, and one cannot condone the firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas. But the longer things continue as they are then moderate, ordinary Palestinians become more resentful and are in danger of being radicalised."

He continued: "[The] modern state of Israel, if it claims also to be the homeland for the ancient Jewish people of God, must take seriously this vocation as the paradigm nation where justice and wisdom are seen to be done. Settlements by Israeli settlers are illegal under international law, and over one third have been built on Palestinian privately-owned land."

An Israeli Embassy spokesman said: "The Archbishop's comments are troubling — the incitement of terrorist violence against Jews and similar radicalisation, characterised the region long before the establishment of the "modern state of Israel".

"We must not forget that the same organisation who continue this trend today, by bombarding Israelis with the deadly rockets that the Archbishop kindly "cannot condone", are condoned, and were indeed, elected by the Palestinians.

"The subsequent investment of foreign aid in warfare and ammunition rather than welfare and education by this Hamas government, is responsible for the economic disparity highlighted."

Simon McIlwaine of Anglican Friends of Israel said: "It's deeply offensive to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa... It's clearly not an apartheid state."

He said Palestinians' rights were respected in Israeli courts and the Hamas authorities were to blame for the humanitarian challenges in Gaza.

He said: "If it were not for Hamas there would be no problem."

Mr McIlwaine accused Hamas of squandering the opportunity to create a "Mediterranean Singapore" and argued Israel was not solely responsibility for the shortage of goods in Gaza.

He said: "What about the fact Egypt has effectively blockaded Gaza by closing its border?"

The Archbishop also highlighted ongoing suffering in Zimbabwe, saying: "The Christian Church is being persecuted there, but the population as a whole is suffering, and the nations of the world, especially South Africa, ought to be putting more pressure on President Mugabe.

"Zimbabwe, once a prosperous nation, has become one of the poorest with its farming industry all but destroyed."

Simon McIlwaine is CEO of Anglican Friends of Israel (www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact AFI at office@anglicanfriendsofisrael.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Editor, Israel Academia Monitor, September 28, 2010.

Oren Yiftachel's involvement in the new boycott attempt of South African academics against Ben Gurion University

From IAM editor:

I have looked at the publications and lectures of Prof' Oren Yiftachel of Ben Gurion Unversity (BGU) and by bringing some of his citations, let me show you how in his case it isn't but ideological opinion and that his false accusations of Israeli apartheid influenced South African academics to attemp a boycott against Ben Gurion University.

Prof' Oren Yiftachel recently lectured at the Arab funded center at Georgetown University, titled "Forced Nomadism: The Political Geography of Bedouins in Southern Israel/Palestine". It suggests that Israel forces Arab Bedouins into Nomadism (?!)

In one of his articles Yiftachel wrote: "Hence, the Green Line is not a border but a colonial line of racist control, with Israel ruling on both sides with the exception of small pockets of ghettoized Palestinian "autonomy" in the colonized territories."

Yiftachel was quoted saying: "It was expected Israeli behaviour and an extension of Zionist policy that believes in the annihilation of the Palestinian people, and erasing their history and existence. It ignores the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, which they are entitled to, and not out of Israeli charity. [...] Israel's invasion of Gaza was not purely a military operation to end missile attacks, or an attempt to restore Israel's deterrence capability or even an effort to impose order on others and oust the elected Hamas government. The war was a continuation of a long-standing strategy to deny, erase and eliminate any historic reference to the Palestinians and their existence."
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/978/ re82.htm  

(http://www.geog.bgu.ac.il/members/yiftachel/ new_papers_2009/JPS%20Yiftachel%202009.pdf), Yiftachel wrote: "Focusing primarily on Israeli voter attitudes with respect to the Zionist-Palestinian conflict, this paper argues that the results of the 2009 elections highlight the structural entanglement of Israeli politics within a colonialist process of "creeping apartheid" not only in the West Bank but in Israel proper..."

In another article Yiftachel wrote: "I argue that the Israeli polity is governed not by a democratic regime, but rather by an "ethnocracy," which denotes a non-democratic rule for and by a dominant ethnic group, within the state and beyond its borders". www.merip.org/mer/mer207/yift.htm

Examples of statements by Yiftachel at his BGU course during the past semester: "Israel is in a colonial situation with the Palestinians", "on the right, [...] you will find elements of deep racism" in Israeli society, and while discussing Yisrael Beiteinu in the last election, Prof' Yiftachel stated, "if apartheid can legitimately run for election on the ticket of denying citizenship, [...] that means the boundary is very shaky in terms of including all the citizens," etc.

In an article for Palestinian website, "Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Bedouin", Yiftachel is interviewed. He does not reject the false accusasions, instead, he elaborates on them.

Beyond this, Yiftachel's teaching assistant in BGU, recently organized illegal student demonstrations on campus, calling Israel a war criminal, and Yiftachel's friend and colleague, Dr. Neve Gordon have called for the boycott of Israel on numerous occasions.

The Guardian, UK, wrote in 2002 about the first attempt to boycott Israeli academe. Oren Yiftachel's article was rejected for coming from Israel: "Mr Yiftachel said that, after months of negotiation, the article is to be published but only after he agreed to make substantial revisions, including making a comparison between his homeland and apartheid South Africa."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/12/ internationaleducationnews.israel

The Israeli academe, cultural and financial institutions are facing boycott threats, and now BGU is on the verge of being boycotted by South African academics (See article in appendix below), due to Yiftachel's false accusations of "Israeli Apartheid". Yiftachel lectured on this earlier this year at the U of Johannesburg.
http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/apr-16-230 pm-ali-abunimah-and-oren-yiftachel

Please note, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and as such, fractions in the Arab world are searching for every cooperation they can find to dehumanize and demonize the Jewish state. It is very unfortunate Prof' Yiftachel gives them a helping hand.


* If you wish to read about Yiftachel as the Diller Visiting Professor at Berkeley, see "How Not to Promote Israel Studies" By Dr. Martin kramer. http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2004_02_12.htm

* On the South African Boycott: http://www.ujpetition.com/

This coming Wednesday, the 29th of September 2010, the University of Johannesburg's (UJ) Senate will meet at its Soweto campus to decide whether to end its relationship with the Israeli institution, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU), on the grounds of BGU's direct support and collaboration with the Israeli military and occupation. To date, over 200 South African academics from 22 institutions have signed a statement in support of the call to terminate the agreement. Signatories and supporters include Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Professors Kader Asmal, Allan Boesak, Breyten Breytenbach, John Dugard, Antjie Krog and Barney Pityana.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aEGl2EIoP8M/ TJzJ4kzqp1I/AAAAAAAAABA/jC2xc5bfXWc/ s1600/UJ+Petition+high+res.jpg


As members of the academic community of South Africa, a country with a history of brute racism on the one hand and both academic acquiescence and resistance to it on the other, we write to you with deep concern regarding the relationship between the University of Johannesburg (UJ) and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU). The relationship agreement, presented as 'merely the continuation' of a 'purely scientific co-operation' is currently being reviewed owing to concerns raised by UJ students, academics and staff.

For reasons explained below and detailed in the attached Fact Sheet, we wish to add our voices to those calling for the suspension of UJ's agreement with BGU.

As academics we acknowledge that all of our scholarly work takes place within larger social contexts — particularly in institutions committed to social transformation. South African institutions are under an obligation to revisit relationships forged during the apartheid era with other institutions that turned a blind eye to racial oppression in the name of 'purely scholarly' or 'scientific work'.

The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has had disastrous effects on access to education for Palestinians. While Palestinians are not able to access universities and schools, Israeli universities produce the research, technology, arguments and leaders for maintaining the occupation. BGU is no exception, by maintaining links to both the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and the arms industry BGU structurally supports and facilitates the Israeli occupation. An example of BGU's complicity is its agreement with the IDF to provide full university qualification to airforce pilots within a special BGU programme. Furthermore, BGU is also complicit in the general discrimination at Israeli universities against Palestinians and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

It is clear to us that any connection with an institution so heavily vested in the Israeli occupation would amount to collaboration with an occupation that denigrates the values and principles that form the basis of any vibrant democracy. These are not only the values that underpin our post-apartheid South Africa, but are also values that we believe UJ has come to respect and uphold in the democratic era.

We thus support the decision taken by UJ to reconsider the agreement between itself and BGU. Furthermore, we call for the relationship to be suspended until such a time that, at minimum, the state of Israel adheres to international law and BGU, (as did some South African universities during the struggle against South African apartheid) openly declares itself against the occupation and withdraws all privileges for the soldiers who enforce it.

"New pressure on UJ to sever Israel ties"
by David Macfarlane
Johannesburg, South AFRICA
Sep 24 2010 06:00
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-09-24-new- pressure-on-uj-to-sever-israel-ties

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Unisa vice-chancellor Barney Pityana and author Breyten Breytenbach have added their voices to calls for the University of Johannesburg to sever academic ties with Israel's Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

The cooperation between the two universities dates from the 1980s, when the local partner was called Rand Afrikaans University. The agreement now under fire involves scientific interaction and was signed in August last year, renewing a controversial apartheid-era collaboration, its critics say.

On Wednesday next week UJ's senate will hear recommendations on the future of the university's ties with Ben-Gurion.

The Mail & Guardian reported in May that the senate had debated the matter then and had asked a senate subcommittee headed by deputy vice-chancellor Adam Habib to make recommendations within three months.

"We have concluded our deliberations and arrived at recommendations," Habib told the M&G. "It has taken a long time because the matter is highly contested. And I can't say what our senate will decide."

Tutu, Pityana and Breytenbach are recent signatories to an online petition launched after the May senate meeting. It calls for "the suspension of UJ's agreement with Ben-Gurion" and this week had notched up nearly 200 signatories.

Law professor John Dugard, theologian Allan Boesak, ANC stalwart Kader Asmal, struggle veteran and language-rights expert Neville Alexander, poet Antjie Krog, former Freedom of Expression Institute director Jane Duncan and Wits University sociologist Ran Greenstein are among other recent additions to the petition.

Leading the fight to retain ties with Ben-Gurion is the South African Associates of Ben-Gurion University, whose chairperson, Herby Rosenberg, told the M&G he had thought the senate meeting in question would be held late in October and he would "need to make inquiries" before commenting.

His organisation's president, Bertie Lubner, was on a plane and unavailable, he said. The associates arranged that local advocate David Unter-halter and Ben-Gurion professor Ilan Troen argue in the May senate meeting for retaining ties with UJ, the M&G reported at the time.

The petition's signatories come from a range of local universities and identify themselves as "the academic community of South Africa, a country with a history of brute racism on the one hand and both academic acquiescence and resistance to it on the other".

"The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has had disastrous effects on access to education for Palestinians," the petition reads.

"While Palestinians are not able to access universities and schools, Israeli universities produce the research, technology, arguments and leaders for maintainingthe occupation."

By virtue of its ties with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and the arms industry, Ben-Gurion "structurally supports and facilitates the Israeli occupation", the petition says.

One example of its "complicity is its agreement with the IDF to provide full university qualification to army pilots within a special [Ben-Gurion] programme," it says.

The petition calls on UJ's senate to suspend the relationship with Ben-Gurion until, "as a minimum", Israel "adheres to international law and ... as did some South African universities during the struggle against South African apartheid, openly declares itself against the occupation and withdraws all privileges for the soldiers who enforce it".

Contact IAM by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com and visit their website: http://www.Israel-Academia-Monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, September 28, 2010.

Isn't it pretty obvious to ask Mr. Crowley if, in retrospect, America made a mistake?

Wouldn't it be useful to also ask Mr. Crowley if now that they realize that they screwed up will they exploit the "window" before the 4 October Cairo Arab League meeting to offer the Pollard-freeze extension deal?


Remarks to the Press
by Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs
New York City
September 27, 2010

MR. CROWLEY: So we have the real hardcore here that remain focused on UNGA and everything that's going on in New York. This is going to be — we have about 25 minutes before we start our afternoon bilaterals, and we'll be bouncing back and forth between those of you here and, I think, some in the press room at the State Department in Washington.

But just to begin, obviously, we understand that among your primary areas of interest today, there's the current situation in the Middle East. Senator Mitchell is in touch with both sides today. He, along with David Hale and Dan Shapiro from the White House will depart this evening for the region and will have meetings with both sides later in the week. Their particular schedules are still being worked out.

The Secretary, this afternoon here in New York, will have meetings with Foreign Minister Hague of Great Britain, Foreign Minister Kouchner of France, Foreign Minister Cannon of Canada, Foreign Minister Mualem of Syria, where we expect the Middle East will be a key topic of conversation. And later this week back in Washington, she'll have meetings with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and German Foreign Minister Westerwelle. So we are maintaining close contact with European leaders to encourage ongoing support to the process.

From our standpoint, we remain focused on our long-term goal of advancing negotiations towards a two-state solution. We are in touch with the parties, as I've already indicated. We hope that the parties will continue to take constructive actions towards the long-term goal.

And just as a side note, also this afternoon before we return to Washington this evening, the Secretary will meet with Foreign Minister Krishna of India. I expect among the key topics there will be preparations for the President's trip to India later this year, and she will also speak with Pacific Island nation leaders. Among the key topics there will be climate change.

But in the interest of time, I'll stop there and just start with questions here in New York and then shift to D.C. after a couple.

QUESTION: P.J., how disappointed is the U.S. that the moratorium won't be extended?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are disappointed and — but we remain focused on our long-term objective, and we'll be talking to the parties about the implications of the Israeli decision.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what she hopes to accomplish in the meeting with Mualem, and do you know, just historically, when the last time that they had a bilateral foreign ministerial?

MR. CROWLEY: We looked that up. I think it was 2007, if I'm not mistaken. And if I'm wrong, one of my staff will —

STAFF: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Two thousand — I got a nod — 2007, Secretary Rice had a meeting last with the Syrian foreign minister. I think too, our focus is on comprehensive peace in the region. And we believe that Syria has a constructive role to play in achieving a durable and lasting comprehensive Middle East peace. And — but among that, she will also reiterate, as we did on Friday, our commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty.

QUESTION: Now that the Israelis are clearly not (inaudible) extend the moratorium (inaudible)?

(Inaudible) on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, without getting into the particulars, as we indicated, our policy and views on the settlement construction has not changed, and we will be — that's one of the purposes of George Mitchell's trip to the region, to sort through with the parties where we go from here.

QUESTION: Have the Israelis told you that their decision is final on (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I'll defer to the Israeli Government to explain the decision they've made and what the implications are.

QUESTION: A little bit more about Senator Mitchell's meetings today and (inaudible). At what level, and is it phone calls or in face-to-face meetings?

MR. CROWLEY: He has been in touch with the Palestinian and the Israeli negotiators. I actually think they're face-to-face meeting.

QUESTION: How long is Mitchell going to be in the region to (inaudible)? (Inaudible) week?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. It's a — this week, but again, they will leave tonight. But as to their schedule of meetings throughout the week, that is still being worked out.

QUESTION: There is kind of real urgency this week, is when it (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we always maintain a sense of urgency when it comes to Middle East peace. I mean, we have obviously recognized that this was a possibility when we entered into direct negotiations last month. But our focus remains on that long-term goal. And what we did here last week, both in the parties and from other stakeholders, is the importance and value of what's been achieved up to this point. And we will be reminding the parties that as we sort through these most recent events, it is important for them to take constructive actions and avoid further actions that will make it more difficult for the negotiations to progress.


QUESTION: You haven't used the words, "We want — "

MR. CROWLEY: I'll take one more here and then we'll —

QUESTION: Okay. You haven't used the words, "We want the Israelis to extend the settlement moratorium." Is that some kind of strategic play by you?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, no. I mean, the President made that clear last week in his speech at the United Nations. That is our policy and our policy has not changed.

Okay, I've got one more here and then we'll go to Washington.

QUESTION: Before you go to D.C., I think a lot of us who are in the Japanese press are very interested in kind of the dispute between Japan and China right now. I think the ongoing, possibly escalating — and I'm wondering what the U.S. position is on that.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. And I regret — Kurt Campbell was supposed to join me here at this time. His flight up from Washington was delayed, so we have rescheduled his meeting with you until later on this afternoon. The Japanese took a decision last week to release the captain. We believe that has resolved the matter and we hope that tensions that had begun to escalate will diminish.

Great. So how do we do — how do we go to Washington?

MR. TONER: Mark here, P.J.


MR. TONER: I'll go ahead and play traffic cop down here.

MR. CROWLEY: Okay. Very good, Mark. Thank you.

MR. TONER: Jill, you want to go ahead?

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. P.J., I presume you can hear me?


QUESTION: Oh, good. Can you just clarify, for the record, what are the next steps, if any, on the talks? Are they completely dead?

MR. CROWLEY: The next step in the process is the meetings that George Mitchell will have in the region later this week. This — the process is important. It's vital. As the parties themselves know, absent these direct negotiations, Israel does not get the security that it needs and deserves, and the Palestinians do not get the state that they want and deserve.

So one way or the other, the parties have to find a way to continue direct negotiations. As we've said, we think in the brief period of time that we have been in direct negotiations, they've attacked this with a seriousness of purpose, have begun a constructive dialogue on the core issues. We hope to see this continue, and that is our focus.

QUESTION: Yes, but just to be precise, are the talks over, the talks that — they want a solution?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we recognize that given the decision yesterday, we've still got a dilemma that we have to resolve, and there are no direct negotiations scheduled at this point. But we will be in touch with the parties and see how we move ahead.

QUESTION: P.J., are you gratified or heartened at all that Abbas has decided not to immediate — that he hasn't actually walked out of the talks?

MR. CROWLEY: We have — in our discussions with both sides over the weekend

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yitzchak Alloul, September 27, 2010.

The Torah Reading on Shabbat day is divided into 7 sections. Each section is called an Aliya (meaning to go up) since for each Aliya, one person "goes up" to make a bracha on the Torah Reading. We invite the Cohen first, followed by a Levite who then in turn is followed by an Israelite. When a Cohen is not in attendance we call an Israelite in their place, if a Levite is not in attendance then the same Cohen is called in their place.

Parsha Summary — Bereisheet

The creation of the universe is detailed day by day concluding with the creation of Shabbat. Note the emphasis on Speciation throughout the six day account.

The creation of Adam and Chava and the story of Gan Eden is detailed.

Adam and Chava are expelled from Gan Eden and the story of Kayin and Hevel is related.

Chronologically, the time covered in Parshat Bereisheet is from year 1 (the creation of humankind) through the birth of Noach's three sons in 1556. The final three Aliyot list the 10 generations from Adam through Noach that lived during that time, as well as the degeneration of man's relationship with Hashem. It is important to note that Noach's generation was the first generation not to have personally known Adam.

In the beginning of G-d's creating the heavens and the earth, (Genesis 1:1)

The first and one of the most famous Rashi's (Shlomo Yitzhaki 1040 -1105, better known by the acronym RAbbi SHlomo Itzhaki), of the Torah asks why the Torah begins with B'reishit, rather than with the first mitzvah commanded to B'nei Yisrael, the mitzva of Kiddush HaChodesh (sanctification of the New Moon-The First commandment given to Israel Exodus 12:2). Rabbi Yitzchak gives the answer that by starting with B'reishit, G-d makes it crystal clear that he is in charge, He is the Maker, the Boss, He is the Creator. Since, He is the one who gives and takes away come the time that Bnei Yisrael are ready to occupy the land of Eretz Yisrael they will not be considered bandits and as Hashem promised Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov that their descendants had a G-d given right to the land. He gives the land to whom he chooses and takes it away from whom he chooses.

However, there is perhaps another important reason why the Torah begins as it does rather than with a specific mitzvah (commandment) or with the events of the Exodus from Egypt, the splitting of the sea, or the revelation at Sinai.

Why did G-d choose to identify Himself in the Aseret HaDibrot (the Ten Commandments) as the one who took us out of Egypt, rather than as the one who created the world? God has identified himself in both of these ways — one way in the Aseret HaDibrot (The Ten Commandments) and the other way in the rest of the Torah.

What is He telling us?

In the beginning of B'reishit, G-d makes it clear to us that we are part of creation. We are human beings, in essence, the special focus of the entire process of creation. And as such, we share this world of his with more than 6 billion other humans and countless other species of plants and animals. We have privileges as humans, and awesome obligations. We cannot shirk our responsibilities to the environment, to the balance of nature or to a basic humane moral code. This is what G-d is saying to us when he begins his Torah with, "In the beginning..." As a rag tag band of former slaves to Egypt stood at the foot of Har Sinai, we became a distinct nation. G-d did not just say, "I am G-d... Who created the world." He said, "...Who took you out of Egypt, out of the house of slaves." This was a unique Jewish experience. By identifying Himself in this more exclusive way, He explained that the Torah is not for everyone. There are basic laws of moral conduct that are for everyone, but there are also the additional 613 mitzvot of the Torah that we alone must follow. Moreover as the famous Midrash states, G-d approached all the nations of the world offering them the opportunity to have the Torah as their very own to which they all declined. Only Bnei Yisrael accepted without condition. They were the only nation to accept Hashem's offer into this exclusive club.

It is as if every human being is issued a membership card to be a part of the human race. The card comes with obligations and benefits, and there are dues to be paid. Good people pay their dues, bad people don't. A requirement of gold cardholders is that they meet all their obligations as good people.

We have two sedras, B'reishit and No'ach, to remind us of the "regular world membership" and the requirements it entails. After that, we watch the development of the gold cardholders through the rest of B'reishit. It is not always pleasant to be reminded of, but we have a lot to learn from the actions of our Avot and the tribes. Once we get to Sh'mot, we witness the family transformed into a nation.

Had the Torah started with the first mitzvah, it would have been as if God was isolating us from the rest of the world and absolving us of our responsibilities to the larger society. We are to be "a light unto the nations" (Isaiah 42:6). We did not trade Tishrei for Nissan as the New Year when we came out of Egypt and received the Torah at Sinai, hence we have two beginnings to our year.

This idea can be seen in many of our prayers. Look at the two brachot before Sh'ma. The first speaks of Creation and does not specifically mention Torah and mitzvot. The second bracha speaks of the deep mutual love between G-d and his People. The same idea is echoed in Birkat HaMazon. The first bracha refers to our membership in the human race and our identification with all of G-d's creations. The second bracha focuses on the Land of Israel, the Torah, the Covenant of Brit Mila.

This is a pattern that occurs over and over again. We have a dual mandate from G-d. We must relate to Him with B'reishit Bara Elokim In the beginning of G-d's creating ...and also as Anochi Hashem Elokecha (I am Hashem-your G-d).

Each presents its own challenge. We must meet both of them.

Halacha of the Week

Please note that the Halachot discussed here are according to Sephardic Tradition as outlined by The Maran Shulchan Aruch. This is just a summary and in no way deemed as a Halachic ruling. Please contact your local Orthodox Rabbi for help.

How to Prepare an Eruv Tavshilin?

Halacha forbids cooking from Yom Tov to Shabbat unless one had prepared an Eruv Tavshilin before Yom Tov. Since the Chag of Shemini Azeret falls this year on Wednesday Night, then one prepares the Eruv Tavshilin on Wednesday.

Of what should the Eruv Tavshilin consist?

Strictly speaking, it suffices to prepare a single cooked food; customarily, a boiled egg is used for this purpose. Although preparing one cooked item suffices to allow both cooking and baking on Yom Tov for Shabbat (Shulchan Aruch 527:2), nevertheless, the custom is to include bread in the Eruv Tavshilin, as well.

What quantity of food is required for the Eruv Tavshilin?

Chacham Bentzion Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998), in his work Or Le'tziyon (vol. 3, 22:1), writes that the cooked food should have a volume of a Ke'zayit — or approximately 1 oz. — and the bread should have a volume of a Ke'beitza — approximately 2 oz.

Chacham Bentzion Abba Shaul adds that the foods should preferably have been cooked and baked specifically on Erev Yom Tov, and not earlier. Nevertheless, one who set aside foods that were prepared earlier has satisfied the requirement and is allowed to cook on Yom Tov in preparation for Shabbat.

The Options Available to One Who Forgot to Prepare an Eruv Tavshilin Before Yom Tov.

One option is to rely on the Eruv Tavshilin prepared by the community's Rabbi. A community Rabbi has in mind when preparing an Eruv Tavshilin that his Eruv should serve to permit cooking on Yom Tov not only for himself and his family, but also for everyone in his community who forgot to prepare an Eruv or is unaware of this requirement. Thus, one who forgot to prepare an Eruv may simply rely on the Rabbi's Eruv and cook on Yom Tov in preparation for Shabbat.

Shabbat Shalom Umevorach — A peaceful and Blessed Shabbat

Yitzchak Alloul

Contact Yitzchak Alloul at yitz007@aim.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 27, 2010.

Today I would like to examine several issues that touch upon the "peace process," including the whole question of a freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria.

We begin with a link to something I recently wrote. On September 10, Charles Krauthammer — who is someone whom I have admired greatly over the years — wrote a column about the "peace process called "Your Move, Mr. Abbas," which appeared in the Washington Post. It seemed a startling deviation from Krauthammer's usual take on matters, and it included information that was askew. I drafted a response, but the Washington Post declined to accept it as an opinion piece, while in other quarters I subsequently encountered a reluctance to accept it because it commented on material that had run elsewhere.

And so... I've put it up on my website:
http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/ krauthammer-response/?SSScrollPosition=0

Precisely because Charles Krauthammer is so deeply respected and so widely read, it is important that this alternate perspective on matters be shared. I encourage you to read this and then to distribute it broadly, with full attribution. Run the entire essay on your blogs, share it with your lists and groups. Put out the URL where you can.

There are facts it contains that everyone needs to be clear about.


As to that freeze and the reasons why it is dead wrong to demand one:

The assumption implicit in an insistence that Israel stop building in Judea and Samaria is that ultimately the very areas upon which Israeli buildings are being constructed will/should some day be part of a Palestinian state. The continued building is presented as usurpation of Palestinian Arab land.

But it is precisely this notion which is dead wrong: part and parcel of the fallacious idea — long promoted by the Arabs — that we belong only within the Green Line (this constituting our original "border") with everything beyond being Palestinian Arab territory.

In point of fact, the Green Line was never intended to be more than a temporary armistice line, with it clearly understood — both in the armistice agreement signed with Jordan in 1949 and UN SC resolution 242 passed after the Six Day War — that a final border for Israel, which would extend beyond the Green Line, was still to be negotiated.


If it's not a given that everything beyond the Green Line is Arab territory, and if it still must be determined where the final border will be drawn, then there are two approaches to handling a freeze that might have been utilized:

1) One approach says that major "settlement" blocs that are near the Green Line are almost certain to be included as part of Israel in any final agreement. And so, surely, there should have been no problem building in these.

Instead, this issue has become a bone of contention, with Abbas and Obama alike, as well as the EU (and, I should add, Peace Now), maintaining otherwise. It is with regard to this issue that Obama reneged on an understanding previously reached by then prime minister Sharon and then president Bush.

2) A case might have been made for requiring everyone to stop building in Judea and Samaria until determination of the final border had been made. But this is not what has happened. Instead, there has been an enormous inequity, with Arabs building away during the ten months that we were frozen, and no one in the international community demanding a halt.

It is for this reason that some leaders in Judea and Samaria have referred to the freeze as racist: It is directed only at Jews.


Before leaving this issue, however, let's step back even a bit more in considering Israeli/Jewish rights:

A very strong case can be made for the fact that ALL of the land between the River and the Sea belongs to us, and that we are totally justified in building anywhere. This is the position of nationalists, myself included.

The League of Nations, in 1922, conferred the Mandate for Palestine on Great Britain, which was charged with establishing a Homeland for the Jewish People in this area, and encouraging "dense settlement."

The Mandate was predicated upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which acknowledged "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations" and stated "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The preamble to the text of the Mandate was incorporated in the document by the League of Nations; it read:

"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..." (Emphasis added)

(With thanks to Eli Hertz of "Myths and Facts" here and following.)

Winston Churchill, who was in 1922 the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote, shortly before the Mandate was passed, that the Jewish People "is in Palestine as of right and not sufferance." (Emphasis added)


The Mandate was incorporated within international law and has never been superseded.

How the world has turned, that we are now denied rights which were once acknowledged!

At a bare minimum it is appropriate to say that Judea and Samaria represent unclaimed Mandate land, to which we have the most solid claim. The pity is that we didn't make that historical/legal claim clear when we acquired all of the land between the River and the Sea in 1967. We are not "occupiers" and we are not usurping (or "stealing") another people's land. The "settlements" are not illegal according to international law, no matter what you may read.

What has done us in is a failure on our part to stand strong for and promote our rights, when confronting the Arab lies that have been so successfully promulgated. Because successive governments have waffled, we have lost a whole lot of (metaphorical) ground.

But for the world to claim we have no right to build in Judea and Samaria??? Our work is cut out for us. When our government agrees to a freeze, it is weakening our case that the land is ours.


Various additional thoughts regarding the "settlements":

[] It must not be forgotten that Abbas negotiated with former prime minister Olmert when there was no freeze. The issue is an artificial, politicized one and not genuinely a matter of principle.

[] When Jordan took Judea and Samaria in 1948, it rendered the area Judenrein. As only Arabs lived in these areas for the subsequent 19 years, the notion was promoted that they are "Arab" areas. In point of fact these are areas at the very heart of our ancient heritage in the land.

[] There was never a Palestinian state, and so there is no validity to the suggestion that, with regard to the land, we must "give it back" to the Palestinian Arabs. They never had it. As recently as Resolution 242 in 1967, there was absolutely no mention of a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people. It was assumed that negotiations for determining the final border would be done with Jordan.

[] If we look all the way back to the Mandate for Palestine, we see that in no way whatsoever did it mention or provide for an Arab political entity within Palestine.


I would like to recommend a thoughtful and significant article:

Mark Silverberg, writing in Hudson NY, looks at "Negotiating in the Middle East: How the Other Side Sees It":

"Our media, talking heads, academics, and even our government strategic thinkers have been dealing with the Arab and Muslim world based on the politically-correct paradigm of even-handedness, attributing most international problems to poverty, misunderstandings, rectifying historical grievances...while ignoring or underplaying key elements, such as the importance in Middle Eastern cultures of the values and importance of honor, shame, clan loyalties, theocratic religion, retaining absolute power, and frustrated religious imperialism. (Emphasis added)

"As Harold Rhode, recently of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, wrote for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, it is crucial to understand the mindset of our enemies — something the current US Administration and the leaders of the European Union appear loathe to do.

"...Much the same point is made by Richard Landes in Augean Stables: "Arab leaders view any compromise with Israel as a catastrophic loss of face...Such a blow to Arab honor cannot be tolerated for cultural and political reasons: losing face means to feel utter humiliation, to lose public credibility, and to lose power; the only way to restore such lost honor is not through compromise, but to shed the blood of this enemy. In this kind of war, negotiations will not work as the solution is in zero-sum terms: I win, you lose. The Palestinians cannot recognize Israel without suffering an unbearable, catastrophic loss of honor; while Israel cannot cede any further territory without absolute security guarantees and its recognition as a Jewish state. (Emphasis in bold added)

"...Our efforts at compromise, contrition, accommodation and appeasement are perceived as symbolic of our weakness; and our attempts to find common cause with our enemies merely reinforce their belief that we are 'paper tigers,' and easy prey." (Emphasis added)

"As Rhode also notes, in the wake of the Iranian hostage-taking crisis, 'Iran put the hostages on a plane less than an hour before Ronald Reagan became president. The hostages left Iranian airspace when Reagan raised his hand and took the oath of office. The Iranian "students" believed Reagan was a cowboy and feared he would "level" Tehran.... Interestingly, during the hostage crisis, a group of Iranian terrorists also occupied the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. But they quickly left, because Moscow informed Tehran that if the Iranians did not leave the Soviet Embassy within hours, Tehran would be bombed,' and they knew the Russians meant it.

"...Only when the West, including Israel, re-establishes its credibility as the most powerful force in the region, and shows the strength and resolve expected of a superpower, will those who threaten us come on board. Regrettably, as power, honor and humiliation cannot be separated from Iranian or Arab political cultures, it may become necessary to destroy both the military forces and the political infrastructures of our enemies..." (Emphasis added)
http://www.hudson-ny.org:80/1563/ negotiating-middle-east


Compare the above message to that of Barry Rubin, in his piece today on Obama's UN speech, "How non-American":

"It wasn't a very strong speech, and it was lacking any particular American perspective. At no point is there any assertion of US leadership...

"There have been presidents who thought that the outside world is exactly the same as America. There have been presidents who thought that the rest of the world is worse than America. Obama is the first president who thinks the rest of the world is better than America."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=189330


Meanwhile, the PA is requesting the release of dozens of Arab prisoners as a "good will gesture" to help the "peace process" go forward.


The last article to be included here refers to something I am not certain I truly understand. The hi-tech science involved in comprehending what is involved with regard to "a cyber worm, called Stuxnet, [which] may be the world's first known cyberweapon designed specifically to destroy a real-world target" may be a bit beyond me.

I had picked this up originally from an unconfirmed source, and so did not mention it. Wasn't even sure how legit or real it was. But here it is now, in an article in the Christian Science Monitor.

"The cyber worm, called Stuxnet, has been the object of intense study since its detection in June. As more has become known about it, alarm about its capabilities and purpose have grown. Some top cyber security experts now say Stuxnet's arrival heralds something blindingly new: a cyber weapon created to cross from the digital realm to the physical world — to destroy something.

"At least one expert who has extensively studied the malicious software, or malware, suggests Stuxnet may have already attacked its target — and that it may have been Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant..."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0921/ Stuxnet-malware-is-weapon-out-to-destroy-Iran-s- Bushehr-nuclear-plant

If this turns out to be accurate information, it is stunning — with revolutionary implications both hopeful and terrifying.

There are suggestions from some sources that Israel — which is one of only a handful of countries with the hi tech capability to unleash such a cyber worm — might be the source of Stuxnet. This might suggest some capability to disable or slow down Iran's march to nuclear capability without having to send out a single plane. I say "might" because, even as I report this, I consider it still hypothetical or unverified. Perhaps I'm slow to wrap my head around such astounding innovations. Maybe I simply need time to absorb this.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, September 27, 2010.

This was written by Danny Ayalon, who is the deputy foreign minister. It appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=189354.


Once again, a report has blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other party.

Unsurprisingly, a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) report has once again slammed Israel's acts of self-defense. The recently released report ostensibly investigating the events that surrounded the interception of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara in May is a modern blood-libel, and another nail in the coffin of the council's credibility. The full report is scheduled to be officially presented to the council on Monday.

While its name would seem to indicate a worthy body, the UNHRC has two sole functions: to defend serial human-rights abusing nations from reproach, and to revile and attack Israel.

The UNHRC, created in 2006, is the successor to the thoroughly discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). When the mandate for the new council was debated, certain basic reforms and standards were proposed to ensure the commission's failures were not repeated. Unfortunately, few of the reforms received substantial support in the UN General Assembly, which refused to adopt them.

Those that were adopted have been abused.

The General Assembly resolution that created the council merely required member states to "take into account" a candidate's human-rights record when applying to the UNHRC. Not even a nation under sanction from the UN Security Council for human-rights abuses need refrain from seeking election.

During the application process, candidate nations make pledges of adherence to human rights standards by way of justifying their candidacy. These statements have been described as Kafkaesque in their deviance from reality and historical record. One glaring example is that of Saudi Arabia, which claimed a "confirmed commitment to the defense, protection and promotion of human rights."

The reality of course, is very different.

The US State Department's annual human rights reports consistently criticize Saudi Arabia for its serious human rights failings, including arbitrary arrest, discrimination against women, restriction of worker rights and lack of religious freedom.

However, Saudi Arabia is hardly alone, as only 20 of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered "free" by Freedom House, an independent NGO which monitors human rights and political freedoms. This means the majority of nations currently represented on the UNHRC do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global human rights.

Another example of this farce was the recent election of Libya to the UNHRC.

Libya received support from 155 of the General Assembly's 192 member states in a secret ballot, angering a coalition of 37 human rights organizations which described Libya as one of the most repressive societies in the world.

ONE OF the root problems is the influence of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) within the UNHRC.

The UNHRC heavily weights membership on its council to nations from Africa and Asia — two continents where the OIC has considerable influence. The OIC controls the lion's share of the world's energy resources, including oil, gas and uranium.

The OIC and its allies have an automatic majority on the UNHRC, and this is represented in the council's workload.

Human Rights Watch claims that the OIC has "fought doggedly" and successfully within the UN Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. The OIC's mantra has been that the council should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.

This has led to the absurd situation in which Israel is condemned 33 times by the UNHRC out of a total of 40 countryspecific condemnations, while the UNHRC expresses only "deep concern" over Sudan and praises its cooperation.

In addition, the UNHRC adopted a unique decision to discuss human rights violations committed by Israel in all of the council's meetings. It has also been criticized for redirecting attention to the fate of Muslim minorities within non- Muslim countries, but diverting attention from the treatment of ethnic minorities in Muslim-majority countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Al-Akhdam in Yemen or the Berbers in Algeria.

Furthermore, the OIC has been at the forefront of silencing freedom of expression.

An amendment to the duties of the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on March 28, 2008, has acted against this very freedom. The OIC and its allies have sought to ban anything they deem as criticism of Islam. Some nations were outraged by this amendment, which they claimed "turns the special rapporteur's mandate on its head."

Nevertheless, it is on the subject of Israel that the OIC appears to have unique influence. When the UNHRC discussed issues relating to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, four of the council's independent experts reported the findings of their visit to Lebanon and Israel. State after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to look beyond Israeli violations to discuss Hizbullah's as well.

This sent a very clear message that experts filing reports for the UNHRC involving Israel should never look at the conduct of any other party. Justice Richard Goldstone understood this very well, as was reflected in the report he gave the UNHRC. In an interview given to Al Jazeera in 2009, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the OIC, explained how his organization not only initiated, but drove the Goldstone process from start to finish.

THE PANEL of experts compiling the report on events surrounding the flotilla has clearly understood its mandate well. Once again, a report has singularly blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other actor. What makes the report so absurd is the recent release of many first-hand accounts by people on the Mavi Marmara.

These accounts, written by some hostile to Israel in the first place, depict very different scenes to those described in the report.

In his recently released book, Turkish journalist Sefik Dinç, while sympathetic to the militant IHH, writes that the crisis was "calculated" by those on board, and reportedly describes how the IDF soldiers did not open fire until after other soldiers were taken hostage. Dinç describes in his book, with the aid of photographs, how preparations for confronting the Israelis on the Mavi Marmara were "not going to be that passive."

Our internal investigations indicate that not only did the soldiers only open fire when their lives were threatened, but that the first shots were fired by those on the boat; there are reports that one soldier suffered a knee injury from a non-IDF weapon as soon as he came on board.

This biased, libelous report indicates that the OIC has once again achieved its aim of condemning Israel through its proxies in the UNHRC. One again, it has proven UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson's criticisms that the council acts according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. In fact, the report stands as an affront to the secretary- general's own panel of inquiry, with which Israel is fully cooperating.

General Assembly President Joseph Deisss warned recently against the marginalization of the UN itself by stating the need for urgent reforms, like reviewing the UNHRC. At stake is the plight of millions of victims of human-rights violations around the world.

It is high time for democracies to reassess their participation in a council that places political calculations over the protection of human rights while providing cover to some of the world's most brutal regimes.

We must give a voice to the oppressed, justice to the abused and equity for all of humanity. None of this will be achieved by always attacking and condemning Israel while allowing totalitarian nations to hijack the international human-rights agenda.

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, September 27, 2010.

This is from the Islam Blog (IslamBlog@gmail.com).


The Finnish Security Police say that immigrants in Finland have gone to take part in combat training, reports Turun Sanomat.

Supo's deputy director Petri Knape told the newspaper that they suspect that people living in Finland had gone to crisis areas to participate in training camps. Knape did not say which countries or how many people. He told the paper that the threat of terrorism is directed at Europe as an entity. There is still a small risk of terror attacks aimed at Finland.

Supo will send more detectives to Finland's embassies abroad. Knape says that thanks to their contact people in embassies they've been able to prevent several people classified as dangerous from entering Finland. In the future these contact people will be present during family reunification interviews.

Source: Vasabladet (Swedish)  

Editor's Note: One reader wrote:

"Talked to Finnish Intel official. He told me about several people who went to Pakistani training camps, some to Somalia. Number unknown. http://ojihad.wordpress.com/"

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 27, 2010.

WALL ST. JOURNAL REPORTERS BIASED AGAINST ISRAEL I find Joshua Mitnick and Jay Solomon insinuating a subtle pro-Arab bias into Wall St. Journal reporting ("End of Freeze Looms Over West Bank," Sept. 25).

They refer to attempted "compromise" in a settlement freeze. What "compromise" when the whole concession is by Israel? Why don't they note that the Arabs have made no concession and that the freeze is discriminatory, since it does not curb Arab settlements?

The reporters' wording, "steady encroachment of Jewish settlers on land they (Arabs) claim for a future state, tacitly endorses the Arab position, ignores Jewish claims, and makes the Arab wish for a future state seem to be Israel's command. That wording ignores steady Arab encroachment on public and private land. It mistakenly implies that Jews are building more towns and enlarging their towns' municipal boundaries. The Arabs are doing this, whereas almost all building by Israelis in Judea-Samaria is within existing municipal boundaries.

The report cites a particular Arab's complaint that a Jewish town expanded onto his farm and over his crops. The reporters do not state whether they verified this. Did the reporters just take the farmer's word for it? In any case, such usurpation by Israelis is rare. By contrast, Palestinian Arabs routinely plant on Jews' fields, and then claim the land. Why not report that most Arab claims to entitlement of land possessed by Israelis are judged in court to be false?

Even calling negotiations "peace talks" is deceptive. Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas and colleagues insist that they will not recognize a Jewish state. Since they indoctrinate their people to believe they are entitled to all the land of Israel, this non-recognition of Jewish entitlement promises future war. Indeed, Abbas vows war if he does not get in negotiations everything he wants, and that includes flooding Israel with millions of Arabs. A mass-influx would deprive the Jewish people of their sovereignty and probably their property and lives. Israel cannot accept those and other Arab-Obama demands. Therefore, the negotiations are not for peace but another route for jihad, as per Islamic doctrine and history.

The column states that the U.S. wants Israel to transfer police patrol of more cites to the P.A., so Abbas can get credit for benefiting his people via negotiation. True statement, misleading notions. The IDF keeps patrolling, because the P.A. violates its commitments to eradicate terrorism, though it arrests some Hamas rivals. If the IDF evacuated from Judea-Samaria, as if did from Gaza, terrorism, now encouraged by the P.A., would multiply and kill many Israelis who live "side-by-side" with Arabs. Abbas does not deserve credit, not that man who praises the terrorists Israel has to arrest because he does not.

Like New York Times reporters, Mr. Mitnick and Mr. Solomon, use the phrase about Judea-and Samaria, "West Bank — - territory seized by Israel in 1967." That phrase conveys an impression of Israel taking something unjustifiably and to which it had no claim. Actually, Jordan earlier had seized the area by aggression. Jordan expelled Jews living, which residency the Palestine Mandate calls for. Launching aggression on Israel again, Jordan lost those seized Territories, when Israel defended itself. Palestinian Arabs, not being a separate nationality, never having sovereignty there, and having committed terrorism and attempted genocide there, have a weak claim to the Territories.

The reporters ill serve readers by portraying negotiations as a peace process rather than as part of the same global jihad that has attacked America and many other countries.


Israel's PM Netanyahu elaborated at the UN on:

1. Islamic extremists warring on civilization and Israel contributing to civilization;

2. Israel's extraordinary steps minimizing civilian casualties in Gaza, yet the UN condemns Israel for defending itself from criminal attack;

3. Whether those who gave a forum to that fraudulent Holocaust-denier, President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who threatens a second Holocaust, have any decency;

4. Whether the UN is decent, depending upon how it deals with these issues and with Iran's drive to acquire the nuclear weapons with which to inflict a Holocaust;

5. The need to demilitarize a second Palestinian Arab state;

That speech brings up the question whether Netanyahu has no decency. Netanyahu gives a hearing to another fraudulent Holocaust-denier and terrorist leader, Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas. Abbas honors terrorists who criminally attack Israeli civilians, and denounces Israel for defending itself.

Netanyahu pretends that his proposed surrender of Jewish territorial and security claims to Abbas' Palestinian Arabs is making peace. P.A. leaders explain that the negotiations pursue the Islamic doctrine of deceiving non-believers and attacking later, when their guard is down. Abbas and associates, who keep threatening war, reject peace. They demand that Israel give up defendable borders and take in millions of hostile Arabs sure to overthrow Jewish sovereignty, or face war by the P.A. . One can imagine the ensuing purges.

What an illusion to think that a P.A. state could be demilitarized! Contrary to its obligations, the P.A. has been arming since Israel formed it. Critics have advised Netanyahu that a sovereign state cannot be bound by pre-statehood promises to demilitarize. Why then does Netanyahu still talk about a demilitarized statehood? He must be deceiving his own people in their thirst for peace. His record is that of an appeaser who gets his own people killed, as in his withdrawal from most of Hebron and his turning rifles over to the P.A., though warned correctly by patriotic Israelis that terrorism would follow.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY- Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Donald Hank, September 27, 2010.

The early Marxists based their ideology largely on the assumption (borrowed from Hegel) that history would inevitably lead to a Utopia of the type they longed for. Olavo de Carvalho in the essay below shows that this assumption not only holds no water, but that the most solid basis for social thought was laid out in antiquity: by Socrates and Moses.

Author Olavo de Carvalho is a noted correspondent for several major Brazilian newspapers and founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America's Future Foundation.

This article appeared October 11, 2001 in http://laiglesforum.com/karl-marx-flunks-history/1846.htm


All social critique is founded upon some idea of the better. It is only in comparison with this idea that any existing society may seem good, tolerable, bad, or unbearable. But the idea of the better does not emerge from nothing: it is conceived of by actual men, members of the same society they criticize. If we consider that the mindset of these men is entirely a "product" of society, then, only one of two alternatives is true: either they themselves fall into the evil they denounce, or society, having given these men the idea of the better, cannot be as evil as they say it is.

Therefore, all social critique that claims to have any foundation at all can only be based upon the premise that in man's consciousness there is a dimension which somehow transcends any present society and to which he can transport himself in thought in order to judge that society from the outside, or from above.

It is evident, however, that a simple verbal appeal to a legitimating authority is not enough to validate any critique. A critique must not only allege but must also prove its logical affiliation with a superior authority.

Social critiques, therefore, can be hierarchized on a scale of strictly objective validity, in accordance with (a) the intrinsic legitimacy of the authority called upon to legitimize them; (b) the degree of logical consistency of the nexus between the legitimizing authority and the content of the critique. In other words: (a) The authority of the superior authority summoned to legitimize a critique may be false or deficient in itself, as in the case of the critic who condemns society based upon a pure Utopian model of his own invention. (b) If the alleged authority is valid in itself, there is also the risk that the deduction which the critic draws from it in order to validate a specific critique of a specific society is not a logically valid inference.

A history of social critique from antiquity to the present day would easily demonstrate that, over time, the social critiques formulated in the West have been progressively losing their validity as they have grow in virulence and in the number of their adherents. In other words: as time goes on, social critics lose in intrinsic authority what they gain in pretension and audience.

I know that this is a lamentable observation and that some people, without having ever studied the subject, or even become minimally aware of it before reading this article, will reject it in limine and will seek refuge from it behind all sorts of subterfuge. The only thing I have to say to these people is: don't bother me; go study. As to other people, that is, those for whom the enunciation of a hypothesis arouses curiosity instead of tears, I suggest they compare, for example, the Socratic critique to the Marxist one. The latter has far more adherents and is much more ferocious than the former, but, in declaring that men's consciousness is a "product" of history, the Marxist critique cannot allege any legitimizing authority other than history itself; however, since history does not provide models for its own judgment, but rather the simple reporting of faits accomplis, the Marxist critic is left with no other alternative than to infer from past history a hypothesis for a future development and to take it at once as the legitimizing authority for the critique of the present. Nothing proves that the predicted development is inevitable, nor that the state of affairs that results from it will have to be better than the present state of affairs; all this is nothing but hypothesis and has no other legitimizing authority than that of a hypothesis. On the other hand, Socrates' critique, which did not gain many adherents, except in a very limited circle, had a much more solid foundation, since the authorities to which he appealed were the certainty of death and the intrinsic authority of reason, which no man can reject.

Marxism stands at an even greater disadvantage when compared to the social critique of the Hebrew prophets, who draw their authority from the fulfillment of prophecies. Moses' critique of the state of affairs in Egypt was founded upon his foreknowledge of the concrete means of leading the Jewish people to a better situation; and the success of his undertaking provided full proof of his claims. This is an argument that no Marxist can allege in support of his criticism of capitalism. Quite to the contrary, the historical achievements of the socialist model in USSR and China were so disappointing that, nowadays, Marxists, after having proclaimed and defended them as the purest and most typical expressions of how Marxism overcomes capitalism, strive to explain them ex post facto as accidental deviations and to purge Marxism of any commitment to such obvious failures.

Contact Donald Hank by email at zoilandon@msn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, September 27, 2010.

This is excerpted from a report by:
US House of Representatives
Staff Report — Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49) Ranking Member


On February 18, 2010, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Republicans, in a staff report, described ACORN'S financial management as a "shell game ... designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators.'" ACORN officials, however, appear to be trying to dupe government officials and the American public through false and misleading claims about ending operations.

ACORN officials told the New York Times that "at least 15 of the group's 30 state chapters have disbanded and have no plans of re-forming." On Sunday March 21, 2010, it was reported that the ACORN Board met to discuss the closing of state affiliates and field offices. However, claims that ACORN is disbanding have been greatly exaggerated. ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis told National Public Radio, "[ACORN is] not dead, yet."

ACORN'S new affiliates have filed corporate registrations in Secretary of State offices throughout the country. Based upon its review of these corporate filings. Committee investigators have discovered that Affordable Housing Centers of America, Inc. maintains the same Tax Identification Number as ACORN Housing, Inc., its predecessor. This means that, for tax purposes. Affordable Housing Centers of America and ACORN Housing are the same.

Additionally, Committee investigators found that several new ACORN affiliates maintain the same boards, staff and Employer Identification Numbers as former ACORN offices. This reflects the lack of true change or reform between these new organizations and their predecessors. ACORN affiliates in various states are also changing their names in what has been described as, "a desperate bid to ditch the tarnished name of their parent organization and restore federal grants and other revenue streams."

In California, ACORN is now the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment ("ACCE"), In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, ACORN is New England United for Justice. In New York, ACORN is New York Communities for Change. In Arkansas, ACORN has become Arkansas Community Organizations ("ACO").

...These rebrandings and transactions indicate that local chapters are not forcibly separating themselves from ACORN, but are attempting to reinvent themselves through a process done in full coordination with ACORN and its national senior leadership including Bertha Lewis. The close coordination of the rebranding process signals a level of continued control that ACORN'S senior officials exert over newly rebranded affiliates.

ACORN and its affiliates appear to be following a strategy that will allow it to rehabilitate important state and local chapters under new names and then solicit private donations and public grants. ACORN is clearly reeling from public and official scrutiny of its many misdeeds. Documents and investigation, however, reveal that changes taking place at ACORN are the result of financial hardship and a desire to rebrand without real reform. Rebrandings should not be mistaken for real reforms which would, at a minimum, have to include a house cleaning of ACORN leadership, organizational transparency, and an exclusive focus on charitable work and services.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 27, 2010.

This is an item from yesterday's Ma'an from Ramallah: Fatah's armed wing vowed to respond to renewed settlement expansion in the West Bank on Sunday.


The Al-Aqsa Brigades urged the Palestinian Authority to maintain its resolve to walk out of recently relaunched peace talks if full-scale settlement expansion resumed.

As the 10-month partial moratorium on settlement construction expired on Sunday, Israeli settlers laid the foundation for a new school in the illegal Rommanim outpost in the southern Hebron district. Near Bethlehem, Israelis residing on the illegal Noqedim settlement were seen installing mobile homes on land belonging to Palestinian Khirbet Jub Ath-Theib. On Saturday, settlers installed 20 caravans on a hilltop outside the Revava settlement in the northern West Bank.

In a statement, the brigades said settler attacks against Palestinian people and their land had gone too far without intervention. The resumption of settlement expansion, which the group noted had never actually stopped, was evidence of the Israeli government's intention to deny Palestinian rights, the brigades said.

The group cited the release of a settler security guard who shot dead two Palestinians on Wednesday as further proof that the Israeli government supported extremist right-wing settler groups. The killing of Samer Abu Sarhan, a 28-year-old father of five, in Silwan was one incident in an endless cycle of attacks against Palestinians and their land, the brigades said.

The military wing of the Fatah party said its fighters would teach settler groups "unforgettable lessons."

President Mahmoud Abbas told world leaders at the UN General Assembly on Saturday that Israel would have to choose between settlement expansion and peace.

Despite pressure from the UN, the EU and the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far refused to extend the freeze on settlement construction.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Donald Hank, September 26, 2010.

Cognitive dissonance, the clashing of more than one world view held by one and the same person, is making people reject their own senses. It is a serious epidemic.

My article below on the border crisis and cognitive dissonance is archived at


The lack of response and negative response of many Americans to my recent article on the dangerous crisis (click here to read it.) at the US-Mexican border signals the existence of a sweeping epidemic of the mental disorder known as cognitive dissonance.

We often think of cognitive dissonance in terms of two different world views that one and the same person entertain. A well-known example is the compartmentalization practiced by some Christians who believe in Darwinism on a secular level and the Genesis version of creation on a religious level.

But in the case of the West, a much more serious and virulent form of cognitive dissonance frequently occurs in the minds of citizens whose "background noise" in the form of media reports and opinions, political activism, make us deny what our eyes and ears perceive. In other words, the victim is not only contending with 2 distinct and contradictory world views, which can cause neurosis. He or she is actually trapped (brain washed, we could call it) into believing something that his senses unerringly tell him is not true.

The most amazing example of this more radical form of cognitive dissonance that I have ever witnessed was when, in the midst of the "global warming" craze, a record late frost occurred in my area in PA and not only did the media not report it, but many of the locals with whom I spoke, even as the frost lay on the ground in full view, appeared visibly nervous and edgy when I mentioned that I had never seen frost this late in over 65 years living in the area. Of course, neither had they, but they couldn't say so because they were supposed to devoutly believe in global warming — and not as the result of scientific study but as a result of fervent devotion of a mystical type not to be confused with brain activity. The belief would save humankind from extinction if only we believed fervently and acted upon our beliefs by accepting whatever remedies the government and the Self-Elect recommended. Praise Gaya!

The very same phenomenon is at work when people mention things like the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz by illegal aliens. Many absolutely can't process this information and exhibit an evasive response when confronted with it. They literally dodge anyone who mentions it. Like Pavlov's dogs, they have been conditioned. They dare not entertain such dissident thoughts, let alone discuss the issue with anyone. They not only feel guilty about having this information, because it contradicts the received wisdom that all Hispanics are victims and we evil rich Americans are their tormenters and are responsible for all ills that befall them. They also are deathly afraid that an activist could be lurking somewhere waiting to pounce on them for the indiscretion of stating a simple fact. None of these Hispanics who sin, so goes the narrative, can be held accountable for their actions. If they smuggle drugs, it is our fault because some Americans use drugs. If they rape someone it is because American women are racists who deny them love. If they join violent gangs it is because we xenophobic Anglos reject them and their language, forcing them to seek solace among their own kind.

I hope and pray I am wrong, but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that cognitive dissonance is now an epidemic of such enormous proportions in our country that, if someday Hispanics swept through middle class neighborhoods burning, pillaging, raping, murdering and shouting racial slurs against whites and blacks alike, a sizeable proportion of the residents of these neighborhoods would actually feel guilty about being "rich" and white (no matter that the Hispanics hated the blacks as well) and would ask: Where have we gone wrong? What can we do to show them we are their friends?

If my suspicions about that are correct, this could be the end of the line.

Contact Donald Hank by email at zoilandon@msn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, September 26, 2010.

There is such a thin line between joy and sorrow, so learned a young Israeli couple, Sharon and Neta Shuker. The young couple were driving from their home in Beersheva yesterday to transport their belongings to their new home in Tena Omrim near Hebron when a passing car shot at them point blank. Neta, who was 41 weeks pregnant, received bullet wounds in her legs, and her husband Sharon was lightly wounded. Driving to a security point, the couple was transported to a hospital where Neta delivered a healthy baby boy by Cesarian section. After the birth of the baby, the new mother was wheeled back into the operating room for an operation on her injured legs.

"He was supposed to be born on Simchat Torah, but we are celebrating early," said the father as he held his son in his arms. "Now all my thoughts are for my wife."

Do they regret their decision to move?

"We're living in the Middle East," Neta's brother told Ynet reporter Ilana Coriel," There's always something. This conflict has been going on for a hundred years. We've experienced many greater and more difficult things. To our great Mazal, this time something good was born of it, and the incident ended in joy."

To see a picture of the baby:

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 Ben Ami, September 26, 2010.

This book review was written by Andrew Roberts. Historian Andrew Roberts' latest book, Masters and Commanders, was published in the U.K. in September. His previous books include Napoleon and Wellington, Hitler and Churchill, and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. Roberts is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Society of Arts.


A new history of British intelligence reveals that in 1946-'48 they used explosives to attack ships bearing Holocaust survivors from Europe to Israel. Andrew Roberts on these stunning revelations.

As Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, the pitiful remnants of History's greatest crime, tried to make their way across an often hostile Europe at the end of the Second World War, toward at least a semblance of safety in the Holy Land, they had no shortage of problems with which to contend, including disease and malnutrition, Polish anti-Semitism, Soviet indifference, Allied bureaucracy, and Arab nationalism. Now we discover that they faced yet another peril in the shape of bombs planted on their transport ships by Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6.

Jewish refugees crowding on the decks of the refugee ship Fede (Dov Hoz) on arrival at Haifa, Palestine in 1946. (Keystone/Getty Images)

A new book to be published next week entitled MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949, by the distinguished British historian Keith Jeffery, reveals the existence of Operation Embarrass, a plan to try to prevent Jews getting into Palestine in 1946-'48 using disinformation and propaganda but also explosive devices placed on ships. Nor is this some speculative spy story that can be denied by the authorities: Dr. Jeffrey's book is actually, in their own words: "Published with the permission of The Secret Intelligence Service and the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office."

The country that ought to be embarrassed by Operation Embarrass — indeed shamed — is Great Britain, which used explosives to try to stop truly humanitarian flotillas after the Holocaust, but now condemns embattled Israel for halting entirely politically inspired flotillas to Gaza despite her rights of legitimate self-defense.


The Secret History of MI6
by Keith Jeffery
832 pages
Penguin Press HC

When on June 1 this year the British government denounced as "completely unacceptable" the way that the Israelis landed troops on the Turkish flotilla to Gaza we did not know that its predecessor had done much the same, actually blowing up one ship and damaging two more vessels of a genuinely humanitarian flotilla that was trying to bring Jewish survivors of the Nazi death camps to their people's ancient homeland.

Of course the hostility of the British establishment toward Jewish immigration into Palestine since long before the notorious 1939 White Paper on the subject is well-known — even King George VI wrote that year to say that he was "glad to think that steps are being taken to prevent these people leaving their country of origin" — nonetheless this is the first indication of the violent lengths to which post-war Britain was willing to go in order to appease the oil-rich Arab states of the region. For it now emerges that in late 1946 the Labour government of Clement Attlee asked MI6 for "proposals for action to deter ships masters and crews from engaging in illegal Jewish immigration and traffic," adding, "Action of the nature contemplated is, in fact, a form of intimidation and intimidation is only likely to be effective if some members of the group of people to be intimidated actually suffer unpleasant consequences." Among the options contemplated were "the discovery of some sabotage device, which had 'failed' to function after the sailing of a ship," "tampering with a ship's fresh water supplies or the crew's food," and "fire on board ship in port." Sir Stewart Menzies, the chief of the SIS, suggested these could be blamed on an invented Arab terrorist group called The Defenders of Arab Palestine.

Operation Embarrass was therefore launched after a meeting held on February 14, 1947 between officials from MI6, the armed services, the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office, the last represented by William Hayter, the head of Foreign Office Services Liaison Department, a high-flier who later became ambassador to Moscow. I knew Sir William Hayter in later life, but needless to say he never breathed a word about this operation. In his defense, it must be said that Hayter did order MI6 to ensure that arson "must be arranged, if at all, when the ship is empty."

The Operation Embarrass team was told that "the primary consideration was to be that no proof could ever be established between positive action against this traffic and His Majesty's Government [HMG]." A special communications network, codenamed Ocean, was set up with a budget of £30,000 ($47,000), a great deal of money in 1947. The operation had three aspects: direct action against refugee ships, a "black" propaganda campaign, and a deception scheme to disrupt immigration from Black Sea ports.

A team of former Special Operations Executive agents — with the cover story of a yachting trip — was sent to France and Italy with limpet bombs and timers. If captured, "they were under no circumstances to admit their connection with HMG" but instead claim to have been recruited in New York "by an anti-Communist organization formed by a group of international industrialists, mainly in the oil and aircraft industries," i.e. to lay the blame on rich, right-wing, unnamed Americans. They were told that this cover "was their final line of defense and, even in the event of a prison sentence, no help could be expected from HMG."

During the summer of 1947 and early 1948, five attacks were undertaken on ships in Italian ports, of which one was rendered "a total loss" and two others were damaged. Two other British-made limpet mines were discovered before they went off, but the Italian authorities did not find their country of origin suspicious, "as the Arabs would of course be using British stores." Operation Embarrass even considered blowing up the Baltimore steamship President Warfield when in harbor in France, which later became famous in Israeli history as the "Exodus" ship that "launched a nation."

The country that ought to be embarrassed by Operation Embarrass — indeed shamed — is Great Britain, which used explosives to try to stop truly humanitarian flotillas after the Holocaust, but now condemns embattled Israel for halting entirely politically inspired flotillas to Gaza despite her rights of legitimate self-defense. The depth of the animosity that Establishment Britain, especially the Foreign Office, felt toward the Jews of Palestine clearly went even further than we had ever imagined, and even 70 years later is by no means extinguished.

Contact Ben Ami by email at farmer@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 26, 2010.

Here I am, returned from my focus on Sukkot to report on what's happening with the end of the freeze — the freeze that never should have happened in the first place. But, as I had anticipated, there is no startling news today.

Officially, the freeze ends at midnight, and there has been no announcement from Netanyahu that there will be an extension. Already there is expressed determination on the part of the residents of Judea and Samaria to start building immediately. Arutz Sheva is featuring the 2,000 balloons released in the town of Revava, near Ariel in the Shomron, this evening at a demonstration sponsored by World Likud — 2,000 representing the number of new housing units that have already been approved and can now be started (at least in theory). In a couple of places cornerstones were laid to represent the beginning of housing construction; in Kiryat Netafim, for a kindergarten. There were impassioned speeches about how we can go back to proper values for our nation now.

But in point of fact, the enthusiasm has been tempered, for we are waiting for the other shoe to drop: Right now the prime minister is asking that residents of Judea and Samaria and activists "use restraint" and "play down" the beginning of new construction. Communication continues between our government and the US regarding some compromise on the issue.

Reports continue that Abbas may actually not walk away from talks, as he has been threatening to do. Al Hayat, however, tells a different story (this one for Arab consumption): Presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina says that "President Mahmoud Abbas will not abandon the Palestinian national consensus which stresses that there must be a freeze in settlement activity for the continuation of negotiations." He further stated that Abbas has requested an October 4th meeting with the "Arab follow-up committee" of the Arab League in order to consult with them regarding negotiations. And at the UN on Saturday, he said that Israel would have to decided between settlements and peace.

So we're going to have to watch the unfolding of events in the days ahead.


Last Thursday, the very first day of Sukkot, Obama spoke at the UN, and he outdid even himself.

"We believe the moratorium should be extended..." he told the General Assembly. "We"? The only "we" that counts is the people of Israel, and "we" do not believe anything of the sort. His gall is unmitigated.

He then went on at some length with regard to the need to make peace here. "This time we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem's soil as sacred." But there is no tolerance in the teachings of Islam! Rather, those teachings talk about Muslim dominance.

And he finally concluded that if we "reach for what's best within ourselves" "when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine living in peace with Israel."


For a more detailed report on what Obama said at the UN, see Anne Bayefsky:

What transpired, she says, "made it startlingly clear that the U.S. president does not understand the threat facing America and the world from Iran.

"...Obama chose not to speak the plain truth — that Iran seeks nuclear weapons — or to commit his government to stopping them, period. He said instead that Iran had not yet demonstrated peaceful intent and asked Ahmadinejad to 'confirm' this intent...

"...Ahmadinejad understands perfectly well that confronting Iran is out of sync with the 'new era of engagement' that is the trademark of Obama's foreign policy. 'Engagement' looks like this: The president of the United States keeps talking about 'extended hands' and 'open doors,' and the president of Iran keeps building nuclear weapons.

"...President Obama played to his U.N. audience just as the president of Iran did. Obama made the centerpiece of his speech an overt squeeze on the state of Israel. Before a U.N. audience infamously hostile to Israel, he demanded that Prime Minister Netanyahu renew the moratorium on building 'settlements.' He made no such specific demands of the Palestinian side. Instead, he painted a picture of moral equivalence between the terrorists that seek Israel's annihilation and Israel's reasonable skepticism of a negotiating partner that still refuses to accept a Jewish state...

"Ahmadinejad got the message. Israel is vulnerable with President Obama in office, and Iran has no serious reason to believe that hate and terror will be on the losing end any time soon."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ 247663/ahmadinejad-slams-shut-obamas- open-door-engagement-again-anne-bayefsky


At times like this I find myself pondering how it is that the people of America allowed themselves to be so badly duped that they ended up with this man for president. What makes it difficult for me to have even a modicum of equanimity as I ponder this is the knowledge that Obama, with his policies, has made the world in general a more dangerous place and has rendered Israel in particular more vulnerable.

It is in light of this that I share a link to a video that delivers an important message to America: the second (non-politically correct) verse of the Star-Spangled Banner.

When facing evil (and what is evil if not the plans and words of Ahmadinjad??) terms such as triumph, just cause and victory are appropriate. "Engagement" is the way to disaster.
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v= UqnWBiL7E4s
(With thanks to Andrew B.)

Obama was not the only one in recent days speaking out of turn. We also heard from former president Bill Clinton (known here in Israel as "Beel"). According to Foreign Policy magazine, last week Clinton, during a roundtable discussion with reporters, said "an increasing number of the young people in the IDF are the children of Russians and settlers, the hardest core people against a division of the land. This presents a staggering problem."

The only thing staggering here is the outrage of his saying such a thing.

I confess that I was not happy with much of the response to Clinton that came from here in Israel. Statements such as that by MK Lia Shemtov, Chair of the Knesset Immigrant and Absorption Committee: "The immigrants from the former Soviet Union...love their country and want, like every other citizen, to live their lives with security and peace. There is no basis to the claim that the immigrants oppose peace..."

First of all, this equates dividing the land with "peace." The fact is that true peace would be undermined if our land were divided. And former Russians are not keen on doing this — they tend not to support left wing or progressive parties. But that's their right (pun not intended).

This statement about Russian immigrants sounds like apologetics.

Only one comment was necessary: It is not the business of the former president of the United States to make disparaging remarks about any element of the Israeli populace. As members of a democracy, all elements have a right to their political positions.

The Knesset will be holding a hearing on what Clinton said.


Shameless, as I knew it would be. Last week, both Abbas and Fayyad, meeting Jews in the States, delivered messages in English that were absolutely moderate. Their skill at deceiving and saying in English what their listeners want to hear is unsurpassed. What is there to do but keep our eye on the ball: remembering always their policies and actions and statements in Arabic that are the antithesis of moderation.


We are now dealing with increased violence — in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Last week, a security guard driving alone in an Arab area of eastern Jerusalem found himself surrounded by an angry mob. Afraid for his life, he shot his gun, killing an Arab man. Riots then ensued in and around the Old City, with police moving to block stone-throwing at worshippers at the Kotel as Sukkot began. Some ten Israelis were injured.

Today, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at Border Police in the Givati parking lot near the Old City; a search of the area turned up three more Molotov cocktails. When fighting broke out on Salah a-Din Street, the police arrested four Arabs; a riot ensued with rocks thrown at the police.

Near the community of Teneh Omarim in Judea, a husband and wife, driving in their car, suffered a shooting attack. (Yes! again.) The husband was lightly injured, the wife, nine-months pregnant, moderately so. Her baby boy, her first child, was delivered by C-section and is fine (thank G-d!). His mother will recover. Police, seeking the perpetrators of the shooting attack, entered the nearby Arab town of Dahariya, setting up checkpoints. Clashes have broken out with young residents of the town, as houses are being searched.


With more to follow soon, I end here by coming full circle to Sukkot and a Dry Bones cartoon:

Happy Sukkot Holiday : Dry Bones cartoon.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, September 25, 2010.

"The more people who understand what is going on, the better our chance of beating this plot."

Behind this endless game lies an important consideration: What happens the day after the talks fail? What is the alternative plan? Unlike Israel, Elitzur says, the PA has such a plan: To back Israel into a corner and get Netanyahu to agree to borders of a Palestinian state

This below was written by David Lev and it appeared in Arutz-7
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/139742


"There's a method to PA chief Mahmoud Abbas' ongoing refusal to negotiate seriously with Israel", journalist Uri Elitzur told Israelnationalnews in an interview — "and unfortunately, his plan has a relatively good chance of succeeding".

Elitzur laid out the plot in the weekend edition of Hebrew newspaper Mekor Rishon, of which he is one of the editors, last Friday. "The PA's insistence that it will walk out of the talks if Israel ends the building freeze in Judea and Samaria" he says, "is a political gambit for something Abbas and company are far more interested in: An Israeli agreement on the borders of a Palestinian state before resolving other sensitive issues, such as security, Jerusalem, and PA demands that descendants of Arabs who abandoned Israel in 1948 be allowed to return to their former homes".

"The strategy is apparent to anyone who bothers to look", Elitzur says. "Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu knows that the talks are a game, Abbas knows the talks are a game, and both are playing well." The game, in this case, is to pass the blame for failure of the talks to the other party. U.S. President Barack Obama knows it's a game, too, Elitzur says — and he also knows how far he can push Israel. "Obama knows that an American president is not a Caesar who can do whatever he wants, and there is a limit to the pressure the White House can impose on Israel." Given that both Israel and the PA have so many red lines that they dare not cross, the talks were doomed to fail, even before they started, Elitzur says.

So why bother? "Behind this endless game lies an important consideration: What happens the day after the talks fail? What is the alternative plan?" Unlike Israel, Elitzur says, the PA has such a plan: To back Israel into a corner and get Netanyahu to agree to a "shelf agreement" — meaning that most of the impassable issues would be put "on the shelf" for the time being, while the one issue that the PA really wants to see resolved — the borders of the Palestinian state — are decided right now. Tsipi Livni actually agreed to this when she was Foreign Minister, Elitzur says.

If the borders between Israel and Palestine are delineated, Elitzur says, the PA can declare an official Palestinian state — one that has a reasonable chance of being accepted by the rest of the world. Contrary to popular thinking, the PA would not be able to get away with declaring a state unilaterally — not after they signed agreement after agreement that specifies negotiations as the only legitimate path to a PA state.

But if Israel — and the U.S. — agree to delineate the borders, Elitzur says that the PA could probably get a great deal of international support and recognition for the PA state; they might even successfully join the UN. Once that happens, it would be a simple matter to mount a truly effective campaign against Jews residing in "Palestine" — and little by little, Israel would withdraw from all the areas it agreed would be part of a de jure Palestinian state, without achieving any of its security goals — and we would be stuck with a de facto terror state that could pose a mortal threat.

Would the U.S. recognize such a state? "Maybe not," Elitzur told Israelnationalnews. "But I believe Obama would. And if he does well in the November elections, he could make life unpleasant for Israel if we don't go along with the plan, by doing things like abstaining from Security Council votes against us, and so on."

In fact, in recent statements, Obama hinted at just such plan, saying in a press conference last week that "ultimately, the way to solve these problems is for the two sides to agree what's going to be Israel, what's going to be the state of Palestine. And if you can get that agreement, then you can start constructing anything that the people of Israel see fit in undisputed areas."

The PA plan has the potential to change the public discussion on what would constitute a resolution of the Mideast conflict. "Right now, the world hears us talk about a comprehensive agreement, security, two states for two peoples, and so on," Elitzur says. "But if Abbas has his way, the settlements will be the only issue on the table — because we will have agreed that they are the only issue on the table." The fact that Netanyahu is likely to offer less of Judea and Samaria for a Palestinian state than either Livni or Olmert were — about 90% (although, says Elitzur, the rest will be made up with territory currently part of the State of Israel), is a sacrifice Abbas is willing to make in order to be able to declare an independent Palestine without having to hew to any of Israel's conditions.

So will he get away with it? "So far, Netanyahu seems to be avoiding this trap, but he is not immune to pressure." It would make things much easier for Obama, too; instead of pressuring Israel to compromise on dozens of issues, he would have only one issue to persuade — or pressure — Netanyahu to accept. Is there anything the average Israeli can do about it? "Say tehillim," Elitzur says. "And tell your friends to read the story that Arutz 7 is doing about it. The more people who understand what is going on, the better our chance of beating this plot."

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 Josephine Levin, September 25, 2010.

This was written by Tom Neumann and it appeared in Ynet News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3958748,00.html

Tom Neumann is Executive Director, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.


This month marks the beginning of the Jewish New Year 5771. As is customary on this holiday, we take stock of what kind of year 5770 has been and examine what the future holds for us. Based upon the barrage of bad news, I have many concerns. Chief among them is my fear for the future of both America and Israel.

The bad news for both countries is overwhelming and it might be easier to just look the other way, but that kind of head-in-the-sand approach can only portend greater calamities down the line. We know from history that we must respond or be swept away by the gathering storm.

The year 5770 demonstrated just how resilient anti-Semitism is. If we took only a small sampling of the events from the closing days of this past year we would see events in every nook and cranny of the world that remind us of the environment of the 1930s.

For example, the European Union's trade chief and former Belgian foreign minister Karel De Gucht spoke disparagingly about the influence of Jewish power in the United States and about the inability to have a rational discussion on the Middle East situation even with the most "moderate Jew."

Dr. De Gucht's unfortunate comments followed quickly on the heels of comments made by a board member of the German central bank about "Jewish genes" — an echo from pre-Hitler Germany.

And who would expect the rapid growth of neo Nazis admirers of Hitler in, of all places, Mongolia. What a strange and unexpected picture to see black shirted, swastika wearing Mongolians with outstretched arms yelling "sieg heil" in the streets of Ulan Bator.

And stranger still is the bombing of the synagogue during Rosh Hashana in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. Did anyone even imagine there were still Jews there?

And back home in the US, we witnessed raw anti-Semitism on the front pages of Time magazine where a recent cover featured a Jewish star composed of daisies with a headline that read "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace."

Iran crosses nuclear Rubicon

America and the free world suffered setbacks in Turkey with the final straw being the referendum to change the Turkish constitution. This put the last nail in the coffin of any legitimate opposition to the current Islamic regime. And, sadly, it was carried out to the misguided applause of the Obama Administration.

We leave Iraq in turmoil. At the end of the day we will see that all our efforts and all the innocent lives lost were for naught. We will not have a government in Iraq that is any friendlier to the US than the one we overthrew.

The war in Afghanistan is all but lost with Hamid Karzai desperately looking for an avenue of rapprochement with the Taliban as we declare our intention to leave winning nothing.

In Pakistan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who was initially vilified and arrested for selling nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya, is now lionized and has spoken openly and credibly about running for prime minister.

Both Somalia and Yemen are about to fall probably into the hands of pro al-Qaeda forces.

Iran has crossed the nuclear Rubicon with implications for not just the region but the whole world. And the US proposes sanctions that will be toothless as long as the Russians and the Chinese stand ready to fill in the financial vacuum.

And, as 5770 comes to a close, the Obama Administration is expected to seek Congressional approval for the largest arms sale ever, $60 billion to Saudi Arabia. It is just another example of this Administration's trending away from the special relationship between Israel and the US.

As the year ends, the media frenzy builds around the mosque at Ground Zero. The charge is that the reason behind the objection to the building of the mosque is "Islamophobia," as though there were no legitimate objections to the building of the mosque.

However, the very same media remains completely mute on one of the most important stories of the day. The story is that the retiring US Air Force chief intelligence officer who warned that the US has lost its air power superiority and is ill prepared to stop the Russians and the Chinese from closing the gap. A very serious problem from the man who should know and yet not an ounce of ink was expended on that report. The storm is gathering and as things are unfolding we will be ill equipped to deal with it.

Contact Josephine Levin by email at snow5243@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yatza, September 25, 2010.

It is not racist... it is for real. They didn't read the Quran

This article could be seen as racist by some but on the other hand it could also be seen as a reflection of our own reality that somehow our politicians refuse to see. The interpretation is up to the reader, however it is food for thought...

This article is by Susan MacAllan, a Canadian citizen. It is called "Salute the Danish Flag — it's a Symbol of Western Freedom" and it appeared in Family Security Matters (FSM).


In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 — even in Copenhagen, one didn't se Muslim immigrants.

The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 — a system where no worker had to struggle t survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies — it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It wa determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets — all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious — and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark 's liberal way of life, the Danes — once so welcoming — began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage an history.

An article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted, accurately, that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.'

'Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.'

'Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Musli immigrants would readily marry a Dane.'

'Forced marriages — promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death — are on problem.'

'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark 's Muslim population grows large enough — a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, ever third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.'

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws.

An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden — before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa — who, as a teenager, had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers — and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years — one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today, Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe — even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of llanguage classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test.

You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system, as it existed, was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.'

'The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark 's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshoj says, 'There is an invers correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.'

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that i Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.

The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time — in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Canadians clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history. We would do well to look to Denmark, an say a prayer for her future and for our own.

If you agree this article has value, then please pass it on.

Islam is no different from CANCER, they are working their way into every culture like a disease & if we don't do something NOW (as described above) then all other cultures will be in serious trouble.

WW III will be Islam against what remains of the free western world.

Contact Yatza at yakov-11@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, September 24, 2010.

From Bloomberg Business Week
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-16/ palestinian-authority-positioned-for- state-world-bank-says.html
by Alisa Odenheimer
September 16, 2010

The Palestinian Authority is "well-positioned" to establish a state, though it remains donor dependent and economic growth is unsustainable, the World Bank said.

"If the Palestinian Authority maintains its current performance in institution-building and delivery of public services, it is well-positioned for the establishment of a state," the World Bank said in a report to donor countries. "Sustainable economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza, however, remains absent."

Limitations imposed by Israel on imports and access to east Jerusalem and other areas are major impediments to increased private investment, the report said. Israel says access restrictions are necessary to stop attacks by militants. The Palestinian Authority also needs to implement legislation that would improve the investment climate, the report said.

The West Bank and Gaza economies are heading for 8 percent growth this year, up from 7.2 percent in the West Bank in 2009 and 5.4 percent in Gaza, Oussama Kanaan, the head of the International Monetary Fund's mission to the area said on Sept. 14. While some of the growth is due to improved investor confidence and the partial easing of restrictions by Israel, the main driver remains foreign donations, the World Bank said in its report.

"Unless action is taken in the near future to address the remaining obstacles to private sector development and sustainable growth, the Palestinian Authority will remain donor dependent and its institutions, no matter how robust, will not be able to underpin a viable state," the bank said.[emphasis added]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lifted roadblocks across the West Bank in an effort to promote Palestinian economic growth. Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who started peace negotiations in Washington on Sept. 2, met for a second round this week.

The World Bank Board approved an additional $40 million grant for budget support for the Palestinian Authority today, bringing its support for the Palestinian Reform and Development plan to $120 million. The Palestinian Authority faces a $300 million to $400 million financing gap for 2010, the report said.

Comments by Elder of Ziyon
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/09/ world-bank-pa-ready-to-become-welfare.html

The news report is parroting the actual World Bank report in headlining that the PA is in good shape to establish a state, and then only many paragraphs later admitting that this state would remain completely dependent on foreign aid for the foreseeable future and that the state will not be viable.

In fact, the entire theme of the report is to play up the successes and play down the intractable problems.

So we have headlines around the world claiming that the World Bank is saying that the PA is positioned to become a state, and only keen readers will notice that the type of state that they are envisioning is one that will be almost wholly dependent on outside money. They are pushing the establishment of a state that is, in their own terms, not viable.

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 Daily Alert, September 24, 2010.

This was written by Mitchell Bard and it appeared September 7, 2010 in the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/7/ an-enemy-of-peace/

Mitchell Bard is a foreign-policy analyst whose latest book is The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America's Interests in the Middle East (HarperCollins, 2010).


President Obama's success in bringing Israelis and Palestinians together to discuss peace raised hopes that this long-standing conflict may be resolved. Everyone knows the issues are difficult, but what is less well known is how outside influences, notably the Arab lobby, can undermine the process.

"What Arab lobby?" people ask. It's a reasonable question. After all, everyone has heard of the powerful and sinister Israel lobby, but few are aware that there is an equally powerful Arab counterpart that represents competing interests and has often successfully obstructed American initiatives in the region. The picture is further obscured by the naive assumption many Americans make that all Arabs are equally concerned with the Palestinian issue. In reality, the Arab lobby has historically acted to frustrate U.S. efforts to make peace.

The Arab lobby as it exists today is comprised of two main constituencies: the oil lobby comprised of Saudi Arabia, State Department Arabists, and oil and defense companies; and a domestic lobby focused on the Palestinian issue represented by Arab- and Muslim-Americans, non-evangelical Christians, academics and Arabists. Each has had a negative impact on the search for peace.

The Arabists see Israel as a major irritant in relations with the Arab world, one that must be pressured to make concessions to satisfy the demands not only of the Palestinians but, more importantly, the Saudis, out of fear that oil supplies will otherwise be endangered. President Obama's first-year policies reflected this view as he publicly criticized Israel, demanded a settlement freeze and humiliated the prime minister on his first visit to Washington.

This ostensibly more "balanced" approach to the region undermined Mr. Obama's larger goal of achieving peace, since any agreement that Israel might sign would entail grave risks and Israelis need to feel that the United States is solidly behind them.

The Saudis have also historically been spoilers. Anwar Sadat told Jimmy Carter it was imperative that the Saudis support the Camp David Accords. After giving personal assurances to Mr. Carter they would do so, however, the Saudis betrayed him and opposed the negotiations, ostracized Egypt and financed the most radical parties acting to sabotage the agreement.

During George W. Bush's terms, Saudi backing for Hamas helped weaken Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. With the additional support of Iran, Hamas now has control of Gaza and rejects any peace agreement with Israel. This has left Mr. Abbas with no control over roughly 40 percent of the Palestinian population, and few Israelis believe he has the power to implement any agreement.

Mr. Obama's Middle East agenda was undermined at the outset by the Saudis when he was led to believe that pressuring Israel would prompt the Saudis to make accommodating gestures toward Israel. King Abdullah embarrassed the president by opposing any such gestures. In June, he reportedly told the French defense minister, "There are two countries in the world that do not deserve to exist: Iran and Israel." The Saudis denied the king made the statement, but it would be consistent with past expressions of hostility toward Israel. It was, therefore, not surprising the king was not among the leaders in Washington last week.

The domestic Arab lobby has little influence on negotiations but keeps the Palestinian issue boiling. Their focus is less on promoting peace than on driving a wedge between the United States and Israel by demanding greater U.S. pressure on Israel to make concessions, calling for a cutoff of aid and the imposition of sanctions, and condemning Israeli policies.

In December 1998, for example, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian National Authority President Yasser Arafat signed the Wye agreement, committing Israel to withdraw from an additional 13 percent of the West Bank, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright met with American Jewish and Arab leaders to encourage them to "build a constituency for peace." While the Israeli lobby endorsed the meeting, Arab-American groups criticized various aspects of the negotiations and scurrilously accused Israel of ethnic cleansing.

These same groups are very likely to back the Saudi/Arabist approach of encouraging Mr. Obama to continue pressuring Israel and supporting irredentist demands they know are unacceptable, such as the insistence that Palestinian refugees be allowed to settle in Israel rather than in a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, other Arab lobby groups have emerged as supporters of Hamas and are likely to oppose negotiations that exclude the terrorist group.

The good news is that Israel is undeterred by the Arab lobby. When they found Arab partners with courage and vision, namely Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein, the skeptics were proved wrong and peace treaties were signed. Today, Israelis want a peace agreement with the Palestinians and have repeatedly offered significant concessions (as much as 97 percent of the West Bank). If a courageous and visionary leader emerges on the Palestinian side, it may be possible to again defy the odds — and the Arab lobby — and achieve a just peace that provides statehood for the Palestinians and security to the Israelis.

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, September 24, 2010.
This was written by Palash R. Ghosh and comes from International Business Times
(http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/65146/20100923/ iran-sanctions-economy-gdp-inflation.htm)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Gestures While Speaking

In remarks before the United Nations General Assembly in New York earlier this week, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, blasted Western-style capitalism as a dying force, and one that has caused untold suffering amongst millions of people around the world. "The discriminatory order of capitalism and the hegemonic approaches are facing defeat and are getting close to their end," Ahmadinejad said.

However, Ahmadinejad did not offer any viable alternatives to capitalism, nor did he discuss the deep economic troubles and political crises his native country is presently embroiled in — although he did claims that "the future belongs to Iran."

But who does Iran belong to?

More than a year after Ahmadinejad's controversial and much-disputed re-election as president, Iran is wracked by widespread unrest, anti-government street demonstrations, rising inflation, high unemployment, in addition to the ongoing deleterious effects of economic sanctions by the United States, UN and European Union largely in response to Iran's nuclear program.

Jamsheed Choksy, a professor of Iranian and international studies at Indiana University, paints a bleak picture of the country's economy and prospects.

Iran's annual GDP growth rate has dropped from 4.7 percent in 2005 to 1.5 percent last year.

Inflation has remained in double digits for the past half decade. Last year inflation peaked at 25.6 percent — food and fuel costs rose by 13.8 percent despite state interventions, while housing and utilities climbed 16.3 percent.

As the country's industry stagnates, the population keeps getting bigger and younger. Iran's population grew steadily from 68 million in 2005 to 74 million in 2009 and will keep growing at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent. Meanwhile, unemployment has risen from 10.3 percent in 2005 to 12.5 percent in 2009 and is projected at 15 percent for 2010.

Unemployment is highest among the youth, who make up at least half of the population.

Given such a multitude of economic woes, President Ahmadinejad faces growing opposition within the government itself, particularly from officials who feel his economic program for the country has failed.

Gary Sick, professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University in New York, said it is clearly evident that the management of Iran's economy by the Islamic regime has been less than satisfactory. However, he adds that while Ahmadinejad may have some "eccentric" ideas about economic development, his predecessors have also failed to deal with Iran's various financial problems. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's plan to reduce the government's massive and long-entrenched subsidy program threatens to erode his support among poor and rural Iranians (a large segment of the population that until now has been a strong supporter of the President).

Iranian subsidies, one of the most generous packages in the world, are believed to account for an enormous 25 percent of the country's GDP, or $100-billion. Subsidies for things like gasoline, natural gas, electricity, water, bread, rice, cooking oil, milk, sugar, transportation services and medicine have been a godsend to the poor, but Parliament now seeks to gradually roll back the program. Under the government's proposal, all subsidized products will move to free market prices by 2015. In the initial phase, from September 2010 through March 2011, $20 billion of the annual $100 billion in subsidies will be cut. However, half of that $20 billion will be used as cash handouts for poor families, while another 30 percent will go to companies in the form of loans and the remaining 20 percent will be used to build a social security safety net.

Sick believes the roll-back of the huge subsidy system would be beneficial to Iran in the long-term. "The Iranian subsidy program has been extremely costly and soaks up a tremendous amount of the country's oil revenues," he said. "Subsidies on food and gas, among other items, have led to tremendous waste."

Opponents of the plan fear that scaling back subsidies will push inflation much higher, leading to perhaps even more civil unrest.

Reports from Iran — many from unofficial blogs and eyewitness accounts — suggest labor unrest pervades the country. Stories abound of employees going on lengthy strikes over unpaid wages, massive layoffs by companies under pressure to cut costs, and companies on the brink of bankruptcy.

To provide an idea of how much Iran's economy has declined, consider some published data of Dr. Hossein Askari, professor of international business and international affairs at George Washington University, which compares Iran with South Korea.

In 1970, Iran had a GDP of $10.6-billion that ranked it 27th among all countries, while Korea came in at $8.9-billion, good for 32nd place.

By 1980 (one year after the Islamic Revolution that toppled the former Shah), Iran's GDP was $90 billion (19th) and Korea's was $63 billion (28th).

However, by 2005, Iran had fallen to 31st place in GDP ranking at $190 billion, while Korea climbed to 13th place, with $791 billion (meaning, Korea's economy is quadruple the size of Iran's).

Askari states that since the 1979 revolution, Iran's real per capita income growth has been negligible, despite possessing one of the world's largest oil reserves,

Indeed, oil, the crown jewel of Iran's economy, has fallen on hard times. Production is actually in decline as Iranian oil facilities are in dire need of capital and infrastructure upgrades (made more difficult by the sanctions). In fact, according to Askari, Iran and Saudi Arabia produced roughly identical amounts of oil in 1970 (about 3.8-million barrels per day). By 2009, the Saudis produced twice as much oil as their Persian rivals (about 8.2-million versus 4.0-million barrels per day).

Also, take natural gas. The tiny country of Qatar has the third largest reserves of natural gas in the world and has now become the planet's biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) — in 2010, it is expected to export 105-billion cubic meters of LNG. By contrast Iran, which has the same size of LNG reserves, does not export any natural gas at all, and has, in fact, abandoned two gas projects due to the unavailability of financing and required technology.

Sick explains that the biggest problem faced by Iran's energy sector is a lack of capital and upgraded technology.

"Their oilfields are huge, complex and getting old," he said. "Because of the sanctions, Iran isn't receiving the kind of technology it needs to sustain the development of its oilfields. Although China is investing in Iranian energy, it's not the same getting top-notch technical expertise from companies like Exxon or Chevron."

The U.S-led sanctions have hurt Iran in many ways, Sick indicates. "For one thing, it has driven away foreign direct investment (FDI), which Iran desperately needs," he said. "Countries that may want to invest in Iran are discouraged from doing so for fear of offending the U.S."

Indeed, FDI, a pretty good gauge for a country's economic viability and attractiveness, has fallen to a trickle, at least outside the energy sector.

Sick also notes that Iran itself may be to blame for scaring away a lot of potential investors due to their own hard negotiating style. "Iran has failed to take advantage, by not cutting appropriate deals with some Western companies that have expressed a willingness to work with them," he said. "When Iranians negotiate business pacts, they insist on such a low profit margin for the foreign companies that they cannot justify the likely confrontation with the U.S. This has really hurt Iran and worsened the overall effects of the sanctions."

Despite the sanctions, there are no explicit restrictions on purchasing oil directly from Iran (excluding the U.S., that is). China, Japan and even many European countries remain Iran's top customers for petroleum.

While Ahmadinejad made a blanket indictment of capitalism in his recent harangue at the United Nations, it would be a grave mistake to describe Iran as a "socialist" economy in any way.

"They are not socialist at all, although the state plays a large role in industry," Sick explained.

"There are many privately-owned factories and industries in Iran — and private property is clearly sanctioned by Islam. Iran also has a long history of private ownership and a rich entrepreneurial tradition."

However, Sick also adds that many companies and industries in Iran are owned or dominated by members of the Revolutionary Guards, and the so-called Bonyads or parastatal "foundations" which would make some firms "quasi-state-owned" enterprises.

Indeed, pseudo-state institutions like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Bonyads dominate utilities, communications, and construction in the private sector. The process began following the 1979 revolution (when many private industries were nationalized) and has accelerated since.

At present, the small private export sector is confined mainly to rugs and other handicrafts, as well as to household appliance manufacturing, with exports of the latter items expanding into Asian and African markets.

Iran also has a severe drug problem. Choksy noted that there is a vast illicit underground economy: the smuggling of luxury goods into Iran is estimated by Iranian officials to be worth at least $20 billion annually. Moreover, the narcotics trade from Afghanistan via Iran to the West — 60 percent of the world's opium supply passes through Iran — is estimated by Iranian officials to cause at least $8.5 billion in damages within the country each year.

As if all that was not bad enough, the professional class is departing. Educated people are pouring out of Iran in search of better opportunities elsewhere. According to the International Monetary Fund, about 150,000 Iranians are fleeing the country every year.

It is estimated that about 25 percent of all Iranians with post-secondary education are now living abroad, mostly in Western countries. This "brain drain" is believed to be costing Iran about $40 billion per year — a grave threat to future economic growth.

Joseph Baxer, executive director of the Intercultural Institute of Connecticut, said that Iranian society presents a very mixed picture.

"There is, in fact, a middle-class and an upper middle-class in Iran that is doing very well," he said. "However, clearly there's an economic malaise in the country and many people complain — off-the-record — about the hardships they are suffering. Tourism is down, gasoline in being rationed and many Iranian people are living under extreme duress and pressure."

Thus, Ahmadinejad, who smiled easily throughout his visit to New York, may not be smiling much longer.

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 Anne Bayefsky, September 24, 2010.

Today [Sep 23, 2010], the United Nations opens its annual General Debate at the General Assembly with President Obama making every effort to appear statesmanlike as he faces increasing criticism in his own backyard. Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who will mount the same platform later in the day, has exactly the same idea. At $20 billion dollars a year, the U.N. has become the world's most expensive hot air balloon, with American taxpayers funding a quarter of the bill.

A White House press release on Monday spelled out the formula for the president's sought -after makeover. The White House described the "dramatically" different Obama foreign policy as one which includes a warm embrace of the United Nations. It also claimed that "the new era of engagement" has been a major success, pointing to U.N. sanctions on Iran, momentum against nuclear proliferation, and U.S. participation in reforming the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The facts suggest otherwise. Nobody at the U.N. believes that the Iran sanctions will prevent an Iranian bomb. The weak Security Council sanctions adopted after 18 months of engagement garnered fewer votes than the sanctions adopted during the Bush years. The president himself has knotted together the issues of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, thereby making non-proliferation efforts much more difficult.

In May, the president agreed to co-sponsor an international conference intended to redirect the heat from Iran to Israel in the name of disarmament. And a year after the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, Libya has become a member, anti-Israel hysteria has reached new heights, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference has informed the administration that reform is dead in the water.

None of that, however, is likely to mean the president will confront real world evils during his moments today at center stage. At a Monday press briefing with America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes indicated that Obama will repeat his tired-out mantra on Iran. It's still about an "open door" policy that remains open, despite Iran having made it crystal clear it has no intention of walking through. The president is evidently oblivious to the image of weakness he has projected, and will continue to project, in the General Assembly.

President Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, will take the opposite tack. On Tuesday, he issued another not-so veiled threat, telling the U.N. high-level meeting on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that the "order of capitalism and the hegemonic approaches are facing defeat and getting close to their end."

At the same MDG summit, President Obama unveiled to Americans another aspect of his "dramatically" different foreign policy. He chided "donor nations" yesterday for failing to "move beyond the old, narrow debate over how much money we're spending."

The enthusiasm for engagement has left the Obama team with at least one immediate conundrum, which will be played out as Ahmadinejad's speech unfolds this afternoon. How anti-semitic is anti-semitic? U.S. representatives have been instructed to sit in their seat during his harangue until the anti-semitism or other possible affront reaches such a level that they must get up and walk out. It would be useful to have the administration's instruction sheet on the subject of what is or is not sufficiently offensive, but it has not been made available to the public.

After all, the Obama administration's representative stayed put in June when the Syrian representative told the U.N. Human Rights Council: "Israel...is a state that is built on hatred...Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school and I quote 'With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood."

Given that Ahmadinejad again questioned the Holocaust while talking to reporters in New York on Tuesday, it is disturbing that the president has still not decided to stay away from the Iranian President's speech. The Israeli representative, needless to say, has already figured it out and will not be there. In fact, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu — who last year felt that he had to come and show the members of the General Assembly the construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp — will not be coming to the Assembly this year at all.

So we will just have to wait and see what it takes to move the Obama team.

Of course, Ahmadinejad doesn't care a whit if Obama's folks come or go. By the time Ahmadinejad ends his New York trip, the U.N. will have translated his words into six languages and webcast them around the world.

He will have been fawned over by many in the American media and scores of academics who have made careers of refusing to nail down what counts as right and wrong. As MIT research associate Jim Walsh told Fox News yesterday, while preparing to dine with Ahmadinejad that evening (for the sixth time), "every Iranian meal I've had has been delicious."

A fairly accurate reflection of the moral compass of today's engagement enthusiasts.


President of the U.S.A Barack Obama's Address to UN General Assembly Sept. 23, 2010 [Full Transcript]

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: it is an honor to address this Assembly for the second time, nearly two years after my election as President of the United States.

We know this is no ordinary time for our people. Each of us comes here with our own problems and priorities. But there are also challenges that we share in common as leaders and as nations.

We meet within an institution built from the rubble of war to unite the world in pursuit of peace. And we meet within a city that — for centuries — has welcomed people from across the globe, demonstrating that individuals of every color, faith and station can come together to pursue opportunity; build a community; and live with the blessing of human liberty.

Outside the doors of this hall, the blocks and neighborhoods of this great city tell the story of a difficult decade. Nine years ago, the destruction of the World Trade Center signaled a threat that respected no boundary of dignity or decency. Two years ago this month, a financial crisis on Wall Street devastated American families on Main Street. These separate challenges have affected people around the globe. Men, women and children have been murdered by extremists from Casablanca to London; from Jalalabad to Jakarta. The global economy suffered an enormous blow during the financial crisis, crippling markets and deferring the dreams of millions on every continent. Underneath these challenges to our security and prosperity lie deeper fears: that ancient hatreds and religious divides are once again ascendant; that a world which has grown more interconnected has somehow slipped beyond our control.

These are the some of the challenges that my Administration has confronted since we came into office. Today, I'd like to talk to you about what we have done over the last 20 months to meet these challenges; what our responsibility is to pursue peace in the Middle East; and what kind of world we are trying to build in this 21st century.

Let me begin with what we have done. I have had no greater focus as President than rescuing our economy from potential catastrophe. And in an age when prosperity is shared, we could not do this alone. So America has joined with nations around the world to spur growth, and the renewed demand that could restart job creation. We are reforming our system of global finance, beginning with Wall Street reform at home, so that a crisis like this never happens again. And we made the G-20 the focal point for international coordination, because in a world where prosperity is more diffuse, we must broaden our circle of cooperation to include emerging economies.

There is much to show for our efforts, even as there is much more work to be done. The global economy has been pulled back from the brink of a depression, and is growing once more. We have resisted protectionism, and are exploring ways to expand trade and commerce among nations. But we cannot — and will not — rest until these seeds of progress grow into a broader prosperity, for all Americans, and for people around the globe.

As for our common security, America is waging a more effective fight against al Qaeda, while winding down the war in Iraq. Since I took office, the United States has removed nearly 100,000 troops from Iraq. We have done so responsibly, as Iraqis have transitioned to lead responsibility for the security of their country. We are now focused on building a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while keeping our commitment to remove the rest of our troops by the end of next year.

While drawing down in Iraq, we have refocused on defeating al Qaeda and denying its affiliates a safe-haven. In Afghanistan, the United States and our allies are pursuing a strategy to break the Taliban's momentum and build the capacity of Afghanistan's government and Security Forces, so that a transition to Afghan responsibility can begin next July. And from South Asia to the Horn of Africa, we are moving toward a more targeted approach — one that strengthens our partners, and dismantles terrorist networks without deploying large American armies.

As we pursue the world's most dangerous extremists, we are also denying them the world's most dangerous weapons, and pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Earlier this year, 47 nations embraced a work-plan to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. We have joined with Russia to sign the most comprehensive arms control agreement in decades. We have reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy. And here, at the U.N., we came together to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As part of our efforts on non-proliferation, I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year, and underscored that it has both rights and responsibilities as a member of the international community. I also said — in this hall — that Iran must be held accountable if it failed to meet those responsibilities. That is what we have done. Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through UN Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise.

Now let me be clear once more: the United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it. But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.

As we combat the spread of deadly weapons, we are also confronting the specter of climate change. After making historic investments in clean energy and efficiency at home, we helped forge an Accord in Copenhagen that — for the first time — commits all major economies to reduce their emissions. This is just a first step. Going forward, we will support a process in which all major economies meet our responsibilities to protect our planet, while unleashing the power of clean energy to serve as an engine of growth and development.

America has also embraced unique responsibilities that come with our power. Since the rains came and the floodwaters rose in Pakistan, we have pledged our assistance, and we should all support the Pakistani people as they recover and rebuild. And when the earth shook and Haiti was devastated by loss, we joined a coalition of nations in response. Today, we honor those from the UN family who lost their lives in the earthquake, and commit ourselves to stand with the people of Haiti until they can stand on their own two feet.

Amidst this upheaval, we have been persistent in our pursuit of peace. Last year, I pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors. We have travelled a winding road over the last twelve months, with few peaks and many valleys. But this month, I am pleased that we have pursued direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington, Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem.

Now, many are pessimistic about this process. The cynics say that Israelis and Palestinians are too distrustful of each other, and too divided internally, to forge lasting peace. Rejectionists on both sides will try to disrupt the process, with bitter words and with bombs. Some say that the gaps between the parties are too big; the potential for talks to break down is too great; and that after decades of failure, peace is simply not possible.

But consider the alternative. If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to co-existence. The hard realities of demography will take hold. More blood will be shed. This Holy Land will remain a symbol of our differences, instead of our common humanity.

I refuse to accept that future. We all have a choice to make. And each of us must choose the path of peace. That responsibility begins with the parties themselves, who must answer the call of history. Earlier this month, at the White House, I was struck by the words of both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I came here today to find an historic compromise that will enable both people to live in peace, security, and dignity." President Abbas said, "We will spare no effort and we will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure these negotiations achieve their cause."

These words must be followed by action, and I believe that both leaders have the courage to do so. But the road that they have to travel is difficult, which is why I call upon Israelis and Palestinians — and the world — to rally behind the goal that these leaders share. We know there will be tests along the way, and that one is fast approaching. Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. Our position on this issue is well known. We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed. Now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle. Now is the time to build the trust — and provide the time — for substantial progress to be made. Now is the time for this opportunity to be seized, so that it doesn't slip away.

Peace must be made by Israelis and Palestinians, but each of us has a responsibility to do our part as well. Those of us who are friends of Israel must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine — one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity. And those of us who are friends of the Palestinians must understand that the rights of the Palestinian people will be won only through peaceful means — including genuine reconciliation with a secure Israel.

Many in this hall count themselves as friends of the Palestinians. But these pledges must now be supported by deeds. Those who have signed on to the Arab Peace Initiative should seize this opportunity to make it real by taking tangible steps toward the normalization that it promises Israel. Those who speak out for Palestinian self-government should help the Palestinian Authority politically and financially, and — in so doing — help the Palestinians build the institutions of their state. And those who long to see an independent Palestine rise must stop trying to tear Israel down.

After thousands of years, Jews and Arabs are not strangers in a strange land. And after sixty years in the community of nations, Israel's existence must not be a subject for debate. Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States. And efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people — the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance, it is injustice. Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas — who stands up for his people in front of the world — is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children.

The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is as old as this institution. And we can come back here, next year, as we have for the last sixty, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. We can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life. We can do that.

Or, we can say that this time will be different — that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire. This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem's soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what's best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.

It is our destiny to bear the burden of the challenges that I have addressed — recession and war and conflict. And there is always a sense of urgency — even emergency — that drives most of our foreign policies. Indeed, after millennia marked by wars, this very institution reflects the desire of human beings to create a forum to deal with the emergencies that will inevitably come.

But even as we confront immediate challenges, we must also summon the foresight to look beyond them, and consider what we are trying to build over the long term. What is the world that awaits us when today's battles are brought to an end? That is what I would like to talk about with the remainder of my time today.

One of the first actions of this General Assembly was to adopt a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. That Declaration begins by stating that, "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world."

The idea is a simple one — that freedom, justice and peace for the world must begin with freedom, justice, and peace in the lives of individual human beings. For the United States, this is a matter of moral and pragmatic necessity. As Robert Kennedy said, "the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit." So we stand up for universal values because it is the right thing to do. But we also know from experience that those who defend these values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights — whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments — have chosen to be our adversaries.

Human rights have never gone unchallenged — not in any of our nations, and not in our world. Tyranny is still with us — whether it manifests itself in the Taliban killing girls who try to go to school, a North Korean regime that enslaves its own people, or armed groups in Congo-Kinshasa that use rape as a weapon of war.

In times of economic unease, there can also be an anxiety about human rights. Today, as in past times of economic downturn, some put human rights aside for the promise of short term stability, or the false notion that economic growth can come at the expense of freedom. We see leaders abolishing term limits, crackdowns on civil society, and corruption smothering entrepreneurship and good governance. We see democratic reforms deferred indefinitely.

As I said last year, each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people. Yet experience shows us that history is on the side of liberty — that the strongest foundation for human progress lies in open economies, open societies, and open governments. To put it simply: democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens. And that truth will only grow stronger in a world where the borders between nations are blurred.

America is working to shape a world that fosters this openness, for the rot of a closed or corrupt economy must never eclipse the energy and innovation of human beings. All of us want the right to educate our children; to make a decent wage; to care for the sick; and to be carried as far as our dreams and deeds will take us. But that depends upon economies that tap the power of our people, including the potential of women and girls. That means letting entrepreneurs start a business without paying a bribe, and governments that support opportunity instead of stealing from their people. And that means rewarding hard work instead of reckless risk-taking.

Yesterday, I put forward a new development policy that will pursue these goals, recognizing that dignity is a human right and global development is in our common interest. America will partner with nations that offer their people a path out of poverty. And together, we must unleash growth that powers by individuals and emerging markets in all parts of the globe.

There is no reason why Africa should not be an exporter of agriculture, which is why our food security initiative is empowering farmers. And there is no reason why entrepreneurs shouldn't be able to build new markets in every society, which is why I hosted a summit on entrepreneurship earlier this Spring. Because the obligation of government is to empower individuals, not to impede them.

The same holds true for civil society. The arc of human progress has been shaped by individuals with the freedom to assemble; by organizations outside of government that insisted upon democratic change; and by free media that held the powerful accountable. We have seen that from the South Africans who stood up to apartheid, to the Poles of Solidarity, to the mothers of the disappeared who spoke out against the Dirty War, to Americans who marched for the rights of all races, including my own.

Civil society is the conscience of our communities, and America will always extend our engagement abroad with citizens beyond the halls of government. We will call out those who suppress ideas, and serve as a voice for the voiceless. We will promote new tools of communication, so people are empowered to connect with one another — and, in repressive societies, to do so with security. We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it's time to embrace — and effectively monitor — norms that advance the rights of civil society, and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.

Open society supports open government, but cannot substitute for it. There is no right more fundamental than the ability to choose your leaders and determine your destiny. Make no mistake: the ultimate success of democracy in the world won't come because the United States dictates it; it will come because individual citizens demand a say in how they are governed.

There is no soil where this notion cannot take root, just as every democracy reflects the uniqueness of a nation. Later this fall, I will travel to Asia. I will visit India, which peacefully threw off colonialism and established a thriving democracy of over a billion people. I will continue to Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority country, which binds together thousands of islands through the glue of representative government and civil society. I will join the G-20 meetings on the Korean peninsula, which provides the world's clearest contrast between a society that is dynamic and open, and one that is imprisoned and closed. I will conclude my trip in Japan, an ancient culture that found peace and extraordinary development through democracy.

Each of these countries gives life to democratic principles in their own way. And even as some governments roll back reform, we also celebrate the courage of a President in Colombia who willingly steps aside, or the promise of a new Constitution in Kenya. The common thread of progress is the principle that government is accountable to its citizens. The diversity in this room makes clear — no one country has all the answers, but all of us must answer to our own people. In all parts of the world, we see the promise of innovation to make government more open and accountable. Now, we must build on that progress. And when we gather back here next year, we should bring specific commitments to promote transparency; to fight corruption; to energize civic engagement; and to leverage new technologies so that we strengthen the foundation of freedom in our own countries, while living up to ideals that can light the world.

This institution can still play an indispensable role in the advance of human rights. It's time to welcome the efforts of UN Women to protect the rights of women around the globe. It's time for every member state to open its elections to international monitors, and to increase the UN Democracy Fund. It's time to reinvigorate UN peacekeeping, so that missions have the resources necessary to succeed, and so atrocities like sexual violence are prevented and justice is enforced — because neither dignity nor democracy can thrive without basic security. And it's time to make this institution more accountable as well, because the challenges of a new century demand new ways of serving our common interests.

The world that America seeks is not one that we can build on our own. For human rights to reach those who suffer the boot of oppression, we need your voices to speak out. In particular, I appeal to those nations who emerged from tyranny and inspired the world in the second half of the last century — from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to South America. Do not stand idly by when dissidents everywhere are imprisoned and protesters are beaten. Because part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others.

That belief will guide America's leadership in this 21st century. It is a belief that has seen us through more than two centuries of trial, and it will see us through the challenges we face today — be it war or recession; conflict or division. So even as we have come through a difficult decade, I stand here before you confident in the future — a future where Iraq is governed by neither a tyrant or a foreign power, and Afghanistan is freed from the turmoil of war; a future where the children of Israel and Palestine can build the peace that was not possible for their parents, and the promise of development reaches into the prisons of poverty and disease; a future where the cloud of recession gives way to the light of renewal, and the dream of opportunity is available to all.

This future will not be easy to reach. It will not come without setbacks, nor will it be quickly claimed. But the founding of the United Nations itself is a testament to human progress. In times that were far more trying than our own, our predecessors chose the hope of unity over the ease of division, and made a promise to future generations that the dignity and equality of human beings would be our common cause.

It falls to us to fulfill that promise. And though we will be met by dark forces that will test our resolve, Americans have always had cause to believe that we can choose a better history. In fact, we need only look outside the walls around us. For through the citizens of every conceivable ancestry who make this city their own, we see living proof that opportunity can be accessed by all; that what unites us as human beings is far greater than what divides us; and that people from every part of this world can live together in peace. Thank you.

Editor's Note: A video of his remarks is available from the White House.

Anne Bayefsky is editor of EYEontheUN (info@EYEonthe UN.org). She is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College.

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon, September 24, 2010.

And I hope that Netanyahu can withstand the enormous pressure Obama is, and will continue, placing on him. I hope that he will be able to resist real irreversible compromises for meaningless PLO verbal promises, as was, unfortunately, done in Oslo, et al..., e.g., promises of "demilitarization" and promises of stopping terrorism and anti-Israel propaganda and education, etc.

And I hope no compromise on even a SINGLE "right-of-arab-return" to Israel... (I believe that Olmert was willing to give some 20, 000 "the right-of -return"... What was he getting in return from the PLO???)

The list can go on and on...


This is the Full Text of Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu's September 24, 2010 Speech in New York City to the 65th annual meeeting of the General Assembly of the U.N.


Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler's deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited another concentration camp, one of many. The Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father's two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. Well, if you think that, you're wrong — dead wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many, many others, for this Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet. What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances — by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction. The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsor and practitioner of terrorism? Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing — absolutely nothing — from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian-backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent — absolutely silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. I'm not passing judgment. I'm stating a fact, a fact that is the product of the decision of great and honorable men — the leaders of Britain and the United States, fighting an evil force in World War II.

Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians, Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers themselves.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations, and the governments whom you represent, you have a decision to make.

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If you had to choose a date when the United Nations began its descent, almost a freefall, and lost the respect of many thoughtful people in the international community, it was that decision in 1975 to equate Zionism with racism.

Now this body has a choice to make. If this body does not reject this report, it would vitiate itself, it would begin — or re-begin — the process of vitiating itself from its own relevance and importance. But it would do something else. It would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays. All you have to do is launch your attacks from densely populated areas, and you will win immunity.

And then a third thing, in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Let me explain why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense, if peace failed. What legitimacy? What self-defense? The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us — my people, my country — of being war criminals. And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. For acting in a way that any country would act with a restraint unmatched by many.

What a travesty!

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace. And make no mistake about it, all of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.

In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it and invaded the embryonic Jewish state with the hopes of annihilating it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. As simple, as clear, as elementary as that. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity. Peace, prosperity and dignity require one other element. We must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves, except a handful of powers that could endanger Israel, and this is why the Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. I say effectively demilitarized because We don't want another Gaza or another south Lebanon, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace. And I believe that with good will and with hard work, such a peace can be achieved. But it requires, from all of us, to roll back the forces of terror led by Iran that seek to destroy peace, that seeks to eliminate Israel and to overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or to accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen, I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the unteachability of mankind is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Contact Simon at CivjamSIM@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 24, 2010.

This is the full text of President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech delivered September 23, 2010 in New York City to the 65th annual meeeting of the General Assembly of the UN.
Islamic Republic News Agency/IRNA NewsCode: 287100


Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am grateful to the Almighty God who granted me the opportunity to appear before this world assembly once again. I wish to begin by commemorating those who lost their lives in the horrible flood in Pakistan and express my heartfelt sympathy with the families who lost their loved ones as well as with the people and the government of Pakistan. I urge everyone to assist their fellow men and women as a humane duty.

Let me thank H.E. Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, the President of the the sixty- fourth session of the United Nations General Assembly, for all his efforts during his tenure. I also would like to congratulate H.E. Mr. Joseph Deiss, the President of the sixty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly and wish him all success.

In the past years, I spoke to you about some of the hopes and concerns, including family crises, security, human dignity, world economy, climate change as well as the aspiration for justice and lasting peace.

After about one hundred years of domination, the system of Capitalism and the existing world order has proved to be unable to provide appropriate solution to the problems of societies, thus coming to an end. I shall try to examine the two main causes of this failure and picture some features of the ideal future order.

A) Attitudes and Beliefs

As you are well aware, the divine prophets had the mission to call everyone to monotheism, love and justice and show mankind the path to prosperity. They invite men to contemplation and knowledge in order to better appreciate the truth and to avoid atheism and egoism. The very nature of the message of all prophets is one and the same. Every messenger endorsed the messenger before him and gave glad tidings about the prophet to come, and presented a more complete version of the religion in accordance with the capacity of the man at the time. This continued up to the last messenger of God who presented the perfect and all inclusive religion.

In opposition to that, the egotist and the greedy stood up against this clear call, revolting against the message.

Nimrod countered Hazrat Abraham, Pharaoh countered Hazrat Moses and the greedy countered Hazrat Jesus Christ and Hazrat Mohammad (Peace be upon them all). In the recent centuries, the human ethics and values have been rejected as a cause for backwardness. They were even portrayed as opposing wisdom and science because of the earlier infliction on man by the proclaimers of religion in the dark ages of the West

Man's disconnection from Heaven detached him from his true self.

Man with his potentials for understanding the secrets of the universe, his instinct for seeking truth, his aspirations for justice and perfection, his quest for beauty and purity and his capacity to represent God on earth was reduced to a creature limited to the materialistic world with a mission to maximize individualistic pleasures. Human instinct, then, replaced true human nature.

Human beings and nations were considered rivals and the happiness of an individual or a nation was defined in collision with, and elimination or suppression of others. Constructive evolutionary cooperation was replaced with a destructive struggle for survival.

The lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love and unity.

This widespread clash of the egoist with the divine values gave way to slavery and colonialism. A large portion of the world came under the domination of a few western States. Tens of millions of people were taken to slavery and tens of millions of families were shattered as a result. All the resources, the rights and the cultures of the colonized nations were plundered. Lands were occupied and the indigenous people were humiliated and mass- murdered.

Yet, nations rose up, colonialism was alienated and the independence of the nations was recognized. Thus, the hope for respect, prosperity and security was revived amongst nations. In the beginning of the past century nice talks about freedom, human rights and democracy created hopes for healing the deep wounds of the past. Today, however, not only those dreams are not realized, but memories, even at times worse than before, have been recorded.

As a result of the two World Wars, the occupation of Palestine, the Korean and the Vietnam's Wars, the Iraqi war against Iran, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as many wars in Africa, hundreds of millions of people were killed, wounded or displaced.

Terrorism, illicit drugs, poverty and the social gaps increased. The dictatorial and coup d'etat governments in Latin America committed unprecedented crimes with the support of the West.

Instead of disarmament, the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons expanded, putting the world under a bigger threat. As a result, the very same old goals of colonialists and the slave masters were, this time round, pursued with a new facade.

B) The Global Management and Ruling Structures

The League of Nations and, then, the United Nations were established with the promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in fact meant a global management.

One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:

First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade.

All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident.

Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.

But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.

Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.

Please take note:

It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.

In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

  1. - That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

  2. - That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.

    The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

  3. - It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.

The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.

There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:

  1. - Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?

  2. - Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?

  3. - Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.

It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.

I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference. A video of the segment of his speech on 9/11 is here.

Second, is the occupation of the Palestinian territories

The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self- determination, while the occupiers are given recognition. On a daily basis, the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people.

The Zionists committed the most horrible crimes against the defenseless people in the wars against Lebanon and Gaza.

The Zionist regime attacked a humanitarian flotilla in a blatant defiance of all international norms and kills the civilians.

This regime which enjoys the absolute support of some western countries regularly threatens the countries in the region and continues publicly announced assassination of Palestinian figures and others, while Palestinian defenders and those opposing this regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti Semites. All values, even the freedom of expression, in Europe and in the United States are being sacrificed at the altar of Zionism.

Solutions are doomed to fail because the right of the Palestinian people is not taken into account.

Would we have witnessed such horrendous crimes if instead of recognizing the occupation, the sovereign right ofthe Palestinian people had been recognized?

Our unambiguous proposition is the return of the Palestinian refugees to their home land and the reference to the vote of the people of Palestine to exercise their sovereignty and decide on the type of governance.

Third, is the nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is clean and cheap and a heavenly gift which is amongst the most suitable alternatives to cut the pollutions emanating from fossil fuels.

The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows all member States to use nuclear energy without limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency is mandated to provide member States with technical and legal support.

The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament.

Nonetheless, note what some of the permanent members of the Security Council and nuclear bomb holders have done:

They have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA. While at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and upgrade their own nuclear arsenals.

This has entailed the following:

Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized but also nuclear bombs have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating Zionist regime.

I would like here to propose that the year 20II be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and 'Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None'.

In all these cases the United Nations has been unable to take any effective course of action. Unfortunately, in the decade proclaimed as the 'International Decade for the Culture of Peace' hundreds of thousands were killed and injured as a result of war, aggression and occupation, and hostilities and antagonism increased.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the Holy Quran.

The Holy Quran is the Divine Book and the eternal miracle of the Prophet of lslam. It calls for worshipping the One God, justice, compassion toward people, development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and resisting against the oppressors; and it names with respect the previous Messengers of God, like Noah, Abraham, Isaaq, Joseph, Moses and Jesus Christ (Peace be Upon them all) and endorses them. They burned Quran to bum all these truths and good judgments. However, the truth could not be burned. Quran is eternal because God and truth are everlasting. This act and any other act which widens the gap and distances between nations is evil. We should wisely avoid playing into the hands of Satan. On behalf of the Iranian nation I pay respect to all Divine Books and their followers. This is the Quran and this is the Bible. I pay respect to both of them.

Esteemed Friends,

For years the inefficiency of the capitalism and the existing world management and structures has been exposed and the majority of States and nations have been on a quest for fundamental changes and for the prevalence of justice in global relations.

The cause of the United Nation's ineptitude is in its unjust structure. Major power is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar of the Organization, namely the General Assembly, is marginalized.

In the past several decades, at least one of the permanent members of the Security Council has always been a party to the disputes.

The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; How could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?

Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?

Dear Friends,

The United Nations is the key center for coordinating the common global management. Its structure needs to be reformed in a manner that all independent States and nations be able to participate in the global governance actively and constructively.

The veto privilege should be revoked and the General Assembly should be the highest body and the Secretary-General should be the most independent official and all his positions and activities should be taken with the approval of the General Assembly and should be directed towards promoting justice and eliminating discrimination.

The Secretary-General should not come under pressure from powers and/or the country hosting the Organization for his stating the truth and administration of justice.

It is suggested that the General Assembly should, within one year and in the framework of an extraordinary session, finalize the reformation of the Organization's structure.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has clear suggestions in this regard and stands ready to participate actively and constructively in the process.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I announce clearly that the occupation of other countries under the pretext of freedom and democracy is an unforgivable crime.

The world needs the logic of compassion and justice and inclusive participation instead oflogic offorce, domination, unilateralism, war and intimidation.

The world needs to be governed by virtuous people like the Divine Prophets.

The two vast geographical spheres, namely Africa and Latin America, have gone through historic developments during the past decades. The new approaches in these two continents, which are based on increasing level of integration and unity as well as on localizing the growth and development models, have born considerable fruits to the 'peoples of those regions. The awareness and wisdom of the leaders of these two continents has overcome the regional problems and crises without the domineering interference of non-regional powers.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has expanded its relations with the Latin America and Africa in all aspects in recent years.

And about the glorious Iran,

The Tehran Declaration was a hugely constructive step in confidence building efforts which was made possible through the admirable good will by the governments of Brazil and Turkey along with the sincere cooperation of the Iranian government. Although the Declaration received inappropriate reaction by some and was followed by an unlawful resolution, it is still valid.

We have observed the regulations of the IAEA more than our commitments, yet, we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so.

It has been said that they want to pressure Iran into a dialogue. Well, firstly, Iran has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice. Secondly, methods based on disrespecting nations have long become ineffective. Those who have used intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council and the trust of nations for this body, proving once and again how unjust is the function of the Council.

When they threaten a great nation such as Iran which is known throughout history for its scientists, poets, artists and philosophers and whose culture and civilization is synonymous to purity, submission to God and seeking justice, how can they ever expect that other nations grow confidence on them?

It goes without saying that domineering methods in managing the world has failed. Not only has the era of slavery and colonialism and dominating the world passed, the path to the reviving old Empires are blocked, too.

We have announced that we stand ready for a serious and free debate with the American Statesmen to express our transparent views on issues of importance to the world in this very venue.

It is proposed here that in order to have a constructive dialogue, an annual free debate be organized within the General Assembly.

In conclusion,

Friends and Colleagues,

The Iranian nation and the majority of the world's nations and governments are against the current discriminatory management of the world.

The inhumane nature of this management has put it at a dead-end and requires a major overhaul.

Reforming the world's affairs and bringing about tranquility and prosperity requires the participation of all, pure thoughts and the divine and humane management.

We are all of the idea that:

Justice is the basic element for peace, durable security and the spread of love among peoples and nations. It is in the justice that mankind seeks the realization of his aspirations, rights and dignity, since he is wary of oppression, humiliation and ill treatment.

The true nature of mankind is manifested in the love for other fellow humans and love for all the good in the world. Love is the best foundation for establishing relation amongst people and amongst nations.

As Vahshi Bafqi, the great Iranian poet, says: 'From the fountain of youth, drink thousand sips
You'll still die if you don't have love's grip'

In making a world full of purity, safety and prosperity people are not rivals but companions.

Those who see their happiness but in the sorrow of others and their welfare and safety but in others' insecurity, those who see themselves superior to others, are out of the path of humanity and are in evil's course.

Economy and materialistic means are only some tools to serve others, to create friendship and strengthen human connections for spiritual perfection. They are not tools for show-off or means of dominating others.

Men and women complements each other and family unit with pure, loving and long-lasting relation of the spouses in its center is the guarantee for the continuity and the bringing up generations, for true pleasures, for spreading love and for reforming of the societies.

Woman is a reflection of God's beauty and is the source of love and caring. She is the guardian of purity and exquisiteness of the society.

The tendency to toughen the souls and behaviors of women deprives them from their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. It would result in a more violent society with irreversible defects.

Freedom is a divine right that should serve peace and human perfection.

Pure thoughts and the will of the righteous are keys to the gates of a pure life full of hope, liveliness and beauty. This is the promise of God that the earth will be inherited by the pure and the righteous. And the people free from selfishness will take up the management of the world. Then, there will be no trace of sorrow, discrimination, poverty, insecurity and aggression. The time for true happiness and for the blossoming of the true nature of humankind, the way God has intended, will arrive. All those seeking for justice and all the free spirits have been waiting for this moment and have promised such glorious time. The complete human, the true servant of God and the true friend of the mankind whose father was from the generation of the beloved Prophet of Islam and whose mother was from the true believers of the Jesus Christ, shall wait along with Jesus the son of Marry and the other righteous to appear on those brilliant times and assist the humanity. In welcoming them we should join ranks and seek justice. Praise to Love and worship, praise to justice and freedom, praise to the true humanity, the complete human, the true companion of the humankind and peace be upon you and all the righteous and the pure. Thank you. **1771

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, September 23, 2010.

Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land."

Nearly 75 years ago, (when Welfare was introduced) Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."

Today, Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of Camels and mortgaged the Promised Land! I was so depressed last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc ... I called a Suicide Hotline. I had to press 1 for English. I was then connected to a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got excited and asked if I could drive a truck......


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Behind the News, September 23, 2010.

This was written by Rhonda Spivak and appeared in today's Behind the News. Rhonda Spivak, attorney, writer, and member of Canadian & Israel Bar Associations, now edits Winnipeg Jewish Review at http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com


RAMALLAH — It was a very stange feeling standing at Yassir Arafat's grave in Ramallah last month. I began to think that it would be rather ironic if there were a sign at his graveside that said "may he rest in peace."

I couldn't help but think that if Arafat and I were destined to meet, I'm glad I was above ground and he was below ground.

Across from his grave there is a building which appears to be some sort of media center, with a large sign saying words to the effect that all Palestinan refugees are entitled to return to their pre-1948 homes.

Two serious looking uniformed guards with caps, and green and red insignia on their shoulders stood at either end of Arafat's coffin in the air-conditioned vestible.

There were no signs, no plaques, no photos of Arafat.

I began to wonder why there was no tourist or souvenir shop where I could buy Arafat memorabilia. Ramallah is short on tourist attractions, and this would be an obvious one. Hadn't someone thought of it?

Then I began thinking that someone could design a game to be sold in the souvenir shop where people from all over the world could guess what exactly Arafat died of, how much money he stole from the Palestinian people, and where it all was. That game might end up being a best seller.

Then I began thinking that it would be best for me to get out of there, before someone guessed what I was thinking.

One final very serious thought. Very few people know or remember that Pinchas Inbari, an Israeli journalist reported that Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization DID NOT RATIFY the Oslo Accords after Arafat signed them.

Remember that on September 13, 1993, at the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and Israeli Foreign Minister Simon Peres signed the "Declaration of Principles" (the DOP) between Israel and the PLO together with Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas of the PLO. The agreement, which had been hammered out in Oslo, stipulated mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. It required the PLO to cease and desist from terrorism, and for the PLO to nullify its covenant, which calls for Israel's destruction.

The Israeli Knesset ratified the Oslo accord by a vote of 61 to 50, with 9 abstentions, a week later. However, what received hardly any attention was the fact that on October 6, 1993, the PLO executive did not ratify the Oslo accord, for lack of a quorum.

Pinchas Inbari, the only Israeli correspondent covering the PLO in Tunis at the time, writing for the Israeli left-wing Hebrew newspaper Al HaMishmar, broke the story of the PLO non-ratification of the Declaration of Principles (see David Bedein's article on this point in
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx? print=print&type=1&item=7277).

The rest of the Israeli media, however, did not report that the PLO never ratified the accord, while the Israeli government acted as if the PLO had done so.

As David Bedein, director of the Center for Near East Policy Research recalls, "Inbari was scheduled to appear on a popular morning KOL YISRAEL radio show when he got back from Tunis. However, the Prime Minister's office asked Kol Yisrael to cancel that appearance. Instead, the Israeli government dispatched then deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, Yossi Beilin, to fly to Tunis to thank Arafat for facilitating the ratification ofthe Oslo accord, which Arafat and the PLO never did."

It's too bad that in the desire to falsely believe and hope that Arafat was genuinely trying to usher in an era of peace, the Israeli government and media chose to overlook the PLO's significant failure to ratify the Oslo Accords. It was a sign of things to come. As Prime Minister Netanyahu embarks on negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor, it's worth ruminating on this point.


Standing at Arafat's grave, I also thought of my interview in July of this year with Michael Widlanski, a former New York Times reporter, and now a senior analyst at the Media line and lecturer at the Rothberg School of Hebrew University, who uncovered the record of duplicity of Arafat's PA. Widlanski personally reviewed nearly a half a million documents contained in the computer discs, hard drives and file boxes that were seized by the Israeli government when then Israeli minister of Public security Uzi Landau in 2002 ordered the disclosure of Orient House, which was the quasi-official seat of the PA in East Jerusalem.

As Widlankski, who sent me a number of copies of the documents in Arabic, said "The documents repeatedly showed that Arafat was in day to day control of the details of the Palestinian authority's military operations...They showed irrefutably that he controlled Fatah's tanzeem militia, [and other terror organizations] not that they controlled him."

The documents showed that Arafat's proxy's such as Faisal Al Husseini relayed requests for approval of expenditures to Arafat himself. For example, among the captured documents were reports addressed to Faisal-Al-Husseini, from a joint field committee of Palestinian organizations detailing terrorist operations carried out in Jerusalem, along with a budget request to cover operational costs for the coming month.

"After Al-Husseini initiated this document, he wrote a separate letter to Arafat relaying the request and recommending he approve the expenditure," Widlanski said.

(To view the article that Widlanski wrote at the time detailing his "finds" see:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:9R3hyod7-9sJ:www.israelbehindthenews. com/bin/content.cgi%FID%3D1386%26q%3D1+michael+ widlanski+orient+house+media+line&cd=5&hl=en&ct= clnk&gl=ca).

The documents from the Orient House, which are stored in a warehouse in Beit Shemesh, provide insight into the workings of the Palestinian Authority secret police in Jerusalem and the involvement of the PA in all areas of organized crime — drugs, prostitution, arms smuggling, and car thefts.

Two police officials asked journalist and researcher David Bedein several years ago if he could find private funds to translate these documents. However, as Bedein says, the police officials later informed him that a decision was made to not disclose these documents to the public.Bedein asked the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, MK Tzachi HaNegbi, as to why such a decision was made. HaNegbi said that the answer to that question is "classified".

And as I left Arafat's grave, I couldn't help thinking that there must be so many other still undiscovered secrets buried with him.

It's too bad that in the desire to falsely believe and hope that Arafat was genuinely trying to usher in an era of peace, the Israeli government and media chose to overlook this significant failure. It was a sign of things to come. As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu embarks on negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor, it's worth ruminating on this point.

Contact Israel Behind the News by email at Newsletter@IsraelBehindTheNews.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank Salvato, September 23, 2010.

Did you know that the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate for US Congress in Illinois' 27th congressional district attends a church where they worship transgender goats? Additionally, he once allowed a parking meter to expire without surrendering himself to be fined. A local merchant, who once saw him on vacation in Zanzibar, said she believes he has a Barbie doll collection. There have even been reports that he once shared a Kit-Kat bar with Charles Manson at a Grateful Dead concert.

There isn't an iota of truth to the above statement. It is all false. There isn't even a 27th congressional district in Illinois. But, I can just about guarantee you that someone reading this in any one of the plethora of mainstream media newsrooms has taken to the Internet to research "the facts" of this stunning breaking news report.

If I had opened this article by saying, the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate in Delaware's US Senate race has been campaigning on a platform that includes limiting the reach of government into your personal lives, reforming the tax code, defunding and repealing the newly enacted healthcare insurance reform bill and vowing to oppose any piece of legislation that comes before her that isn't constitutionally sound, do you think the same "journalists" would have even finished reading the paragraph? If you said no, give yourself a gold star.

The fact of the matter is this: outing a Republican, especially a Tea Party-endorsed Republican — as a Barbie doll collecting transgender goat worshiper who eats candy with mass murderers sells more papers than reporting on that candidate's positions on the issues. It also furthers the mainstream media's not so clandestine agenda (at least not anymore) of recruiting more intellectual lemmings to bow to the church of Progressivism, of which, it could be said, today's "journalists" serve as the mind-raping clergy.

In today's mainstream media newsrooms the "bright shiny thing," the politics of distraction, reigns supreme. The age old adage of "if it bleeds, it leads" has morphed into "if it shines, it headlines," especially where politics is concerned. The mainstream media has become thoroughly useless to the American voter, offering information that focuses on personal quirks and foibles, rather than the candidates' positions and, if applicable, voting records on issues important to the American electorate. Perhaps this is why so many Americans are turning away from traditional media outlets for their information, political or otherwise.

Since even before the 2000 election — and poll after poll, both scientific and not, bears this out — the American public has become intensely disenchanted with not only the status quo of our political class but with the grotesquely transparent engagement in political activism by our "free press." Our disenchantment with the political class gave birth to the Tea Party, essentially the reawakening of the American citizen's constitutional right and duty to governmental oversight. And our disenchantment with the mainstream media has given way to the new media and a completely different way of gathering facts and information. These two "saving graces" couldn't have emerged at a more critical time in our country's history.

Where our elected class has become just that — a gaggle of narcissistic elitists more concerned with retaining office, power and the potency of their respective political parties than with serving the best interests of their individual constituencies — the mainstream media has become just as dangerous as the propaganda machines of Brezhnev's Soviet Union, Mao's Communist China or Hitler's Nazi Germany.

How else can we explain the intensely disingenuous reports of Christine O'Donnell practicing witchcraft? Or the Tea Party being a racist organization? Or how the recently passed healthcare insurance reform bill would lower premiums? Or that the trillion dollar stimulus worked, even as we see home foreclosures and repossessions hitting all-time highs? Or that the southern US border is more secure now than it ever has been, even as more violence spills into our streets from Mexico and more bodies are found in the desert, the result of an almost record-breaking number of border-crossing deaths? How else to explain all this false reporting by our mainstream media — and so much more — if not to identify it as either a complete and utter failure of our nation's journalism schools or a concerted effort at executing propaganda. Common sense mandates that we weigh heavily on the latter, if for no other reason than their reporting always — always — benefits the ideological Left.

The upcoming Mid-Term Election for US Senate in Delaware illustrates, almost to the level of perfection — the propagandizing of the mainstream media. Where the mainstream media is reporting that Ms. O'Donnell — the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate for the Senate seat formerly held by Vice President Joe Biden — used to practice witchcraft, they completely ignored a substantive political issue regarding her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons.

Paraphrased from a Wikipedia entry on Coons:

In 1985 Coons wrote an article for his college newspaper, entitled "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." In the article, he describes his transformation from someone with traditionally conservative political leanings to someone so influenced by the teachings acquired in a college anthropology course that it "undermined the accepted value of progress and the cultural superiority of the West." His study of the Vietnam War led him to form the opinion that "the ideal of America as a 'beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world' was not exactly based on reality." He went on to write that the promises of the "miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities of America" may be untrue.

In contrast, the mainstream media has consistently reported on the personal foibles of Ms. O'Donnell, and disingenuously so. Her dalliance with "witchcraft" turned out to be that she briefly dated someone who professed to having been a Wiccan. Her mortgage scandal turned out to be an economically forced short sale on her property. And her student loan delinquency? Well, let's put it this way, Ms. O'Donnell paid back her student loan while many have not only defaulted on theirs but admitted to not having any intention of paying them back at all. Even a much ballyhooed claim by Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, that Ms. O'Donnell was illegally using campaign funds for personal use is patently bogus as the funds in question were allocated to Ms. O'Donnell as reimbursement for personal funds spent to cover her then in-home campaign office, legal under the law as overseen by the Federal Election Commission.

Lost in all the mainstream media's personal smearing of Ms. O'Donnell is the fact that she is running on a platform of limited government, limited and equitable taxation, a potent and strong national security policy and adherence to the legislative process as mandated by the United States Constitution.

Also lost in the mainstream media's focus on the fictional past life of Ms. O'Donnell is the fact that her opponent, Mr. Coons, who serves as the County Executive of New Castle County, Delaware, has openly stated that by his own standard, he led the county from being "fundamentally sound" to the verge of bankruptcy in just four years, lamenting that the county was "18 months from being out of money" and "unable to operate."

So, as we examine just these few facts about the Delaware Senate race, some legitimate questions come to the forefront: If the mainstream media is truly non-partisan, then why are we not hearing about Ms. O'Donnell's platform or Mr. Coons' disastrous tenure in public office? If they truly report the facts in an unbiased manner, then why are we hearing false accusations about Ms. O'Donnell using campaign funds for personal use but not about how Mr. Coons derided our country while professing to be a Marxist? If they really do serve the public interest, as is inferred by their First Amendment constitutional protection, why are we hearing all of this clap-trap about Ms. O'Donnell practicing witchcraft instead of how she overcame financial adversity — adversity that every hardworking American is all too familiar with, thanks to the Obama Administration's failed economic policies — to win a place as standard-bearer for the Tea Party movement?

No, my friends, the mainstream media is not your friend, they are your enemy. They are the purveyors of political propaganda that benefits the un-American Progressive movement. They have proved this beyond doubt time and time again. To believe anything else is to have been bewitched.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative Contact him by email at franksalvato@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ben Ami, September 23, 2010.

This is in New York City on Madison Avenue, not in France or the Middle East or Yemen or Kenya.

This is an accurate picture of every Friday afternoon in several locations throughout NYC where there are mosques with a large number of Muslims that cannot fit into the mosque — They fill the surrounding streets, facing east for a couple of hours between about 2 & 4 p.m. — Besides this one at 42nd St. & Madison Ave., there is another, even larger group, at 94th St. & 3rd Ave., etc., etc. — Also, I presume, you are aware of the dispute over building another "high rise" Mosque a few blocks from "ground zero" — With regard to that one, the "Imam" refuses to disclose where the $110 million dollars to build it is coming from and there is a lawsuit filed to force disclosure of that information — November can't come soon enough.

A Christian Nation cannot put up a Christmas scene of the baby Jesus in a public place, but the Muslims can stop normal traffic every Friday afternoon by worshipping in the streets. Something is happening in America that is reminiscent of what is happening in Europe. This is Political Correctness gone crazy.

Is there a message here???? Yes, there is, and they are claiming America for Allah. If we don't wake up soon, we are going to "politically correct" ourselves right out of our own country!

Contact Ben Ami by email at farmer@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, September 23, 2010.

Two Contrasting Views: Guy Bechor versus Martin Sherman


"Israel has much to gain by allowing Hamas terrorists to take over Judea and Samaria"
by Guy Bechor
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3955246,00.html

In the Israeli-Palestinian-American discourse, Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are presented as the last resort before the worst happens: A Hamas takeover of Judea and Samaria. This is the reason why both the Americans and Israelis cling to Abbas and to the talks with him. Yet would a Hamas takeover really be worse than the Palestinian Authority's tricks and schemes against Israel?

What's so bad about the new situation created in the Gaza Strip, which has almost no ties to Israel? If they fire at us from there, we fire back at them. If they don't shoot, we don't shoot either. Overall, the Hamas state provides Israel with stability: There is a master of the house there that can be presented with demands, just likeHezbollah in Lebanon, and the stability we get is much cheaper than what Abbas is willing to give us — at the price of a refugee flood, Jerusalem's handover, and a return of the territories.

The Palestinian Authority, which is perceived as the "good guys" by the world, constantly incites against and harms Israel. The harm done to Israel by Hamas would be much smaller. Hamas is considered a terrorist and part of the "bad guys."

Israel would never be able to live with the Palestinian Authority's demands — for example, handing over the entire Old City to Palestinian control. Yet living next to a Hamas state is much more beneficial and also feasible. Without an agreement and without illusions about a "partner." As the Hamas entity is not recognized globally, the vision of a Palestinian state would thereby evaporate as well.

On the ground, we shall have two Hamas-run Islamic principalities, one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank; one would be subjected to the Egyptian whip, and the other to the Jordanian one — meanwhile, Israel would remove from its shoulders the Palestinian burden that has made things difficult for it for so many years.

We should now make it clear to Abbas: This is your and your administration's last chance. If we fail to secure a quick agreement, where Israel's demands are recognized, we shall unilaterally evacuate most of Judea and Samaria, annex the settlement blocs and Jerusalem's Old City, and abandon you and your regime to Hamas' and Jordan's mercy.

As Abbas is in power today only because of the IDF's presence on the ground, the implication of such move would be elimination of the Palestinian Authority by Hamas within a few weeks or months.

Shift burden to Jordan

Israel would maintain most of the Jordan Rift Valley, yet allow free passage between the Hamas principality and Jordan. That is, Israeli soldiers will not be deployed at the Allenby Bridge. This would provide the Islamic principality with an outlet to the world, via Jordan, which would have to assume the burden just as Egypt did in Gaza.

Israel will close itself off, and Jordan will have to open up to help its Palestinian "brethren." And so Jordan would fall victim to its own pro-Palestinian rhetoric, as happened to Egypt in Gaza.

Should Abbas grasp this on time, his Palestinian Authority shall remain in place. Should he fail to understand it and continue with his tricks of evasion, his Authority would disappear forever, along with whatever is left of Palestinian nationalism, which has been defeated by political Islam. For Israel, this isn't bad. The opposite is true — that would be a good situation for Israel.

Indeed, Hamas may attempt to fire at Israel, yet it will understand, as it understood during Operation Cast Lead a year and a half ago, that it's not worth it.

The time has come for Israel to take the initiative, shake off the Palestinians, who have been riding on its back for so many years, and put a historic end to their dependence on it. Should this happen, it would be clear to the whole world who the good guys are (Israel) and who the bad guys are (Hamas) — unlike today, where the Palestinian Authority pretends to be a peace partner.

The international pressure exerted on Israel would be eased and even disappear, as nobody wishes to grant a state to terrorists. Most of all, the ongoing security burden would disappear and would have to be handled by the Jordanian kingdom. What's so bad about that?

"Say no to Hamas takeover"
by Martin Sherman
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3958008,00.html

Martin Sherman explains why letting Hamas take over Judea and Samaria is unwise

Guy Bechor is a well-informed analyst of Middle East affairs. As a journalist his articles normally reflect a far more down-to-earth comprehension of regional realities than many of his mainstream media colleagues. This is perhaps what makes his recent column Is Hamas takeover so bad? — in which he advocates letting the "West Bank" fall to the Hamas — so disturbing.

Uncharacteristic of Bechor's usually sober assessments, it is a piece that is marred by unrealistic optimism, astonishing short-sightedness and highly-constricted tunnel-vision.

Bechor is of course correct in noting that "Israel would never be able to live with the Palestinian Authority's demands" and that today the "Palestinian Authority...is perceived as the 'good guys'...(while) Hamas is considered a terrorist and part of the 'bad guys'."

However, virtually all subsequent inferences he makes and conclusions he draws from this observation are wildly off-track.

Thus, when Bechor claims that if the Hamas took over Judea and Samaria "The international pressure exerted on Israel would be eased and even disappear, as nobody wishes to grant a state to terrorists," one can only wonder whether he has succumbed to terminal amnesia or has merely neglected to follow the news.

Indeed, in the case of the Palestinians, the pejorative designation of "terrorist" is alarmingly transitory. After all, the entire Oslo process was launched with "terrorists." The PLO was formally designated as a terror organization until the early '90s, and only permitted to open a Mission Office in Washington in 1994 after the signature of Declaration of Principles on the White House Lawn — despite the fact that it had merely outsourced its murderous activities to its violent affiliates.

This clearly indicates that widespread international reticence in dealing with "terrorists" is not something that can be taken for granted — certainly not for any length of time. Indeed, the PLO was "sanitized" largely due to efforts by prominent Israelis. Bechor would do well to keep this in mind, for familiar-sounding voices are being raised today by a growing chorus of influential figures in the US, in the EU...and in Israel, calling for "engagement" with the Hamas.

The trouble with Gaza

Moreover, given the severe worldwide censure that Israel has been subjected to over its policy toward Hamas-governed Gaza, one can only wonder on what Bechor bases his astonishing claim that if Hamas was to govern Judea and Samaria "international pressure exerted on Israel would be eased and even disappear."

No less astounding is Bechor's rhetorical question:" What's so bad about the new situation created in the Gaza Strip...?"Well, setting aside the "small detail" of the lasting damage to the moral fiber of the nation and the grotesque degradation of the Zionist ethos involved in the senseless and futile uprooting any vestige of Jewish presence, how about this for starters: Thousands of rockets and mortar shells that have rained down on civilian population centers for years!?

Indeed only poor aim on the part of the Palestinians and the sparse target-density in the arid expanses bordering the Gaza Strip have prevented these bombardments from being catastrophic.

Bechor's facile formula for dealing with this future possibility is: "If they fire at us from there, we fire back at them." Well, last time we "fired back at them" — after eight years of them firing at us — in Operation Cast Lead, the result was the Goldstone Report and enormous damage to Israel's international standing, making future retaliation far more problematic and international punitive measures more likely. Can all of this have escaped Bechor's attention?

But even if Israel decided to shrug off international condemnation and risk global censure and sanction, there are huge differences — in terms of geographical extent, topographical structure and strategic significance — between the ramifications of a Hamas takeover of Judea and Samaria, and those of a Hamas-ruled Gaza:

  • The length of Israel's frontier with the Gaza Strip is a little over 50 kilometers; that of the "West Bank is about 300 kilometers long (and longer if it is to include the large settlement blocs as Bechor envisages.)

  • The Gaza border abuts a relatively remote and sparsely-populated portion of the country. The "West Bank" frontier would run barely a mile from the national parliament, along the very fringes of Israel's most populous areas in the coastal metropolis, adjacent to the perimeter of Ben Gurion Airport and to large sections of the Trans-Israel highway.

  • While the Gaza strip is generally low-lying flatlands and contains no water resources that impact on Israeli supply, the "West Bank" is an elevated mountain ridge that commands much of Israel's vital infrastructures (both civilian and military), crucial water resources, major urban population centers and commercial hubs.

Radical Islamic state

Hamas would not have to rain down hundreds of rockets on Israel to paralyze the nation's social and economic routine. A few sporadic firings every now and then would be sufficient for that. In fact, the mere threat of bombardment (even if inaccurate) would bring about a disastrous disruption of air traffic to Israel and catastrophic cessation of tourism.

However, this would hardly constitute an internationally credible "smoking gun" to justify massive Israel retaliation along a front several hundred kilometers long in difficult terrain — especially if the Hamas regime could claim plausible deniability by placing the blame on radical renegades.

According to Bechor, ensconcing the Hamas in will ensure "there is a master of the house there that can be presented with demands." Well, we saw how splendidly that worked in Gaza — especially with Gilad Shalit.

But perhaps the most worrying aspect of Bechor's analysis is the illusion that his suggested scenario would somehow exempt Israel from the burden of securing the nation. He proposes that "Israel would...allow free passage between the Hamas principality and Jordan. This would provide the Islamic principality with an outlet to the world, via Jordan, which would have to assume the burden just as Egypt did in Gaza."

So Bechor finds the situation in Gaza — which has been flooded by weapons since the disengagement — a model to emulate? It should be remembered that unlike Egypt, Jordan has a Palestinian majority. Thus, being perceived as the "Zionist's warder" of a "Palestinian prison" may destabilize the current regime, either forcing it into far-reaching concessions to the Islamist elements or even surrendering power completely. So rather than an isolated "principality," what we may get is a radical Islamist state stretching from the Iraqi border in the east to suburban Israel in the west.

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 Phyllis Chesler, September 23, 2010.

In the '60s good-intentioned leftist women supported this gang of violent rapists. And history repeats itself...

It's the 1960s all over again, and I am talking about the dark side, not the glamorous, glorious side.

What is happening on the West Bank reminds me of the American 1960s, when idealistic young white and Jewish women, who thought they were volunteering for Martin Luther King's non-violent movement for black civil rights, found themselves up against many angry, sociopathic, criminal, and sexually violent members of the Black Panther Party. I was one. I have my war stories.

Today, privileged, young, white, Jewish, and Arab women who travel to the West Bank to "protect" Palestinians from Israeli soldiers, also seem to be facing similar troubles. According to one recent and very disturbing report, foreign (American and European) and Israeli Jewish and Arab left-feminists are being routinely harassed, raped, and even forced into marriage by the very Palestinians whom they have come to "rescue." More shocking is the alleged pressure brought to bear on those activists who wish to press charges about being raped or abducted into marriage; their own movement presumably pressures them not to do so because the alleged Israeli "occupation" of Palestine is far more important than the violent "occupation" of any woman's body.

Reporter and editor Gil Ronen cites the work of Israeli feminist activist Roni Aloni Sedovnik, who wrote an article titled "The Left's Betrayal of Female Peace Activists Who Were Sexually Assaulted." He also cites the work of Yehudah Bello, a pro-Palestinian blogger who confirms that at least one European non-Jewish leftist, one Red Cross worker, and one young Israeli Arab from Yafo all experienced such assaults.

Sedovnik insists that these are not isolated incidents but are part of a systematic pattern — the Palestinians view all infidel women as prey, as whores — but there is also another aim involved, namely that of forcing marriage and conversion to Islam upon them. Sedovnik accuses the media of "complicity" in refusing to report on the matter. She writes:

"How is it that we do not hear the voice of the radical feminists who repeat, day and night, that occupation is occupation, and it does not matter if it is a nation that is doing the subjugation, or a man who is subjugating a woman?

"It appears that there is a gap between the radical-leftist feminist theory about the active resistance to the occupation of the Territories, and the stuttering self-annulment in the face of the violent conquest of women."

I myself was once pressured by leading left feminists not to reveal that I had been sexually harassed and then assaulted by my United Nations employer."It would not look good for (white) feminists to accuse a black man of what may only have been a cultural misunderstanding, a difference in cultural approaches towards women." I nevertheless continued to demand justice — and was not supported by some of the very same feminists who years later would support Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas.

This was back in 1980, long before cultural relativism came to rule the day. Yes, one day I'll write a Memoir; but not just yet.

In response to the rapes near the towns and villages of Bethlehem, Bil'in, Naalin, and Sheikh Jarrah (Shimon Ha Tzaddik), the Israeli and Palestinian peace activists have urged women to dress modestly and even to wear headscarves!

What is more amazing is the failure of such left feminists to support the Palestinian women who are routinely held captive by just such men and who, at least in Gaza, are being increasingly forced to wear hijab, jilbab, niqab.

Yesterday, I published a piece in Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) in which I discussed this distressing trend. I quote a Palestinian woman, Asmaa Al Ghoul, whom I've interviewed before, who is now furious that a friend of hers was not allowed to graduate from university without donning hijab and that her younger sisters are being forced to do so in secondary school.

I end my piece this way:

It is ironic that so many western "progressive" activists are willing to sign petitions to "free Gaza." But free Gaza from whom? From Hamas, from rigid Islamist misogyny, or from the Israelis who long ago, left Gaza and who are not now imposing such restrictions on women.

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/

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Nathan Bloom in the preparation of this article.

This article appeared on David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog
(http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/22/ female-troubles-on-the-west-bank/2/).

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, September 23, 2010.

1. I have been trying to come up with a good response to the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) Neo-Nazis who are leading the war of economic terrorism against Israel. Then I discovered in the Haftara portion for the first day of Succot that there already is a ready-made counter-BDS program, one we had not noticed:

So here is a contemporary commentary on the attempt by the anti-Semites to boycott Israel and what should be done with them:

"And they will dwell therein (the Jews living in Jerusalem) and there will not be any boycott (cherem) any longer, for Jerusalem will be safely inhabited. While this shall be the plague with which the Lord smites all the nations who besiege Jerusalem: their flesh will waste away while they still stand on their feet; their eyes will waste away in their sockets, and their tongue will waste away in their mouths."
— Zechariah 14: 11-12


2. The Succot of 2009 predicted in the Succot of 2002
Tishrei 17, 5763, 23 September 02 11:49
by Steven Plaut

It was a bright, sunny day in the summer of 2009.

It was in that period when the monthly death toll from Oslo passed its 1100 mark. The four remaining Knesset Members of the Israeli Labor Party were calling for more goodwill gestures by Israel and concessions to the PLO. Meretz and Peace Now were demanding that Israel seriously consider the latest peace offer from the Palestinians to convert Israel into a web site. Meanwhile, the Americans were demanding that Israel exercise self-restraint after the latest bus bombings. The State Department had just floated a new diplomatic compromise proposal that would involve running the border separating Israel from Palestine down Shenkin Street in Tel Aviv.

And it was right after the 1000th Israeli bus was blown to pieces by a Palestinian suicide bomber. The bomber of that 1000th bus had come from the West Bank town of Tul Karem, as the standard videotape of his bravado broadcast on Palestine Television showed.

Only three hours after the 1000th bus exploded, 14 well-placed car bombs in Tul Karem exploded in unison. There were dozens of casualties. The death toll from these car bombs reached 49, nearly half of whom were not wanted terrorists.

Later that day, a mysterious message was passed on to the BBC's Palestine news desk operating out of Jaffa. The message claimed a group calling itself the 'Triple T,' shorthand for the 'Terrorize the Terrorists' organization, had placed the car bombs there.

The news of the car bombings aroused immediate fury from everywhere around the world. The Americans denounced this horrific terrorism as serving as an obstacle to striking a peace deal between Israel and the PLO, one that was just around the corner. The Israeli government insisted it had no knowledge of the perpetrators of the bombings, but did not rule out that they were PLO car bombs meant for Israel that had simply exploded prematurely, and in any case promised to run its own investigation. The PLO and its affiliates in Palestine issued their usual shrieking oaths of vengeance.

For ten days, a tense tranquility prevailed. On the 11th day, a Palestinian suicide bomber tried to blow himself up on a Haifa bus, but fortunately the fuse fizzled and the bomb did not go off. Under questioning by the police, it turned out that the would-be bomber came from Nablus. Three hours later central Nablus was shaken by a series of huge explosions. Large bombs that had been planted in garbage containers destroyed the entire market area. The carnage was almost as large as the earlier bombings of Tul Karem.

And once again, the mysterious Triple T organization took credit for the blasts. The State Department demanded that Israel take action and find the terrorists responsible for the blasts in Tul Karem and Nablus or face sanctions.

In the coming weeks, hundreds of incidents of sniping and shooting at Jews were recorded in the West Bank and Gaza, but -strangely — none of these occurred in Tul Karem or Nablus themselves. In those two towns, the Hamas organized protest marches to demand that Tel Aviv be blown to bits in revenge, but no acts of terrorism were initiated from their environs.

Two weeks after the Nablus bombings, the Hamas organized its largest mass rally ever in fields outside of Gaza City. In the midst of the rally, when the Sheikh who leads the Hamas began to speak, the entire field in which the rally was being held exploded in a ball of flame. The fireball was so large that it was visible from space, as photographed by a passing satellite. Body parts were found as far as half a mile away. The scene was horrific. The entire Gaza leadership of the Hamas sitting on the podium was annihilated, and hundreds of rank and file Hamas members were badly injured.

And again the shadowy Triple T organization took credit. The Israeli cabinet sent out police patrols to locate the perpetrators of these outrages. The Knesset denounced the 3T terrorists and expressed sympathy or the families of the Palestinian injured.

After the Gaza explosion, once again a tense period of tranquility lasting several months transpired. When the Palestinian shootings and snipings reignited later that spring, they were noticeably less intense than previously. But, more significantly, after many cases of snipings at Jews, bombs would almost immediately go off in the Palestinian villages closest to the scene of the shootings or in those from which the snipers had emerged.

By the following summer, the rate of Palestinian snipings had dwindled to a trickle. Far more important was the fact that during the entire summer not a single Israeli bus was attacked.

While the bombings of Palestinians by the Triple T appeared to have slowed, they did not stop altogether. Various Palestinian figures were blown to pieces when they started their cars or answered their cell phones. Curiously, these included many of the Palestinians who served as spokesmen for the Tanzim and other terror organizations, people whom the world was accustomed to watching on TV denouncing the Jews. The assassination of the spokeswoman for the Tanzim was particularly gruesome.

The Americans were still livid at the 3T violations of Palestinian human rights. Israel's government insisted it was doing everything it could to discover the identities of the Triple T terrorists and to apprehend their leaders and members. The Triple T appeared to be too slick and well organized to be easily tracked down.

The level of Palestinian violence in 2010 was far lower than it had been the previous summer. It had not dropped to zero, and the bombings of Palestinian markets, cars, and offices after Palestinian-initiated violent incidents continued. When gunmen opened fire on the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, the nearby town of Beit Jala was almost leveled in the largest explosion yet claimed by Triple T. It took weeks to clear the rubble.

Meanwhile, other important political changes were taking place. Statisticians noted that while the Palestinian death toll from the Triple T blasts was tragic, and indeed had passed the 410 mark, it appeared that if one were to extrapolate the Jewish death toll from the previous summer, and compare what its trend had been to the numbers actually killed in the past year by Palestinian terrorists, for every Palestinian death 12 Jewish deaths had been prevented!! And even that number was based on the full year; in the last quarter of the year by itself the ratio of saved to killed was 60 to 1.

But not all was tranquil. From the Israeli Arab city of Umm al-Fahm there emerged a team of suicide bombers who exploded themselves in downtown Afula, killing many passersby. Three weeks later the Islamic fundamentalist movement held a mass rally in the Umm al-Fahm stadium, under banners declaring that the Jews were threatening the al-Aqsa Mosque, and showing their solidarity with the Palestinian victims of Triple T.

The film crews caught the explosion on live camera. The grounds of the entire stadium had been mined and turned into a huge fireball. The injured lay everywhere and 18 were dead.

For the next 29 months, there did not occur a single bus bombing and the number of shooting incidents over this entire period in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip was reduced to a handful. After the last Triple T explosion, a large emigration had begun from Umm al-Fahm and from the West Bank. It was estimated that in many West Bank towns as much as a third of the population had simply left and moved elsewhere, overseas. From Tul Karem the numbers were closer to two thirds. Some Israeli Arab towns and villages within the Green Line lost as much as a third of their populations as well.

All of the Israeli Arab Knesset Members from the PLO-surrogate parties and from the communist party had resigned from the parliament following the Umm al-Fahm massacre. For the next two years, there were no Arab members of the Knesset.

But three years after the first Triple T explosion, a group of Israeli Arab intellectuals established the Arab Zionist Party. Its basic platform was denunciation of all Palestinian claims to sovereignty, denunciation of all violence, loyalty to the state of Israel, and encouraging of Israeli Arabs to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces. In its first election contest, the party won 3 seats. In its second contest four years later, it won 13 seats, making it the third largest party in the Knesset, following the Ichud Leumi and the National Religious Party (led by the Prime Minister). The AZP initiated a series of proposals for affirmative action preferences that benefit Jews, to compensate them for their historic victimization by Arabs over decades.

Changes were also visible across the Green Line. In some Palestinian villages, local vigilante squads rounded up wanted terrorists and delivered them to Israeli army and police stations, occasionally lynching them beforehand. Large posters showing the pilots who had bombed Bin Laden's underground hiding place to smithereens appeared on Palestinian billboards as local heroes. In some places, posters of the two Ghandis — Mohatma and Rehavam, could be seen under the slogan "Our Martyrs". Palestinian schools underwent a remarkable change in curriculum. They now emphasized the moral right of Israel to exist and instructed all Palestinians who were uncomfortable living under the democratic rule of the Jewish majority to move to Detroit or to Kuwait or to New Zealand.

A new Palestinian militia arose based in Bethlehem, dedicated to collaborating with the Israeli police and to patrolling the Palestinian streets and arresting anyone promoting violence against Jews. The militia later fielded candidates for mayors of West Bank towns and won about two thirds of all those contested.

Teams of Palestinians prayed at the Al-Aqsa Mosque and on leaving their prayers they rushed to the gates to invite Jews to join them in praying for peace on the Temple Mount. Groups of Palestinians asked to come to Jewish homes on Jewish holidays to pay their respects and to bring gifts. Among the Palestinians, there was a religious transformation. New pacifist and quietist sects of Moslem Sufis gained popularity. Small numbers of Palestinians converted to Buddhism. Thousands of Palestinians volunteered to serve in the Peace Corps and other volunteer organizations promoting non-violence overseas. Others volunteered to fight in squadrons of American and British military units tracking down Islamist terrorists in other countries. Many Palestinians named their children Schwartzkopf, in honor of the general who had attacked Iraq.

Israel also underwent a political transformation. Israeli universities became the centers for the new movement of Post-Post-Zionism, and groups of rowdy students tarred and feathered campus professors who had once supported Oslo. The Jewish History and Bible departments at the universities had to move to larger facilities. Synagogues throughout the country were filled to overflowing. The brand new Museum of Folly, documenting the Oslo years, was now the most popular stop for tourists and Israeli schoolchildren in Jerusalem.

While thousands of Palestinians petitioned to be annexed by Israel and made full citizens subject to military conscription, the government of Israel decided to put off the question for now. Meanwhile the out-migration of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza continued, with expatriates selling their homes to some of the 1.5 million Jewish immigrants that had flooded into the country in the past 3 years. Delegations of Jordanian Arabs from the northwestern areas of Jordan, opposite Beit Shean, submitted petitions to the Israeli government to be annexed. Several even offered to convert to Judaism if their homes could be annexed. Israeli flags were raised along the Jordanian side of the Jordan River. The BBC and CNN started showing the Bashan region of Jordan on their maps as Occupied Israeli territory. Along the eastern bank of the Jordan River, choirs of Arab school children chanted, "How Good are Your Tents Oh Jacob", like Bil'am in the Bible.

The Israeli economy was booming. A new wing was added to the Museum of Folly to describe the decades of Israeli socialism long since ended, documented for disbelieving school children. A wave of new Hebrew literature, film and drama started the world-wide "Israel Wave". Almost the entire Jewish population of California moved to Israel in order to enjoy the living standards so much higher there. The bankrupt publishers of Haaretz newspaper sold out to new owners, and the new editors made little attempt to hide their admiration for the 3T guerillas. Tikkun Magazine changed its name to Triple T (ikkun), to show its solidarity with the underground. All of France was paralyzed in the annual Honor the Jews parades, organized in large part by Palestinian emigres. The rest of the EU countries sent contingents.

Interpol is still hunting the shadowy Triple T organization. Its criminal members were never apprehended.

The nations of the world now send delegations to Jerusalem to join in the Succot celebrations, as the Prophet predicted.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Himalayan Voice, September 23, 2010.

This was written by Edward Wong and it appeared in the New York Times
(www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/asia/23china.html ?_r=1&ref=world). Michael Wines contributed reporting from Beijing, and Martin Fackler from Tokyo. Zhang Jing contributed research.

Asserting Chinese sovereignty over borderlands in contention — everywhere from Tibet to Taiwan to the South China Sea — has long been the top priority for Chinese nationalists, an obsession that overrides all other concerns. But this complicates China's attempts to present the country's rise as a boon for the whole region and creates wedges between China and its neighbors.


A recent visitor to a museum in Shenyang, China, dedicated to the outbreak of war between Japan and China in 1931, carried a sign that referred to Japan's wartime occupation of much of China and called on Tokyo to release a detained Chinese fisherman.

BEIJING — For the last several years, one big theme has dominated talk of the future of Asia: As China rises, its neighbors are being inevitably drawn into its orbit, currying favor with the region's new hegemonic power.

The presumed loser, of course, is the United States, whose wealth and influence are being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and whose economic troubles have eroded its standing in a more dynamic Asia.

But rising frictions between China and its neighbors in recent weeks over security issues have handed the United States an opportunity to reassert itself — one the Obama administration has been keen to take advantage of.

Washington is leaping into the middle of heated territorial disputes between China and Southeast Asian nations despite stern Chinese warnings that it mind its own business. The United States is carrying out naval exercises with South Korea in order to help Seoul rebuff threats from North Korea even though China is denouncing those exercises, saying that they intrude on areas where the Chinese military operates.

Meanwhile, China's increasingly tense standoff with Japan over a Chinese fishing trawler captured by Japanese ships in disputed waters is pushing Japan back under the American security umbrella.

The arena for these struggles is shifting this week to a summit meeting of world leaders at the United Nations. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, has refused to meet with his Japanese counterpart, Naoto Kan, and on Tuesday he threatened Japan with "further action" if it did not unconditionally release the fishing captain.

On Friday, President Obama is expected to meet with Southeast Asian leaders and promise that the United States is willing to help them peacefully settle South China Sea territorial disputes with China.

"The U.S. has been smart," said Carlyle A. Thayer, a professor at the Australian Defense Force Academy who studies security issues in Asia. "It has done well by coming to the assistance of countries in the region."

"All across the board, China is seeing the atmospherics change tremendously," he added. "The idea of the China threat, thanks to its own efforts, is being revived."

Asserting Chinese sovereignty over borderlands in contention — everywhere from Tibet to Taiwan to the South China Sea — has long been the top priority for Chinese nationalists, an obsession that overrides all other concerns. But this complicates China's attempts to present the country's rise as a boon for the whole region and creates wedges between China and its neighbors.

Nothing underscores that better than the escalating diplomatic conflict between China and Japan over the detention of the Chinese fishing captain, Zhan Qixiong, by the Japanese authorities, who say the captain rammed two Japanese vessels around the Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. The islands are administered by Japan but claimed by both Japan and China.

The current dispute may strengthen the military alliance between the United States and Japan, as did an incident last April when a Chinese helicopter buzzed a Japanese destroyer. Such confrontations tend to remind Japanese officials, who have suggested that they need to refocus their foreign policy on China instead of America, that they rely on the United States to balance an unpredictable China, analysts say.

"Japan will have no choice but to further go into America's arms, to further beef up the U.S.-Japan alliance and its military power," said Huang Jing, a scholar of the Chinese military at the National University of Singapore.

In July, Southeast Asian nations, particularly Vietnam, applauded when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the United States was willing to help mediate a solution to disputes that those nations had with China over the South China Sea, which is rich in oil, natural gas and fish. China insists on dealing with Southeast Asian nations one on one, but Mrs. Clinton said the United States supported multilateral talks. Freedom of navigation in the sea is an American national interest, she said.

President Obama meets on Friday with leaders from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or Asean. The Associated Press reported that the participants would issue a joint statement opposing the "use or threat of force by any claimant attempting to enforce disputed claims in the South China Sea." The statement is clearly aimed at China, which has seized Vietnamese fishing vessels in recent years and detained their crews.

On Tuesday, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, criticized any attempt at mediation by the United States. "We firmly oppose any country having nothing to do with the South China Sea issue getting involved in the dispute," she said at a news conference in Beijing.

China has also been objecting to American plans to hold military exercises with South Korea in the Yellow Sea, which China claims as its exclusive military operations zone. The United States and South Korea want to send a stern message to North Korea over what Seoul says was the torpedoing last March of a South Korean warship by a North Korean submarine. China's belligerence serves only to reinforce South Korea's dependence on the American military.

American officials are increasingly concerned about the modernization of China's navy and its long-range abilities, as well as China's growing assertiveness in the surrounding waters. In March, a Chinese official told White House officials that the South China Sea was part of China's "core interest" of sovereignty, similar to Tibet and Taiwan, an American official said in an interview at the time. American officials also object to China's telling foreign oil companies not to work with Vietnam on developing oil fields in the South China Sea.

Some Chinese military leaders and analysts see an American effort to contain China. Feng Zhaokui, a Japan scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in an article on Tuesday in The Global Times, a populist newspaper, that the United States was trying to "nurture a coalition against China."

In August, Rear Adm. Yang Yi wrote an editorial for The PLA Daily, published by the Chinese Army, in which he said that on one hand, Washington "wants China to play a role in regional security issues."

"On the other hand," he continued, "it is engaging in an increasingly tight encirclement of China and is constantly challenging China's core interests."

Asian countries suspicious of Chinese intentions see Washington as a natural ally. In April, the incident involving the Chinese helicopter and Japanese destroyer spooked many in Japan, making them feel vulnerable at a time when Yukio Hatoyama, then the prime minister, had angered Washington with his pledges to relocate a Marine Corps air base away from Okinawa.

His successor, Mr. Kan, has sought to smooth out ties with Washington and has emphasized that the alliance is the cornerstone of Japanese foreign policy.

"Insecurity about China's presence has served as a wake-up call on the importance of the alliance," said Fumiaki Kubo, a professor of public policy at the University of Tokyo.

The Himalayan Voice is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Visit its website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Leslie Sacks, September 23, 2010.

Faced with an ideology that justifies making war on "infidels," is it time to respond by adopting a moral code for the times we live in?


In these uncertain and consequential times, I humbly suggest that we put aside our penchant for iPods and immediate gratification and consider my 10 New Commandments:

1. Men must learn to think with their heads rather than with their (generally useless) genitals.

2. Women must lead lives based more on their intellects and less on their (always valuable) hearts.

3. Never use violence and intolerance unless combating violence and intolerance.

4. Morality exists only in behavior and never in thoughts or words.

5. Women are always equal — when in doubt, even more so.

6. Freedom and democracy are both rights and unremitting responsibilities.

7. All politics and religion should be practiced in the service of each individual, in each human manifestation of God.

8. No institution or belief should take precedence over any one person, life, or soul.

9. No path to God or to happiness is exclusive or worthy of domination over any other.

10. Any person or group who seeks to dominate, control, subvert or destroy any other person or group does not deserve membership in the free world.

Leslie Sacks is an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. Before that, he founded and operated Les Art International in Johannesburg, South Africa, where he was active in opposing apartheid and in supporting the Johannesburg Jewish community. This article appeared in Family Security Matters (FSM)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/ id.91/author_detail.asp

To Go To Top

Posted by Donald Hank, September 23, 2010.

Obama has been pushing China for a long time to revalue the RMB upward. In view of their refusal, he has recently made noises of wanting to erect trade barriers against China. A Chinese think tank has warned him that he will lose and has mentioned the unspeakable: the specter of the Chinese calling in our nearly trillion dollar debt with them.

Obama most assuredly will lose — ignominiously.

Obama is on a roll, having steam rolled over the US public with his open borders and amnesty policies, with his gifts to his banker buds who donated to his campaign, with unlimited "stimulus," health care "reform," lawsuits against Arizona, even human rights complaints filed against Arizona before the UN, his arrogant refusal to use the Dutch skimmers in the Gulf, the transfer of power to the corrupt unions and anyone who, like him, is minded to destroy the US, and on and on.

The reason he can do all these things is that he is the current occupant of the White House, is well-situated among the American left and the world banking elites, and, sorry to be so blunt, but his color is a teflon coating. It just is and everyone knows it.

So he is seemingly invincible in his adopted country and the West at large.

Many analysts have rightly observed that little or none of what he is doing and has done politically is a mistake. It is purposeful destruction of our economy and our culture and an intentional takeover of as much power as he can grab in keeping with the Cloward-Piven handbook.

On the other hand, most of us who worry about Obama's seemingly unbridled power have not noticed some of the background noise with China. It started some time back when the US, Mexico and the EU decided to gang up on China before the WTO and demand that she start selling more of her scarce resources to the rest of the world instead of hoarding them. (At least one report says there may be a shortage by 2012). The action failed.

But Obama is accustomed to getting his own way and does not handle failure with aplomb. So now he is trying to pressure China to raise the price of the RMB (the Chinese yuan). That would be sweet, since we owe the Chinese many billions of dollars and we would like to see the cheapest possible dollars go to pay them.

But, whereas China-hand Geithner has had enough experience to know that the Chinese won't be bullied, Obama apparently thinks they will eventually just give in like the Europeans.

But there is something about the Chinese that most Western leftists and New World Order types don't realize — although they will get a crash course in it soon — and that is, that China is not on board with the stealth socialism that has been wrapping its tentacles around us for the past 100 years. They have had their experience with communism and, while they are content to hang on to a large dose of the economic system Mao introduced, they are not, nor will they ever be, missionaries and proselytizers spreading the gospel of Marxism the way Western elites do. In other words, while the European elites are on board with all the shenanigans of subprime mortgages and wealth redistribution as a tool of "social justice," the Chinese have had their fill of these kiddy games and are moving on. They definitely are not interested in whether the West becomes socialist or communist. They are only interested in China. Woa, you say, then why the interest in, say, Tibet? And Taiwan? The answer is simple: the Chinese are and always will be enamored of their own culture — very much unlike the Western elites. One of the first things I heard from people on the street in Taipei was that the Chinese have a 5,000 year old culture. They are proud nationalists — both in "free" China and on the mainland. Tibet speaks a language that is little more than a dialect of Chinese and is written with Chinese characters. As far as China is concerned, Taiwan and Tibet are culturally part of China and that makes them hers.

Therefore the PRC wants these regions safely in the sheep fold.

Unlike the Russians, they have no interest — and historically have had none — in dominating other parts of the world.

But (and here is a big "but" that Obama will eventually learn the hard way) they will not give anything to anyone unless made to do so with considerable, overwhelming force or with an attractive bargaining chip. (Remember when Chou En Lai received Nixon and said "you wouldn't be here if you didn't have something we want"?)

Obama will soon learn that he does not have anything China wants worse than what he wants from China. Sure, China needs us as a trading partner, but they also know that we can't do without their cheap goods, so the threat of trade barriers is like a toy pistol. When Kissinger first made overtures toward China, it was out of an interest in furthering the New World Order, which would ultimately lead to a one-world government, with the Western elites at the helm. That move, and the moves made by all western elites since then with China were based on the naïve assumption that the Chinese, being far leftists, would be equally enamored with a socialist one-world government in which they played a role roughly proportional to their importance. That was a fatal miscalculation that is still ongoing and is almost amusing to watch. While China has no dreams of world domination, it also has no designs on playing a minor role in anything. If the elite want to start divvying up the world, then China will play along as long as China gets the lion's share of the benefit. They don't see the West as a partner. They see us as an opportunity, like a cat sees a mouse.

Obama, like every one of his predecessors, deals with China as though he believed they had a sense of fairness like ours and, because they are fellow leftists, must be in his camp.

The fact is, the Chinese despise the West and its superficiality. Thus they have no appreciation of our subterfuges like "climate change" (remember how Obama had to chase down his Chinese analog at the Global Warming conference?). Further, while they have many admirable traits, fairness in trade and diplomacy is not one of them. In dealings with the West, they treat that trait for what it is: weakness and stupidity. And now that they hold what may be called a controlling share of US debt, we simply do not have any bargaining chips with which to go to the table. None. And when dealing with China, that is an extremely precarious position to be in.

Obama has met his match. He is overwhelmed. Whether he appreciates the delicacy of his position is unclear at this juncture. It will be interesting to see his reaction when he finally awakens from his opiate slumber and realizes that China — and Russia too — are not about to cooperate or play Western power-by-stealth games. They have him in a strangle hold and will do what any wrestler would do — take him down for the count.

Contact Donald Hank at zoilandon@msn.com. This article was posted September 16, 2010 on Laigle's Forum
http://laiglesforum.com/obama-no-match-for-china/ 1801.htm

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, September 22, 2010.

By the same standards the UK hopes to condemn the Israeli Freedom Fighters, the British are to be condemned for committing Falkland atrocities.

The British Foreign Office chiseled the Jews out of their homeland which was once known as Palestine after and despite their earlier ratification of the San Remo Resolution that established the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland during the Twenties. Thereafter, everyone in Europe, even the disgruntled British, recognized Palestine as the Jewish Homeland. The boundaries of the Jewish Homeland, otherwise known as Palestine, encompassed the region the British now hope to rename "West Bank" even though the British Foreign Office knows the entire region belongs to the state of Israel. [ See: Prof. Grief's seminal treatise on international law "The Legal Foundation and the Borders of Israel under International Law." Available on www.amazon.com ] We surmise that more Christians than Jews have read this book and now side with Israel in opposition to the subversive schemes of the British Foreign Office and the arab- controlled UN.

Historical research illuminates the true situation of the hapless surviving Jews: After almost all the knowledgeable Jews were slaughtered in German death camps, the British stepped in and took advantage of the less educated surviving Jews by dint of propaganda and outright lies, which gave the British the upper hand so that it could violate the San Remo Resolution, which it did when the British Mandate over the Jewish Homeland severed Palestine and gifted most of it to the new state that was renamed Jordan, to be ruled by the Hashemite "royals."This appeased the Saudi royals no end. Thereafter, the contest began between the US and the UK, as to who could curry the most favor with the newly established oil-rich arab states. Both the US and the UK used Israel as a bargaining chip. Most of the Jews native to the region, as well as the Jews driven into Israel by the surrounding arab states, were preoccupied by their first taste of sovereignty and these celebrants failed to understand how they had been betrayed and cheated by both the British and the US.

The British, along with Jimmy Carter, reinforced the fiction that the arab invaders had a claim to Israel's lands. They repeated their lies in the same manner as Herr Geobbels had earlier instructed the Nazis, thus it was no surprise that the Euroids forgot history, much as did the surviving Jews. The Muslims repeatedly attacked the Israelis, but by dint of great luck and heroism on the part of the Israelis, the arabs lost their five wars against the tiny nation of Israel but the pleasure of winning was cut short by the pressure applied to Israel by the US State Dept. whose aim was to please the Saudis and the UAE. History reveals how the UK and the US jockey for dominance throughout the middle east while the French sit on the sidelines like hungry wolves.

The competition between the UK and the US continues to simmer beneath the surface, and if the British succeed in dislodging the Israelis from the rest of their lands, the US will be the loser. Anyone who still believes that the wealthy upper-class Saudis are US allies are simps. Saudi Arabia is a lender and a vendor. Nothing more. And they don't lend to the American people, only to our nouveau riche elitist bureaucrats and former diplomats to Saudi Arabia. For a history of this, read Craig Unger's book, House of Bush-House of Saud, if you want to learn how the Saudis gained control over US

policy toward (and throughout) the middle east.

The UK knows it is wrong when it broadcasts that Israelis are 'settlers' as if Jews are doing something illegal by establishing communities in what is rightfully and legally their own land. The West Bank belongs to Israel. The arabs have no right to claim this land for themselves. The UK is every bit as cunning as the arab usurpers who hope to destroy Israel first and then to proceed to destroy the US from within by turning our own laws into weapons to be used against ourselves.

Viva USA from the SC4Z  

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, September 22, 2010.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanne DeWitt, September 22, 2010.

This comes from NGO Monitor and is archived at
www.ngo-monitor.org/article/nif_s_old_new_no_funding_ guidelines_substance_or_spin_


NGO funding provided by the New Israel Fund (NIF) has a major impact on Israeli politics and society. As documented by NGO Monitor, approximately one-third of its annual budget of $31 million goes to highly politicized groups involved in campaigns regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as Adalah, Mossawa, Mada al-Carmel, the Coalition of Women for Peace, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Yesh Din, and others. These organizations also receive substantial funding from European governments, whose officials often cite NIF's "approval" as justification for promoting the NGO agendas and campaigns.

The central role of NIF-funded groups in the Goldstone report, and other indictments based on false allegations of "war crimes," highlighted the core contradictions in the funding policies of an organization that proclaims its commitment to Zionism and love for Israel. NIF leaders initially denied responsibility, but donor protests and media criticism increased. In February 2010, NGO Monitor called on the New Israel Fund (NIF) to implement clear "red lines" regarding the funding of NGO activities and rhetoric, in particular to prevent support for the "Durban strategy" of isolating Israel internationally. In this vein, NGO Monitor formulated proposed "Ethical Guidelines for the New Israel Fund," which were sent to NIF board members in advance of the June 28 NIF board meeting in Israel.

On September 19, 2010, the New Israel Fund (NIF) published new funding guidelines on its website. For the first time, the organization declared that groups that violate core principles "will no longer be eligible" for funding. These principles include: participating in "partisan political activity," promoting "violence or use violent tactics," and working "to deny the right of the Jewish people to sovereign self-determination within Israel, or to deny the rights of Palestinian or other non-Jewish citizens to full equality within a democratic Israel." This language closely tracks the language proposed by NGO Monitor, suggesting that the majority of NIF's board agreed with the need for clear and transparent "red lines."

However, since the initial report, a number of NIF officials have made confusing and contradictory public statements, suggesting that the guidelines are not new, and that they will not be implemented to reverse the anti-Israel NGO activities resulting for NIF's funding policies. In addition, no timetable or implementation mechanism has been published, raising further questions, as noted in NGO Monitor's analysis and in media reports.

Confusion and/or Spin?

On September 16, 2010, in a JTA report published shortly before Yom Kippur, the guidelines were presented as a fundamental change in NIF's funding policies. NIF Director Daniel Sokatch told the news agency that NIF "would prohibit proposals for a binational constitution of the kind that two NIF grantees submitted several years ago." (The grantees in question, Adalah and Mossawa, each proposed constitutions in 2007 calling for Israel to abandon its definition as a Jewish state. NIF grantee Mada al-Carmel's "Haifa Declaration" is similar.)

However, on September 20, NIF appeared to backtrack. Itzik Shanan, NIF-Israel's director of communications, said that "recent reports about a change in NIF policy are mistaken" ("NIF denies plans to change funding policies," Jerusalem Post). In an Israeli radio interview, NIF-Israel Director Rachel Liel announced a different formulation, stating that if a grantee "would act, not say something, but act in a significant way against this principle (definition of Israel as a Jewish state), and others of the NIF, I presume that [it] would not receive a grant" (emphasis in original).The implications of Liel's words remain unclear.

Then, in a later JTA story, Sokatch "clarif[ied]" that, in the cases of Adalah or Mada al-Carmel, a text denying Israel's Jewish character "would have to be central to an organization's activities in order to result in a suspension of funding, and that NIF would be the one to make the determination over whether or not that threshold had been reached." This seemed to provide a "back door" which might allow NIF to continue funding for these and other radical political organizations.

Other NIF officials repeated the old formulas. Communications Director Naomi Paiss stated that "we will continue to fund the organizations we have always funded conditional on their continuing to do the excellent work they do," and "we fund groups with whom we have philosophical disagreements as long as they are furthering our objectives — civil and human rights, social justice, religious pluralism."

Such contradictory comments from NIF officials have created more confusion than clarity, leaving the question of what, if anything, has actually changed in terms of funding guidelines.NGO Monitor's Analysis

As noted in the Jerusalem Post ("NIF denies plans to change funding policies," September 20, 2010) and other media reports, including the Hebrew media, NGO Monitor has played a central role in research and analysis on the NIF and on the activities of its grantees. In the JTA ("NIF changes funding guidelines, but what does it mean?" September 21, 2010), Ron Kampeas reported that:

Critics, led by NGO Monitor, an organization set up to track nongovernmental groups it says undermine Israel, said that NIF, wittingly or not, was allowing itself to be sucked into a movement that seeks to delegitimize Israel as racist in the hopes of replacing it with a binational or Palestinian state.

Kampeas quoted NGO Monitor President Gerald Steinberg's analysis of the developments:

"The question is how is it going to be implemented — when and how — and how the internal battles are going to be resolved," said Steinberg.

In the wake of the contradictions and confusion from NIF officials, and the evidence of ongoing internal conflict over how to deal with the role that NIF has played in funding NGO delegitimization activities, it is clear that the NIF guidelines remain tentative, at best. Questions over how, when, and whether the NIF will continue to provide funding and legitimacy to NGOs behind the "apartheid," "one state," BDS, lawfare, and other campaigns remain as salient as before.

NGO Monitor will continue to provide research and analysis of NIF funding for highly politicized NGOs, in order to give donors, Israeli citizens and elected officials, journalists, and others an independent, reliable and systematic source of information on these important issues.

Sanne Dewitt distributes the Sonoma Co. and East Bay IACs Newsletter (IACEB).

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 22, 2010.

This was written by Andre Moses (aka Endre Mozes), founder and chairman of Take-A-Pen for Truth on Israel (www.takeapen.org), which sends out material in 18 languages-


"Co-existence", peaceful and even friendly co-habitation of all different ethnic, religious and other groups, would be the ideal status, unfortunately never in the world fully achieved. There is a lot to do to reach this ideal state of affairs, and there are not many states on earth where so much has been done with so much success within such a short time, as in Israel.

Co-existence's antonym, "Apartheid", (literally separateness), would mean racial discrimination, defined by the UN as "...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin...". Unfortunately, by this definition apartheid is 'alive and well', not only in the third world, but to some extent also in the West — but not in Israel.

Though of course not perfect, in fact, Israel is probably one of the best examples of good co-existence against all odds, and one of the least racist states on earth. Let's see the facts. To begin with, Israel's Jewish population is mixed from a hundred countries with as many languages. Israel's Declaration of Independence ensures complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or gender. Israeli Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Druze and other minorities enjoy the same civil and political rights as Jews. They serve in the Knesset and in the High Court of Justice and can speak freely against the government. Israel's 1.2 million Arab citizens live in relative wealth and enjoy human rights far above their brothers in any of their 23 Arab countries.

The castigation of Israel as an apartheid state is a sophisticated propaganda tool, without much basis, used both to libel Israel and to cover up to the abhorrent human right records and racism of Israel's principal accusers like Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, the Palestinians and Iran. Even in that alleged bastion of racial freedom, Britain, the BBC reported that society is becoming more divided by race and religion, fully fledged ghettos happen there, and the Independent Race and Refugee News reported 52,694 racist incidents in 2004 and alarming increase also in racially motivated murders.

Israel has demonstrated historically unprecedented goodwill towards its minorities along its whole existence, when while being involved since its birth in existential wars with Arabs, it has never exerted any limitations or punitive measures on its Arab minority akin with the enemy — like all other countries on earth have invariably done along the whole history.

Israel invited and has been absorbing lovingly and without any material gain 100,000 Ethiopians with Jewish roots; poor and oppressed black Africans — unprecedented again in the history of mankind. Proportionally it would be welcoming 5 million poor black Africans in the US or in Europe within a few years.

Tiny Israel was the first to give home to hopeless Vietnamese "boat-people" in the 70-s and since 2005 similarly to refugees from genocide in Darfur, Sudan, mostly black Moslems. Several newly created Israeli voluntary organizations are providing care and assistance to these refugees.

An article in News.Scotsman.com of March 4, 2006 tells the personal story of a Darfurian, working in a kibbutz. Despite being jailed for a year before reaching that kibbutz, Sanka is remarkably upbeat about living in the Jewish state. "The Israelis are really a free people, with an open mind," he said. "The Jewish people I've met understand my plight. Funnily, for the first time in my life here in Israel I feel free"

Unfortunately some greedy politicians and frustrated academicians make a living of libeling Israel as 'apartheid'. But, let's leave alone theoretical arguments. Within a few hours spent in the quarter-million strong Israeli city of Haifa one can visit a few shopping centers, the city's best hospitals, a children's Luna Park and the Haifa beach; to see Muslim and other minorities strolling and mingling leisurely everywhere. You yourself can judge and choose between the validity of actual co-existence in Israel or of singling out Israel as the "apartheid state".

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sarah N. Stern, September 22, 2010.

It is a part of the US Code of Law, (Title 22, Chapter 39, subchapter III, section2776), that the President of the United States should transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a report that certifies that "any proposed sale or export of defense services to any country in the Middle East other than Israel shall include a determination that the sale or export of defense articles or defense services will not adversely affect Israel's qualitative military edge over military threats to Israel."

The law then goes on to clearly define just what "Qualitative Military Edge" is: "the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and casualties, through the use of superior military means, possessed in sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, control, communications, intelligence, and reconnaissance capabilities that in their technical characteristics are superior in capability to those of other individual or possible coalition of non state actors."

The Obama administration is on the verge of making the most expensive arms deal in the history of the United States to a foreign power- our "great moderate ally" of Saudi Arabia. The price tag for this treasure chest of killing mechanisms is an unprecedented $60 billion. The stash includes 84 top of the line F-15 fighter planes, as well as upgrades for 70 older ones, and almost 200 Apache, Long Bird and Black Hawk helicopters.

The flimsy premise that predicates this sale is the old Arab adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and that the Sunni Arab world will enter into a coalition against Iran, together with Israel. If you believe this, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

Don't hold your breath. If this is true, why are these Apache helicopters being sent to a base in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, which is a mere 150 miles away from Eilat, and clearly on the other side of Saudi Arabia from Iran?

The only thing that unites the fractious and self-destructive Arab and Islamic world is their hatred of Israel.

In fact, Foreign Policy, reports in its September 20th issue that King Abdullah wants to wipe two states off the map: Israel and Iran. According to that respected journal:

On June 5, he, (King Abdullah), reportedly told French Defense Minister Hervé Morin that "There are two countries in the world that do not deserve to exist: Iran and Israel."

The scoop comes from Georges Malbrunot, a French journalist with Le Figaro. Malbrunot, a respected Middle East correspondent who spent four months as a hostage of the Islamic Army in Iraq, goes on to report that two sources, from diplomatic and military circles, have confirmed the story.

This unprecedented arms sale is not only contrary to US legal code it is against America's national security interests.

The Saudis have single handedly done more to spread Wahhabist Islam around the globe than any other nation. While they whine to the United States that they need these high tech weapons against their radical street, the Saudis have subcontracted the education of their youth to the Wahhabists, and have created generations of radical Islamists within their own nation.

They not only have done that, but they have exported this particularly stringent and virulent strain of Islam throughout the globe, including to our very own shores, here within the United States.

The Center for Security Policy, an excellent think tank in Washington DC, has just unveiled its
"Shariah Threat to America (Team B Report) 09142010-1.pdf", on the advance of Shariah law in America and its threat to the U.S' national security ( Read it here.). The report elaborates in great detail on how the Muslim Brotherhood has worked to undermine the U.S Constitution and replace it with Shariah.Much of the work to advance the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States has been organized, and funded by the Saudis.

We, at EMET, are about to come out with a book early next year, detailing not only the Saudis' deep infiltration into so many aspects of our American infrastructure, but the part that they have played in sponsoring and funding global terrorism.

The Saudis, with their vast oil soaked tentacles have literally, gotten away with murder.

Unfortunately, ever since AIPAC was burned in the 1980's in the issue of the AWACS arms sale, they have never opposed any armed sale that they are not guaranteed a success for.

l had to learned this the hard way, when I had been a lobbyist with the ZOA and was working alone, on the Hill, trying to defeat an arms sale of Harpoon Block II missiles to Egypt.

The question is whether or not we have the opportunity and the time to rally and to successfully oppose this sale. Unfortunately, most frequently, by the time the administration reports this to Congress, contracts to defense manufacturers have already been issued.

This does not bode well for fighting a sale in Congress in a very deep recession, where American workers might be employed in several key congressional districts throughout the nation.

And the government in Israel is so paralyzed with fear about the impending Iranian nuclear bomb, they have hardly said a word.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is succeeding, in its policy of "appeasement through groveling", which is the very antithesis of "peace through strength" in making the Middle East into a volatile and highly dangerous powder keg.

Sarah Stern is President of the Endowment For Middle East Truth, based in Washington D.C. Visit their website: http://www.emetonline.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, September 22, 2010.

Obtaining the release of convicted Israeli spy would give Netanyahu political cover if he extends the settlement building freeze.

This is by DPA and it appeared today in Haaretz.


The United States refused to comment Tuesday on a report that Israel might seek the release of a convicted spy in return for extending a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank.

Israeli Radio had reported, citing unnamed sources, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet was considering making such a proposal to Washington. Netanyahu's spokesman refused to comment on the report, as did the White House and U.S. State Department.

"I'm aware of the news reports," said Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman. "Really, no comment on any kind of deal or swap or suggestion of that."

Toner added that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have urged Netanyahu to extend the ban because it "makes sense" in support of ongoing peace talks with the Palestinians.

The moratorium expires September 26, and the Palestinians have threatened to pull out of negotiations if it is not extended.

Netanyahu has been under international pressure to keep the freeze in place, but faces fierce opposition from ultra conservatives in his governing coalition. Netanyahu reportedly believes obtaining the release of convicted spy, Jonathan Pollard, would give him political cover if he extends the moratorium.

Pollard is regarded as a hero in Israel, but a traitor by the U.S. government. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for passing classified documents to the Israeli government in the 1980s while working in the U.S. Navy's intelligence unit.

Netanyahu has in the past asked U.S. presidents for clemency for Pollard, only to have those requests rejected.

J4JP Note: Jonathan Pollard was never accused, indicted or convicted of the crime of Treason which the US Constitution defines as aiding and abetting an enemy state during time of war. Israel is not an enemy and the two countries have never officially declared war. Calling Jonathan Pollard a "traitor" (i.e. one who committed treason) is tantamount to a defacto redefinition of Israel as an enemy state.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 22, 2010.

Jerusalem Sukkah

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

Wandering around Jerusalem during Sukkot, it's hard not to admire the handiwork of the city's more creative residents. The quaint and always immaculate neighborhood of Yemin Moshe — where I found this inviting Sukkah, — is a visual feast throughout the year and a place I love to take students during a workshop. Perched atop a home overlooking the old city, the rooftop sukkah blends beautifully with the building and its setting. I'd like to beg an invite from the owner to quaff a glass of chilled lemonade and shake the lulav.

I've added to the main image three other shots which give a taste of how Jerusalem's character transforms during the seven-day festival. The obligation to erect and dwell in the sukkah is incumbent on all Jews, no matter how small one's balcony. Some very imaginative efforts, and some not so unusual, emerge from a few hours of hammering and drilling that are as much a part of the season as the cool fall air.

Photographically, these images are not very challenging, other than trying to keep perspective while pointing the camera up high while standing close to the buildings. This causes convergence distortion, seen by the vertical lines converging toward the center of the photo, a result of the upward angle of the camera and lens curvature. There are special architectural lenses which can correct this optical phenomenon in camera or one can make a perspective change in Photoshop. Sukkot is our "zman simchateinu," the season of our joy. May we all merit to be joyful and blessed for the entire new year.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D-300, 18-200 zoom at 44mm, f14 at 1/400 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 Jerome S. Kaufman, September 22, 2010.

This was written by Jerold S. Auerbach and is called "Thinking Outside The Box." It appeared September 15, 2010 in the Jewish Press. Jerold S. Auerbach is author of "Hebron Jews" (2009). He is completing a book about the sinking of the Altalena.


Earlier this month in Washington, Prime Minister Netanyahu bent over backward to placate President Obama and Palestinian Authority President Abbas. Urging everyone to "think outside the box," he called for a "historic compromise" between Israelis and Palestinians. Even before negotiations began, Netanyahu reassured Abbas: "You are my partner in peace."

That very week, as if to demonstrate the folly of Netanyahu's expectations, Palestinians acted with pitiless brutality. Hamas terrorists murdered four Israelis from Beit Hagai outside Hebron. Yitzhak and Talya Imes left six orphaned children. Kochava Even-Hayim, mother of a young daughter, was in her ninth month of pregnancy. Avishai Shindler had only recently moved to Beit Hagai with his wife.

This horrific tragedy had no discernible impact on Netanyahu. He was not deflected from his hollow rhetoric of peace, nor did he return to Israel for the multiple funerals. He seemed content merely to reiterate that "the Jewish people are not strangers in our homeland. But we recognize that another people share this land with us."

He must have been pleased when a New York Times editorial, with its predictable rhetorical denial whenever Israelis are murdered, praised him for not leaving Washington after the massacre by Hamas "rejectionists."

There are, to be sure, multiple issues for Israelis and Palestinians to resolve: final boundaries; the status of Jerusalem; the return of so-called Palestinian refugees (the overwhelming majority of whom have been born since 1948); and, not least, the status of Jewish "settlements," the communities built since the Six-Day War in Judea and Samaria, the biblical homeland of the Jewish people.

At the moment, the settlement issue looms largest. The ten-month moratorium on settlement construction, to which the Netanyahu government agreed after vigorous arm-twisting by Obama, is due to expire on September 26. Shored up by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu has declared he will not extend it. If he doesn't, Abbas has promised to exit the newest chapter in the "peace process" charade that began at Oslo nearly twenty years ago.

Will Netanyahu flinch or stand firm when Obama holds his hand to the fire?

Anyone who believes that settlement in the Land of Israel is what Zionism has always been about may, for good reason, be wary of Netanyahu's assurances. In 1997, during his first term as prime minister, he caved in to pressure from President Clinton to relinquish all but a tiny sliver of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority. In their most ancient holy city, burial place of the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs, Jews are confined to a ghetto, surrounded by (and also living among) hostile Palestinians — including those who committed the recent murders.

For more than forty years Jewish settlements have provided a litmus test for Israeli prime ministers. In one vital respect, they all have failed it. Regardless of their party affiliation, or their location on the hawk/dove spectrum (personified at its extremes by Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres), they have declined to articulate the compelling, indeed irrefutable, justifications for these settlements in this location.

There is, of course, the two-thousand-year-old yearning of religious Jews, endlessly repeated in prayer, to return to their ancient homeland. And settlement, after all, is what Zionism has always been about. But Israeli politicians have been oblivious to the reinforcement of these claims, ever since 1920, under international law. Their silence reinforces the incessant and erroneous worldwide allegations that settlements violate international legal norms.

By now, however, an array of legal scholars has convincingly demonstrated otherwise. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," was endorsed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine three years later at the San Remo Conference. The Mandate recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," where they would now be guaranteed the right of "close settlement." Geographically defined, "Palestine" comprised the land east and west of the Jordan River that eventually became Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

Jewish settlement in Palestine was limited in only one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, retained the discretion to "withhold" the right of Jews to settle east but not west of the Jordan River. Consistent with that solitary exception, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill removed the land east of the river, comprising three-quarters of Palestine, to create Trans-Jordan (now Jordan). But the right of Jews to "close settlement" in truncated Palestine, west of the Jordan River, and to build their national home there, remained unchanged.

These terms of the Palestine Mandate have never been modified, abridged or annulled. In the Charter of the United Nations, drafted in 1945, Article 80 explicitly protected the rights of "any peoples" under "the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties." Drafted by, among others, Ben-Zion Netanyahu (Prime Minister Netanyahu's father), it became known as "the Palestine clause." It preserved for Jews the right of "close settlement" throughout western Palestine.

When Jordan invaded the fledgling State of Israel in 1948, it illegally annexed the territory that became known as the West Bank. But with Jordan's defeat nineteen years later in the Six-Day War, a "vacuum of sovereignty" existed there. Under international law, the Israeli military administration became the custodian of the West Bank until its return to the rightful sovereign. In November 1967 United Nations Resolution 242, approved by the Security Council, authorized Israel to administer the West Bank until — not before — "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved.

Even then, Israel would only be required to withdraw "from territories," not from "the" territories or "all the territories." Such proposals were defeated in both the General Assembly and Security Council. No prohibition on Jewish settlement, wherever the League of Nations Mandate had guaranteed it, was adopted. Under international law Jews retain the same right to live in Hebron that they enjoy in Tel Aviv.

According to Stephen Schwebel, who served as a judge on the International Court of Justice (1981-2000), the allocation of land in Palestine west of the Jordan River to Jews for their homeland remains in force until the signing of a peace treaty determines otherwise. The persistent attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Jewish settlements, international law expert Julius Stone has written, is a "subversion of basic international law principles."

But Israelis, like the international community that vilifies them, have forgotten, or chosen to disregard, the legal foundation for Jewish settlements. Beginning with David Ben-Gurion, as Howard Grief indicates in The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law, Israeli political leaders — and their ambassadors — have ignored the San Remo Resolution of 1920. But it remains the legally binding definition of the right of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, in western "Palestine."

President Obama, doubtlessly ignorant of these legal guarantees, has described Jewish settlements as "illegitimate." Palestinian Authority chairman Abbas, recognizing a sympathetic fellow traveler, has asked Obama to "intervene" to divest Israel of land that properly belongs to the Jewish state. Even if Netanyahu remembers the lesson he surely learned at his father's knee, it is unlikely he will stand up to Obama. Like his recent predecessors, he has already clearly signaled his willingness to surrender the land on which Jews still retain the right of "close settlement."

It is time for an Israeli prime minister to finally affirm the legal right of Jews, guaranteed ninety years ago by the League of Nations and never rescinded, to settle anywhere within their national homeland west of the Jordan River. That would truly demonstrate Netanyahu's commitment to thinking outside the box.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, September 21, 2010.

Prof. Rubin:

We respond to your report about the scandalous "palestinian" propaganda museum:

If Israel's High Court condones arab lies in the name of freedom of speech, then the Freedom Fighters for Israel must exercise their own freedom of speech to vilify, condemn, identify and verbally assault the arabs who promulgate this slander. If Abbas condones such lies, he is unfit to negotiate peace with Israel. No apologies necessary from israel, plenty of apologies owed to Israel by Time magazine.

The Freedom Fighters for israel should condemn arab slander and libel both in and out of court and use the media in Israel and elsewhere without any regard to worrying about the foreseeable harsh opinions of Euroid antagonists, such as Israel's Belgian and Spanish critics. Instead of defending, attack Spain for its invasion of Perejil, aka "Layla and condemn the UK for attacking the Falkland Islands. (Hey, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, etc.) Moreover, if the arab propaganda museum won't fold voluntarily, it must be promptly shut down before the poison spreads.

Worse still, we think, are the Jews who must surely know about the enforceable nature of the San Remo Resolution, but who still go about pretending that this salvation for Israel doesn't exist — perhaps out of their fear of Shimon Peres and his claque of monied monsters?

Israel needs to stand up for its sovereign rights instead of running about like an Obama, bowing and scraping and apologizing and offering concessions. Such foolishness does not curry favors nor engender respect. Just the opposite. It convinces others that Jews are blowhards and fools who will whimper and go sleazing about in order to forestall the slightest sign of criticism. Israel should be making harsh demands, not offering concessions. Demanding that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state is not "harsh." The kidnapped soldier (Shalit?) must be released and this Pollard gent, as well. Israel has a right to demand the restoration of all of its lands, not just the tail of the chicken Hillary hopes to dish out to your pudgy PM. There already is a "two-state" solution: Israel (illegally) allowed the Britz to steal their land and give it to the arabs occupying the new state of Jordan where 90% of the so-called "palis" live today. And these older Jews who were unable to fight against British sleaze hid their shame at being stabbed in the back by the Britz by dressing up this betrayal as a Jewish "peace" offering. Can you say "Never again"?

Viva Isael from the SC4Z


"A Future History of Palestine: You Want a Two-State Solution? Then Do It Right."
By Barry Rubin

The following article isn't intended to reject a two-state solution but to point out issues that would inevitably arise if one ever came about. Recently, a once-major American magazine ran a cover story saying Israelis aren't desperately eager for "peace" without ever mentioning the real reasons why that's so:

It's simple: Rather reasonably, Israelis want to know whether they would be better or worse off after making a deal to get a promise of peace in exchange for accepting a fully independent Palestinian state.

Making a strategy requires figuring out where things can go wrong and working to avoid or reduce the consequences. Pretending problems won't happen is the best way to engender catastrophes. So let's look at what would happen:

A gala celebration marks Palestine's day of independence. Some world leaders come bearing promises of financial aid. Arab leaders attending offer little money and, except for Egypt's president and Jordan's king, avoid contact with Israel's delegation.

These celebrations are marred by the absence of leaders from countries — including Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. refusing to recognize the new state.

Hamas, ruling the Gaza Strip, along with Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups, also reject the "traitorous entity." Gaza's rulers mark the occasion by firing rockets into Israel. Palestine's president boasts hollowly that his country includes all of the Gaza Strip but controls nothing there.

Hardly any of the Western media cover statements by some leaders of Palestine's ruling Fatah group that the new country's independence is not the conflict's end but the first step toward total victory and conquest of Israel.

Nor do many note statements of Islamist and Palestinian nationalist Arab groups among Israel's citizens that they now seek to dismantle the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, a goal several European newspapers endorse.

Nor is it widely highlighted in the Western media that the new country officially proclaims itself an Arab and Muslim state while ridiculing the idea of accepting Israel as a Jewish state.

Within a few weeks, infiltrators — some from Hamas, some from Fatah — cross the Palestine-Israel border to attack Israeli motorists and farming villages, set fires, and engage in sabotage. Palestine's government loudly condemns the attacks and claims it is trying to stop them. But the attacks continue even though a few Hamas supporters are rounded up, beaten up, and briefly imprisoned.

Soon, the official Museum of Palestinian History opens with exhibits claiming all of Israel as rightfully part of Palestine. Visiting schoolchildren are told that Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheva, and the rest of Israel belong to them and will some day be part of Palestine. Big displays show alleged Israeli atrocities and extol heroes who'd blown themselves up killing many Israeli civilians.

Yet these things, along with anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media, mosques, and textbooks, attract little foreign attention. The conflict is over, isn't it? And to publicize such facts, journalists tell each other, would only "play into the hands of Israeli hardliners" and "undermine peace."

Israel, of course, protests the incitement and armed attacks to the UN and Western governments, but those diplomatic efforts bring no response. Israel steps up defenses and builds a border fence at great expense, which helps somewhat. Yet every time Israeli patrols fire on infiltrators trying to get across, Palestine protests — backed by Muslim-majority states — that this is unprovoked Israeli aggression.

In the Middle East, the peace agreement brings little change. True, in some countries hatred toward Israel diminishes a bit. But Syria is still uninterested in peace. Moreover, growing fear of a nuclear Iran, Syria, and revolutionary Islamist groups intimidates other Arab states from making peace with Israel. After all, they say, now that there's a state of Palestine they don't need to do so.

Islamist groups rally against the "treasonous" Palestinian regime and "sell-out" of Palestine to recruit new members. America is no more popular for having fathered a Palestinian state since that birth required concessions and didn't bring all the land under Muslim rule. Violent attacks against U.S., European, and occasionally Palestinian institutions take place in a half-dozen countries.

From this point, we can envision several likely scenarios:

-- Growing border tension and cross-border attacks lead to Israeli incursions to fight terrorists against whom the Palestinian government doesn't act effectively. This sets off a crisis in which Israel is branded as the aggressor that is threatening peace and some call for sanctions against it.

--A coup takes place turning Palestine into a military-run regime which might be either more militant, wanting to fight Israel, or more cautious, seeking to crush Hamas.

--As a result of tensions with Israel, internal conflicts, a radical regime, or coup, the Palestinian government obtains military equipment, including advanced anti-aircraft missiles, violating the peace agreement. What's the world going to do to enforce that treaty? Probably very little.

--As a result of the list of scenarios given in the previous paragraph, the Palestinian government calls in foreign troops, possibly Syrian or Iranian. What's the world going to do about that? How would the world respond to Israel taking military action against such threats and treaty violations?

--A Hamas coup, far more likely to happen than the Palestinian government conquering the Gaza Strip, produces a pro-Tehran Hamas regime which, perhaps partnered with militant Fatah leaders, tears up the peace agreement and announces an alliance with Iran, making Israel and Western strategic interests worse off than ever.

Of course, we can also assume everything goes well and everyone lives happily ever after, that Palestinians become interested only in raising their living standards and keeping things quiet. That might happen.

But while the above scenarios are speculative they are better rooted in experience and reality than is the "best-case" alternative. At any rate, betting the lives of millions of people, Israel's future, and Western strategic interests must be based on something better than wishful thinking and refusing to acknowledge the threats involved.

Tell me, if you can, how the above predictions are ridiculously unlikely or impossible. The only likely response is: Shut up! You are endangering the possibility of peace!

Have you ever seen serious discussion of any of these points from Western experts, media, or governments?

Is there any sign of steps being taken to avoid such outcomes in the Western approach to the issue?

O course, this is all hypothetical. In practice, the Palestinian Authority isn't going to make peace for many years to come.

While may would read this article as reason to oppose any two-state solution altogether. I, like most Israelis, favor a two-state solution if done properly. Yet if no one takes these dangers seriously, why should Israel make concessions, take risks, and rush into such a situation where it would be very likely worse off than it is now?

All we are saying is to give peace a chance. But only if it is likely to be a peace that is lasting and better than the status quo for all concerned.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.  

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 21, 2010.

"U.S. will take in 100,000 Palestinian refugees under new peace plan, ex-Israeli premier says". This appeared in the Edmonton Journal and comes from yesterday's Agence France-Presse.


Former Israeli premier Ehud Olmert said on Sunday the United States had agreed to accept some 100,000 Palestinian refugees within the framework of an eventual Middle East peace deal, media reported.

Washington had agreed to give citizenship to 100,000 refugees, while Israel would accept less than 20,000, Israeli media quoted Olmert as telling a conference.

"The numbers discussed were below 20,000, but this would require an end to the conflict and a Palestinian announcement that they would not make any more demands," the Ynet website quoted him as saying.

Olmert was speaking at a conference in Tel Aviv organized by the Geneva Initiative, an Israeli-Palestinian group that aims to show a peace accord is possible.

He held peace talks with the Palestinians from November 2007 until they collapsed when Israel began its devastating military 22-day offensive against the Islamist-ruled Gaza Strip just over a year later.

"If we had reached an agreement, it would have changed the map of the world and the entire Middle East. We are not to blame. If there is no agreement, it's because the Palestinian side was not prepared to take the extra step that we made," Olmert was reported as saying.

The issue of Palestinian refugees is expected to be one of the thorniest issues in the renewed direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that resumed in the U.S. at the beginning of the month. The Palestinians want Israel to recognize the "right of return" of the Palestinians who fled or were expelled when the Jewish state was created in 1948.

With their descendants, they number 4.7 million people. Israel rejects the demand, saying they should be accommodated within a Palestinian state.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, September 21, 2010.

Peace, peace, peace. Israel must give up territory... Israel must accept Arabs and their descendents that ran away in 1948 while Arab armies attempted to eradicate the Jewish existence in Israel...Israel must release terrorists who have murdered, and have been accomplices and/or have planned to kill Israelis. Israel must retreat to indefensible borders.

Russia arms Syria and Iran with advanced weaponry, the US arms Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and other Arab Nations with Sophisticated and advanced arms.

Islamic terror grows everyday as do attacks on non-Muslims and Western targets throughout the Islamic world.

The "Quartet" insists that Israel does not let any Jews build in Judea and Samaria. Salaam Fayyad and Abbas say the Judea and Samaria must be ethnically cleansed of any Jewish presence.

A close-to nuclear Iran says that Israel's time is up. Salaam Fayad and Mahmud Abbas are on their way to the US to chum up to as many Jewish "leaders" as possible, to convince them to pressure Israel to place itself in the most "uncompromising" position as possible since the rebirth of the Jewish nation in 1948.

So lets see, pressure Israel to get into a one-sided peace agreement with the "Palestinian Authority" (who are the minority and barely represent themselves), arm the rest of Israel's enemies to the hilt.

Again, I might have missed something.... Call on Israel to make every possible compromise and arm the nations that have been fighting against Israel since its creation even more than before.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

As we approach the Holiday of Succot we are taught how the walls of the Succah should remind us of the "Clouds of Glory" that protected us against all odds as we traveled through Sinai. We had no other allies in the world, it was just we and Gd and a dream of being in our own land, a dream that was fulfilled, not just once.

As I build my Succah this year I am reminded we Jews (Thank Gd) brought the dream of Israel back to this earth in this time. We had to depend on ourselves as no one came to defend us as the Arab armies descended on Israel with the intent to wipe us out, time and time again. Throughout other wars, we weren't offered arms to defend ourselves, we paid, we paid a lot and with more than jus money. There were no favors... the Middle East was the playground as the "Super" powers looked on to see just whose "toys" were better. Today it seems to be almost the same playing field, yet the rules have been changed, now it's whose toys and whose methods will bring down Israel first.

I look at my succah walls and I look at Israel today and despite the challenges and ever-growing adversaries that we continue to face, I am proud and feel strong. No nation on earth has come so far in such a short time. No nation on earth has given so much back to the world.

This Succot, as you look at the walls of your Succah and are reminded how our forefathers were protected by the "Clouds of Glory" in Sinai, and as you bring together the Lulav (Palm), The Etrog, Hadas (Myrtle), Aravot (Willow), the four different species to make a single entity, and keep the Mitzvah of the Holy Day, think of Israel today, how together despite our own differences, we have faired against all odds, we are in our land and we are strong, Thank Gd.

We still have quite a walk in front of us, and together we will do it as a strong and good people in our land, all of our land and in peace.

Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit
http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, September 21, 2010.

Nobody has to worry about the allegiance of the religious officers and soldiers who are crowding the ranks of the IDF today. IDF documents made public after the expulsion from Gush Katif show that statistically, it was actually the soldiers who were not connected to a religious framework who refused to obey orders — and that phenomenon was negligible.

There is a different phenomenon though, that should be worrying those people who view freedom of thought, freedom of choice and freedom of conscience as a threat to their hegemony.

Polls and in-depth studies unequivocally prove that Israeli society is rediscovering its Judaism. The fascinating aspect of this phenomenon is that the younger generation of Israelis is actually closer to traditional Judaism than their parents. This Yom Kippur, more young people fasted than their adult counterparts. In the past, the opposite was true. The synagogues and community leaders were relegated to the "old generation," while the youngsters wanted nothing to do with "religion". But now, Israeli society is becoming more and more faith-based, with the younger generation blazing the trail.

Israeli society is becoming more faith-based — not more "religious." The phenomenon that we are experiencing is much broader than the "repentance movement" in its strictly religious parameters.

In the days of entertainer-turned-rabbi Uri Zohar, to "repent" meant to turn from a "secular Jew" into a "religious" or "haredi" Jew. But these definitions do not reflect reality. The question that actually defines the status of a given Jew on the faith continuum is: Is G-d present in your life or not? There are Jews who observe the commandments, but have left G-d out of the picture. There are even "progressive" movements that excel at that. On the other hand, there are Jews who still have not connected to Jewish law in its entirety, but experience G-d as very much present in their lives.

On this fundamental level, all of us are returning to G-d all the time. This ongoing experience is not a move from one end of the social spectrum to the other, but a gradual cohesion of the two extremes- together with G-d.

Only a person who fears G-d benefits from true liberty: "And the midwives feared G-d and did not do what the king of Egypt told them, and they let the children live." (Exodus 1)

Two Hebrew women whose lives were worth no more than dust in the Egyptian gulag refuse to obey the orders of the greatest king in the ancient world — the Egyptian Pharaoh — and don't throw the Jewish baby boys into the Nile River. Their fear of G-d preserved their liberty.

As part of my sentence for "sedition" against the Oslo Accords government, I did community service in a state nursing home. One of the old gentlemen there told me his own story about a different gulag:

"When I went to first grade in the Stalin-era public school in Russia, I made sure never to ask permission from my teacher to let me use the bathroom. It was very important to me to be sure that when I would need to ask permission to go to the bathroom, she would believe me and let me leave the classroom. I knew that I would need to use this escape route when the state nurse would come to check the personal hygiene of the students. If she would find the tzitzit (ritual fringes) that I had under my shirt, she would report me to the authorities and my father would be sent to his death in Siberia."

My friend in the nursing home told this story very matter-of-factly. But it gave me the goose bumps. I was in awe of the father who would risk his life for his faith and the little boy whose fear of Heaven made him truly free at the ripe old age of six.

The wave of return to G-d that Israeli society is now experiencing will necessarily lead to liberty for our Land as well. That is what the people in the ivory towers have to watch out for — not for the religious soldiers.

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 Arlene Kushner, September 21, 2010.

Tomorrow night begins the festival of Sukkot, which is known as the Season of our Gladness. Truly, a happy, festive holiday.

This is a holiday from our Torah, with an ancient tradition that will still be observed long after the Palestinian Authority is gone. Remembering this provides a badly needed perspective. We are bidden to dwell in temporary booths — Sukkahs — and thus to trust in the Almighty for our safety. Another lesson.

I think I write every year about how special this holiday is here in Jerusalem. Sukkahs are being erected everywhere. On a nearby street that is a "restaurant row," sukkahs are placed out on the sidewalk so that religious customers can patronize their places over the holiday.

Me? I'll be eating and sleeping in a sukkah with my children and grandchildren. And so — while I am mindful of the fact that much is going on in the world, and while I expect that I'll do some writing — I will be focused elsewhere a good part of the week, and my writing will slow down.

Please, friends. Hold your comments to me. Hold interesting articles unless they are very important. I will not be accessing my e-mail on a daily basis and would be grateful if I were not overwhelmed.

To each of you celebrating the chag, I say, Chag Sameach, and extend wishes for your joy.


Actually, stepping back from what's going on in the world is a good thing, for what passes as "news" is in large part shtuyote — nonsense. The ridiculous in the guise of important events.

Yesterday, Netanyahu participated in a conference call with Jewish leaders arranged by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Now, today, it is reported, in part, that he said:

"President Abbas has to decide [about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state]. He cannot skirt the issue. He cannot find clever language designed to obfuscate or to fudge it.

"He needs to recognize the Jewish state. He needs to say it clearly and unequivocally. He needs to say it to his own people in their own language.

"Remember that famous commercial — Just Do It? I think for the Palestinian leadership, it's even simpler: Just Say It. Say that you recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people."


All these dramatic words. "Just say it"? Netanyahu knows full well that Abbas will not do this.

What he doesn't say, with all the drama, is that Abbas refuses to say it because the ultimate goal of Palestinian Arabs is to get rid of Israel as a Jewish state and replace it with an Arab one. Saying that would not be politic, would not be playing the game. And Netanyahu is quite clearly playing the game to the hilt.

He also said: "I believe that an agreement is possible. But to succeed, President Abbas and I...have to be willing to address the issues with an open mind. We have to be flexible and creative in finding compromises that are anchored in a realistic assessment of what is possible."

Give me a break. Abbas is willing to compromise on nothing. And what Netanyahu ought to be telling American Jewish leaders is, Sorry, folks. I'd love to have peace here, but it's impossible when there is no compromise whatsoever on the other side. Don't let fancy words from PA leaders fool you — there is no give. What he's doing is misleading them.


Quite properly, Netanyahu persists in emphasizing the need to guarantee our security if a Palestinian state is formed. When all is said and done, in my opinion, the only way to guarantee that security is by making sure a Palestinian state does not come into being. But since we're not hearing this...

There have been suggestions (from the EU?) of an international force, and he rejects that, saying — again, quite properly — that only our own troops can protect us. This is something else Abbas will never agree to: Israeli troops on the eastern border of a PA state.


As alluded to earlier, Yitzhak Molcho, chief Israeli negotiator who is currently in NY, and Saeb Erekat, chief PLO negotiator who is currently in Washington, are supposed to meet within the next 24 or so hours in order to pave the way for another round of talks between Netanyahu and Abbas. Presumably, this new round of talks will take place before the 26th, when the freeze is due to end, so that the parties can work out a "compromise" on the issue, in order for negotiations to continue after the 26th.


Abbas is saying that he will not negotiate "for a single day" if Israel does not extend the freeze.

He also said that he was "not opposed to a settlement freeze for a month or two" and that he believes it would be possible "to conclude a peace deal on all final status issues if the settlement freeze is extended."

Conclude all issues in a month or two? You might be tempted to ask exactly what Mahmoud Abbas has been smoking. But there is method to his madness and I want to point it out.

While Netanyahu is talking about security, Abbas keeps saying the first thing to decide is borders. Deciding borders, he claims, will simplify the issues — Jerusalem (how much goes to the Palestinian Arabs) and settlements (what, if anything, Israel would keep and thus where Israel could continue to build and where not).

This, you see, is why he now says only a month or two is necessary. Theoretically, there would be no "freeze" issue if it had been determined where Israel could build and where not. And if there freeze is only for a month or two, he likely imagines that he can push this to get it resolved before the freeze is over.

This — the question of setting borders — is what Abbas is after. The rest matters to him considerably less, or not at all. For he could then walk away from negotiations, go to the UN, and ask for recognition of a state, within the borders that Israel had already agreed to.

This might not happen, and the whole plan might backfire on him badly. But know that there is talk about Abbas doing this. Therefore, it is critical that Netanyahu not fall into a trap of agreeing to borders. Not even tentative borders, i.e., IF this and this is set in place, OK then I would also agree to these borders.

It would be a very dangerous and foolish business.


I will mention here, where it is particularly relevant, that there is talk about bringing a bill to the Knesset that would require a national referendum before Netanyahu could sign off on any agreement with the PLO. A good move. But the wording of that proposed legislation has yet to be worked out — it would have to be air-tight and would then have to pass three readings in the Knesset. So we're not there yet by any means.


Sometimes, in spite of the peaceful facade that the leaders of the PA/PLO offer the Western world, something leaks out that reveals true intentions. Almost always that leak is in Arabic, as is the case here:

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has picked up an article from the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, from September 9. In translation:

"The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state."
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi= 157&doc_id=3188

Then, PMW tells us, there is the performance by a song and dance troop that ran on PA TV on September 12. The lyrics include:

"Fight, brother, the flag will never be lowered,
"the torches will never die out.
"...We replaced bracelets with weapons...
"This invading enemy is on the battlefield.
"This is the day of consolation of Jihad.
"Pull the trigger.
"We shall redeem Jerusalem, Nablus and the country."

At this site you can see a video of the singing and dancing. It's scary stuff:

Our "peace partner."

Please, share this information with those who imagine that there really is a "peace process."


See also, please, Khaled Abu Toameh, who asks, with regard to the negotiations, "Why Is Washington Sticking Its Head in the Sand."
http://www.hudson-ny.org:80/author/ Khaled+Abu+Toameh


I may not have any fondness for Defense Minister Barak, but when I like what he says, I acknowledge it:

He is in the States now, and gave an interview to Fox News, during which he said that Iran might attain nuclear capabilities within two years or less. Thus, "We have to start considering what follows if sanctions won't work."

What is more, "Part of the way history will judge" the Obama US administration is with regard to whether Iran"turned nuclear" under its watch."

After Obama said that military action was not the "ideal" way to deal with Iran, Barak responded that "As far as Israel is concerned, all options must remain on the table."

An American president who is seeking an "ideal" in the face of this emergency is, it seems to me, not in touch with reality.


Let's end on an upbeat note, with thanks to Janglo. Hope you can pick this up.

Singing of Hallel (special psalms of praise) in a synagogue in the community of Efrat in Judea on a morning during the week of the holiday. The joy and sense of celebration are palpable. You will see people holding an etrog (citron) and lulav (grouping of leaves from a palm, myrtle and willow) used ritually.
http://wejew.com/media/6347/ Voices_TV_-_Musical_Hallel_in_Efrats_Zayit_Raanan/

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Gold, September 21, 2010.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's ill wishes towards Israel's Palestinian Arab enemies, including the Palestinian Authority and its Holocaust-denier President, elicited disdain and disavowals from much of the leadership of Israel and the Jewish world.

Rabbi Ovadia's "words do not reflect the approach of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, nor the position of the government of Israel," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement.

The Rabbinical Assembly, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Jewish Theological Assembly and related groups said, "As leaders of the Conservative/Masorti movement, we deplore these recent comments of Former Chief Sephardic Rabbi Ovadia Yosef".

ADL leader Abe Foxman said, "We are outraged by the offensive and incendiary comments made by Rav Ovadia Yosef." And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations added, "We are disturbed by the reported comments of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef."

Why these entities have reacted this way is an interesting question.

This is even putting aside the paternalistic attitude of superiority so commonly used to justify ignoring the constant barrage of hate and incitement to genocide that emanates from many of Israel and Judaism's enemies, both from Palestinian Arabs and others (most notoriously, Iran). And that vitriol is not voiced just by an individual — but is promulgated by their governments and their leaders, including Israel's purported "partners for peace."

But I was gratified to learn that I was not the only one who found the situation peculiar. In a letter published on the Jerusalem Post's website, Chana Pinto accurately and articulately pointed out that in our prayers, Jews beseech G_d to defeat our enemies. For example, the Amida includes "Frustrate the hopes of those who malign us," and "Let all your enemies be speedily destroyed."

So is Rabbi Ovadia the only prominent Jew who reads the prayer book? Are the other Jewish leaders ignorant of our prayers in the prayer books they themselves publish? Or is it that these other Jewish leaders are aware of their prayers, but Rabbi Ovadia is the only one who means it when he says them?

Perhaps if the Conservative leaders and their Reform counterparts (who, of course, also attacked Rabbi Ovadia) are so offended by their own prayers, they should change them to be more consonant with their political and worldly sensibilities.

This controversy over the Rabbi's remarks reminded me of a similar hypocrisy that occurred during George W. Bush's presidency. Bush was well known to have been inspired by his faith and G_d during his time in office. And he was routinely and vitriolically mocked and criticized for doing so. Many Jews were among those so criticizing him.

But reference the "Prayer for Our Country," a commonly recited Shabbat and Festival prayer in Conservative (and other) American congregations. The prayer includes the plea to G_d, "teach them (our 'leader and advisors and all who exercise just and rightful authority') insights of Your Torah so they may administer all affairs of state fairly, that peace and security...may forever abide in our midst".

So these Jews who criticized Bush for being inspired by the Bible were criticizing him for doing precisely what they were praying for him to do! Just as today Rabbi Ovadia is pilloried for asking for just what we ask for in prayer. In both cases, of course, the prayers may have been so rote as to be less than sincere.

But the key answer to the question as to why so many people claimed offense at the Rabbi's remarks is two-fold. One is that throughout the world, most people don't want Israel to prevail in its struggle, and Israeli and Jewish leaders are sensitive to that sentiment.

Second, and more important, is the widespread and tragic refusal by Israelis, Jews, and westerners in general, to acknowledge that Israel is at war. Israel is at war with Palestinian Arabs, not just the Gazans. (Hey, if it's not a state of war, why do we need peace talks? Does this enemy to whose defense the Israeli government and Jews throughout the world are rushing even acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? Last time I checked, no. And the enemy even says that it never will.)

Related to the refusal to acknowledge the state of war is, on the part of many, a lack of understanding of what war actually entails. That results in horror when the enemy is killed, injured, or even inconvenienced (e.g. think "checkpoints" and "blockade").

As has been learned over the course of human history, Israel will never achieve the security of peace until it defeats its enemies. And as has also been true throughout human history, Israel will never be able to defeat its enemies by being nice to them, or even by loving them. Love bombs don't work. Real ordinance is needed.

And if G_d provides help, all the better.

Mark Gold does volunteer work on behalf of U.S. national security and Israel. He is retired from a career in the transportation industry and lives in the northeastern U.S. His columns have been published by The Jewish Press, Arutz Sheva, and The Jerusalem Post inter alia.
His blogsite is http://markgold.wordpress.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, September 20, 2010.

This is archived at


"Jews, go away! You don't belong here. Go live somewhere else." One would expect statements like this to come from the most virulent antisemites: the white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, or Hamas and Hizbollah. But no, these statements didn't come from the traditional Jew-haters. They came from other Jews — from Jews living in Israel, in Europe, and in the United States. Their names are well known among the "progressive intellectuals." They include: Jacqueline Rose, Michael Neumann, Tony Judt, Noam Chomsky, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, and Amira Hass. Their comments were directed at those evil, sinister, vicious "Jewish religious fundamentalists" who had the chutzpah to want to live in the environs of Gaza, Hebron, and Jerusalem. Their crime was to establish residence in, or close to, ancestral Jewish lands, which are now occupied by a high density of Palestinian Arabs.

"Get out of there. You're just causing more friction. You're impeding the peace process. You're endangering our soldiers. You're causing an economic burden on all of us. You're violating the human rights of the Palestinian people." Those are the diatribes being thrown against small groups of Jewish families whose only offense was to live in lands replete with Jewish culture and history. They were young, ambitious, and idealistic. They wanted only to walk in the shadows of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, and the other Biblical heroes who serve as their role models. They wanted to build a life on small specks of land where they could wake up in the morning, gaze with wonder at the clear blue sky, and proclaim proudly, "Yesterday we were tormented and persecuted. Today we are free in our own land. This land is now ours, to develop, to nourish, and to cherish forever."

Then came that dreaded week in August, 2005 — The Disengagement, or more aptly, The Expulsion. Up until the last moment, supporters of the Jewish communities in Gaza begged and pleaded with the government, "Please don't do it. There's no reason to evict small communities of peaceful, productive Jewish families. You can still rescind your decision." But it was to no avail. The evictions were quickly concluded with the military precision that Israel is renowned for. The disengagement not only shattered the lives of 1700 innocent Jewish families, it shattered the belief that Jews had finally achieved the status of other ethnic groups, to be able to live anywhere in freedom and dignity, without persecution. But, that couldn't be. The Jews had to leave so that the local Arabs could develop their economy, free of the "oppressive Israeli occupation." Gaza was going to become the "Dubai of the Mediterranean." Well, we know what happened to those plans.

Now that the precedent has been set, our group of Jewish "progressives" wants to repeat the process. "Why should a handful of Jews live in Hebron among 120,000 hostile Arabs? It only causes more religious friction. Why do Jews need to live near the Temple Mount? It's a major center for Muslim worship. Why do we need East Jerusalem, it's mostly Arab? Why do Jews need to live in the Judean Hills? It will only cause friction with the poor Palestinian olive growers." One Jewish writer was even critical of the Jews who were buying Arab homes in the Old City for above-market prices. After all, it isn't fair to the Arabs who can't afford those prices. Ostensibly, it would be fairer if Jews wouldn't be permitted to buy homes in Jerusalem's Old City.

What if a small group of Black Hebrews from Dimona wanted to settle in Hebron, and were told that they didn't have a right to live there? Would Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and Ban Ki-moon, say that they should be evicted? What if the Jewish settlers from Judea got fed up with being tormented in Israel and bought a small parcel of land in Montana. Then the local ranchers told them, "We don't want your kind here." Would the "progressive" Jewish Americans support the ranchers and tell the Jews to live elsewhere to avoid causing friction? Most likely, the same Jews who are denying the rights of Jews to live in Hebron would support their right to live in Montana. Something similar to that actually happened in Billings, Montana in 1993. A small group of white supremacists were harassing and vandalizing the homes of Jews who displayed their Chanuka menorahs. This time, it was the Christians who came to the rescue by placing photos of menorahs in their windows to support their Jewish neighbors. Eventually, the hoodlums got the message that racism and bigotry are not welcome in Billings, Montana. Why aren't Jews doing that? Perhaps all Jews should be wearing orange to support the Jews of Gaza, Hebron, and Judea. Then perhaps the Arabs will get the message that intolerance, hatred, and violence are not welcome anywhere in the Holy Land.

Today, there is a peaceful, isolated, orthodox Jewish community living near Glacier National Park where Jews have no historical connection. So why shouldn't Jews be allowed to live in Hebron, Bethlehem, or even Iran? Because it might irritate the local Arabs who don't want them there? Jews have at least as much right to live among Muslims, as Muslims have to live among Jews and Christians.

Before our small Jewish community tears itself apart with sinas chinom, baseless hatred towards our own community, we should recall the inspiring lyrics to the theme from the film Exodus. The words were written by a Gentile, Pat Boone, and recorded by the immortal Richard Tucker.

Play Exodus — Richard Tucker

This land is mine
G-d gave this land to me,
This brave and ancient land to me.
And when the morning sun
Reveals the hills and plain
Then I see a land where children can run free.

So take may hand
And walk this land with me
And walk this golden land with me.
Though I am just a man
When you are by my side,
With the help of G-d,
I know I can be strong.

To make this land our home,
If I must fight, I'll fight
To make this land our own.
Until I die, this land is mine.

Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Melanie Phillips September 20, 2010.

Too often, we in America hear warnings about government creeping toward "Big Brother". Many a time, the shriek is shrill, resulting in our guards being lowered. After all, we live in a democratic society. "Thought Police"? Get real, many say. Well, one of Britain's most respected columnists is now sounding the alarm about her country. These chilling words deserve to be read, particularly by people of faith who may have grown complacent.


Everyone can agree that today's Britain — which we're always being told has become so much more liberal — is the very model of a forward-looking, tolerant society in which freedom of expression is paramount. Correct?

If only. In fact, the intellectual trend in Britain is a remorseless slide towards a dark age of intolerance, reverting to a reason-suppressing, heresy-hunting culture in which certain opinions are being turned into thought crimes.

Astoundingly, people are being arrested by the police — even if the case against them eventually falls — because of what they have said. They are not inciting violence or any criminal activity. They are merely expressing a point of view. Yet for that they may find the police feeling their collars.

It is difficult to say when, exactly, the priorities of the British police shifted from the prevention of criminal offences towards criminalising people for causing offence. The police have become the thin blue line against the Wrong Opinion. Instead of protecting society against oppression, British police officers have become the agents of oppression.

Freedom of religious expression, for example, is a bedrock principle of an open society. Yet if Christians express their religious opposition to homosexuality, they are treated like criminals.

Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher in Cumbria, was carted off by the police, locked in a cell for seven hours and charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour after telling a passer-by that he believed homosexuality was a crime against God.

Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was convicted of a public order offence and fined for holding a placard saying 'Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord' at a street demonstration in Bournemouth — even though he was attacked by members of the public who poured soil and water over him.

Pensioners have even found the police on their doorstep accusing them of 'hate crime' for objecting to the local council about a gay pride march or merely asking if they could distribute Christian leaflets alongside the gay rights literature.

Such Christians are far from alone in finding that certain opinions are now forbidden. Across public life — in academic, legal, governmental, scientific and media circles and beyond — an atmosphere is being engendered which is inimical to independent thought.

And this is often amplified to incendiary levels through the electronic lynch-mob of the internet. Writers who bust the boundaries of permitted thinking may become the target of frenzied denunciation by a global army of haters whipping up a campaign for the dissident to be boycotted, banned or sacked.

After Jan Moir suggested in the Daily Mail that the death of the gay Boyzone singer Stephen Gately was linked to a louche lifestyle, she was subjected to a fireball of vilification on the internet, Twitter and Facebook.

The Crown Prosecution Service then said 'the Metropolitan Police passed the article' to them 'to determine whether or not any crime had been committed', but Moir would not be prosecuted.

Prosecuted! For making what at most was a tasteless remark? What on earth has Britain come to when the CPS entertains this as a serious possibility?

Moir's particular thought crime was unwittingly to desecrate the hallowed shrine of victim culture.Certain groups of 'victimised' people — lone mothers, ethnic minorities, Muslims, gays — enjoy a kind of Protected Species status, in that they must never be offended; nor can any fault ever be laid at their door.

To offend or criticise them is to be guilty of hate crime. But since hatred is a subjective notion, this has opened the way for an oppressive culture of coercion, double standards and injustice.

Offending such groups has become a hanging offence — and that includes protesting against this very phenomenon.

It took Robin Page, chairman of the Countryside Restoration Trust, some five years to clear his name after he was arrested for remarking at a 2002 rally against the government's anti-hunting laws: 'If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.'

To enforce the dogma of thought crime, language has been hijacked and turned inside out. Dissent has been relabelled as either hatred or insanity. Those who disagree with current orthodoxies are therefore deemed to be either bad or mad.

These modern heretics are demonised as Europhobes, homophobes, xenophobes or Islamophobes. They can therefore safely be purged from all positions of influence and their ideas trashed without any discussion.

The taunt of 'phobia', or irrational fear, is used along with outright accusations of insanity to place rational dissent beyond the pale. As the former Today programme editor Rod Liddle recently revealed, a BBC apparatchik said to him of Lord Pearson of Rannoch and other Eurosceptics (whose views happen to be shared by half or more of the population): 'Rod, you do realise that these people are mad?'

Just such a charge was made by totalitarian movements from the medieval Catholic church by way of the Jacobins all the way to Stalin's secret police.

In similar vein, the rational anxieties of millions about mass immigration or militant Islam destroying the culture of the country are held merely to demonstrate that ordinary people are racist bigots or Islamophobes.

The great gift bequeathed to us by the 18th-century Enlightenment is the freedom to disagree. This is now in eclipse. The intelligentsia — the supposed custodians of reason and intellectual freedom — has turned itself into an inquisition, complete with an index of prohibited ideas.

Nowhere is this more starkly displayed than in the hounding of scientists and others who question man-made global warming theory.

Such sceptics are vilified, smeared, denied funding and even — according to the renowned meteorologist and IPCC reviewer Professor Richard Lindzen — intimidated into telling lies to shore up the theory.

Assertions wholly inimical to science, such as 'the argument is over' or that global warming is the belief of a scientific 'consensus' — the claim once used by the medieval church to stifle Galileo — are deployed to ensure the argument is over before it can begin.

More viciously still, these dissenters have been dubbed 'climate change deniers' to equate their views with Holocaust denial. Not only are they thus likened to Nazi sympathisers, but rejecting man-made global warming theory — for which many of the best brains in climate-related science say there is scant or no evidence — is equated with the genocide of the Jews.

Without the freedom to question and argue, science cannot thrive — and without science, reason would be crippled and modernity would grind to a halt. Which is of course the aim of the environmental movement, whose roots lie in a stream of pagan, irrational and proto-fascist thinking which goes back to the counter-Enlightenment.

'Politically correct' views all derive from anti-Western, secular ideologies such as anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, utilitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism and environmentalism. These all share the aim of overturning the established order in the West.

So any groups who have power within that order can never be offended or hurt because they are themselves offensive and hurtful, while 'powerless' groups can never be other than victims.

This obsession with power is, of course, a Marxist position; indeed, 'political correctness' is a form of cultural Marxism. But how has good old empirical, pragmatic, anti-ideological Britain succumbed to such extremism?

Part of the explanation is that, with the collapse of Soviet communism, the left shifted its focus from economics and politics to the cultural arena. Employing Gramsci's tactic of 'the long march through the institutions', it captured the citadels of the culture for a variety of utopian ideas.

Class divisions would give way to equality, capitalist despoliation of the earth would be replaced by pre-lapsarian agrarian communes and all hatred, prejudice and irrationality would be excised from the human heart.

Like all ideologies, these utopian fantasies wrenched facts and evidence to fit their governing idea. Independent thought thus became impossible — which inevitably resulted in an attack upon freedom, because reason and liberty are inseparable bed-fellows.

Because these creeds purported to embody unchallengeable truths, they could permit no dissent. Reason was thus replaced by bullying, intimidation and the suppression of debate.

What we are living through is therefore a fresh mutation of the previous despotisms of first the medieval church and then the totalitarian political movements of the 20th century.

The West has now fallen victim to a third variation on the theme: cultural totalitarianism, or a dictatorship of virtue. For, in a pattern that goes back to the French Revolution, the left believes that its secular, materialistic, individualistic and utilitarian values represent not a point of view but virtue itself.

To oppose such coercive behaviour or uphold factual evidence in the face of ideological distortion is thus to be damned automatically as evil, mad and extreme.

But here's the really striking thing. Progressive intellectuals who scorn 'the right' as knuckle-dragging extremists are themselves promoting a range of secular fantasies which uncannily mirror pre-Enlightenment religious fanaticism.

Anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, environmentalism, scientism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, libertinism, moral relativism and multiculturalism are all quasi-religious movements — evangelical, dogmatic, millenarian and with enforcement mechanisms to stamp out heresy.

Some would call all this tyranny. But to progressives, tyranny occurs only when their utopia is denied. Virtue therefore has to be coerced for the good of the people at the receiving end.

Since progressivism is all about creating the perfect society, it is therefore incontestably virtuous; and so — like Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety, like Stalinism, like Islam — it is incapable of doing anything bad. Unlike everyone else, of course, for whom it follows they can do nothing but bad.

Accordingly, progressives feel justified in trying to stifle all dissent. Never engaging with the actual argument, they instead use gratuitous abuse to turn their opponents into pariahs (while they themselves, failing to grasp the point about evidence, characterise all reasoned arguments against them as outrageous 'insults').

So if you are a white Christian man upholding traditional family values and expressing a desire to stop immigration and leave the EU, while being sceptical of man-made global warming and believing that Darwinian evolution does not explain the origin of life on earth, Britain is no longer your country. But don't worry. Utopia is taking its place. The police are on their way to tell you.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 20, 2010.

Netanyahu has refused to formally renew the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria. Nonetheless he is now sending a negotiator to Washington to meet with a PA negotiator, to try to arrange — no, not a compromise on the freeze — but, as it's coming to me, an additional meeting between Netanyahu and Abbas before the freeze ends so that they might come to a compromise.

By the way... Remember the rumor about Netanyahu himself going to Washington? He was supposed to go yesterday, and he's still here. But this doesn't mean it wasn't contemplated at the time.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman, saying on Army Radio that Netanyahu was under "massive" pressure, declared that "the job of leaders is to stand up to pressure. If we can't withstand pressure on a relatively simple issue like continuing building in Judea and Samaria, how can we defend other interests?"


But if you think this is a cut and dried matter — a "simple issue" — without all sorts complications, including behind the scenes mumblings and machinations, think again.

For starters: There have been rumors floating, about a potential trade — three more months of freeze for the release of Jonathan Pollard. See IMRA — http://imra.org.il — for a number of related stories on this over the last few days. Maybe THIS is why Netanyahu was thinking of going to Washington. According to Army Radio, citing people within the Prime Minister's Office, that Office has submitted the proposal, although the US has not responded. The Prime Minister's Office is, of course, claiming no knowledge of any of this.

According to Aaron Lerner, of IMRA, "A leading Israeli peace activist who heads a well known Israeli organization that promotes the peace process both in Israel and overseas advised IMRA this morning that he was bringing the proposed Pollard-Freeze Extension Exchange proposal to the attention of his White House contact."

We have to assume then that the Prime Minister is fully cognizant of this proposal and presumably has signed on, and that the White House is also aware of it. Whether anything will come of it remains to be seen. Lerner's comment:

"[US administration officials] certainly "talk the talk" when it comes to lecturing Israel about the need to make 'sacrifices for peace.'

"But now the shoe is on the other foot. Is President Obama willing to make a 'sacrifice for peace'?

"President Obama can release Jonathan Pollard from prison (where he has already served several fold the sentence others have for similar offenses) with the stroke of a pen in a move that is not subject to either review or oversight."


The sense is that extending the freeze for three months in return for Pollard would not bring down the government. While this is all highly speculative at this point, there would be an enormous sense of victory in bringing him out. His prolonged incarceration represents a serious miscarriage of justice that was undoubtedly fueled by anti-Semitic/anti-Israel attitudes on the part of key parties involved.

If you are not already familiar with the facts of Pollard's case, see here:

Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States, was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans, and was never charged with treason. He was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.

Working as a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst in the 1980s, he discovered information vital to Israel's security — information that Israel was supposed to receive, which was being deliberately withheld by certain elements within the U.S. national security establishment. Ultimately, he passed this information to Israel. (Unless I am very much mistaken, this included information on Iraq, which resulted finally in Israel taking out the Iraqi nuclear reactor.)

Pollard never had a trial, instead agreeing to a plea bargain. While he cooperated fully with prosecuting authorities, in the end he received a life sentence. The government, abrogating the plea agreement, recommended that he not be eligible for parole.

No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years.

There were all sorts of charges from the US government — innuendos really — regarding why Pollard would present a danger if released — that he had information that could compromise US security, etc. But, in a denial of Pollard's civil rights, he was never permitted full access to these ostensible charges.


It has occurred to me (again, speculatively) that Netanyahu would likely consider his securing of Pollard's release to represent a special — even personal — victory. That Hillary Clinton is now secretary of state would make the victory even sweeter:

The last time Netanyahu was prime minister, he had arranged what he thought was a deal with then President Clinton for Pollard to be released. This was in 1998, at the Wye Plantation Summit, at which the relinquishing to the PA of much of Hebron was negotiated, as part of Oslo (very painfully as far as Israeli nationalists were concerned). Clinton enticed Netanyahu with a promise to release Pollard as part of the deal when the accords were signed. But he reneged (more bluntly, he did a royal number on Netanyahu). Instead of allowing for Pollard's immediate release, he said he would do a "speedy review" of the case, which would allow for his release shortly. Needless to say, it never happened and the accords had been signed. Netanyahu came home with egg on his face, highly criticized for signing the deal and not walking out. It is in part as a result of this that he acquired his reputation as a prime minister who caves to American presidents.


Moving back to the present, there is yet one other factor that must be looked at here, with regard to the freeze. Defense Minister Barak (about whom more below) is going to Washington as well, or is perhaps already there now. Barak is Obama's good buddy, and there are those afraid that he'll strike a deal with the US administration on a continuation of the freeze and then return home and present it as a fait accompli.

But there is another issue that Barak will be dealing with in the US, when he meets with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor James Jones, as well as Obama advisor Dennis Ross and others:

According to YNet, Barak is seeking to secure new, advanced weaponry for Israel. Our government is said to be enthusiastic about the possibilities now of acquiring US weaponry that had been denied us in the past, such as cruise missiles and bunker busters.


Whoa! Are we seeing here a juxtaposition of negotiations about two issues — extending the freeze and securing weaponry — at the same time? Coincidence?

Barak associates are cited as saying that Israel's defense ties with the US "are at their height," and that the Americans are "doing all they [can] to meet our demands." Well, excellent. But what if there is a quid pro quo?

Because of recent promises made to Arab countries with regard to weaponry, it becomes highly critical for us to secure new sophisticated weapons that will guarantee our qualitative edge. And bunker busters? We need those to break through those bunkers where Iran is storing its nuclear equipment.

Giving us these weapons is something the US should do because it is supposed to be our ally, and we are the only democracy in the Middle East, and serve American needs well in terms of intelligence, military prowess, and a host of other factors.

Please see Guy Bechor, writing in YNet on this very issue:

"As the Obama Administration continues to show weakness in the Middle East, the region slips into a state of instability...

"...the IDF's power is the most important guarantee for Mideastern stability. The current-day IDF, after an immense build-up process and demonstrated achievements, is the region's most powerful army and its strength serves as a deterrent. This is even more conspicuous in the face of the American weakness in the region.

"And so, the world is upside down: Once upon a time, American power provided stability for Israel, yet today Israeli power grants stability to American interests in the Middle East." (Emphasis added)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3956718,00.html

And so Obama should be delighted to serve US interests by keep us strong. But what if the US president chooses to make a linkage between his support for us and other factors? A linkage that is artificial, but irrevocable from his perspective.


I hasten to caution again that this is, too, is speculative. Please don't cite me here as having provided facts.

I have been a strong advocate of seeing Netanyahu stand against Obama, and I see clearly the slippery slope on which one concession merely leads to more demands. I don't think there should have been a freeze at all.

I further vehemently deny the truth of any claim that there is a link between what we do vis-a-vis the PA and how the Arab states respond with regard to cooperating with the US, on Iran or anything else. In fact, I've made the case that just the opposite is true: The Arab states are angry with Obama for not being stronger against Iran. Bechor reflects this same thinking.


But...what if...

What if Obama, who cares not a whit about what happens to Israel or the broader Middle East, and is concerned, for political purposes, only about advancing his reputation as a "peacemaker"...

What if he has made a linkage with regard to our receiving sophisticated weaponry that is important to our security and our willingness to compromise on extending the freeze?

There are no easy answers then, if this is the case. And our prime minister would be required to do some very heavy soul searching. If this indeed were the case, I would not envy him, and would hope not to judge him.


But then again, Netanyahu has shown a propensity for being willing to compromise principles to accommodate Obama. I've called it dangerous game playing. He might cave again on the issue of the freeze not because of a linkage, but because it's his nature to do so.

It remains our job to protest extension of the freeze.


Please note this announcement:

This coming Sunday, September 26, the day when the freeze is presumed to end, there will be a tour of Samaria sponsored by World Likud.

MK Danny Danon and a number of other Members of Knesset will participate. A bus for Anglos (with an English speaking guide to participate) will leave from Jerusalem's Inbal Hotel at 8:15 AM and is expected to return at about 7:30 PM. There will be an opportunity to purchase lunch, and a sukkah to eat it in.

The day will lend with a demonstration and symbolic start of building in order to make a strong statement that Jewish life should return to normal in Judea and Samaria.

Registration is required by tomorrow, Tuesday. Cost is 30 shekels and exact change is requested.


I return to the subject of Barak with regard to a battle that is ensuing between our defense minister and former prime minister Ehud Olmert. Portions of an autobiography Olmert is working on have been released by Yediot Aharonot, which is publishing the book. These portions contain charges that when Olmert was prime minister, Barak (who to this day is in Labor and currently its titular head) begged to be allowed into Kadima, when it was a new party, and to be given the position of defense minister (a position that he did acquire). Olmert, in these sections, further called Barak "a disappointing defense minister," "an obsessive talker," insulting,, blunt and rude," and "lacking decision making capability."

Barak, furious about what Olmert said, attacked. Olmert, claiming that he decided to simply tell the truth in his memoirs, attacked back, even more vehemently. He said Barak made recommendations on sensitive issues that were irresponsible. (I'll buy that.) Declared Olmert, "I can't write about security issues and not say who initiated daring steps, who tried to prevent the government from undertaking them by undermining." (The assumption here is that Barak held back on Israel's alleged attack on the Syrian nuclear installation in 2007.)

What fun. Two men who have been highly destructive to Israel going at each other. Olmert's political career is finished. But if he can weaken Barak's reputation now, he will be doing the nation a service. Barak's strong arm techniques in Judea and Samaria have been particularly deplorable.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Roy Perla, September 20, 2010.

To my Friends at Think-Israel,

This is what I sent to Time Magazine.

Shana Tova.

Roy Chweidan, Israel.

From: Roy [mailto:royperla@bezeqint.net]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:00 PM
To: 'richard_stengel@timemagazine.com'
Subject: Time Magazine Sept 13 Article On Israel

Dear Mr. Stengel,

Please refer to the ugly and false cover image on Time Magazine — September 13th 2010 edition titled "Why Israel doesn't care about peace". I will show you below that you are incorrect. As Managing Director of Time Magazine, you are responsible for this article.

During the last 62 years, Israel has lost over 20,000 soldiers defending her country from multi-millions of Arab-Moslem enemies. Do you think that we do not want peace? Do you think that we are happy that all our eighteen year old boys upon leaving school are obliged to serve for three years in our defense force in stead of, like your boys who start their adult careers (Our girls are obliged to serve two years.) Have you ever interviewed any bereaved Israeli parents who have lost their sons in battle defending our country? Do you know what a drain it is on our economy to maintain such a formidable defense force in order to ensure our survival?

In spite of the constant dangers which we face, we have always ensured that in order to lead normal lives we must still carry on as best we can to advance ourselves and our country. Otherwise we will perish.

Do not believe all the Arab lies and propaganda against us. Do not believe any of the left wing yuppies and so-called intellectuals in Israel who are not patriotic to our country and are a tiny minority of the population. We would be better off without them.

I challenge you to publish the truth about Israel contained in my article below and which is supported by the vast majority of our population. This proves to you who really owns this land and why we cannot give up any of our sacred land as this would be a betrayal to the millions of our Jewish ancestors who have died defending our land in particular during the years 70 AD until 135 AD in which more that a million Jews were killed defending our country against the Romans.

You owe it to my country to publish the real proved truth and not just Arab truth about the State of Israel. Your reputation is at stake here. I hope you do not fail.

With warmest regards,

Roy Chweidan
Netanya, Israel


RE: Proof Of Historic Jewish Sovereignty Over Israel, Including Judea And Samaria (West Bank), Including Its Capital Jerusalem For Over 3000 Years.

BY: Roy Chweidan, Netanya, Israel (Email: royperla@bezeqint.net)


This short article, taking less than eight minutes to read slowly, is a necessity to educate the average citizen on the truth about the historic Jewish ownership of the State of Israel, including its eternal capital Jerusalem including Judea and Samaria, (West Bank). A comprehensive treatise on the above subject would take hundreds of pages and very many hours to read, and almost no average citizen is prepared to do this, let alone remember the facts. This article fulfills this vital need.

This educational article is also essential to combat the world-wide belief in the truth of the fabricated, massive and continuous Moslem propaganda against Israel since 1948 up to the present time. This belief has become established because the degree of opposition to it from Israeli and Jewish sources has been negligible over the last sixty years. This situation needs to be changed with the assistance of all decent and honest people living outside Israel, by making universally known the real truth about the heroic history of the Jews in their own Land of Israel. This requires the large-scale dissemination of the truth below. This story of the Jews should also alarm the whole world as as to the zero credibility, real intention and modus operandi of the Moslem world in planning to take over the whole free world and to create a global Moslem state. Remember that ALL Moslems are brothers, and all Islamic terrorists are Moslems.

There is definitive historical and archeological proof of everything I state below, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, excavations by renowned archeologists, discovery of coins relating to various times in history and reference to books on the subject by world renowned authors.

The Tribes Of Israel Inhabited The Land Of Israel From Around 1200 Bc During The Period Of Joshua And The Judges.

Two Million Jews Living In Judea And Samaria Including West Bank In 1000 Bc:

In 1000 BC King David established the Jewish kingdom of Judea with Jerusalem as its capital. There were approximately two million Jews living in Judea & Samaria (the area that in modern times became known as the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) with King David as overall leader. This area was at the centre of King David's Kingdom.

In 965 BC King Solomon began to build the first temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem which became the focal point of Jewish life forever and until today.

In 586 BC the Babylonians destroyed the first temple and the whole of Jerusalem, after defeating the Jews. Most of the Jews were exiled to Babylon. Thus up to this point in time, the Jews inhabited, ruled and owned the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria, for over 600 years.

In 538 BC the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple and this process began in 516 BC.

Until 63 BC the area was controlled by the Greeks and the Romans but all the Jews were allowed to remain, so for nearly 450 years, in addition to the above 600 years, Judea & Samaria was inhabited by the Jewish people, whose population increased dramatically.

In 63 BC Pompey, the Roman military leader, conquered Judea & Samaria including Jerusalem and brought this area under total Roman control. (The Roman rule lasted for 7 centuries until the Arab conquest which took place between 634 AD and 642 AD.)

In 70 AD the Romans under Titus defeated the Jews living in Jerusalem, destroyed the city, occupied Jerusalem and destroyed the second temple.

In 73 AD the collective suicide of all the Jewish defenders of Massada occurred.

The Bar Kochba revolt of the Jews against Roman rule lasting 3 years was totally defeated by the Romans in 135 AD. Most of the remaining Jews were forced out of the Land of Israel and never allowed to return.

Proof of the great patriotism, bravery and love of their Land is emblazoned in the fact that the mighty Roman army took three years and over half a million Jewish dead before they could defeat the Jews.

It is vital to record that in the year 6 AD, when the Land of Israel was under Roman occupation, it was set up as a Roman province called JUDAEA (JUDEA), which was the heartland of the Land of Israel. It included Jerusalem and the whole of Judea and Samaria, which is now known as the West Bank.

Birth Of Palestine — 500 Years Before Birth Of Arab Moslems:

At the time of the Bar Kochba revolt, the Roman Emperor Hadrian made a decision of great historical importance. He changed the name of the province from JUDAEA to PALESTINA. This name in the form of Palestine has existed ever since, until 1948 when it was legally changed to Israel. It provides proof that the true Palestinians are only Jews, because only Jews were living in Palestine when it became so named. There are no Palestinian Moslems, not now or ever, because Moslems only lived in Palestine through their conquest of the Romans during 634 to 642 BC. After this conquest, the Moslems deliberately built their Al Aksa mosque and the Dome of The Rock on the ruins of the Jewish Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. This was a deliberate act of treachery in order to try to eradicate all evidence of Jewish existence. The Moslems then declared Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as their holy site. The Moslems have no more rights to Palestine than do the Romans. After the defeat of the Jews in 135 AD, having lost over a million dead in the revolts ending in 70 AD and 135 AD, most of the Jews were exiled permanently and never allowed to return.

Forced Exile Of Jews Meaning Jews Retain Ownership Of Land Of Israel (Eretz Yisrael):

This forced exile of most of the Jewish people from their sacred land does not mean that the Jews relinquished legal and moral ownership of their land. This judgement has been confirmed to me by retired British Judge Gerald Rapport. For more than 1800 years all Jews, wherever in the world they were, prayed towards Jerusalem, their eternal capital and the eternal centre of all Jewish life. The Jews also yearned to return to Judea and Samaria (West Bank), which is the heartland of ancient Israel. It was not until 1967 that these dreams were totally realized.

Birth Of Arab Moslems In 632 Ad From Arab Tribes In Arabia:

Arab Moslems only came into existence as a result of the Prophet Mohamed, in 632 AD, which is 500 years after the forced exile of the Jews in 135 AD. He established the Islamic Moslem people from the Arab tribes who had become the predominant population in the Arabian peninsula, on which now exists Modern Saudi Arabia. Subsequent to that, these increasing numbers of Arab Moslems conquered Jerusalem and later the whole of the Middle East and settled in the whole of the Land of Israel. The Jews were scattered far and wide. From the sixteenth century until 1918 the whole of the Middle East was ruled by the Ottoman Empire

In 1947 the establishment of a Jewish State was passed at the United Nations, and on 15 May 1948 the State of Israel was officially declared by Ben Gurion and the country Palestine ceased to exist. All the Arab States which attacked Israel were decisively defeated and the new boundaries of Israel were determined by the United Nations after Israel had defeated its enemies.

Arab League Fabricates The Term ''Palestinians" In 1964:

The "Palestinians", a proxy of the Arabs were invented by the Arab League in Cairo in 1964 to delegitimise the State of Israel in its own land. The Palestine Liberation Organization was also established in 1964 when Israel's border with Jordan did not include the so called West Bank which the Arabs are now demanding for a Palestinian State. The Arab Moslems' use of the two words PALESTINE and PALESTINIANS for their own unlawful use is a theft of these two words from Jewish history and represents one of the greatest frauds perpetrated during the 20th century. I repeat, these names ceased to exist on 15th May 1948. The PLO then never considered the West Bank for a Palestinian State. The obvious deduction here is that the Arabs wanted the whole of pre-1967 Israel for their State and to eliminate Israel from the map. This is why the Arabs of Egypt, Syria and Jordan mobilized in 1967 to wipe Israel out. The result was their humiliating defeat including the return of the West Bank to Israeli control after 1832 years of enforced exile.

It is completely wrong for this area to be called Israeli occupied territory because it has been the heartland of the Land of Israel for the last 3000 years since the Kingdom of David. If anything, it is the Arab Moslems (wrongly referred to as Palestinians) who are living on Israeli territory in the so called West Bank.

All the above are true facts as recorded in the history of this region of the world.

After 1967 the PLO had to make another plan, and they decided as an interim measure that the Palestinian State be created on the West Bank. This attempt to create such a State on Israeli territory was designed to weaken Israel and to make Israel vulnerable to future Arab aggression under their "PHASED PLAN RESOLUTION" adopted in Cairo on 9th June 1974. This resolution proves that the ultimate aim of the Moslems is the creation of the Palestinian State in the whole of Israel which will never happen.

Never In History Has There Existed A Legal Arab State Called Palestine. Israeli Jews Are Not Occupying Any Territory That Has Not Belonged To Them For Over 3000 Years:

Whether or not Israel decides to accept a two State solution, it is a travesty of justice to call the West Bank, Israeli occupied territory, and it is a distortion of the truth to believe that the Moslem Arabs are Palestinians. In fact never since Arab Moslems came into existence in 632 AD, 1377 years ago, has there existed a legal Arab state called Palestine.

As recently in modern history as World War II, the Jews of Palestine were internationally recognized as Palestinians as proved by the fact that 32 thousand Palestinians (only Jews) served in the British army. In fact the Jewish soldiers in the Jewish brigade of the British army wore the name PALESTINE on their shoulder flashes.

In contrast, many Arabs openly supported Nazi Germany. Their leader, called The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini befriended Hitler in the early 1940's in Berlin and became an advisor to Hitler on the elimination of among other the Jews in Palestine after the proposed German victory in the Middle East. In many Arab villages and mosques there was talk of aiding the Germans during their campaign in Palestine and dividing up the assets of the destroyed Jewish people.

No Connection Between The Philistines And The Arabs:

It must be stressed that there is no connection between the Philistines, and any Arab tribes, during the period of time in history during which the Philistines existed. The Philistines were Sea Peoples who originated in West Anatolia or the Greek Peninsula. They landed on the east Mediterranean coast at approx. the end of the 13th Century BC and established themselves south of Gaza. They disappeared from history about 500 BC, or 1100 years before the birth of the Arab Moslems, who were the first Moslems in the world.

Roy Chweidan
Netanya, Israel

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, September 20, 2010.

This would actually be a very good deal if we were in fact at war with the Americans and not the Arabs. Then again, maybe we are and are finally acknowledging the reality. To be fair, I would not say that we are at war with the American people but it would seem that the US Government (especially the State Department) relates to us as some sort of an adversary. The American people have always been friendly to Israel and many have realized that the future of America is linked to its relationship with us. I suppose viewing the US Government as at war with us is not so radical in light of the fact that a very large number of Americans see their Government as at war with them.

All this to the side, what exactly is the logic here? What is the great benefit that will occur to the United States of America by freezing Jewish construction? Will it increase the US's military security? Are the homes to be built some how a threat to the folks in Iowa? Will it lower the US national debt? I could go on in all sorts of other categories but it would be the same. After all we just went through ten months of this and exactly how did America or even the Arabs benefit from the freeze? In fact no one benefited at all. The whole point was to harm the Jews of Israel. To humiliate us and cause us distress. There was absolutely no positive gain for anyone from the freeze and there was never any intention that there should be. Its intent is only to harm and humiliate.

So just what is Bibi, the betrayer of Hevron, the putz of Wye and groveler of O'Bama considering? Pollard for more humiliation? The irony is that if this were to actually happen, the most prominent person to denounce this deal would probably be Jonathan Pollard.


This is a news item from Arutz Sheva

(Israelnationalnews.com) The Prime Minister's Office is reportedly checking an idea with the U.S. government whereby Jonathan Pollard would be released from prison in exchange for another three month freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria.

The Prime Minister's Office claims that the Prime Minister has not changed his mind regarding ending the freeze on schedule.

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 Susana K-M, September 20, 2010.

QUOTE OF THE DAY — We certainly oppose religious bigotry, but discussing religious groups, their problems and controversies, has become an honorable part of the journalistic tradition, and often involves exposing wrongdoing.

Sadly, some people, especially on the left, don't quite get that. The left has suddenly discovered freedom of religion, but only if it applies to their faves, and is prepared to label anyone as a hater or bigot if the favored group is probed in any way.

Frank Miele is a brave columnist out West. I always read him and sometimes quote him. He's been examining Islam, and now fights back [ worth reading ] against those who are labeling him simply because he's finding disturbing things:

If you believe my accusers, it turns out I am a bad person because I have actually tried to inform myself about the history of Islam in the West, the basic tenets of the religion, and the danger they pose when unopposed. I am supposed to just shut up about the gay-killing, wife-beating, adulterer-stoning, infidel-conquering beliefs of traditional Islam. If I talk about them, it is little old me who is the problem, not the religion that sanctions executing homosexuals or stoning women to death.

Calling someone who sounds the alarm over Islam's danger Islamophobic is roughly the equivalent of calling Paul Revere Anglophobic for shouting (in folklore at least), "The British are coming, the British are coming." If the British had been home napping in London town, Paul Revere would have been crazy. But since the British were indeed marching on Lexington and Concord, it made him a hero, not a fool.

I submit that while I may not be a hero, I am certainly no fool when I warn Americans that we face a grave threat from people who hate us in large part because they are Muslims and we are not. The attacks of 9/11 should have proved that once and for all. The Fort Hood shooter and Times Square bomber are recent confirmations.

Yes sir, yes sir. We need more rhetoric like that, more fight back. The attempts to label anyone who questions any part of Islam as "Islamophobic" is well under way, led in part by super-jerk Christiane Amanpour. At the same time, Islam's attacks on Christianity and Judaism are considered merely "cultural" statements.

We must protect journalists like Frank Miele. Reasonable tolerance, which Americans practice every day, does not mean blind acceptance.

Contrast Miele's bravery with today's profoundly embarrassing piece by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, in which he apologizes to Islam for our real or imagined sins. Kristof has won Urgent Agenda's Pompous Fool Award, and may well be in line for another.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, September 20, 2010.

This is an interview with Mark Durie and conducted by Mark Tapson. It appeared in Front Page Magazine. A former linguistics scholar, Durie is now the Vicar of St. Mary's Anglican Church, Caulfield in Melbourne, Australia. He writes and speaks extensively in Australia and internationally about Islam, interfaith dialogue, religious conflict, and the persecution of religious minorities, especially Christians living under Sharia law.


Before it was innocuously renamed Park 51, the Ground Zero mosque development had been known as the Cordoba House, which proponents claimed referred to a supposed golden age of multi-faith tolerance under Islamic rule. What they neglect to mention is that historically, non-Muslims under Muslim rule have been presented with three choices: conversion to Islam, death, or the subservient status known as dhimmitude.

A new book sheds light on that little-understood condition and its contemporary relevance. The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom by Dr. Mark Durie was released in February by Deror Books and short-listed for Australian Christian Book of the Year. A former linguistics scholar, Durie is now the Vicar of St. Mary's Anglican Church, Caulfield in Melbourne, Australia. He writes and speaks extensively in Australia and internationally about Islam, interfaith dialogue, religious conflict, and the persecution of religious minorities, especially Christians living under Sharia law.

I caught up with the author just prior to his recent arrival in Los Angeles to promote the book.

MT: Dr. Durie, I'd like to begin talking about The Third Choice by asking what inspired you, as an Anglican priest, to write a study of Islam and dhimmitude?

MD: I first became interested in Islam when doing linguistic field work in Aceh, Indonesia, in the early 1980's. The Acehnese people are proud of their Islamic identity, but despite enjoying countless discussions about religion with them, I made no attempt to study Islam formally; my whole focus was on linguistic research. But I couldn't escape learning about jihad, because it played such a large role in the historical consciousness of the people. An amazingly large number of works of Acehnese literature are jihad epics. Another aspect of my experience was contact with local Christians; this is how I came to know of the difficult circumstances of non-Muslims living in an Islamic society.

When I left academia to become an Anglican minister, around 1998, I thought I was leaving Islamic jihad well behind me. I had no idea of the depth and breadth of the global Islamic movement. Then as I watched the burning World Trade Center towers collapse in the New York morning sunshine, I knew there was no ideology on this earth other than Islamic jihad which could have inspired such an attack. It was no surprise when verses from the Koran reportedly found in the backpacks of the terrorists were exactly the same verses which had figured so prominently in Acehnese jihad epic poems from over a century ago.

At that point I knew I had to try to understand Islam properly. So I read the hadiths, the Koran, and Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad in the months after 9/11, with the eye of a theologian — I was constantly asking how this material would form people's spiritual identity. This exploration made me deeply troubled. The persona of Muhammad which arose before me from Islam's primary sources shocked me to my core. I thought, "If this man's life is supposed to be the best example, we are all in deep trouble."

I went to the Islamic Council offices in Melbourne and bought more books about Islam. One was Maududi's Let Us be Muslims. This only increased my concern. After chapters on all the essentials of Islam, such as the pillars of faith, Maududi concludes the book with a call to jihad. Everything else in Islam, he said, was but a preparation for toppling governments, taking power, and establishing Islam in the world. I thought this was an ideal book for turning a pious young Muslim into a jihad-ready militant.

At that time I began to write and teach on Islam, and I've been going ever since. I wrote The Third Choice to help people understand Islam from the ground up, and to know what it really means to depend upon the benevolence of an Islamic state from the perspective of a dhimmi — a non-Muslim living under Islamic rule.

MT: How is your book different from other works about the topic by scholars like Andrew Bostom or Bat Ye'or, who actually wrote your foreword?

MD: Their books are great, and I could not have written The Third Choice without them. But they are long and academic. Their focus is on specific historical manifestations of Islam: jihad, dhimmitude and anti-Semitism. They also include large chunks of primary source material. This is great for the researcher, but for many readers it is just too much to digest. Also, their books don't attempt to explain Islam itself as a total system. One of my central goals is to make Islam itself clear and plausible. This is very necessary. Also I approach the subject as a theologian — I focus on ideology: how it shapes people's worldview, and how we can find freedom from it. The Third Choice is a one-stop shop for understanding Islam and the dhimmi condition.

MT: Where and in what ways do you see dhimmitude at work in the West?

MD: Gradually, and in countless ways, the West is accepting that Islam deserves to be treated differently and preferentially. We are finding it perfectly normal to make concessions to Islam which would never be made to other faiths. The "third choice" of my title is the alternative to conversion to Islam or the sword. This is the choice to give up fighting, and surrender to Islam, and live as a non-Muslim under Islamic rule. But there is a price to keeping your head without converting, and this is to serve Islam and to embrace your own inferiority.

The two most characteristic psychological traits of the dhimmi are gratitude and humility. We are seeing both these traits shaping public discourse around Islam. President Obama, for example, has spoken of the "debt" the West owes to Islam. This sense of indebtedness is being imparted to our schoolchildren through Islamicized history textbooks.

Quotes from The Third Way:

"Gradually, and in countless ways, the West is accepting that Islam deserves to be treated differently and preferentially. We are finding it perfectly normal to make concessions to Islam which would never be made to other faiths. The "third choice" ...is the alternative to conversion to Islam or the sword. This is the choice to give up fighting, and surrender to Islam, and live as a non-Muslim under Islamic rule. But there is a price to keeping your head without converting, and this is to serve Islam and to embrace your own inferiority."

"The two most characteristic psychological traits of the dhimmi are gratitude and humility. We are seeing both these traits shaping public discourse around Islam. President Obama, for example, has spoken of the "debt" the West owes to Islam. This sense of indebtedness is being imparted to our schoolchildren through Islamicized history textbooks."

"There is this idea floating around that those who are speaking up about Islamic radicalism must be bigots and therefore they must be ignorant. Ironically the loudest critics of Islam are usually the ones who have studied the fundamentals of Islam the most rigorously. Those crying "bigot" can be the most ignorant, and will come up with absolute howlers, real nonsense, spoken with a poker face as it were the most serious thing in the world. They decry accurate and reliable information about Islam as "Islamophobic facts," just as the Soviet courts used to reject what they called "calumnious facts."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, September 20, 2010.

I like nothing better than saying " I told you So!" I still like to think that the memory and grey matter are pretty good despite the fact that I'm on my THIRD brain tumor. So if memory doesn't fail me, I recall that not so long ago, when Barack Hussein Obama was running for office, I wrote a column entitled The Manchurian Candidate waiting to happen.

Boy! Did the hate letters from friends and family come in! I was accused of being politically incorrect and less than what I should be as a reporter. I watched in disgust as my fellow Jews blindly revered and voted for this man, while I felt nothing but apprehension for Obama's hatred of everything Jewish, and his resentment of the Jewish state.

There was a time when I somewhat supported Hillary Clinton. But she has totally lost my respect for anything she might strive for in the future. I first had apprehensions about her when I saw the photos of Hilary and Mrs. Arafat hugging in one of her visits to the Middle East. Anyway, she has followed Obama's lead and done everything possible to 'freeze' any building of apartment houses in the State of Israel — on their own land.

Yet this hypocrite Obama glazes over this deep insult to the American people, by approving this disgusting mosque on revered land with the comment, "I support a religious group's right to build on their property." Yeah, right, except when it come to Israel. No wonder Obama's popularity in Israel has plummeted!

When it comes to the Jewish State all one has to do is look at a map and see that the issue has never been about land, much less the building of a few hundred apartments. No, it's just that an insane group of evil people won't be happy until every Jew is gone.. just gone. It's not Islamophobia if they really do want you dead. And, that, I believe, is the crux of the issue. We are destroying ourselves by knocking ourselves out with being PC and haven't learned how to relate to a culture that lives in caves and has road kill for din din.

But, my attitude of politically incorrect has grown. Frankly, after a year of Obama's incompetent leadership and socialist programs, I don't give a diddly squat if Rauf, Obama, or his Arab brothers like me. In fact, at this point in time, I've lost all hope and can't take any more 'change.' I like my country the way it was.

I think a marvelous idea for the Iman and his group, when it comes to the dreaded mosque, is to hire builders who somehow manage to slaughter a few pigs and sprinkle the blood into the mortar and fill in the gaps with pork filets. That way, Muslims would never go into the place, and Donald Trump would probably be able to buy the property at a bargain price for a hotel.

I've never been much for polls. However, a recent one about Obama losing trust in the Christian community, and about 30% of the voters now believing him to be Muslim — almost had me laughing. This, despite the fact that there are several sites on YouTube where he stands before Muslim audiences and says " I am one of you! I am a Muslim!" and, not one of them even insinuates that there might be some Jewish blood in there.

Iacocca describes in his book "Get the Muslim Rookie out of the White House!", he says, "I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name." He's right. Our Liberal press doesn't know how to even ask a hard-ball question. More often they fall over themselves debating their thoughts. What happened to the news people over twenty-five? I remember when they weren't all blond and gorgeous.

At least Obama admits to being a muslim. That is one step better than a Jew who holds freedom, his own country, and Israel in such low esteem. I was speaking at an event not long ago and asked the crowd how many had traveled to Israel. Sad to say, very few had. Come to think of it, Obama just might be a tiny bit Jewish.

Obama's 'Jewishness' is actually valid in terms of liberal Jews' willingness to place liberty, America, and Israel in jeopardy, all in the interests of 'fairness' and seeing 'both sides' of an issue. There is no 'both sides' when it comes to savages who still think in the eighth century. This is no time to entertain an intellectual stance with such people as Ahmadinijad, when the stakes are so high, and the last hand has been dealt.

Lee Iacocca, who is one of my personal heros said, "It's easy to sit there with thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down." You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out along with Obama!'

Comparing liberal Jews to Muslims might wake a few of them up (as if pigs could fly). We do need every vote with the interim elections closing in on us. To me, these elections are the last chance to tame liberals, Obama, and Iran; and heal all the heartache they caused. I'm not getting any of the benefits that are supposed to come along with socialism. Where are my tax cuts? I was in Atlanta and had to find a doctor who took Medicare. It was virtually impossible. So much for Obamacare.

If I climbed over one of our open borders I'd be eligible for free healthcare. I broke my arm a couple years ago and waited in the hall for hours before someone would look at me. I felt as though I were in a third world country, with everyone around me speaking Spanish. The middle class is being squeezed, with the poor dripping out. We are fast becoming a socialist country, and a nation of handouts who have lost their work ethic. And how long will it be Bush's fault?  

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com She is author of "Some Of My Best Friends: Only The Names Have Been Changed To Protect The Guilty." Her new book is entitled "Prison Cheerleader: How A Nice Jewish Girl Went Wrong Doing Right."

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 19, 2010.

This was written by Stella Paul, who blogs at StellaPundit and can be reached at stellapundit@aol.com. It appeared in Front Page Magazine
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/ when_jewish_boys_bow_to_allah.html The article includes a video. To watch it, click here.


Hear, O Rabbis of the Lunatic Left: the jig is up. You've been found out and exposed, and your mask of sanctity is disappearing faster than the bagels at a Yom Kippur breakfast.

You can't hysterically blackmail us with your moral superiority anymore, shoving your fellow Jews into submission to the Allah-pushers, just because you think it's so adorably universalist.

Nope, the days of the liberal progressive regime are coming to an end. You can't emotionally extort us into endorsing the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, even if six hundred of you were on a conference call with the president, who begged you to turn Yom Kippur into a rally for Mosque-Building USA.

And we're not going to chirpily "dialogue" with professional Jew-haters who enjoy momentarily posing as "moderate Muslims" to gain your puppy dog trust — and who then turn around and call us "sons of monkeys and pigs."

Nor will we join hands with you in dreaming up gossamer excuses for the Islamists' latest sharia-compliant or homicidal schemes — just because you get a "tingle up your leg" by embracing their never-ending transgressions.

We've seen where your drama-queen histrionics are taking us — right here in this astounding video (see above), filmed by a Massachusetts mom with more righteousness in her pinkie cuticle than the whole dreary gaggle of you put together.

Something "didn't feel right" to this sharp-eyed Wellesley mother when her son's public middle school announced an upcoming field trip to the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. So she decided to tag along — with her camera.

And what did she find at the Saudi-funded mega-mosque so beloved by Governor Deval Patrick that he publicly accepted a $50,000 check from its terrorist-loving imam — and so adored by Mayor Thomas Menino that he donated $2 million's worth of the public land on which it's built?

A great deal more than the bland lecture on mosque architecture that the trip was supposedly about.

She found a mosque spokeswoman feeding the students Himalaya-sized lies about how the Muslim world is far more advanced than America in promoting women's rights.

She found the girls and all the adult women being separated from the boys, and the boys being led to the prayer area.

She found not one teacher offering even the teensiest whisper of objection.

And then she saw five boys joining in the prayers, bowing and touching their foreheads to the floor in obeisance to Allah. Is this the payoff for all our years of sincere interfaith dialogue and bridge-building?

And hear this, O Rabbis — one of those painfully unprotected, cynically manipulated, precious middle-school boys was a Jew.

That's right. That sweet, freckle-faced kid you were just tutoring for his bar mitzvah was prostrate on the ground, praying to Allah.

And who helped shove him there? You did. And you can't gobbledygook your way out of this one.

For years, you have reviled and attacked those few brave souls who tried to alert the community of the danger of radical Islam. You called them bigots, haters, and Islamophobes, and you censored their information from reaching your congregants.

On May 25, 2010, when Wellesley public school kids were prostrating to Allah on the taxpayers' dime, what were you doing to protect the Jewish community? Well, seventy Boston rabbis were burning up the phone lines, planning an assault on Dr. Charles Jacobs, the founder of American for Peace and Tolerance, which released this hair-raising video.

And so, on June 10, you publicly issued a "Jewish fatwa" against Charles Jacobs in the Jewish Advocate, in which you demanded that "Mr. Jacobs discontinue his destructive campaign against Boston's Muslim community, which is based on innuendo, half-truths and unproven conspiracy theories. We call upon members of our community to reject the dangerous politics of division that Mr. Jacobs fosters ... We refuse to allow Mr. Jacobs to spread his calumnies and paralyze our community in fear."

Seventy of your most "distinguished" rabbis signed their names to this vomit-inducing twaddle!

You actively conspired to harm Dr. Jacobs rather than face the disturbing facts he was unearthing: the founder of the Islamic Society of Boston, Abdurahman Alamoudi, is in jail for 23 years for al-Qaeda-linked terrorist pranks; the loathsome Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, "spiritual" leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who's banned from the U.S., served as ISB Trustee; and Osama Kandil, ISB Trust President, is director of an Islamic charity designated as terrorist by the U.S. government.

So here's where your sharia-loving, self-induced, feel-good blindness leads us. You gave the rabbinical seal of approval to this freakshow at the Boston mosque — and now we have bar mitzvah boys on the floor, praying to Allah.

And gosh, aren't we lucky? Your rabbi pals in New York are busy pulling the same bone-headed trick! They're bashing 9/11 families for not loving a Victory Mosque to the Nineteen Martyrs erected on the ashes of their dead, and for not wanting to hear "Allah Akbar" when they visit Ground Zero. And whom do these dignified rabbinical giants slobber over? The rat's nest of violent felons, criminal landlords, and 9/11 truthers who want to build the mosque, and who are this year's must-have, radical-chic fashion accessory for the "social justice" crowd.

Well, the day has finally come when we are not going to take it anymore.

We're proud American Jews, and we're not trading in our Constitution and Torah for the Koran, now or ever — no matter how many red-faced temper tantrums you throw.

We remember with reverence the Jews throughout the ages who died as martyrs rather than bow to any god but our own. And we won't let you keep giving away our self-respect for free!

We worship the truth. And there's no more truth in your version of Judaism than there is in the ludicrous lies that the mosque spokeswoman force-fed the Wellesley kids about Islam as feminism.

We're not pacifist cowards, begging to lick the boots of our newest oppressors. We're the children of King David, warrior and poet, and of our beloved martyr, Rabbi Akiva, and we serve the Master of the Universe who speaks in the name of Truth and Justice.

Your folly cascaded into a Jewish boy on his knees, worshiping Allah, for the sake of your new gods of diversity and multiculturalism. You failed us. Now it's you who should be on your knees before us, asking our forgiveness. Go ahead. Ask. We're waiting.

Stella Paul blogs at StellaPundit and can be reached at stellapundit@aol.com.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Teresinka Pereira, September 19, 2010.

We have awaited a declaration
from some official
inter-governmental cabinet,
even one that comes from the
"Disunited Nations,"
in order to celebrate
on September 21st
Even this was a tentative date
but so many of us, anxious poets,
expected to write verses
condemning all the wars
in the headlines.
However, the official
murderer's hands
have been loosened
since the first day
when invasion and greed
were atoned with
the boot of victory.
Still we write.

Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com

To Go To Top

Posted by One Jerusalem, September 19, 2010.

Our 9-11 Imam, a man who wants us to take him at his word except when we don't like what he says, pronounced that he is a loyal American and as proof of his loyalty he said he always votes: "I vote in elections, I pay taxes, I pledge allegiance to the flag, and I am a Giants fan — I am glad they won yesterday," Rauf quipped The New York Post has researched the Board of Election voting record and they report that he has not voted since 2001. Moreover, he isn't even registered to vote. Oh My!

Reader's Comment:

By Lee Dimin on September 20, 2010 7:14 AM

He forgot to mention that he's a New Jersey slumlord, renting vemin-infested apartments to the proverty stricken with children. That's not American — not when you can look to build cultural centers on the most expensaive prperties in the world for hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you "google" some of Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf;s quotes, you will note he blames the United States for the 9/11 attacks, blames Christians for the WWII attacks on Dresden, Germany and Hiroshima, Japan (says noting of the Holocaust and of Pearl Harbor). Refuses to say whose putting up the millions to buy and construct the "cultural" center adjacent to the Ground Zero site, and states to CNN's Soledad O'Brien that it wil also serve the "perfect Christian" and the "perfect Jew", of whichnthere are none for there are no human beings who are perfect. That is the double talk Faisel Abdul Rauf delivers constantly, except when speaking in Arabic to those of like mind, and then his words are are much clearer. In an interview with Hani Alwaziri dated February 7th, 2010 intended to discuss Rauf's plans for what he terms "American Style Islam" and the Cordova Initiative goals for the U.S. Rauf later stated that his goal was "To establish an American style Islam in the United States" in which he explains his aspiration of spreading Islam in America by using flexibility and molding Islam to become palatable to the American culture while preserving the integrity of Islamic ideology: "If we look how Islam was spread from Hijaz (Arabia) to Morocco then Turkey, we note that Islam was shaped by the culture and society, hence showing a Muslim version of the architecture and culture and the arts, but with preservation of the framework of belief and worship. We need to provide a GLOBAL ISLAM in accordance with the nature of each society." Our Constitution does not pr0vide for this, and if this is what Imam Rauf is seeking, he's not very American.

Contact One Jerusalem by email at info@onejerusalem.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Noam Bedein, September 19, 2010.

Palestinian armed forces have fired 19 rockets, missiles and mortars from Gaza into Sderot and surrounding farming communities in Israel's Western Negev region since September 4th.. Residents of Sderot and the Western Negev have experienced one of the worst periods of attack since Israel's three week incursion into Gaza in January 2009.

In sum, Gazans have launched 424 aerial attacks into Israel since the cease fire on January 18, 2009:These attacks raise 2 important questions:

  1. "Where do the attacks on the Western Negev and Sderot fit in the current middle east negotiation equation?"

  2. "What are the implications for the Hamas regime in Gaza in these negotiations"?

These attacks on Israel, perpetrated by the Hamas regime in Gaza demonstrate that Hamas remains fully in control of Gaza.

Hamas uses every opportunity to remind the world that Hamas prevailed in the elections of January 2006 in all areas of the Palestinian Authority, elections that were overseen by the European Union and by representatives of the US government.

In terms of current negotiations now underway between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas leader Isamail Hanyia — who opposes these talks — constantly repeats that "No one is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people". After all, Machmud Abbas's term of office has expired, and no new Palestinian Authority elections are in sight, lest Hamas win yet another PA election.

The question posed by one million Israeli who live in rocket range of Gaza remains: If the Hamas attacks on Sderot and the Western Negev are not on the agenda of the the current negotiations, how can there be a genuine peace agreement?

Assuming that Israel and the PA get to the three main points agreed on: Borders, Refugees, Jerusalem. What about Gaza?

The entire political spectrum seems to understand that there are two contradictory options in order to have a "Two-State Solution": Either include Hamas-controlled Gaza (technically a "Three-State Solution") or leave Gaza out of the equation.

This brings us to an uncomfortable reality: Either we speak with Hamas, or we defeat it.

Most political parties reject the prospect of talking to a terrorist regime that continues committing crimes against humanity, and which refuses to amend its Charter calling for eliminating Israel and committing genocide against the Jewish people.

This leaves Israel with one scenario for a Two-State solution: Initiating the Gaza War 2, taking over the entire Gaza strip, and defeating Hamas.

In the words of Jerusalem Post's Arab Affairs reporter, Khaled Abu Toameh, writing for the Hudson Institute*. "The US Administration seems to have completely forgotten about the Gaza Strip" and that "By being forced out of the Gaza Strip, Abbas lost direct control over some 1.5 million Palestinians, roughly half the Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories". Even worse, analyzes Abu Toamah,

"The Palestinian and Israeli negotiators and their US sponsors are continuing to ignore the facts on the ground — namely that a radical, Iranian-funded Islamist state already exists, and it is in the Gaza Strip".

Noam Bedein is a photojournalist, lecturer and founder/director of Sderot Media Center. He has conducted briefings and tours for government officials, diplomats, foreign press, and students from around the world. Contact him by email at sderotnews@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 19, 2010.

Friday's headline in the JPost: "Gov't rejects extended freeze, despite US, EU and Egyptian pressure." This was right before Yom Kippur, and oh how I would have loved to have been able to rejoice. But I wasn't ready then, and I'm certainly not ready now.

Yes, Netanyahu rejected a formal freeze on all building in Judea and Samaria. It may well be that, given his coalition, he truly had no choice.

But there has been too much in the past weeks indicating that there would likely be some informal compromise on this business of the freeze for us to assume we are now home free. Some of what came out was directly from Netanyahu, who said, and I paraphrase here, that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. In addition to which, we had the Abu Toameh piece indicating that Abbas knows, in spite of his bluster, that he's going to have to sit at the table even if there isn't a full freeze.

So... I'm still in "wait and see" mode. Good indeed that he didn't cave all the way — which would have been horrendous. But it remains to be determined how much building actually starts, and where (i.e., perhaps just in major blocs near the Green Line), after September 26. We may not know immediately. But remember that there are a very large number of construction projects already approved, that were held up. If there truly is no freeze, they should be up and going before long. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

As well, I will be watching how the right wing in this country, in different quarters, responds to the situation.


I've received a few alarmed messages from readers regarding a report (unconfirmed, as far as I see) regarding a deal that Netanyahu offered to President Assad of Syria, via the US, in which he would offer part of the Golan in a peace deal. That Mitchell was just in Syria — last Thursday, actually — pumping for peace is fact. What he actually brought from Netanyahu, if anything, is considerably less clear.

But — even if this report is true — I am exceedingly dubious as to whether Assad would ever accept the terms Netanyahu is allegedly demanding in that offer: cutting ties with Iran and Hezbollah. No way! Ahmadinejad stopped in Damascus and visited with Assad just yesterday, on his way to the UN for opening of the GA.

And now we have an exceedingly troubling report about Russian plans to sell advanced arms to Syria — possibly including P-800 Yakhont cruise missiles. The major concern is that these weapons would find their way to Hezbollah, which would use them against Israeli ships.


I've written about this before: Assad has made a calculated judgment with regard to his position. US power in the Middle East is waning. He is assessing Iran as the up-and-coming power, and the one to remain allied with. All Mitchell's talk about the US being determined to forge a comprehensive peace in this region is pointless. It's past due for Obama to take a hard look at what he has wrought.

Thrown into the pot is the additional difficulty of contending with a Russia that is thoroughly pleased to play the foil against the US, with scant regard for consequences. The US has protested the sale of these weapons to a terrorist-supporting country, and Barak, in a visit to Russia last week also protested. All to no avail.

So we have plenty to worry about, but I would put giving away the Golan low on that list. Far more important will be monitoring of weapons into Syria and tracking them to assure they don't get to Hezbollah.


The people of the US — or, more accurately, certain US Jews — are in for another PA lovefest. Abbas is going to be in the US this week, and the last report I had was that a dinner would be sponsored for him by the Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, on Tuesday, and that The Israel Project would be sponsoring something similar for Fayyad.

I think most of my readers know better. But it's appropriate here to caution once again that Abbas, Fayyad and the whole lot of them are thoroughly duplicitous — and that this is sanctioned by Islam: the doctrine of Taqiyya permits lying when it furthers the cause of Islam. They will pretend moderation for their purposes, but it is essential not to be fooled. They are not moderates and not sincere about peace. But they'd love to have American Jews leaning on Netanyahu.

Should you read articles, or hear friends talking, or hear talk radio shows, that indicate how forthcoming and peaceful Abbas and Fayyad are, please! use every opportunity possible to set the record straight.


Ho hum. At the same time that Abbas is prepared to do his "kissy" routine with American Jews, he is again threatening to resign. I've lost count of how many times he's made this threat, if this or that or the other thing doesn't happen.

The entire spectacle is one continuous farce. How does a man "resign" from a post, when his term ran out at least nine months ago — or a year and nine months ago, depending on how the calculation is done?


There are plans afoot, by Israel and supported by the international community, to allow the PA to have officials present at the Kerem Shalom crossing — the main conduit for goods going into Gaza. The idea is to foster the impression, if nothing more, that the PA once again has a foothold in Gaza. Not exactly a smashing idea in any event.

But we should not be surprised that now Hamas has said nothing doing. Hamas says that what the PA should be working on is settling differences between the two parties. As things stand, it will not accept a PA presence there. What does it mean, "not accept"? That it would refuse goods that came through under the eyes of PA officials? Or that it would initiate violence there?

Work being done at Kerem Shalom now includes infrastructure that could be used by the PA if it were to control Gaza once again.


I will return in future postings to the issue of moderate Islam, what it is and how possible it is to foster it.

But here I wanted to provide a couple of links regarding Islam in the US. They offer insight into how Islam is being surreptitiously promoted. In this instance, Wellesley MA middle school students were taken on a trip to a mosque, where they were lied to about the nature of Islam and invited to join prayer. This came via Brigitte Gabriel's Act for America, a source I consider quite reliable:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y&feature= player_embedded

See below a related piece on this subject by Charles Jacobs — whom I also consider highly reliable. Jacobs is now president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance. But I know of him from years ago, when he fought to combat slavery in Sudan. (Guess who was/is practicing slavery?)
http://writingtw.blogspot.com:80/2010/09/ scandal-in-wellesley.html

What's apparent is that there is a double standard (and lots of political correctness) at work.

America, when will you wake up?
(My thanks to all those who sent info on this.)


In closing, I share a story.

I recently provided a moving video about young boys who risked arrest in pre-independence Israel, in the late 30s and early 40s, by blowing a shofar at the Kotel on Yom Kippur, which the ruling British, to appease the Arabs, had said was forbidden.

I have now started reading Yehuda Avner's "The Prime Ministers" and am fascinated by the history he provides. Very early on, in his section on Menachem Begin as head of the Irgun. (An underground pre-Independence freedom fighting force to the right of the more establishment Hagana.)

Seems the business about the shofar blowing being forbidden started back on Yom Kippur of 1928, when a mehitza, a screen to separate worshipping men and women, was set up before the Kotel. The local Arabs interpreted this as an extreme provocation: "The Jews are trying to rebuild their Temple and destroy our al-Aksa Mosque." (This is not a new charge!) Riots ensued in which hundreds were killed in the following months.

The British established a commission of inquiry, which determined that the Kotel belonged solely to the Arabs. If this sort of appeasement before the Arabs sounds obscene and familiar, it is because it is both. From this came the ruling that no shofar could be blown. It left local Jews aghast — this total denial by the British of their heritage and practices.

The young shofar blowers came from the ranks of Betar, the youth of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Revisionists. (Jabotinsky being the ideological mentor of Begin.) When Begin — whose reputation preceded him — witnessed for himself the police harassment endured by these young men, he decided to become involved. Before Rosh Hashana in 1944, he had posters distributed that said any British policeman disturbing the service at the Kotel "will be regarded as a criminal and dealt with accordingly." That Yom Kippur, the shofar blower was not touched by a single policeman.

To see a video of illegal Shofar blower click here. The next day, Begin wrote:

"Our ancient stones are not silent. They speak of the House that once stood here, of kings who once knelt here in prayer, of prophets and seers who declaimed their message here, of heroes who fell here, dying...This House and this Land, with its prophets and kings and fighters, were ours long before the British were ever a nation."

Ah, for that sort of devotion to our heritage, and plucky readiness to defend it, today.

Postscript: Years later Begin told Avner that he had no intention of attacking police at the Kotel, for innocents might have died in the confusion of the crowd. His intent was to hit police stations in other locales.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Ledemain, September 19, 2010.

This is the silliest tripe we have ever read. We also suspect you wrote this peculiar column to attract hits to your blog. Apologize for yourself, Mr. Kristof but don't project your mea culpas onto strangers whose opinions about which you can only guess.

We have a question for you and your peace-loving Muslim friends: Where were the voices of the millions of Muslims who cried out against the horrible execution of Danny Pearl — who was killed by Muslims simply because he was a Jew? All we heard from that sector was a deafening silence! Well I don't care, really, if you are a Jew, but I think Muslims do. And if you are, the arrogant sects of Jew-haters inculcated by such haters as 'reverend' Wright will accept your apology as a sign of submission to their superiority. We surmise that your apology will do little more than encourage the crazy elements of Islam to have at you, first by flattering you to your face, then snickering at you behind your back.

We have some advice for you and your fellow-thinkers: Before you imagine you can understand non-muslim abhorrence of Islam, have a read of the Koran, then do Mein Kampf and compare both to Nasser's Red Book. Connect the dots and you will understand the underpinnings of fascism. We observe, by looking at Saudi Arabia, for but one example, that the vast majority of people can be rendered "peaceful" by the threat of hand-chopping, stoning, and throat-cutting at the hands of the king's "morals police," but this is not the "peace" of a free society governed by reason and science, sheltered unter the umbrella of the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. We challenge you to publish our letter. The editors of the W/P and the NYT doubtless will not.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, September 19, 2010.

The discovery of oil in Israel some distance away from the coast of Haifa could be seen as a welcome relief from decades of petro-starvation. It was often said jocularly that Moses wandered for forty years in the wilderness only to lead his flock to a country without oil. Geological findings have thankfully debunked this painful gossip.

The discovery of oil (a rough estimate of 4 billion barrels), together with some thirteen trillion cubic feet of natural gas would surely put Israel at a firm advantage vis-à-vis the neighbouring oil-rich states (with the notable exceptions of Egypt and Jordan). This valuable resource would not only meet most of Israel's domestic requirements, but also enable the country to export some of it for earning foreign exchange, vital to the State's economic and political survival. On the other hand, it would preempt any possibility of Israel's enemies (immediate and potential) from blackmailing it either financially or politically. If the fields are adequately explored and put to optimum use, then it would have worked a mini-revolution in the sphere of petroleum diplomacy, so long used by the oil-rich Arab/Islamic states to blackmail Israel's allies and friends. Under the circumstances, it would have taken the wind out of the sails of terror-sponsoring states. The 1973-74 re-run would then have spent its impetus, and oil-blackmail wouldn't be such a feasible option after all. From the geo-political point of view, it would provide immense leverage to Israel, already a technologically advanced country, which knows how to put scarce resources to intelligent use.

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Betty Misheiker, September 19, 2010.


If the locusts come this year
And leave our lovely green fields bare
Blame the Jews,............. Blame the Jews!

If your cheques are over-drawn
And more girls than boys are born
Blame the Jews, Blame the Jews!

If your car brakes start to squeak
Like your arthritic joints that creak
Your coffee tastes too weak
And your bladder springs a leak

yes of course the same
Blame the Jews! Blame the Jews!

Waiting patiently with merit
For the day that we'll inherit
The man for Pete's sake's already ninety-seven
And long past old folk time to be in Heaven

Yet keeps hale and hearty, never ill
Since being on that latest pill
INVENTED of course by you know who
Again, some damned smart-Alec clever JEW!

"That's the kind of thing they do
Pretending, wily, cunning, you know who,
That it is — If you don't mind -
To the benefit of all mankind!"

Whatever's said or done
The Pagan world was lots of fun
We could steal or rape or kill
Do anything we liked at will, until...

Oiy-va-voi, alas, oiy-vay,
A man called Moses arrived one day
Brought what he said was good news
Brought TEN COMMANDMENTS for folks to choose
And those who chose became THE JEWS....

And the whole world- oh such nonsense
Began to grow and use a conscience
Which made Laws that all the while
Cramped our lovely Pagan style

No longer was life just a Ball
Brought Laws that touched us one and all
Those TEN made us lose
Our Pagan freedom, can you blame us -
Can you fault us if we choose -

To name and
Blame the Jews
Blame the Jews,
Blame the Jews?

Can you blame us- if we do
Can you blame us- nothing new-
If we forever will ill-use and Blame the Jews, Blame theJews ?"


WE are indeed a race unique
possessing that infernal CHEEK
Come Pogroms, Inquisition, Holocaust,
Darkest Night,
Accusations, Lies and Insults —
— quite alright-
Absorbing all the vicious shocks
Bombs, Katushas, Daggers, Rocks,
All the world shows its concern by
Waiting for our cheek to turn

To please the world — our friends abroad,
Whose wishes cannot be ignored —
While dodging rockets,and note their track
Expect that we do not react
Are shocked in fact,
At the complete restraint we lack!

Hitherto quite unconcerned
How come that Mr. World and wife
Have suddenly all sprung to life
When strangely quiet, yes, all along
Suddenly presume to tell
What's right, what's wrong,
-And have the nerve to take a hand
In carving up OUR — oneand only known-
G-d-given Land.?

      Forgive, Forget, Shake hands — be nice,
And be prepared to sacrifice!
Fallen soldiers cannot speak
Or weep a tear.
Forever silenced- cannot ask
"Why am I here? Was it in vain?"
"Did no one learn?"

For it seems plain that mild and meek
We are prepared to turn —
      and turn
Yet, once again
The other cheek.

Contact Betty Misheiker by email at largo@netvision.net.il and visit her website at www.BettyMisheiker.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jewish Policy Center, September 17, 2010.


Shofar and Pomegranates


To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, September 17, 2010.

Gmar Chatima Tova, and have an easy and meaningful fast, I published this article today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/ Article.aspx?id=188337


It is the eve of Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. Naturally, it is a time of reflection, a period when each of us is called upon to examine our deeds and confront the reality of our own foibles and failings.

Few of us can claim to be living up to the ideals that we often set for ourselves, as life is often fraught with setbacks and challenges. But our tradition teaches that we must never despair, nor forego the opportunity to continually strive and improve ourselves.

What is true for individuals is no less true for a nation, and it is time for us to come to terms with an uncomfortable and embarrassing truth: we need to atone for our treatment of this very special Land.

Ever since the miraculous events of the 1967 Six Day-War, successive governments have turned their backs on various parts of our historic patrimony, treating them as little more than bargaining chips or mere real estate.

In just the past few decades, Israel has turned over Sinai, withdrawn from Gaza, retreated from parts of Judea and Samaria, and offered to cede control over eastern Jerusalem.

However well-intentioned it may have been, this steady march of capitulation has brought the nation little more than a bitter dose of violence and bloodshed.

And it has been an affront, a vulgar insult, to the Land itself.

Indeed, this past week contained two significant anniversaries, both of which underline how we have not shown enough appreciation or love for the holy soil upon which we tread.

The first came on Monday, which marked seventeen years since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords on the White House Lawn, when Israel undertook to hand territory over to the Palestinians.

That dreadful deal laid the groundwork for the return of the PLO, and set off a wave of terror and bloodshed that was unprecedented in Israel's modern history.

Nearly two decades later, we are still grappling with the consequences, which now see a fundamentalist Hamas regime in Gaza and a hostile Palestinian Authority leadership ensconced in Ramallah.

Thanks to Oslo, phrases such as "bus bombing" and "suicide attack" were entered into our political and security lexicon, and thousands of Israelis lost their lives as a result.

The deal itself was a watershed event, signifying a fateful attempt by the government to turn its back on Jewish history by ignoring Jewish destiny. Not surprisingly, it brought nothing but disaster in its wake.

That, after all, is the inevitable outcome when a leadership seeks to undermine its nation's very own birthright and heritage.

But there was another, no less painful commemoration this week, marking an event that should be seared in the consciousness of everyone who witnessed it.

It was exactly ten years ago yesterday, on the Hebrew calendar, that the Israeli army withdrew from Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus), in one of the most humiliating scenes in the nation's modern history.

The move came after Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists launched a coordinated assault on the sacred burial ground of our biblical forebear.

Displaying their customary respect for Jewish holy sites, the Palestinian attackers had surrounded the compound, strafed it with automatic-weapons fire and attempted to seize it by force.

Rather than standing firm in the face of the onslaught, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak issued an astonishing order for the IDF to pull out under fire and surrender territory to the Palestinians as a direct result of violence.

Rarely has a country's shame been on such public display.

Can you imagine the British army abandoning Westminster or the US Marines fleeing the Washington Memorial?

That shameful retreat embodied the new-found disregard for the Land that has unfortunately taken root among many of our decision-makers.

It has continued into the present, whether in the form of freezing Jewish construction, or failing to take action against illegal Palestinian building, or even discussing the possibility of dividing the Land.

But it doesn't have to be this way. If Yom Kippur teaches us anything, it is the power of repentance, the ability that we have to erase the sins of our past through a series of corrective measures.

We too must now repent, not only for our individual wrongdoing, but for our failure to cherish and safeguard this Land.

As a first step, let's stop referring to these areas as "territories" or "the West Bank", and start using their ancient and historical names instead: Judea and Samaria. That is how the Bible refers to them, and how our ancestors knew them as well.

And let's show a greater deal of respect for our natural resources, from forests to water to our coastline, preserving and maintaining their wholesomeness and purity. That too is a sign of admiration and reverence.

But perhaps most importantly, we can show how much we love this little corner of the Middle East by filling every hilltop with Jews and reinforcing our presence here.

A good place to start would be with Joseph's Tomb, where we must right the historical wrong that was done a decade ago and reassert full control.

Doing so will send a message to our enemies that we shall never again retreat, and that we will defend our right to live and worship in this land as we see fit.

Towards the end of Deuteronomy (chap. 32), G-d promises to "render atonement to His Land and His people."

Sometimes, it would seem, it is through the land that our sins can be expiated, by building, nourishing and cherishing her.

But just as the Land atones for us, so too must we now atone for her. So let's toss aside any ideas of withdrawal, and reaffirm our determination to cling to her.

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 in his first term of office.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko, September 16, 2010.

After spending three weeks in Israel, a day before my trip was over, I decided to go up to the Temple Mount also known as Mount Morriah, located in the Old City of Jerusalem. According to a Jewish Law, a person must immerse himself in a ritual bath called Mikvah and take off any leather that he is wearing. Only then, he may walk on certain designated areas on the mount. There are various religious opinions where a person may walk, but there are mutual agreed places where walking on the mount is allowed. In reality, a person may walk in places where Herod the Great built an additional mount during the time of the reconstruction of the Second Temple. However, it is better to walk with an accompanied person who knows a way so as not to walk into restricted places, where Holly of Hollies exists. I went to the Western Wall few times and decided that it was a time for me to go to the most holiest site in Judaism, a place where Abraham was asked by G-d to sacrifice his only son Isaac, a place where both Holly Temples stood and without any doubt a place where our third Temple will stand.

After completing all pre requirements I finally was able to ascend a mount. Walking to the right of the Western Wall women section, there is an elevation with an entrance to the Mugrabim Gate. The security personnel asked me where I was from and I replied from America. I was warned to hide my yarmulke (head cover) and tzitzit (a four fringe garment). I tugged tzitzit in and placed a baseball cap to look like a typical tourist. Since the person I planed to go with could not make, he advised me to meet any Jew and walk with him. After the check point, I mat a Jewish man (wearing yarmulke) with his daughter and asked him if I can tour with him. I told him that I was Jewish and to prove I slightly uncovered my baseball hat. Within less than half a minute the police ran up to me and pointed fingers at me by calling me "Yehudi", a Jew. I could see anger in them. It appeared that they were shocked that I was a Jew and did not tell them while I was passing through the check point. I told them that I was an American citizen and even offered to show them my American passport. Though, it seemed that my American passport was like garlic shown to a Dracula who backs off from his victims without hesitations. They told me that they will follow me on the mount and asked the Arab Waqf guard to do the same. Few minutes later, few more policemen came in and told me that I am an Israeli Jew and Jews are not really welcome here. But whenever I was telling them that I was an American they backed off. They constantly were pointing fingers at me and calling/yelling, a Jew, which was a great offense to me. Through out time I heard the word Jew named infinitely, they wanted me to admit that I was an Israeli Jew. When I made a small stop to take a photo the policemen who were following us ran up to me and said that by no means I am allowed to pray here and if I do, I will get arrested. Every move that I made, the policemen were describing in the radio. I never felt so much harassment and discrimination. They were constantly reminding that Jews are not suppose to be here.

I thought that Israel is a democratic State and they respect every religion. But if Israel claims to be a Jewish State in particular, they by far should respect Judaism and allow Jews to go to their most Holly place. It is not that I am some sort of criminal, or a fugitive looking to hide. I am a tourist holding an American passport and visiting my Jewish State that I have full rights to. I traveled to different places around the world, but never have I witnessed such racism towards me just for wearing a yarmulke. Never in Europe have I been to a place that officially preferred Jews not to enter. Thousands of holly places I have passed through while touring Europe, indeed while passing through the Churches, I was invited to tour their places which were build a century or more ago. I really appreciate the art of architecture. Was I surprised when I thought that I can feel home in Israel, as how the Israeli government promises to every Jew. I felt hurt and I believe that the Israeli government deserves to give me an apology.

Contact Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko by email at gennadiy1981@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 16, 2010.

Tomorrow eve ushers in Yom Kippur, a day of fasting, prayer, and repentance before the Almighty. We begin with the Kol Nidre prayer before the sun is down, and end after dark the next day with a single shofar blast and the cry "Next year in Jerusalem!" Here in Jerusalem, everything stops and an other-worldly quiet sets in. Worshippers come and go in the streets, dressed all in white.

I doubt that I will post again until at least Sunday. I extend my wishes and prayers for a gmar hatima tova — may you, may we all, be sealed in the Book of Life for blessing. And may we emerge from this day strengthened in our understanding of how we are meant to utilize our allotted time on this earth.


Last night I attended a talk by Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia. The organization Hadar Israel sponsored this event. Actually, even better than a talk, it was a spirited dialogue with journalist Ruthie Blum Liebowitz that provided a dynamic format for exploring issues.

Dr. Pipes, an Arabist, is a foremost expert on radical Islam. What he said last night merits attention:

Islam is a religion. Islamism is not — it is a radical utopian ideology that aims for world-wide totalitarian control. In this, it is parallel to Fascism (Naziism) and Communism (Marxism).

The deeply significant difference between Islamists and adherents of the other two movements is that Fascists and Communists remained static in their approach, but the Islamists have learned from their mistakes. Thus, in many contexts they've moved from an "in-your-face" approach to playing within the system. Their goal — and this should be noted well! — is to institute stringent Sharia (Islamic) law everywhere.

This doctrine developed in the 1920s, when Muslims saw their people doing poorly in terms of power and wealth. It was thought that a return to tradition — actually to the Medieval period and a strict application of Sharia — would make them strong.


There are people who imagine, says Pipes, that ultimately the Islamists will assimilate into Western societies, in the places where they are now attempting to work within the system. But it's not the case.

Either the process of Islamization will be extended, or the Islamists will be rejected.

The major goal being pursued now is peace, especially here in the Middle East. But victory must come first — just as the Communists and Fascists were defeated, radical Islam must be defeated.

A major problem is that people are willing to work with Islamists if they are not violent. Their radical ideology is more subtle and harder to see, and so they are embraced within the system. There is inadequate comprehension of how dangerous they are. In particular, the political left doesn't see it as a problem: they make alliances with Islamists and open doors for them.


As we known, this battle is going on to a far greater degree right now in Europe than in the US, but Americans cannot afford to be complacent.

Pipes says that England is already gone. Recently, he told us, a law was passed there permitting polygamy. People shrug it off: If they want multiple wives, so? They fail to comprehend the very deep implications of such a law (which conforms with Sharia) and the process that is at work with regard to overturning the British system.

Make no mistake about it: Radical Islam is antithetical to Western values of liberal democracy. Where Sharia law is permitted to enter, Western values are weakened. The goal is control, not sharing.

Sweden is not far behind England. But in some places in Europe, there has begun to be a backlash — the law against the hijab (woman's head covering) in France, against minarets in Switzerland, a closer look at immigration policies in other places.

Pipes believes it is guilt that fuels the reluctance to take on the Islamists, the guilt that is part of the legacy of European colonialism. The British, with the history of their major empire and the sins committed in its name, have been particularly vulnerable to this guilt. There is a certain ambivalence on the part of many British with regard to their own history; it follows from this that budding young Islamists (some, second generation British citizens) pick up on this ambivalence and are thus discouraged from adopting traditional British values. Islamist ideology seems to them to offer something strong and positive. The power of ideology is very real.


Pipes didn't mention Glen Beck and his rally. It was Caroline Glick who did recently — talking about Beck's interest in restoring pride in the American creed. But this issue of pride in creed is enormously relevant here, implicit in what Pipes is saying about British ambivalence regarding what their country stands for.

The US does not have the same history of colonialism (although there was slavery). Guilt is not the issue in the US that it is in Europe. The main thrust right now, however, is multiculturalism, which, it seems to me, has been elevated to the status of creed.

Respect for others is good. But multiculturalism advances the notion that everything is as good as everything else. It is then forbidden to ever judge another's values, or to elevate one's system as superior. Yet some systems and some values ARE superior to others. Everything is not equal. And some systems and some values are inimical to the American creed that promotes the dignity of the human being, inherent freedoms, democracy, etc.

Before it is too late, Americans must understand that when they embrace the tenets of multiculturalism, they sow the seeds of the destruction of that American creed by opening doors to and providing credibility for Islamists. Islamists are not interested in a "you do your thing, I'll do mine" democratic principle. They are after the whole pie and the imposition of a Sharia system that would deprive all these multiculturalists of their rights in time.

What is interesting here is that Pipes believes that the battle over the Ground Zero mosque may be a turning point for America: it has, he says, brought out anti-Islamist feelings.


At the same time that Pipes insists that radical Islamism must be defeated, he says we should be supporting and encouraging moderate Muslims — providing them with forums, etc.

Admittedly, those moderates are few in number now. They are, in fact, in despair — feeling weak and very intimidated.

Many who oppose the Islamic radicals point out that their ideas are found in the Koran: that it is indeed Islam itself that is the problem. Pipes' response to this is that it is a question of the interpretation of the texts, and that Islam is not inherently antithetical to democracy. He says there is a history of Islamic moderation from a different time period, and that we now should embrace the thinkers who can reinterpret the Koran — giving them visibility wherever possible.

Right now we are going about it the wrong way. Every time we legitimize non-violent Islamists, we undermine the potential moderates. (I think of Raheel Raza, who is a moderate Muslim in Toronto, who made a statement regarding the Ground Zero mosque, saying that when people such as Mayor Bloomberg support it they undermine the case of moderate Muslims.)

Not an easy task, as he would certainly agree. Islam has not yet been reconciled with modernity by its theologians and thinkers — something that Judaism and Christianity have long since done. The moderates are sometimes killed, and sometimes shunned.

Pipes' argument is that there is no choice. There is no answer to radical Islamist ideology other than the fostering over time of a moderate alternative.


Other thoughts that Dr. Pipes shared — on Iran, Turkey, etc. — will wait for another day...

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, September 16, 2010.

The problems of the world are all based on Israel giving up its historic heartland, everybody knows that. The peace loving Arab nations are willing to let bygones be bygones, and are willing to live in peace, side by side in harmony with their Jewish neighbor Israel...NOT. I am constantly amazed by those who believe in that scenario. Time magazine has clarified the issue for many by explaining how we Jews in Israel are not even interested in peace, you see we like sending our children to the army, we like terror attacks against us, you know you haven't lived until you've seen a bus load of people blow up in front of your eyes.

This battle is on all fronts now, in all locations, so many fail to notice it, so many innocent fall victims to the treachery and lies. In true Arab custom, the weak are targeted, those that lack strength or means to truly defend themselves, no, I am not just talking about the Jews in Israel anymore, I am talking about Jews throughout the Diaspora.

College campuses have become the new killing fields, the targets — unaffiliated Jews, Jews who are ignorant about their faith and their history, children of Israeli immigrants and a slew of others who tend to be oblivious to the reality in Israel.

Various Islamic groups along with supposed "Human" rights groups and others who claim to champion justice ambush these unsuspecting souls in the name of the school of progressive and liberal thought, often turning them into violent and extreme adversaries, brainwashed to hate themselves, their history and their identity. Bastions of safe Jewish havens such as Hillel houses have become bases of operations against any hint of Zionism or support of Israel.

Most are not even aware of the dangers present and all too often fall into these traps. Funding for these anti-Jewish workshops supposedly comes from sources ranging from foreign governments to our own quasi Jewish Funds, masked efficiently to hide their true intentions of harming the Jewish State of Israel by alienating these young people from themselves and the possibility of a future strong Jewish leadership in the Diaspora.

The Arab nations have always been an enemy to the existence of the State of Israel, nothing has changed, and peace is not in their lexicon regarding Jews ruling over the Land of Israel. Growing up in Israel prepares you for this reality, it is one of the advantages of being surrounded by bullies whom only wish you harm and worse. But most Jews in the Diaspora are not prepared for this aggressive behavior that they witness on their campuses. Their reactions vary, most either hide their identities and thoughts waiting quietly for still waters, while others join this parade of hatred, fooling themselves into thinking that they are a part of a new order that will bring a just change to a region, culture and in many cases, a people they do not even know.

There are of course the few, the minority that does fight back, that attempt to stand strong. These smaller Israel Advocacy groups lack the numbers, funding and fashionable stance to compete and present a viable challenge to this on going and growing threat. Never the less they do try and at times, just like Israel, they are victorious against what is perceived as overwhelming odds.

It used to be that for many American Jews, the problems and challenges that Israel faces are far away, not their problem, not their concern, ...no longer.

If you are Jewish, you have no choice but to ultimately, eventually face the same challenges, the same enemies that Israel must contend with, the same challenges, the same enemies that our people have contended with throughout history, wherever you are.

We will do this together.

G'Mar Chatima Tova v'Shana Tova!

Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com

This article is archived at
http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com/2010/09/ on-all-fronts.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Grobman, September 15, 2010.

This review was written by Daled Amos and it appeared yesterday on the Daled Amos website..


The accusation that Israel has colonialist roots because of its connection to the British Mandate is ironic, since most of the Arab states owe their origins to the entry and domination of the European powers. Prior to World War I, the Arab states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan did not exist, but were only districts of the Ottoman Empire, under different names. They became states as a result of European intervention, with the British putting the Hashemite family in power in two of these countries.

Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states, meanwhile, emerged from treaties that their leaders signed with Britain. By means of those treaties, the British recognized the legitimacy of local Arab families to rule what became states like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. A similar British treaty with the al-Saud family in 1915 set the stage for the eventual emergence of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
— Dore Gold, "Historical Fiction: Israel is not a colonialist state," The New Republic

"The Palestinian Right To Israel"
by Alex Grobman
1st edition 2010
Balfour Press
ISBN-10: 160725588X
ISBN-13: 978-1607255888


I found this aspect of the history of the modern history of the Middle East fascinating for the simple reason that it is so often overlooked — and distorted.

And that is one of the reasons I enjoyed Prof. Alex Grobman's new book, The Palestinian Right To Israel. Dr. Grobman is a historian who is also the author of Nations United: How The Global Body Undermines Israel And The US, as well as Battling For Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post-War Europe, and Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?

Grobman provides an overview in the first chapter, An Uninterrupted Jewish Presence — documenting the history of Jewish communities in the land even after the destruction of the Second Commonwealth by the Roman Empire in 70CE.

He then continues with:

  • Chapter 2: Palestinine: A Twice-Promised Land — rebutting Arab claims that the British government promised then-Palestine to them.

  • Chapter 3: Arabs Resort To Violence — tracing the Arab response to the Balfour Declaration and Jewish immigration, and especially the British response, which unfortunately established the precedent for how the West has responded to Arab violence till today.

  • Chapter 4: Arab Activities During World War II — describing how the Arabs attempted to sabotage the Allied cause.

  • Chapter 5: The Jewish Contributions to the Allied Cause During WWI And WWII — describing how the Jewish community in then-Palestine consistently aided the Allied cause, with over 26,000 Jews joining the British armed forces during the war, in contrast to the Grand Mufti who encouraged Muslims to join the Nazi army. Grobman notes:
    Contrasting the Yishuv's role with that of the Arabs provides a historical perspective on the conflict that is often omitted.

  • Chapter 6: Israel's Right To Exist — examining the ongoing attempts by the Arabs to refute the uninterrupted connection of the Jews to Israel

  • Conclusion: The Eternal Bond Between Jews And The Land Of Israel

Prof. Grobman's book is well document — not only in terms of the footnotes, but also in the resources he marshals to support his points.

For example, in dealing with the above-mentioned "colonial roots" of the Arab world, Grobman quotes:

  • Lord Robert Cecil, Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who believed the Arabs had no basis for refusing to accept the Balfour Declaration, since recognizing the right of the Jews to their national homeland was part of the terms on which the Arab State was brought into existence. (p. 44)
  • Lord Arthur James Balfour:
    I hope they will remember that it is we who desire in Mesopotamia [Iraq] to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing, autonomous Arab State, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch — for it is no more than that geographically, whatever it may be historically — that small notch in what is now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it. (p. 44)
  • Monsieur Pierre Ortis, Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission:
    Was not consent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine the price — and a relatively small one — which the Arabs paid for the liberation of lands extending from the Red Sea to the borders of Cilicia on the one hand, Iran and the Mediterranean on the other, for the independence they were not winning or had already won, none of which they would ever have gained on their own efforts, and for all of which they had to thank the Allied Posers and particularly the British forces in the Near East. (p. 160)

  • Chaim Weizmann:
    Gentlemen, whatever you have got out of the last war, you owe to our arms and to our sacrifices; whatever you have got out of this war, you equally owe to us. It would have been otherwise if Hitler had won the war! (p. 162)

    As Grobman sums up:

    [T]he Arabs emerged from World War II with at least two kingdoms, four republics, six seats in the U.N. and one in the Security Council. Weizmann questioned whether this was commensurate with what the Arabs contributed during the war. How many fatalities did they sustain? To what degree did they suffer? (p. 162)

    I highly recommend The Palestinian Right To Israel both for its unique approach to understanding the issue of 'rights' to Israel and for the resources it places at the disposal of the serious reader.

    To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 15, 2010.

Amram's PIllars in the Eilat Mountains

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


As the weather in Israel makes a welcome shift toward the cool winds of fall, I turn my attention again to the desert. I've said many times that the desert is the one destination that guarantees a reward to the intrepid visitor, just for going. There is nothing more cleansing to the spirit than the silence and splendor of Israel's arid wilderness.

Just north of Eilat, in a valley surrounded by pink and brown sandstone peaks, lies Amram's Pillars, a natural rock formation carved by years of water pouring down from the cliff above. There are no trees, no wildlife, no water and no sound. It is absolutely silent.

I photographed the rocks as I made my approach over a five-minute walk from my car. Most of these shots lacked any creativity nor did they represent the majestic character of the site when viewed up close. I like this view because it comes closest to recreating the grace and grandeur of the soaring columns. I was able to capture these traits in a photograph by choosing where to stand and where to point the camera. Some subjects reveal themselves quite naturally and without much effort. In other situations, photographers must translate their vision into a few technical decisions which bring out the best in what we see.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D-300, 12-24 zoom at 12mm, f13 at 1/160 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 Paul Lademain, September 15, 2010.

Jews in NYC as well as the fear-stricken seditionists of israel (see below) who insist on fostering peace talks with potential rogue-states are asking for extermination. No lie. When the imams exhort their head-banging bent-over supplicants to kill Jews, they're not kidding. Pretending that these muslim hordes mispeak is a sign of idiocy or cowardice.

Are there greater fools than certain well-placed Jews of NYC who demand the erection of a 15 story Islamic concrete and steel "celebration" that all muslims will most certainly regard as a symbol of their intention to conquer NYC? Then Chicago? Where the Black Muslim Brotherhood spawned "reverend" Wright who is famous for howling for the destruction of America? Do you people understand the dictates of the koran that this very day command a muslim to lie to your face in order to gain an advantage over you "infidels"? Surely clever Jews by now fully understand the political implications of "taqqiya"!

Do you really believe that all Jews should help ummah "make nice" while muslim forces are invading Israel and killing Jewish pregnant women? Our answer is a resounding NO! But If your answer is "yes" then kindly offer your own children for slaughter and extend your own bosoms for the arab dagger instead of exposing decent people to the horrors of Sharia. Arabs are NOT children, and they are not "misbehaving," so stop treating them like children. So far the Islamics have proven to be more clever than Jews and more determined than fashion-conscious New Yorkers, and far more intelligent than the Jews here in the US who are both deliberately and inadvertently giving Sharia free rein to continue warring against not only the Jews, but also against Christians, (especially Coptic Christians) Buddhists and Hindus and all other faiths.

When armed forces bomb Israel, it is NOT your place to urge Jews to "talk peace" and to demand of them to continue smearing Jewish Wonderfulness all over the faces of arabs who are spitting in yours and theirs.

This below is an example of what we're talking about:


On Sep 15, 2010, at 9:42 AM, The Israel Project (Alan Elsner: 202-857-6671 (office), 202-306-0757 (cell), alan e@theisraelproject.org Jennifer Packer: 202-207-6122 (office), jenniferp@theisraelproject.org www.theisraelproject.org)

"Palestinian Attacks Threaten to Overshadow Peace Talks"

  • More than a dozen rockets hit Israel
  • Major city under fire
  • Peace talks continue in Jerusalem

Rockets and mortar rounds pounded southern Israel on Wednesday (Sept. 15) as Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Jerusalem for the second round of peace talks this month.

Gaza-based Palestinian terrorists launched at least a dozen projectiles; two reportedly landed in Ashkelon, a coastal Israeli city with a population of about 110,000. There were no reports of injuries.

In response, the Israel Defense Forces targeted tunnels that run under Gaza's border with Egypt. [1] Israel maintains Iran-backed Palestinian terrorist organizations use the passageways to smuggle weapons and terrorists in and out of the Palestinian coastal enclave. [2]

No one has claimed responsibility for the latest attacks but Iran-backed Hamas, which controls Gaza, did say it carried out two terror attacks on the eve of the Sept. 2 launch of peace talks. [3]

A new Palestinian video
(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340% 2CL-3953458%2C00.html?tr=y&auid=6993336), said to be created by Hamas, offers a view of what Palestinian terrorists think of the ongoing peace process. The clip culminates with the Palestinian takeover of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Much of the funding for Hamas activities emanates from Iran, [4] which also injects money into the coffers of the South Lebanon-based Hezbollah. [5]

From 1993-2006, Iran's financial support of Hamas was estimated at $30 million annually. It has increased to several hundred million annually since then. Since Hamas' January 2006 electoral victory, funding has increased significantly. In April 2006, Iran pledged $50 million in aid to Hamas. In November 2006, Iran donated $120 million to Hamas.

Iran has provided Hezbollah with weapons, funding, guidance, and intelligence, giving more than $200 million to Hezbollah annually in addition to an estimated $300 million after Israel's defensive war with Hezbollah in 2006.

Wednesday's barrage from Gaza occurred as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was chairing talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Clinton said she was "well aware of the obstacles that stand in the way of peace," but added that she is convinced "this is the time and these are the leaders."

Israeli President Shimon Peres told Clinton that peace "can be achieved. It must be achieved." Peres made the remarks as they spoke to reporters at his official residence. [6]

The U.S. secretary of state repeated Washington's apparent desire for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a secure, democratic Jewish state.

Clinton is slated to hold talks with Jordan's King Abdullah in Amman before leaving the region.

U.S. special envoy George Mitchell will travel to Syria and Lebanon on Thursday to update their leaders on the peace process. We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We support Israel for the sake of justice. We applaud the Patriots of Israel. We do not support those who possess the soul of a Neville Chamberlain.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 15, 2010.

That's what Secretary of State Clinton is doing while in Jerusalem for negotiations. She met today with President Shimon Peres, and afterward said, "They are getting down to business. They have begun to grapple with the core issues that can only be resolved through face to face negotiations."


Aaron Lerner was especially astute in paying attention to what Clinton said:

"The status quo," she declared, is unsustainable." That's her standard line, which we've heard more times than we care to count. But this time she added something;

"Now that doesn't mean that it can't be sustained for a year or a decade or two or three [but...]."

Opines Lerner, If we can hold on the way we're going until 2040, "there is certainly more than enough time available for Israel's leaders to come up with solutions that don't involve the creation of a potentially life threatening Palestinian state in Israel's very heart."


If my tone is slightly irreverent here, it's because a touch of humor helps us all to cope. And because the situation merits no better.

Analyst Martin Sherman also takes a deeply irreverent view of the current situation, but he's not laughing:

"In a different universe the recent events regarding the rekindling of the 'peace process' could well be the stuff of a macabre comedy, couched and conveyed in deliberately overstated caricature.

"But sadly in this universe they portend tragedy.

"It has been an almost inconceivable spectacle, beginning with the Israeli prime minister traveling to Washington to express his resolve and commitment to implement a policy that he has repeatedly repudiated — and ridiculed — for over a decade and a half...

"Yet the absurdity does not end here. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Middle East politics things get 'curiouser and curiouser.'

"No less astounding than Netanyahu's acquiescence to discuss the implementation of the very policy he correctly predicted would fail, is the identity of the 'partner' with whom he assented to do so. The Palestinian negotiation team is led by Mahmoud Abbas, someone who has neither the formal legality (since his terms of office has expired) nor the political legitimacy (since his authority in not recognized by a sizeable segment of the electorate) to do so...

"But perhaps the most macabre aspect of this preposterous tragic-comic spectacle is that it the only conceivable reason for Israel to participate in it at all, is to mollify a floundering US Administration desperate for some indication — any indication — of success to boost its flagging popularity."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3953028,00.html


Yesterday I referred to the fact that PA leaders involved in the discussions at Sharm el-Sheikh were talking. Today Al-Hayat (London) reports (via the Arabs) that the Israelis said yesterday that there would be no continuation of the moratorium. The fact that Al-Hayat says so does not make it so. There may be grandstanding here, or an attempt to influence the situation. For this information was followed by a quote from negotiator Nabil Shaath, who said the PA delegation would walk if the moratorium was not extended.

He then reportedly added: "No one asked the Palestinian side to change its mind on the construction in settlements."


On the face of it, I would not believe this. For it's clear that there has to be pressure from the US on Abbas to accept less than a full freeze without walking — even if no statements are made publicly about this by the Americans, the way statements are made "suggesting" we must continue the freeze. And sure enough, Khaled Abu Toameh wrote about this in today's JPost:

"In recent days, for all the rhetoric, there have been signs that Palestinian Authority leaders seem to realize that construction in the settlements and Jerusalem will resume in one way or another.

"According to informed sources in Ramallah, the PA leadership has no choice but to accept a partial freeze — one where Israel would continue to build quietly while the PA turns a blind eye."

Abu Toameh reminds us that this situation, with regard to PA intransigence on building, is likely the result of Obama's policies, for in the beginning he was insisting that all building had to stop. The Palestinians then picked up on this because they could not allow the president to be "more Palestinian than the Palestinians." When Obama moderated his stand on this issue, they were left holding the bag, so to speak.


But now, there will be a price for the Palestinians if they back down: Abbas has been telling his people that he will walk if the freeze is not extended. If he doesn't walk, his already weak credibility in the street will be further damaged. Abu Toameh doesn't say so explicitly now, but the corollary is that, should Abbas come to some agreement with Israel, he would not have the capacity to sell it to his people. What is more, Hamas — which will charge the PA leaders with having sold out — will have been strengthened.

This is a point of more than passing importance. Attention must be paid to the dynamics of the society that is being dealt with. The Americans, however, are frequently "tone deaf" with regard to repercussions as they attempt to orchestrate a situation in the Middle East. I've seen it time and again.


Another, and perhaps related, point needs to be made here. The talks are being referred to as "direct" or "face to face," but in many ways the Americans are all too present and each side is actually talking to/negotiating with them instead.

This sort of meddling is ultimately not successful. Unless the two parties are ready and able to sit down together and come to mutual conclusions, all of the hand-holding and prodding by the US will come to naught. The conflict here cannot be "fixed" by a third outside party.


I am fascinated, I confess, by the fact that I picked up information yesterday about a possible trip to the US by Netanyahu right after Yom Kippur, but that today it is not being discussed or even alluded to in the news or by analysts. It's as if this information was released into the outer atmosphere.

We have yet to see if this really happens. Is the silence an indication that this is not being taken seriously? Or what?

We know next to nothing — not whether he was summoned or asked to go. Actually, we don't even know whether this involves the direct negotiations (the first intuitive assumption — and the one I made yesterday) or something else such as Iran.


You have read here previously about a law being introduced — it now has been approved by the Knesset Law Committee and has passed its first reading — that would require transparency of international funding sources for Israeli NGOs. It was drafted because of concern that European governments or government agencies were funding specific NGOs — ostensibly "human rights" NGOs — that have an agenda that works against Israel's best interests.

I spoke above about American meddling. But here we have a different, less overt, sort coming out of Europe. So egregious is this meddling that NGOs that are funded "discreetly" by foreign governments sometimes petition the High Court on issues. We're talking, of course, about pro-Arab NGOs that petition the court, for example, to stop specific building in Judea and Samaria. But what we decide to do or not do in this regard should not be influenced by foreign interests. As well, and perhaps even more significantly, European support goes to NGOs — such as BTselem and Adalah — that participate actively in the delegitimization of Israel.

Note: "human rights" organizations has become a code word for those organizations eager to charge Israel in international forums with every human rights violation possible. The problem is that they have international credibility because they identify as standing for the rights of individuals.

While the original version of the bill was considered by some to be too "stringent," I thought it was great. At any rate, it was watered down during negotiations within the Knesset and is now proceeding through the legal process.


Seems to me that what we do in this respect is purely our business. But that's not what the European Parliament thought. This past week, incredibly, they actually held a plenary debate about this bill (although they erroneously debated with regard to the original, more stringent version).

This, of course, is a clear indication of how important this bill is.

According to Asher Fredman, who is Knesset liaison at NGO Monitor, writing in the JPost:

"About two-thirds of the MEPs who participated in the debate adopted a paternalistic attitude, arguing...that the Israeli political and legal system is unable or unwilling to uphold democracy and human rights. In their view, only careful EU oversight and intervention can ensure that Israel remains on the proper course."

Cute, no?

Yesterday, Gerald Steinberg, who heads NGO Monitor, told the JPost that the session "was led by a small group of MEPs who work closely with the NGOs involved in the demonization of Israel."

What was encouraging, he said, was that there were also MEPs "who spoke out against this bias and highlighted the real problem — the EU's violation of its own transparency norms in funding radical NGO advocacy under the false banners of 'partners for peace' and promoting democracy."

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, September 15, 2010.

This was written by David Bukay, Professor of Middle East Studies at the School of Political Science at University of Haifa. He is the author of Islamic Fundamentalism and the Arab Political Culture. He specializes in the Arab-Israeli conflict; inter-Arab relations and the Palestinian question; international terrorism and fundamental Islam; theoretical issues and political applications in the Middle-East; Asad's foreign policy towards Israel and Lebanon; and the culture approach to understanding the Middle-East.



Islamic Da`wah is a threat to the Free World, because it does not accept the basic principles of freedoms and civil rights and because the Muslims really and deeply believe in the message of Islam to rule the world. This formidable enemy hidden in a Trojan horse constitutes an imminent danger to the Free World's basic freedoms and its existence.

Da`wah is the other operational arms of Jihad to conquer and to submit. It is the secretive lethal enemy of which we are not even aware. It is a stealth strategy of coercion, a concept of missionary activity to proselytize; and above all the religious legitimization basis to invite all human beings to believe in Islam as the only supreme religion. It is intended to change our minds and our behavior and to subvert our mode of thinking. It is a cultural coercive strategy aimed at toppling democratic liberal regimes and eliminating freedoms and civil rights; and by infiltrating Western technology and society's fabrics with the aim of destroying them from within.

What are the religious sources of the Da`wah?

a) Deception. If Allah deceives the infidels (8:30; 4:142; 86:15-6; 10:21), being the best plotter, believers have all legitimacy and justification to do so.

b) Taqiyah. Literally it means concealing or disguising one's beliefs, yet, in contemporary Islamic politics it is a diplomacy, a propaganda strategy of how to deceive and mislead the Kuffar.

c) Kitman — telling only part of the truth. Muslims are allowed to freely deny any part of the Islamic faith if it influences the Kuffar and help to promote the Islamic cause. This means that Muslims can swear allegiance to the US constitution without binding to it, since the inner belief of Islam is uppermost.

How does the Da`wah operate in reality?

a) The educational system. This is the most important objective, with the aim to transform the educational system into venues for spreading Islam and by changing the Christian and Jewish attitudes and perceptions.

b) The political and public life. The aim is to take advantage of Western ignorance about Islam, and to use deceit in order to keep the Kuffar confused and in disarray, by actively engaging in dialogues, discussions and debates in the academia, in the media, and in public.

c) The Communication Media. The media has become an important tool how to instill Islam and Islamic life in the American public, and to serve as an attacking weapon to mold and to change reality by mere lying and distorting the facts about Islam. Internet is a crucial arena in the fight for the souls and minds of the infidels.

What is the Da`wah operational strategy?

a) Demography. It goes with two arms: immigration and high birth-rate. The problem is assimilation. Muslims do not immigrate to assimilate, but to establish a global Islamic caliphate.

b) Conversion. Muslims highly succeed in poor neighborhoods, among the blacks and Hispanics, the angry and the alienated, to turn them into militant messianic activists.

c) Using the Western Judicial system. One of the vicious, atrocious and very effective tools — 'legal Jihad,' with the aim to demoralize and to intimidate. Racism, Fascism and Islamophobia are the frightening words, against publishers, the media and governmental branches. There is also the "libel tourism" which results in foreign judgments against Americans and Israelis.

d) Imposing the Shari`ah. This is the most important strategy of occupation.

Da`wah — what is the reality?

a) Religious Aspect. In Medina, the prophetic commandments were to engage in Jihad war against all non-Muslims (9:5, 29, 73; 47:4). Islam cannot exist together with idolatry, and Muslims are ordered to fight polytheists; to slay the idolaters and behead them (8:12; 47:4); to terrorize Islamic enemies (3:151; 8:12, 60; 59: 2). Allah commands acts of terror against unbelievers as the means of creating the Islamic Ummah (2:193; 2:216; 3:167-8; 4:88-9; 8:39; 9:67-8, 93; 66:9).

b) No Recant from Islam. Islam is ever-compelling, ever-coercing totalitarian religion, and he who wishes to leave Islam — a death penalty is imposed upon him.

c) Slavery and Slave Trade. Islam has institutionalized slavery. Slaves as booty are an Allah-given right (25:6; 29:30; 33:50), and Muslims are allowed to enslave girls, as concubines (23:5-6; 70:29-30). Hadeeth al-Bukhari deals extensively with slavery — trade, taxation and jurisprudence. Ibn Malik'sbook of Islamic jurisprudence, al-Muwatta', is full of regulations on dealing with slaves, like merchandise.

d) Relations between Men and Women. Women are compared to a field, "so seed them as you intend" (2:223). Men may marry four women (4:3); men have more rights regarding divorce (2:226-8); man's inheritance is a portion of two females (4:11); men are in charge of women, and are permitted to beat their wives, admonish and banish them. Women must be obedient to their husbands (4:34), being natural object of sex (7:81; 27:55; 29:29). Other issues are "Honor killing" and genital mutilation.

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 Linda Menuhim, September 15, 2010.
Bringing the issue of Jewish refugees from Muslim lands to public awareness will promote mutual understanding among multicultural descendants.

Last month, I went to visit Umm Rachel, an old lady who was a friend of our family in Iraq before I was born. I was shocked to see how fragile she had become; she could hardly talk. Although she receives a National Insurance allowance, it barely covers the basic requirements of old age.

As we talked, she seemed to lose interest and hope of retrieving any of her frozen assets in Iraq. She was very much offended and hurt by the misfortune that followed abandonment of her Iraqi nationality, along with around 130,000 other Jews who left Iraq between 1950 and 1951. She showed little faith in the news I brought her regarding the bill of compensation for Jews from Muslim countries which will be put to a vote in the Knesset in the coming weeks and the Conference of Leaders of Jews from Arab Countries taking place on Monday.

The goal of the conference, according to the press release, "is to increase public and international awareness to the almost total obliteration of the hundreds of ancient Jewish communities throughout North Africa, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and the transformation of close to one million Jews to refugees who have never received just compensation for their personal and community assets." The original bill was submitted by Shas MK Nissim Ze'ev two years ago but has yet to move forward.

Due to a combination of international cynicism and domestic suppression of the subject, around 850,000 Jewish refugees were cut off from the Middle East narrative. The Jewish presence in the Middle East dates back almost 3,000 years, more than 1,000 years before Islam. As happens in bureaucracies, several government resolutions calling for the registration of all assets left behind in Arab countries were not carried out. In the best case, a small budget was allocated to a very small team in the Justice Ministry to accomplish this.

Meanwhile, people aged, their memory blurred and many lost their documentation. Now a new council has been established by the government, with two employees and a small budget to run a campaign to bring awareness of the registration of lost assets.

LOOKING BACK, it was essential for Israel to crystallize its narrative around Zionism as the main vehicle behind Jewish immigration. And indeed, Israel managed to absorb around 650,000 Jews from Arab countries, while the number of Palestinian refugees is still multiplying after more than 60 years.

In the eyes of the Jews from Arab countries and their descendants, the bill aims first at introducing justice both locally and internationally for the nakba — catastrophe — that befell them. They were dispossessed from flourishing businesses, orchards, a long heritage and their memories. They even had to discard the Arabic language. In short, they had to give up the culture they had cherished since birth.

After being reshaped in the Israeli melting pot, the Jewish refugees assumed responsibility for building their future in the new land, with the government's assistance. They had to start from scratch, leaving behind assets worth $100 billion and property four times the size of modern Israel, according to the World Organization for Jews from Arab Countries. While it is true that many thousands have integrated in Israeli society, thousands more are still paying a high price for being in the North or South, with no access to the national pie.

Teaching this part of history in schools is another important issue that the bill needs to address. By no means is it acceptable for the new generation to know practically nothing about the history of Jews from Muslim countries, while learning about every small pogrom that hit European Jews. Bringing this issue to the awareness of the masses will promote mutual understanding among multicultural descendants.

According to the bill submitted by Ze'ev, the government should recognize the rights of Jewish refugees from Islamic countries and seek reparation and compensation for violation of their human rights and confiscation of their assets.

Mizrahi Jews have also been frustrated due to lack of recognition in the international arena. While there were 150 UN resolutions dealing with the Palestinian problem, not one deals with the Jewish refugees, or with assisting them.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, this bill does not affect or undermine the rights of Palestinian refugees. On the contrary, it provides an incredible opportunity to end the refugee problem on both sides. Previous governments ignored this issue, partly due to the absurd claim that it would encourage Palestinians to submit demands for compensation.

It is important to point out that in spite of the billions of dollars poured into refugee camps by UN agencies, the number of Palestinian refugees has grown steadily to more than four million. Not many are aware that the Palestinians are the only group of refugees, out of more than 100 million displaced in World War II, who came under a special UN umbrella.

Reaching a just and lasting peace should be based on the truth, so that each party is aware of the suffering of the other. The suffering, the oppression of the weak and displacement are the common ground that enable a dialogue between two populations of refugees: Jews and Palestinians.

On a psychological level, compensation is a symbol of ending enmity. Even in Arab perception, the family of the underdog gets compensation from the perpetrators through negotiations conducted by middle men or dignitaries respected by both sides.

The idea of symmetry between two types of refugees was first born at the Wye Plantation summit with former US president Bill Clinton, who demanded compensation for all refugees in the conflict by establishing an international fund.

During the Bush administration, Congress endorsed a resolution calling for the mention of Jewish refugees every time there is a mention of Palestinian refugees.

Umm Rachel, like many old people who were displaced or fled from Muslim lands, will have to endure more suffering before achieving at least recognition from the Israeli government. Compensation will take time because of the need to establish an international fund, but in the end, it can clear the air for reconciliation, an important pillar for rebuilding confidence among nations in the Middle East.

The writer was the spokesperson for the Union of Local Authorities vis-a-vis the Arabic and Foreign Media and the former Middle East correspondent in Arabic TV with IBA. She is a founding member of Peace With Syria. The article was published February 14, 2010 in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=168685

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, September 15, 2010.

Yes, it's true; a fringe minister with just fifty followers in America wanted to burn a Koran. But he didn't. Meanwhile another nut wants to kill all Jews, wipe Israel off the map, destroy the United States, eliminate all Christians, indoctrinate children into being suicide bombers, and carry out a revolutionary war of terrorism for decades no matter how many die and how much destruction occurs.

Oh, and by the way, he and his colleagues have several hundred thousand followers and are ruling what amounts to an independent state bordering on the Mediterranean.

When you study the Middle East seriously you get used to this kind of rhetoric, yet somehow the seriousness and importance of such talk doesn't seem to register with many Western government officials, journalists, and academics who explain away these movements and regimes as somehow rational and moderate.

Maybe that's because when you look at the situation honestly it's really rather scary. Another word for finding something scary is to have a "phobia" toward it.

So it wasn't some silly, obscure guy who said this but...well, please wait just one more paragraph to find out.

In the speech, this fellow said that it was really great to be a martyr for Islamic revolution because there are 2.5 million black-eyed virgins waiting at the gates of a palace — just one, so presumably there are more — in the Garden of Eden just waiting for them. You do the math: 500 gates, 5,000 virgins per gate.

Who said this? Ahmad Bahr, a Hamas leader and speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council. In other words, he's the Palestinian equivalent of Nancy Pelosi.

Bahr and his colleagues aren't just joking; they aren't just telling tall tales to titillate the yokels. Nor are they making this stuff up, since Bahr is quoting one of Muhammad's chief lieutenants and a caliph in his own right. This speech was broadcast on al-Aqsa television on September 5, 2010. It was intended to mobilize the masses to go out and die for Hamas and the Islamic revolution. So presumably a good number of Palestinians take this seriously, too.

Now how is this plan going to be implemented? Basically, Bahr said that every Muslim should have a lot of sons and train them to be terrorists and hence martyrs. He concluded:

"If this is the culture of the nation today, who will be able to stop it?...As long as we continue on this path, nobody on Earth will be able to confront the resistance, or to confront the mujahideen, those who worship Allah and seek martyrdom."

So it doesn't matter how hopeless the odds seem, how many will die, how much suffering will take place. Peace is not more attractive than war; having a nice future for your children is not the top priority. Goals are not set by a cost/benefit analysis but on the basis that the creator of the universe is calling the shots, insists on this path, and will ensure its victory.

OK, you say, but maybe Bahr just hates Israel and would be satisfied if it is wiped out and then the struggle would end? Nope. Maybe he just wants an independent Palestinian state and then will leave everyone else alone? Again, nope. Here's what he said in 2007 in a speech broadcast on Sudan television:

"'You will be victorious' on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] 'you will be victorious,' but only 'if you are believers.' Allah willing, 'you will be victorious,' while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: 'You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives.' They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere....

"America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims 'will be victorious, if you are believers.' Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel."

Again, this is one of Hamas's top leaders, and others in the leadership — not to mention their Iranian, Hizballah, and Syrian allies — have said similar things. This is not a joke. Middle East: This is your life!

Do you mind if I'm perfectly frank with you? I suspect that deep down most Westerners think people like Bahr are as corrupt and hypocritical as an Upper-West-Side-of-Manhattan progressive thinks is true for a Southern televangelist. They probably expect Bahr steps out of the pulpit then goes to a bar for a scotch and a ham sandwich.

If they would only apply to Bahr — whose extremism they tend to ignore, feel overrated, or can easily be turned into moderation — the same standards as they do to Christian Pentecostals — who they despise without tolerance — that would be one step in the right direction. Then keep going, adding on that, unlike Christian "fundamentalists" in America, revolutionary Islamists have murdered tens of thousands of people and want to kill many more; unlike those Christians they command thousands of armed soldiers; unlike those Christians they will kill anyone who changes to another religion or who doesn't behave as they want; and, too, their program is to seize state power, establish totalitarian states, and attack other countries.

No, Bahr isn't just speaking for effect. He's dead serious, and that expression isn't chosen by accident, betting his life on his cause while much of the Western elite trembles at merely being unfashionable. And what Bahr says and believes word-for-word also applies to Hizballah; the Egyptian and Jordanian Muslim Brothers; Iran's regime; the Taliban; Islamists in areas of Russia; Islamists in Indonesia and Pakistan; clerics in Syria and many other countries; and is heard in certain meetings and mosques throughout Europe and North America.

By no means all Muslims, or even most, but a heck of a lot do talk like Bahr. Not a very small minority of believers; a very big minority of believers. And if they are not stopped they will be the majority of believers and the rulers of multiple countries.

Given the number of martyrs that have been and are going to be generated, there's going to be a need for all 2.5 million of those virgins Bahr mentions. Actually, that won't be enough because at 99 per (male) martyr that's only enough for about 25,000.

Very few Muslims are publicly making fun of such statements or battling against them, though many are fighting the Islamists on political grounds.

Doesn't all of this matter a bit? Shouldn't this be something people in the West know about, the mass media cover fully? Mightn't this kind of talk and thinking convey something of why nobody should try to bring Hamas or similar groups into the diplomatic process, give it aid, or help it in any way? Isn't this a bigger threat than some marginal haters of everything Muslim who just aren't going to become martyrs? In the face of this threat should people be demonized and intimidated if they dare talk about it?

I can't imagine why there should be any doubt about the answers to these questions.

Barry Rubin is director of 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.

This article is archived at
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/9/ millions-of-virgins-millions-of-martyrs

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, September 15, 2010.
Yoram Ettinger alerts us to the immutable facts that an American President has bowed to allow Islam and its various 57 Muslim nations to grow into a Global Monster Caliphate ruled by Islam's Sharia Law. Allies now know that they cannot rely upon pledges of reliable alliances, particularly true of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Even to protect itself, we observe Obama's regime backing away from any indication that the safety of the nation is first before pacification of Islam in deference to oil and other commercial interests. Our Presidents are not protecting the nation with Obama driving America to a Third World status as a debtor nation.

The heartfelt comments by Bernard Shapiro really tells it like it is. I'm pleased to be considered one of the 14 writers whom Bernard Shapiro considers "GOES FOR THE JUGULAR. NO PUNCHES HELD BACK."

This is Bernard Shapiro's comments, which skillfully probe these weaknesses.

By Bernard Shapiro of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
August 26, 2010

Freeman Note: This is a brilliant analysis by Ettinger.

I have always appreciated his wonderful insight into Arab-Israel-US issues. I have ONE complaint, not just for Yoram, but for most pro-Israel writers. The Apocalypse is coming. Those of us who understand what is really going on in the world must cease being "nice Jewish boys and girls."

1. We must stop promoting or even using the word peace or just peace settlement. It is fight or die. Learn this.

2. We must cease all dependence on the USA or its Moslem President to save Israel.

3. We must stop whining about anti-Semitism and train ourselves, including youth to defend themselves.

4. An Israeli government that won't defend its citizens against Arab attack is not a Zionist government. When proud Jews in Israel defend themselves from Arab attack, the Israeli police, government, and justice system put them through hell. These people should not rule a Jewish State.

5. I am sick and tired of Israeli diplomats trying to win favor with anti-Semites, who will never support us.

6. I am sick and tired of American Jews refusing to take a stand to protect their fellow Jews. But have some kind of wishy, washy Ghetto mentality. They don't have to please Moslems, Leftists, socialists, Communists, white and black people who do not care about the best interests of the Jewish People. And I hate those Jewish ACLU lawyers who would call me a racist because I speak truth to lies.

7. I am sick and tired of all the delay in destroying Iran's nuclear threat. I know how difficult it is. But I am also not stupid and I know that five years ago would it have been easier. I know that the Israeli government keeps making it harder for the military to accomplish its mission. My readers on the Freemanlist know why I say this. The proliferation of missiles from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China extend to Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and back to Iran.

8. And by the way, the terrorists on all Israel's borders must be annihilated. We, the Jewish People did not suffer for 2000 years and SHOULD NOT lose our Eretz Yisrael, because we are nice Jewish boys and girls.

9. I am sick and tired of Barak and Peres still being involved in Israeli politics. They should have been retired long ago.

10. Ok I will stop my rant. My final word:

I won't publish articles any more on the Freemanlist that DON'T GO FOR THE JUGULER. NO PUNCHES HELD BACK. In case you want a few examples (certainly not comprehensive): Caroline Glick, David Basch, Herb Zweibon, Paul Eidelberg, Bernard J. Shapiro, The Late Rabbi Meir Kahane, Elyakim Ha'etzni, Emanuel A Winston, Yedidya Atlas, The Late Shmuel Katz, Mark Langfan, Ruth & Nadia Matar, Dr. Steven Plaut, David Wilder.


The US evacuation of Iraq and the 2011 expected evacuation of Afghanistan — and President Obama's preoccupation with the Palestinian issue — remind me of the Texas colloquialism: "When you're smothered by a West Texas sandstorm, don't be preoccupied with the tumbleweeds."

In the beginning of 1990, President Bush believed in the New World Order theory, and pursued engagement with — and not defeat of — Saddam Hussein. He considered the Palestinian issue as the root cause of Middle East turbulence, and therefore pressured Prime Minister Shamir for sweeping concessions. However, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 exposed the fallacy of "The New Middle East" and "The New World Order," sucking the US into a costly, bloody and prolonged quagmire.

In 2010, President Obama believes that the USA should act within international consensus, aspiring to bring rogue regimes to the table rather than bringing them to submission. He defines the Palestinian issue as the crux of Middle East violence, and therefore pressures Prime Minister Netanyahu for further groundbreaking concessions.

However, in 2010, Middle East sandstorms are growing increasingly lethal and put the Palestinian issue in perspective — a secondary priority for Arab regimes. They highlight fundamental features of inter-Muslim/Arab politics, which clarify that US relations with Israel and with Arab countries are not a "Zero Sum Game." Middle East sandstorms accentuate special security requirements, which result from the tempestuous nature of the region and underline the critical role played by the US posture of deterrence in bolstering regional and global sanity and stability. Intensifying Middle East uncertainty and volatility also reaffirm Israel's unique strategic features and highlight the growing potential of the mutually-beneficial US-Israel strategic cooperation.

Irrespective of the Palestinian issue, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel's existence, the US is evacuating Iraq and will evacuate Afghanistan, while Iran is going nuclear — a nightmare for Persian Gulf, Middle East and global leaders. Iraq's evacuation will destabilize the country, advance Iran's posture and destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf States. Furthermore, the Saudi-Yemen border is boiling; inter-Muslim terrorism proliferates; post-Mubarak Egypt could follow the anti-US Turkish or even Iranian path; the Sudan and the Horn of Africa are saturated with conflicts; the Islamization of Turkey's policy fosters regional radicalization and Lebanon remains a target for a Syrian takeover and an arena for violent inter-Arab conflicts. Additional intra-Muslim conflicts hemorrhage the region, facilitating Russian, Chinese and North Korean penetration of the region. None of the above is impacted by the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation!

These conflicts shed light on 1,300 year old fundamental features of inter-Muslim/Arab reality: Islamic supremacy; autocracy/tyranny; violence as a norm to resolve conflicts and secure power; regime-change through the bullet and not through the ballot; sectarian, religious, ethnic, tribal and ideological violent conflicts; corruption; fragmentation; instability of regimes and alignments; volatility in shifts from peace to war and from conclusion to violation of agreements. For instance, in 1969 and 1979, Libya and Iran were transformed via revolution from pro-US to anti-USA regimes. In 1980 and in 1990, Iraq abrogated peace accords, invading Iran and Kuwait. In 1990, pro-USA King Hussein collaborated with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. In 1993, the Oslo Accords were concluded and summarily violated by an unprecedented wave of Palestinian hate-education and terrorism. In 2002, pro-USA Turkey switched over to the anti-USA, pro-Iran, pro-Syria, pro-Hezbollah and pro-Hamas camp. In 2003, a radical regime was trounced in Baghdad, but in 2011 Baghdad could become an active volcano, spreading lava throughout the region.

The evacuation of Iraq turns attention to the exceptionally high security threshold required by Israel, resulting from the unpredictable, unstable, violent and volatile nature of the region and its regimes. The more thorough the US evacuation, the higher the level of threat and uncertainty, and therefore the deeper the security significance of the Judea & Samaria mountain ridges — the "Golan Heights" protecting Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and the 9- 15 mile sliver of Israel along the Mediterranean.

The security, stability and sanity of the Middle East depend upon American determination and deterrence. The evacuation of Iraq, without bringing terrorism to submission — along with hesitant USA policy toward Iran and North Korea — are perceived by rivals and enemies of the USA as lack of endurance, which was demonstrated by the US flight from Vietnam (1973), Beirut (1983) and Somalia (1993). It undermines the USA posture of deterrence and pumps adrenalin into the veins of terrorists.

The lower the military profile of the USA and the more volcanic the Middle East, the higher the added-value of the Jewish State as a credible, stable, battle-proven and democratic ally of the USA. Israel is endowed with unique capabilities, which have benefited the US in the areas of intelligence (sharing with the USA more intelligence than all NATO countries combined), defense-industrial Research & Development, manufacturing, refurbishing and exports (promoting US military systems and providing the US with the largest battle-proven laboratory [as well as hundreds to thousands of American jobs]), counter-terrorism (sharing with the US Israel's unique experience) and operations (foiling coups in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, destroying Iraq's nuclear reactor and Syria's nuclear plant, deterring rogue regimes, upgrading battle tactics, etc.). Such unique Israeli potential becomes doubly pertinent in face of the expected 2011-2012 Middle East sandstorms.

US-Israel mutual interests behoove a dramatically enhanced strategic cooperation, focusing on the larger Middle East and global context — and not on the narrower Palestinian context — which is critical to dire economic and security concerns of the US, Israel and the Free World.

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 Bar Kochba Blog, September 15, 2010.

In the media, on university campuses and certainly in the political debate, there is a systematic movement to falsify and rewrite history in regards to Israel and the Middle-East. It has been the official policy of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas, to deny and to minimize Jewish historical connections to the Land of Israel. Even as Mahmoud Abbas conducts "peace" negotiations with Benyamin Netanyahu, PA-run television aired a documentary on Rosh HaShanah in which, panning to the Western Wall, the narrator explained, "They [Israelis] know for certain that our [Arab] roots are deeper than their false history. We, from the balcony of our homes, look out over [Islamic] holiness and on sin and filth [the Jews praying at the Western Wall]."

To combat this insidious campaign of denial and revisionism, it is necessary to make a few points clear. One of the most ridiculous claims are references to "Palestine". Never in the history of the civilization has there been a sovereign country, ruled by a distinct Arab people, called Palestine. The only independent states that have ever taken shape in the Land of Israel (besides the brief rule of the Crusaders) have been Jewish. Furthermore, the notion of a Palestinian people only took root during the 1960s. Before then, it was the Jews of Israel who were referred to as Palestinians! Only once the Jews became "Israelis" could the Arab appropriate that name for themselves.

Another common claim is that the Land of Israel is sacred to all three major monotheistic religions. This, of course, is nonsense. "Palestine" and Jerusalem are not mentioned at all in the Qur'an! (The Land of Israel, however, is mentioned in relation to Allah bringing the Children of Israel into the Promised Land). The only Islamic connection to Jerusalem is the later claim that Muhammad spiritually visited Jerusalem and ascended to heaven from there. To mark this spot, Muslim caliphs built the Dome of the Rock and the Mosque of Omar on the Temple Mount, emphasizing that the reason why this spot is sacred to Muslims is because the Jewish Temple stood on that spot. Besides these two mosques, Jerusalem plays no other significant role in Islamic theology. The Land of Israel also has no particular sacredness attached to it in Islam, making it different than any other conquered territory. The holy land of Islam is Arabia- not Israel.

In contrast to this, it is in the Land of Israel that the Jewish people developed, flourished and ruled themselves. It is the Promised Land of the Torah. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible! It has been at the heart and centre of the Jewish conscious ever since King David conquered the city and made it his capital over 3500 years ago. It was to Jerusalem that every single Jewish male made pilgrimage three times a year during Temple times. It is towards Jerusalem that Jews pray three times a day (Muslims pray towards Mecca), beseeching G-d: "And to Jerusalem, Your city, in mercy return, and dwell in it as You have spoken, and rebuild it speedily in our days, as an eternal structure." Every Jewish wedding is marked with the breaking of a glass in remembrance of the destruction of Jerusalem and the solemn vow of "if I forget thee, O Jerusalem." Every single Passover seder and Yom Kippur fast is ended with the fervent hope and declaration of "Next Year in Jerusalem!" Clearly, not all claims are equal.

One of the most repulsive libels about Israel is that the Arabs are being forced to pay for the sins of the European Holocaust. It must be stated as forcefully as possible that Jews have been in Israel since biblical times, thousands of years before the Arabian tribes burst out of their peninsula, long before Muhammad ever received his first revelation and millennia before the rise of Nazism. It was in the 1920s, two decades before the annihilation of European Jewry, that the world recognized the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in the Land of Israel- they didn't create or bestow these right, but rather recognized preexisting ones.

These false claims are part of a campaign to delegitimize the very foundations of the Jewish state, which are the unbroken Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. Before any significant negotiations or agreements can be made, the world, and particularly the Arab and Muslim world, must recognize the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Without that, there can be no coexistence.

Thanks and gmar chatima tovah!

Avi/ Russell

Contact the Bar Kochba blogger at bk.forzionssake@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, September 15, 2010.

Rosh HaShana Eve. I was downstairs at Beit Hadassah, where I'd moved with my family from Kiryat Arba two years earlier. A friend of mine was examining emergency medical equipment in special lockers. We were killing time, waiting for the selichot services, special penitential prayers recited prior to the New Year, to begin.

I must have been about 11:30, when suddenly shots rang out. In Hebron, nothing can be considered strange or unexpected, but the sound of live ammunition being shot was not an everyday affair. And this gunfire was not sporadic or single shots. It was massive.

As we ran upstairs, the emergency security squad took up positions around the building and in the street. The source of the shooting was from the hills to the north of the building, Harat a'Shech. Clearly the bullets were aimed at us.

I ran up to my home and found my wife and kids crouched in a corner. Almost all the windows in my apartment face the hills from which the shooting was initiated. They didn't know where to hide. Finally they went downstairs to an 'underground apartment' where one of my daughters' and her husband were then living.

Officers and soldiers, taken by surprise, started making the rounds throughout the building. Upon reaching my apartment, and following a quick look around inside, they asked my permission to set up a temporary base in one of the rooms, clearly overlooking the hills. I agreed, and they remained there for over three weeks.

That was the beginning of what is popularly known as the 'second intifada.' I call it the Oslo War.

Working with journalists for years, I had told just about everyone who interviewed me that the inevitable result of the Oslo Accords would be a war. I didn't know when it would start, or how it would start, but that eventually it would happen. And I was right. Much too unfortunately. For this war cost us hundreds of lives and thousands wounded and maimed, both physically and mentally.

This war continued for almost two and a half years. When Israel, in January of 1997 transferred the hills surrounding the Hebron Jewish Community to Arafat and the PA, Hebron leaders met with then Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, warning him that these hills would be a source of shooting attacks against the community. The Prime Minister responded, "If they shoot one bullet, I'll send in the tanks." Of course in September, 2000 Bibi was no longer premier, and it only took two and a half years for Israel to figuratively 'send in the tanks,' that is, order the IDF to retake the hills and stop the shooting once and for all.

My office walls are filled with photos of friends killed: Col. Dror Weinberg, commander of the Hebron brigade, Rabbi Eli Horowitz and his wife Dina, ten-month old Shalhevet Pas, my fourth grade daughter's teacher, Rina Didovsky, twenty-one year old Hebron resident Elazar Leibovitch, and on the bulletin board in front of me, a photograph of Gandhi, Minister Rechavam Ze'evi, that I took on the roof of Beit Hadassah a week and a half prior to his assassination. And that's only to name a few.

Why did this war begin? PM Ehud Barak had just returned from Camp David, where Arafat refused his offer of ninety percent of Judea and Samaria. Why the refusal? Arafat witnessed Barak's orders to flee from Southern Lebanon, as a result of continued Israeli casualties there. Arafat decided: 'if Hizballah can cause Jews to flee by killing them, well, I know how to kills Jews too.' And so he declared war, and was granted a posthumous victory five years ago when Israel relinquished Gush Katif, expelling almost 10,000 people from their homes, to that same PA. Getting back, in return for our generosity, thousands of missiles rocketed into Israel. Missile attacks which continue to this very day.

This war, the Oslo War, began exactly ten years ago last week, on the eve of the Jewish New Year, the year 2000. Yet Israelis seem to have extremely short memories. Despite the shooting, not only in Hebron but throughout all of Judea and Samaria, despite the drive-by shootings, the suicide attacks, terrorist murder in all parts of Israel, people seem to have forgotten.

And most absurdly, at present we are on the verge of bringing upon ourselves, G-d forbid, a repeat performance, which began a week and a half ago in the Southern Hebron Hills. This time around it's not Barak, Arafat and Bill. Rather, it's Bibi, Mahmud, and Obama. The names have changed, but that's all. The expectations are identical: Israel must concede all of Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem and Temple Mount, allowing the 'return' of who knows how many Arab 'refugees' while in return we get a piece of paper with adorned photos of handshakes on the White House lawn.

The current talks are, sooner or later, destined to fail. No one has any doubts about that. The big question mark is the price we'll have to pay for our short memories. Ten years ago really wasn't so long ago. Ask the families of those who fell during the war. It was like yesterday. So I ask, why bring this madness upon ourselves, forceing us to go through it again?

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 Aryeh Zelasko, September 15, 2010.

This might be the most extreme form of Islam's hatred of women but it is hardly the exception. It is the dirty little secret of all of Islam. It is also why the English troops during the mandate got along so well with the Arabs.

BTW the next time someone tells you that the Pashtun are one of the lost tribes of Israel, consider this.

This article is by Joel Brinkley, professor of journalism at Stanford University and is a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the New York Times. Contact The Chronicle via our online form: sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1.

The article appeared in SFGate.com
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-29/opinion/22949948 _1_karzai-family-afghan-men-president-hamid-karzai

"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful." (Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty)

Western forces fighting in southern Afghanistan had a problem. Too often, soldiers on patrol passed an older man walking hand-in-hand with a pretty young boy. Their behavior suggested he was not the boy's father. Then, British soldiers found that young Afghan men were actually trying to "touch and fondle them," military investigator AnnaMaria Cardinalli told me. "The soldiers didn't understand."

All of this was so disconcerting that the Defense Department hired Cardinalli, a social scientist, to examine this mystery. Her report, "Pashtun Sexuality," startled not even one Afghan. But Western forces were shocked — and repulsed.

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.

"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy."

Baghlan province is in the northeast, but Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south. The Pashtun are Afghanistan's most important tribe. For centuries, the nation's leaders have been Pashtun.

President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, from a village near Kandahar, and he has six brothers. So the natural question arises: Has anyone in the Karzai family been bacha baz? Two Afghans with close connections to the Karzai family told me they know that at least one family member and perhaps two were bacha baz. Afraid of retribution, both declined to be identified and would not be more specific for publication.

As for Karzai, an American who worked in and around his palace in an official capacity for many months told me that homosexual behavior "was rampant" among "soldiers and guys on the security detail. They talked about boys all the time."

He added, "I didn't see Karzai with anyone. He was in his palace most of the time." He, too, declined to be identified.

In Kandahar, population about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular, often weekly, pastime. Young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home. A recent State Department report called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape."

So, why are American and NATO forces fighting and dying to defend tens of thousands of proud pedophiles, certainly more per capita than any other place on Earth? And how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure." Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are "unclean" and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli's team "how his wife could become pregnant," her report said. When that was explained, he "reacted with disgust" and asked, "How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?"

That helps explain why women are hidden away — and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys.

Addressing the loathsome mistreatment of Afghan women remains a primary goal for coalition governments, as it should be.

But what about the boys, thousands upon thousands of little boys who are victims of serial rape over many years, destroying their lives — and Afghan society.

"There's no issue more horrifying and more deserving of our attention than this," Cardinalli said. "I'm continually haunted by what I saw."

As one boy, in tow of a man he called "my lord," told the Reuters reporter: "Once I grow up, I will be an owner, and I will have my own boys."

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 Yoram Ettinger, September 15, 2010.

Happy Yom Kippur and Happy New Year,


1. Yom Kippur is observed on the tenth day of the Jewish month of Tishrei, which is an Akkadian word for forgiveness and Genesis. Ten has special significance in Judaism: G-D's abbreviation is the tenth Hebrew letter (Yod); Ten attributes of God — Divine perfection — in the Creation; Ten Commandments; Ten Plagues; Ten reasons for blowing the Shofar; Ten percent gift to God (tithe); Ten days of repentance; The Ten Martyrs (Rabbis who were tortured/murdered by the Roman Empire); Ten generations between Adam & Noah and ten generations between Noah & Abraham; a Ten worshippers quorum (Minyan) required for a Jewish prayer; etc.

2. Yom Kippur is a Happy Jewish Holiday, replacing vindictiveness and rage with peace-of-mind and peaceful co-existence between God and human-beings, as well as among human-beings. It highlights forgiveness, pre-conditioned upon genuine repentance. Thus, Yom Kippur enhances family, social and national cohesion. It underlines unison, as synagogues become a platform for both righteous and sinning folks — all of whom are fallible. Yom Kippur emphasizes God's Covenant with the Jewish People, ending God's rage over the sin of the Golden Calf and commemorating the day of Abraham's circumcision, which initialed God's covenant with the Jewish People.

3. Yom (Day of) Kippur constitutes a Jewish contribution to humanity. It highlights the most essential human attributes, which are prerequisites to constructive leadership: humility (as featured in the Netaneh Tokef prayer), soul-searching, admitting fallibility, confessing wrong-doing, asking and granting forgiveness, accepting responsibility, collective responsibility and magnanimity. Yom Kippur is not driven by punishment, but by behavioral-enhancement.

4. The Hebrew spelling of "fast" — abstinence from food — highlights the substance of Yom Kippur. The Hebrew word for "fast" is the root of the Hebrew word for "reduction" and" shrinking", which alludes to one's "spiritual diet," clearing the body and the mind. It is also the root of the Hebrew words for "slave" and "eternity" — enslavement to God, but not to human-beings. At the same time, "fast" (being oneself), (awesome, power, independence), which are gained through the process of fasting, soul-searching and submission to God.

5. The Hebrew word Kippur (atonement/repentance) is a derivative of the Biblical words Kaporet — which covered the Holy Ark at the Sanctuary — and Kopher, which covered Noah's Ark and the Holy Altar at the Temple. The reference is to a spiritual cover (dome), which does not cover-up, but separates between the holy and the secular, between spiritualism and materialism. The Kippa (skullcap, Yarmulke), which covers one's head during prayers, reflects a spiritual dome. Thus, Yom Kippur constitutes the cover (Dome) of the Ten Days of Atonement (between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur), separating them from the rest of the year.

6. Teshuvah is the Hebrew word for repentance, sharing the same root of the Hebrew word for Return — returning to root/positive values, morality, and behavior) — and Shabbat. Yom Kippur is also called Shabbat Shabbaton — the highest level Sabbath. The last Sabbath before Yom Kippur is called Shabbat Teshuvah (based on Hosea's prophesy, chapter 4). While the Sabbath is the soul of the week, Yom Kippur is the soul of the year.

7. The prayer of Veedooi (confession/confirmation/reaffirmation in Hebrew) is recited Ten times during Yom Kippur, re-entrenching genuine repentance and plea for forgiveness. The prerequisites for forgiveness are the expression & exercise (talking & walking) of confession (assuming full-responsibility), repentance and significantly altering one's behavior. King Saul sinned only once — ignoring the commandment to annihilate the Amalekites — but was banished from the crown and killed, because he raised mitigating circumstances, while responding to Samuel's accusation. King David sinned twice (The "Bat-Sheba Gate" and the "Census Gate"), but was forgiven, because he accepted full-responsibility and unconditional blame and the death sentence (as expressed by Nathan the Prophet), which was promptly rescinded.

8. The initial prayer on the eve of Yom Kippur, Tefilah Zakah, enables each worshipper to announce universal forgiveness. While transgressions between human-beings and G-D are forgiven summarily via prayers, transgressions among human-beings require explicit forgiveness. Ill-speaking of other persons may not be forgiven.

9. The Memorial Candle, commemorating one's parent(s), is lit during Yom Kippur. It reaffirms Honor Thy Father and Mother, providing another opportunity to ask forgiveness of one's parent(s), as well as asking forgiveness on their behalf.

10. The Scroll of Jonas is read on Yom Kippur, demonstrating that repentance and forgiveness is universal to all Peoples, commanding one to assume responsibility, to get involved socially-politically, to sound the alarm when wrong-doing is committed anywhere in the world, to display compassion to all peoples and to adhere to Faith and Optimism, in defiance of all odds. It behooves good folks to roll up their sleeves, lest evil triumphs!

11. A long sound of the Shofar concludes Yom Kippur. It commemorates the covenant with God (the almost-sacrifice of Isaac), the receipt of the Torah on Mt. Sinai, Liberty and anti-slavery (Jubilee) and the opening of Gods gates of forgiveness. The Hebrew root of Shofar means to enhance/improve oneself. A Hebrew synonym for Shofar is Keseh, which also means cover-Kaporet-Kippur.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 14, 2010.

Not a whole lot to report with regard to the meetings held in Sharm el-Sheikh today because nothing of genuine substance has come out.

After an alleged "rocky start," with the cause unclear, a series of round-robin meetings was held involving host Egyptian President Mubarak, Secretary of State Clinton, US Envoy Mitchell, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas.

The major meeting of the day lasted for 100 minutes and involved Netanyahu and Abbas, meeting with Clinton and Mitchell. Clinton then met again with Netanyahu and Abbas.

Mitchell has reported that things were going well with the two parties having discussed "core issues" and well on their to establishing a framework for negotiations. Just warms the heart, doesn't it? But then, no matter what happened, Mitchell would put a pretty face on it.

It must be pointed out that "discussing" issues does not indicate anything with regard to coming to terms. In fact, in spite of a request from Mitchell that the discussions be kept private, PA officials have announced that they haven't seen any progress, and expect none until an announcement is made about an extension of the freeze.


Most unsettling was the news that broke this evening, at least in some quarters, that there is a "90% likelihood" that Netanyahu will travel to Washington on Sunday. We can be certain that he's not going 6,000 miles to tell Obama that he refuses to cave on anything. Some sort of deal or bargain, that requires Obama to sign on, has got to be in the works. Something big enough so that dealing with Clinton or Mitchell is insufficient.

The pressure on Netanyahu with regard to extending the freeze on building has been enormous. The other day Obama made a pitch in this regard, indicating essentially that, as things were going nicely, it would be a pity to ruin everything with a new start in building in Judea and Samaria; Mitchell has followed with a similar line. And I understand that, on the plane on the way to Egypt, Clinton told reporters explicitly that the freeze should be extended. Should.


Netanyahu has already suggested in various venues that some sort of "compromise" is likely: It needn't be all or nothing, he is saying. There would not be a total freeze any longer, but neither would there be a vigorous start on construction, with all building starts that were approved before the freeze taking off now. The suggestion in broad terms is that sufficient building to allow "normal life" to proceed would be permitted. What this means is anyone's guess. New clinics and school buildings, yes. But new apartments so recently married couples might have housing near their families?

This is not going to sit well in many quarters. If Netanyahu goes with this, he's reneging on his promise to the people.

He did have a lengthy meeting with his Inner Cabinet — the Septet — last night, in preparation for today, and the freeze was one of the subjects discussed.


Meetings will now move to Jerusalem.


Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in Hudson NY with regard to the negotiations, makes a sound observation: "First, Deal with the Enemies of Peace."

"No 'moderate' Palestinian leader will dare make any concessions for peace as long as Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are continuing to issue daily threats against 'traitors.'

"The major threat to the peace process is not an Israeli checkpoint or a new housing project in a West Bank settlement, but the threats coming from the evil forces in the Gaza Strip, Damascus, Beirut and Tehran.


You've heard it here, my friends, when I've spoken about Hamas setting the tone of political discourse. This is not just about making concessions in negotiations, although it is that. That tone calls on Abbas, as well, to laud the worst of the terrorists, and otherwise show how he supports the "resistance." Every time he fails to do this, he risks losing credibility in the street.


My posts have been focused on the "negotiations" and related issues, but it's important to note that it has not been quiet on the Gaza border, with attacks picking up considerably in the last several days:

Yesterday, the 10th rocket — a Kassam — to have been launched from Gaza since the beginning of Rosh Hashana hit southern Israel.

Today, an IDF unit operating near the Gaza fence came under attack when Arabs on the other side of the fence launched an anti-tank missile at them. Our soldiers returned fire, killing one terrorist and wounding four.

We can expect more of same: Ahmed Jaabari, head of the Hamas military wing, issued a statement today threatening a wave of violence to undermine the "peace process."


I heartily recommend Caroline Glick's piece, "A Prayer for 5771."

She begins with reference to Glen Beck's massive rally in Washington, which he called "Restoring Honor," explaining that "it wasn't really about restoring honor. It was about restoring something even more important. It was about restoring the American creed."

In a splendid segue she then moves to a discussion of our creed:

"By building our lives in the land of Israel, our birthright, the Jews are able to cultivate our heritage and perform our dual mission in relative peace and make the blessing of choseness tangible for ourselves and the world as a whole.

"For 3,500 years, successive generations of Jews have understood our mission and creed. They internalized it and lived their lives by it.

"Since the dawn of modern Zionism, the overwhelming majority of Jews, in Israel and throughout the world have recognized the return to the land of Israel as the harbinger of redemption for the Jewish people — and through it, for the world. This understanding has been so ingrained that it has seldom necessitated a mention.

"On almost every level, the State of Israel has been an overwhelming success for the Jewish people and for the world that has enjoyed its blessings...

"...Judaism...is flourishing in Israel today as it never has at any time in the past two thousand years. The Jewish people emerged from the brink of annihilation 65 years ago to build a Jewish state whose population is more learned in Jewish law than any Jewish community has ever been. More Jews study in institutions of Jewish learning in Israel than have studied at any time in our history. And even non-observant Jews live Jewish lives in Israel to a degree their families could never have enjoyed or imagine just four generations ago.

"Israel's extraordinary success is marred by but one failure. Since Theodore Herzl's untimely death in 1904, Israel has lacked a leader who recognized the importance of espousing the Jewish creed both to the world and to the Jewish people. That is, since Herzl, Israel has lacked leaders who have understood the first principle of statecraft.

"For a nation to flourish and succeed over time, its leaders must assert its creed with utter confidence both to their own people and to the world at large. They must assert their nation's creed with complete confidence even to leaders who reject it. And they must never give anyone else the right to deny their people their identity.

"...It is my prayer for the coming year that our leaders take a measure of strength from our people and our creed. I pray that they recognize that it is both their sacred duty and their great privilege to confidently represent and defend our exceptionalism and our don of Israel.
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/09/ a-prayer-for-5771.php

Amen v'amen!


"The Good News Corner"

Two instances of something good, and heartwarming, that evolved out of something painful — the antithesis of good.

Some of you may remember: Ten years ago, a young American Jew named Tuvia Grossman, who was here in Israel studying, found himself attacked by a mob of Palestinian Arabs. He was saved by the officer of an Israeli border guard unit. The NY Times ran a picture of the officer, standing over a bleeding Tuvia, with an outrageous caption "explaining" that this was an Israeli soldier attacking a Palestinian. A particularly egregious example of media bias. It was enormously negligent reporting, as well, for the caption said the incident took place on the Temple Mount — but there was a large street sign behind the officer, and there are no such signs on the Mount.

When Tuvia's father vigorously protested, the Times printed a correction, and a campaign to guard against such media bias was initiated. But Tuvia never met his rescuer, Gideon. Until now. See the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_6m06Yo SaI&feature=player_embedded


Many will also remember the horrendous attack in Mumbai in 2008, when Rabbi Gavriel Noah Hertzberg and wife Rivka were murdered viciously by terrorists at the Mumbai Chabad House. Their two-year old son Moshe was left weeping, sitting next to his parents' bodies, smeared with blood. His nanny, Sandra Samuel, risked her own life to rush in and grab him away to safety. When his grandparents brought him here to Israel, Sandra, the person to whom this little boy now clung, came along. A widow with two sons in India, she has remained and is helping to raise Moshe.

Now Sandra has been given honorary Israeli citizenship by Interior Minister Eli Yishai. See the video, in which she speaks of her delight and her devotion to Israel, for which she expresses love and a readiness to give even her life. One of the world's really good people who deserves whatever honor we can give her.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Tv/ item.aspx/125021

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, September 14, 2010.

Recent comparisons of Israel to these failed Greek city-states are sorely lacking.

There is a lot of talk these days, as there has been since the beginning of Zionism, about the future of Israel, the people, the state and the land. Inevitably it devolves into two central questions: What kind of Jew are you and which Jewish culture is the State of Israel supposed to live up to? The answers are more diverse than the question.

Some will say they are Josephus, the polyglot patriot turned memorializer of his people's travails. Some wish themselves to be the Zealots and some the martyrs, others the prophets. Inevitably the gap between who you believe you are and what the "state" has become is always great; it is never grasping its potential.

For some reason recently the question of Israel's future has come to be seen in Greek terms. Is Israel Athens or Sparta? Gadi Taub in Yediot Aharonot claimed in 2009 that the settlers love of the land "turned the Judaism of the settlers into an armed Sparta that replaced the spirit with materialism and the moral heritage of Israel's prophets with Joshua bin Nun's sword."

Influential columnist Eitan Haber, also in Yediot, claimed in a January article that by building fences around Israel "we are seeing the establishment of the new, modern-day Sparta here; yet we so much wanted to be like Athens."

Leonard Fein in the Forward countered that while Israel has many Spartan attributes, it is also Athenian, in some of its culture and in its hi-tech industry. His example of its Athenianess was, oddly, the fact that some Greek works have been translated into Hebrew — "These are as purely Athenian achievements as can be."

Really? Of all the things said about the Athenians, it's not clear they were great translators, perhaps he is confusing them with the medieval European monks.

The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levi joined the fray in July when he noted, "There is Athens and Sparta. Athens for peace and Sparta for wartime. Israel has been at war for 60 years, but it is still not Sparta; it is Athens. This is great, this is amazing."

A Muslim Web site called Albalagh.net includes an article entitled "Israel and Sparta," claiming that both sought to invade and enslave their neighbors: "Since Israelis and Spartans constantly feared a revolt by their oppressed peoples, both societies were militaristic and had citizen armies."

PERHAPS IT'S worth taking a step back and reminding ourselves who the Athenians and Spartans were. Classical Sparta was founded sometime around 800 BCE and rose to fame in 480 BCE when 300 of its legendary soldiers died in battle against a Persian army 1,000 times as large. As an oligarchy ruled by kings and a few elders, Sparta became a land power, relying on a small elite citizenry of trained warriors who were forbidden to work. Women enjoyed a high level of semi-equality, owning many of the estates. Spartans didn't build great monuments and had no real wealth. They defeated Athens in the famous Peloponnesian War and subsequently declined, mostly due to low birth rates, until the town became a mere tourist attraction for the Romans.

Athens by contrast was the city of semi-democracy from the sixth century BCE. A great sea power, Athenians shunned their women, who had few rights, and were prone to all sorts of internal strife and dissension.

They were great builders and philosophers. But they relied on money to field their armies and build their fleets, when their treasury was empty, their empire declined and the city fell to foreigners.

Every child raised in the West was, until recently, educated to admire these city states, the one a great military society of self-sacrifice, the other a progenitor of culture and democracy. Israel too, therefore, has been asked to liken itself to one or the other. And we supposedly see aspects of both here. The endless histrionics of the fringe-left, its cultural boycotts, its weird comparisons of hiding foreign worker children to hiding children during the Holocaust, or the Turkish hate-flotilla to the Exodus.

Who can forget all the recent congratulations of the feigned courage of Ilana Hammerman, who claims that she is breaking some taboo by eating Arabic food in Hebron or taking Palestinian girls to the beach in Tel Aviv? The professors who line up to condemn student organizations like Im Tirtzu for supposedly threatening democracy do so in the name of preserving Athenian Israel.

And what of the Spartan Israel? Is it the settlers in their caravans shunning gold but walking the land? Or is it the kibbutzim who still hold on to the myths of old, that they are producing agricultural products and going to the best army units, when in fact less and less of them go to the army and more and more of those agricultural products exist only because of state subsidies? Surely the demographics of the kibbutz are not so different than Sparta.

The truth is that Israel is neither and nor should it aspire to the failures that befell these Greek city-states. Who wants the internal strife of Athens, the self-doubt, the treachery of Alcibiades (its greatest general), and the weird admiration that so many Athenians had, cowering behind their Long Walls (built to connect their city to the sea), for the Spartans? And who wants the Spartan way of life, the spurning of work, the endless Adonis complex, the low birth rates and reliance on a class of semislaves to support society? Israel could aspire to much more than the current Athenian Europe, and more than simplistic and ultimately fatal Spartanism. But even while aspiring to more we could do well to learn from their past failures.

It was Athens that built walls around itself, and when its military failed, its walls could not save it from the internal coups that followed.

It was Sparta that invested so much in its army only to have it humiliated at Sphacteria in 425 BCE by Athenians who were barely schooled in war. Echoes of the recent problems faced by Israel in Lebanon or aboard the Turkish flotilla? Much can be learned in this history and less of it aspired to.

Seth J. Frantzman is a PhD researcher at Hebrew University and a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website:
http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=188090

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, September 14, 2010.

This is by Nolan Finley, editorial page editor, Detroit News. It appeared September 12, 2010 in the Detroit News.


How absurd is it that the deranged pastor of a tiny Florida church can make the entire world hold its breath just by threatening to burn a book? The Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville is a hate-filled nut, for sure. But nothing he's done or vowed to do in offering what can only be viewed rationally as a minor insult to Islam merits the paranoia in the West about a worldwide wave of bloodshed at the hands of offended radicals.

Jones was implored not to carry out his promise to burn a copy of the Quran by, among others, the United Nations, the pope, Gen.general David Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. His back-and-forth deliberating was covered as if it was another Bay of Pigs stand-off and this scruffy preacher had his finger on the button.

Come on. Jones should have been entirely ignored. He's not an official of our government, nor is he a national leader in any fashion. He's an obscure redneck, or at least he was until the cameras showed up at his 50-member church. That Jones captured so much attention is an indication of what the West is up against in its effort to coexist with Islam.

Yeah, I know — all Muslims aren't mayhem makers. But the lunatic fringe is apparently wide enough to trigger an extreme overreaction from our nation's top offices to a silly little publicity stunt. If Muslim sensibilities are so tender they can't ignore the bizarre rants of an insignificant American fanatic then this is a culture with a serious anger management issue, and one the West can't help with.

There's no way to head-off every potential slight to Islam. Last time it was Danish cartoons, this time it's a Pentecostal pew jumper who lays down his snakes to strike a match. Tomorrow, an atheist in Italy may name his dog Mohammad, or a biker in Australia will have a likeness of the prophet tattooed on his backside.

The only answer is for Islam to grow up. Religion invites antagonism; get used to it. Using the destruction of a book as an excuse to rampage is unacceptable and immature. A Quran, like a Bible, is a physical thing. What makes both books holy are the ideas and inspiration they contain, not the pages and ink. The religion won't be broken by taunts, or by bonfires.

Burning a Quran in the Florida swamps doesn't weaken the foundation of Islam any more than burning an American flag in Pakistan dents our nation's underpinnings, or coating an icon of the Virgin Mary with elephant poop, like that "artist" once did in Cincinnati, undermines Christianity.

Grown-ups shrug off such affronts for the ignorance they are, and move on. They don't go nuts, as the radicals did after the cartoon episode. We've had the mantra "Islam is a religion of peace" drilled into us for the past nine years. But Muslims still have some work to do to make that case. Peaceful religions aren't so easily provoked to violence. Religions of peace turn the other cheek.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, September 14, 2010.

The other day I needed to go to the emergency room.

Not wanting to sit there for 4 hours, I put on my MAGIC GREEN HAT.

When I went into the E.R., I noticed that 3/4 of the people got up and left.

I guess they decided that they weren't that sick after all. Cut at least 3 hours off my waiting time.

Here's the hat.

It also works at DMV. It saved me 5 hours.

At the Laundromat, three minutes after entering, I had my choice of any machine, most still running.

But...don't try it at McDonald's. The whole crew got up and left and l never got my order!  

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com She is author of "Some Of My Best Friends: Only The Names Have Been Changed To Protect The Guilty." Her new book is entitled "Prison Cheerleader: How A Nice Jewish Girl Went Wrong Doing Right."

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, September 14, 2010.

They are crossing the border illegally and violently displacing the indigenous population whose homes and possessions they either destroy or occupy. They are attacking the young, the elderly, and especially the girls and women, whom they kidnap, forcibly convert, or traffic into brothels. The locals are terrified of them. The police rarely come to their aid, nor do the politically correct media or government. Both are terrified by the criminals and terrorists who are riding these immigrant waves.

I am not talking about illegal immigrants to Europe or North America. I am describing Muslims who are penetrating India's West Bengal region. These Bangladeshi immigrants are becoming conduits for criminal activities (arms, drugs, and sexual slavery) which also fund global jihad.

You won't read about this in the Western mainstream media — or even in the Indian media, which has turned a blind eye to this ongoing tragedy because they are afraid to be labeled "politically incorrect" or "Islamophobic." They are also afraid of reprisals. When Islamic zealots ransacked the office of the renowned newspaper, 'The Statesman' in Kolkata, in retaliation for a mere reproduction of an article condemning Islamic extremism, the Indian press remained silent. The editor and publisher of the newspaper were arrested for offending Muslim sentiments and no action was taken against the rioters.

Fortunately, there are a few very brave Hindus who are taking a stand against the Muslim terror campaign in India. One of them is Tapan Ghosh, whom I had the privilege of meeting recently when he came to New York City to talk about anti-Hindu persecution in his homeland. In 2008, Ghosh founded "Hindu Samhati" (Hindu Solidarity Movement), which serves persecuted Hindu communities in both West Bengal and Bangladesh.

As Ghosh emphasized in our interview, the Muslim persecution of Hindus in India is nothing new. Over a period of 800 years, millions of Hindus were slaughtered by Muslims as infidels or converted by the sword. In 1946-1947, when British India was divided into India and Pakistan, Muslims massacred many thousands of Hindus in Calcutta, the capital of West Bengal, and all along the fault line which separated India and Pakistan. Anti-Hindu riots and massacres continued during the 1950s and 1960s, but it was in 1971, when East Pakistan broke away to form the country of Bangladesh, that things worsened for Hindus in the area.

As Ghosh explained to me, "The liberation movement for Bangladesh was characterized by an escalation of atrocities against the Hindus and pro-liberation Muslims. Hindus were specifically singled out because they were considered a hindrance to the Islamisation of East Pakistan. In March 1971, the government of Pakistan and its supporters in Bangladesh launched a violent operation, codenamed "Operation Searchlight," to crush all pro-liberation activities. Bangladeshi government figures put the death toll at 300,000, though nearly 3 million Hindus were never accounted for and are presumed dead." U.S. officials in both India and Washington used the word "genocide" to describe what took place.

According to Ghosh, there has recently been a sharp increase in incidents of "Muslim rioting during Hindu festivals, destruction of Temples, desecration of Deities, and large-scale, provocative cow slaughter." Worse: "Hundreds, thousands, of Hindu girls have been kidnapped, trafficked into sexual slavery, or taken as second or third wives for wealthy Muslim men. In recent years, Ghosh's organization has rescued nearly 100 such girls, and one of his main missions has been to help reintegrate those survivors into their families and societies.

Ghosh wants the Indian government to stop the illegal immigration from Bangladesh and to force the return of undocumented Muslims; to ban madrassas and polygamy; to enforce a single standard of law and education; and to arrest and prosecute known Muslim mafia kingpins and terrorists. He challenges the media to report on the anti-Hindu atrocities and to address the issue of religious apartheid.

Ghosh is not optimistic. "The establishment of massive Saudi-funded Madrasas across rural Bengal is only contributing to the growing religious extremism among Muslims, [and] implementation of Sharia laws by [Islamic] courts is quite prevalent in many villages." His greatest fear, he tells me, is that one day shouts of "Allahu Akbar" will ring out across the land and that Muslim zealots will demand that Hindus either convert or leave West Bangal — or die.

Ghosh came to America not just to appeal to Indian-Americans with family and historical ties in West Bengal and Bangladesh but to appeal to all Americans for their support. As he sees it, the battle against Muslim persecution in India is just one front in a much larger battle against Islamic expansionism and terror throughout the world.

All Americans must realize, he told me, "that the war on Islamic terrorism cannot be won without curbing religious extremism amongst the Muslim masses, be it in the suburbs of Detroit or Delhi or villages in rural Bengal. And this will require the active support and cooperation with each other, ranging from cooperation at the highest level to those who work at the grassroots level. We hope that Americans and Westerners will come out and support the Hindus in Bengal in raising resources and creating awareness about our on-the-ground realities."

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/

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Nathan Bloom in the preparation of this article.

To Go To Top

Posted by FSM, September 14, 2010.

This was written by John Bernard, a retired Marine First Sergeant who writes on Counter Insurgency Doctrine, Islam, Rules of Engagement and Middle Eastern culture, in his blog: Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home.


I have never had much patience for anyone who acts out of frustration and then in a way that is 'unprofitable'. Back in the 60's and 70's Hippies burned American Flags, spit on returning Warriors, and generally acted like spoiled brats without the ability to reason. As the years have passed, some of these practices have done little but incite disgust, deliver personal insult and otherwise alienate the very people they were intended to influence. I know I take it as a personal insult when someone desecrates the flag. I am somewhat less insulted by the burning of the Bible largely because it is an act of disobedience against the omniscient, omnipotent God who is fully capable of retribution. It is his word that is being abused by the unrepentant — and at their eternal peril.

So it was curious to me that so much fury could be raised by the mere suggestion that a small group of individuals might burn a few Korans. Here is my point by point take on the subject:

  1. Mat 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Based on this command it strikes me that doing something that you know will insult someone and thereby remove the possibility of speaking to them, places you in violation of the command. After all; even Islamists are to be reached out to with the Gospel. This Pastor and his congregation certainly have the right to do this (a right the President seems conflicted about), but as Believers should have refrained.

  2. General Petraeus, President Obama and the entire administration have bent over backwards to accommodate the Afghan people, government and apparently, 'repentant Taliban' and all at the expense of American Warriors. The level of 'restraint' shown during engagements, while seemingly admirable, is doing little bring about victory — a victory our Warriors should be able to expect for their efforts and sacrifices. There is evidence that tax payer dollars are being funneled into that country to rebuild/build Mosques. And this knowing that Islamists have never been 'tolerant' of any ideology or system of governance inconsistent with the Koran or Sharia. It has also been apparent for some time that the Strategy has become the goal and the security of the United States a forgotten concern.

  3. Anyone who truly believes that Islam is 'a religion of peace' is smoking some very strong dope. Anyone who believes that burning a few Korans can transform otherwise rational and peaceful people into a murderous horde isn't giving those 'rational and peaceful people' much credit for the ability to reason. Anyone who truly thinks the 'true soldiers of Allah' aren't capable of using an otherwise mundane act as an excuse to incite violence and propaganda is a prisoner of his own inept mental faculty. Anyone who thinks violence in the streets is a perfectly normal and expected reaction to this kind of protest and doesn't allow Christians or Jews the same latitude, is a bigot.

I find it appalling that the same government officials and media that pressured this Pastor and his congregation to abandon their plans to protest the atrocities of 9/11 caused by the true soldiers of Allah by burning a few copies of the Koran are eternally silent when the Bible, Jesus or other Christian elements are so disgraced. I find it disgraceful that any sitting President would so defile his own country's history by denying the spiritual underpinnings of his nation's history in a speech to a people who already revile us and then show undue deference to those same people that he would deny his own.

In the end, the Islamists never needed a reason to be violent. Their violent expressions of displeasure for the act of burning Korans — that never happened only serves to reveal the true heart of the religion and its adherents. This is not and has never been a peaceful religion and its followers have never been a peaceful or loving people. The tolerance so demanded of our people by our elected representatives is not expected or demanded of others by those same representatives and this disparity only serves to embolden an enemy that has proven its patience and its intent to fulfill what it believes is its mandate to subjugate the world.

The acts of retribution feared by General Petraeus against American Warriors for the threat of burning the Koran are on any other day, acts of hatred for American Warriors that he should have been dealing with right along. They are the same acts of hatred that propelled the true soldiers of Allah to fly planes into the Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon 9 years ago and which caused us to seek justice by invading the very country where those acts were planned. It is the same hatred that has followed this religion throughout its 1400 year history and that has never truly been confronted. It is, in fact, the same hatred and lack of the almighty 'tolerance' that will be there long after our politically motivated withdrawal from the plains of Afghanistan.

While the very act of considering the burning of the Koran would for most of us seem an anemic act of protest and fuel for an already hate filled people, the fact is, the seeds of hatred for all things not in submission to Allah were planted centuries ago. It would, then, be a far better use of time, the spoken word and study to determine the truly best way to confront what is proving to be greatest challenge to Western and American civilization.

Semper Fidelis

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 14, 2010.

....."Most important, not a single Jew from the Arab world remains a "refugee", not one lives in a squalid camp or demands UN funding or a "Right of Return" to the Arab world. Above all, not one angry, Arab-born Jew has ever strapped a terrorist suicide bomb to his or her waist and climbed aboard a bus to murder dozens of innocents".............


Senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath, shortly after the start of US sponsored peace talks.

" The Palestinian Authority will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state ... Such a declaration would directly threaten the Muslims and Christians in Israel and prevent Palestinian refugees, who left their homes and villages a number of decades ago, from being granted the right to return to them."

This rather shocking comment made at a Ramallah press conference last week by one of the supposedly more "moderate" members of the Palestinian leadership produced headlines throughout both the Arab world and Israel.

Amazingly it received nary a mention in the major American media!

As Mr. Shaath well knows, Israel was established and internationally recognized as a Jewish state more than 60 years ago. He also knows that Arab refusal to recognize that fact is at the very core of the Mideast conflict. So how does Shaath expect to win Israeli confidence and concessions for peace if Palestinians still refuse to accept Israel's Jewishness?

And why is Mr. Shaath so worried about Israel's Arabs, that 20 percent of Israel's population of 8 million whose forebears were smart enough not to run away during the 1947-48 Arab-launched war? Surely he knows that Israeli Arabs — Christian, Druze and Muslim — are full fledged citizens of the Jewish state. They occasionally face problems, but they always vote, elect their own members of parliament, work in the Israeli government, in Israeli industry, agriculture and commerce, are doctors and nurses in Israeli hospitals, teachers and professors in Israeli schools and universities, serve in the Israeli army if they wish, share in a democratic system unmatched in the Middle East and enjoy a standard of living that is the highest of most Arabs anywhere!

1951, Baghdad Jews line up outside a synagogue to forfeit property to the Iraqi government and register for emigration permits.

Mr. Shaath also fails to explain that when he speaks of "a Right of Return" he's not referring merely to survivors from 1948's original 700,000 or so Palestinian refugees. He is talking about all their descendants — four (sometimes five) generations of them — roughly 4 million souls by Arab count! Does the Palestinian leadership really expect Israel to commit demographic suicide as part of a "peace deal"?

The Palestinian exodus during the Arab war on nascent Israel is part of history. Most fled out of fear of war, others because they were urged to make way for "victorious" Arab armies, and some — but certainly not most — because Israeli troops drove them out in the heat of battle.

Other mid-20th century refugee problems were all quickly settled (the millions who simultaneously fled Pakistan and India, for example). But the Arab refugee problem was made to fester with the compliance of the Palestinian leadership. Israel, with millions of Jewish refugees at its gates, understandably refused to allow a hostile Arab refugee mass back onto Israel's sliver of land.

The Muslim world turned its back on its brethren. With the exception of Jordan, no Arab state has ever granted Palestinian refugees citizenship, let alone a permanent home on any of its millions of open acres. Instead Palestinian Arab refugees were kept penned up in overcrowded refugee camps — tent cities that have become squalid towns. They still live off massive international welfare doles, are used as political pawns by corrupt officials, and sit waiting for Israel to be destroyed so they can invoke a "Right of Return".

Compare that to the other, lesser know Mideast refugee crisis that coincided with Israel's birth — the forced exodus of almost 900,000 Jews from their centuries old homes in the Arab world; from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Aden, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

These Jewish communities, some of which had existed 1000 years before Islam, were rich in culture, with their own Judeo dialects and traditions, their own scholars and religious literature. The true story of this other Mideast refugee saga, is now told in a powerful new book by prize-winning British historian, Sir Martin Gilbert called In Ishmael's House; A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (Yale University Press).

To be sure, says Gilbert, Jews in the Arab world were subject over the centuries to occasional violence and forced conversion. Nor were they ever accepted as anything but Dhimmi — "protected" but always second class citizens.

Still, by 1947, close to a million Jews lived in the Arab world. Many played primary roles in local economies, global trade, and medicine. Some became senior advisors to kings and presidents and helped enrich the cities of the Arab world (Baghdad's pre 1948 Chamber of Commerce was 50% Jewish).

The historic decision to establish the State of Israel changed all that. Outraged by the idea of even a tiny Jewish state in their midst (and with an avaricious eye on their Jewish citizens' belongings), the Arab world turned on its Jews, targeting them with legislated discrimination, government sponsored anti-Semitic riots and murderous pogroms. Faced with growing threats, outright violence (some were hung for public amusement) and moves to completely disenfranchise them, close to 900,000 Jews were forced to abandon their ancient homes between 1948 and 1967. In Cairo, the former home of of one of Egypt's wealthiest Jews became the residence of the Egyptian president.

Almost all were eventually "allowed" to leave their native lands on condition they signed agreements never to return and — most important — to leave their property and belongings behind. Recently uncovered documents indicate that much of this massive theft was a coordinated scheme by several Arab governments to grab Jewish property worth as much as $100 billion today.

Today, with the exception of small communal pockets in Morocco, the Arab world is effectively Judenrein. Egypt which once had 180,000 Jews now literally has a handful of mostly aged Jews living in Cairo and Alexandria; Iraq which had 160,000 Jews now has 10, Libya and most other Arab states have none.

But here comes the difference between the fates of Arab and Jewish refugees. While the corrupt Arab world condemned Palestinian Arabs to statelessness, squandered opportunities to make peace with Israel and stole mega-millions in welfare funds, the Jewish state and the world Jewish community worked tirelessly to resettle its fellow Jews from Arab lands. More than half a million have settled in Israel where, after early years of economic and sometimes social hardship, they and their descendants have been successfully integrated and now form more than 50% of the Jewish population. Others found new homes in South America, Western Europe, the United Kingdom, United States, Canada — rebuilding lives while trying to retain their own unique cultural ties and communal institutions.

Most important, not a single Jew from the Arab world remains a "refugee", not one lives in a squalid camp or demands UN funding or a "Right of Return" to the Arab world. Above all, not one angry, Arab-born Jew has ever strapped a terrorist suicide bomb to his or her waist and climbed aboard a bus to murder dozens of innocents.

There are reports Shaath is fighting to win the primary seat on the Palestinian negotiating team. The buzzing swarm of apologists for the Palestinians will argue that Nabil Shaath's statement was strictly for "Arab street consumption." Therein lies the problem. It's time for the Palestinian leadership to tell their people that the only hope for peace is a two state solution — to recognize Israel as the Jewish one, to build permanent homes for Arab refugees in the Palestinian Arab one and to seek resettlement for those who can't fit on it in other Arab lands.

Won't somebody please send Mr. Shaath a copy of Sir Martin's new book?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Fisher, September 14, 2010.

Palestinian militants from the Islamic Jihad hold a training drill in front of the media in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip August 30, 2010. While the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians appears remote, so too does the chance of open conflict — for now at least. (Reuters/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa)

Muslim publications have been busy during Islam's month of Ramadan calling for increased jihad against "infidels," describing it as an "eternal" and "most important" commandment and explaining that a ban on killing the elderly, women and children "doesn't apply to Israeli society."

The report was compiled by D. Hazan, a research fellow at the Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and analyzes Middle East media outlets.

The emphasis on jihad during the religion's Ramadan time comes because "the month of Ramadan is the month of attacks, conquest, and victories, with an emphasis on the fact that man of the early Muslims' victories over their enemies, such as at the battles of Badr, Hittin, and 'Ain Jalut, came during Ramadan."

"Jihad is defined as the one of the most important commandments of Islam, and its intersection with Ramadan, which is 'the best month in Allah's eyes,' is 'a tremendous high point that none can attain but he to whom Allah has chosen to grant this tremendous honor of fasting and war,'" the report said.

Among the monitored statements was one from Saudi sheikh 'Abd Al-Rahman bin Nasser Al-Barrak, a former university lecturer, who posted on his website that jihad against the infidels is eternal and most important commandment of Shariah.

"Quoting from the Quran and the Hadith, he stressed that jihad is still a source of honor for Muslims, and that its absence is a source of their humiliation. Al-Barrak added that if the enemy is amenable to reconciliation, and this serves the interest of Islam and of the Muslims, they may reconcile with him, but only temporarily, not permanently — as the Prophet Muhammad did with the Jews concerning Al-Madina," the report said.

Al-Barrak also lamented the fact that the United Nations frowns on slavery, since according to the laws of jihad, when Muslims are victorious over infidels in war, "they may take booty and captives — including the wives and children of the infidel fighters — and may enslave them."

On its website, The Muslim Brotherhood published the work of the late Gaber Qumayha, who concluded that slogans such as "Death for the Sake of Allah Is the Height of Our Desire," are "not just empty slogans but are actual 'contractual and moral obligations,'" the report said.

The Arab news website moheet.com had a program on Iqraa Television in which Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, wrote that while carrying out jihad, Muhammad did ban killing elderly, women and children, but found "this ban does not apply to Israeli society," the report said.

He said that is "different from other societies, because it is a society that occupies and attacks ... [and] recognizes nothing but the oppression of the rights of others."

The report also said the jihadist forum Al-Falluja published a letter stating, "The month of Ramadan is the month of victories for Islam and the Muslims. The Muslims fought most of the battles of Islam during Ramadan, and reaped great victories in them... We call on you to take advantage of [Ramadan] to return to Allah and to draw closer to Him by means of good deeds and support for your mujahideen brothers by all possible means — with [your] soul and [your] valuables."

A related article, the report said, summoned Muslims to fight.

"Show us something that will gladden us and provoke the ire of the infidels — something that will please our mothers and our sisters and our brothers who have lost what is most precious to them [i.e. their loved ones]... The month [ofRamadan] has arrived. Allah will make your deeds successful, will strengthen your hearts, will give you victory, and will reward you for your jihad," it said.

Further, an Al-Falluja forum member, 'Mu'awiya Al-Qahtani,' called on all the forum's writers and readers to continue the media jihad during Ramadan, and not to pay attention to preachers calling for dedicating the month strictly to worshipping God and to reading the Quran, the report said.

"He wrote: 'Some preachers call for worshipping God during this blessed month, and for drawing closer to Allah... This is wonderful, and we [too] call for this, and more. But many preachers are likely to ignore [an additional way of] great and honorable worship of God... and that is jihad, and attack, for the sake of Allah... including repelling attackers of our jihad websites, calling for monotheism, and jihad for [the sake of monotheism] via the Internet... The Prophet attacked Mecca with 10,000 companions during Ramadan, and did not say to them, '[Let us] postpone the attack until after Ramadan, and dedicate ourselves to worshipping God,'" the report revealed.  

Yoram Fisher lives on Kibbutz Kfar Blum Doar Na Galil Elyon. Contact him by email at yoramski@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, September 14, 2010.

We trust the active minds who support Israel and who are dedicated to protecting Israel's sovereignty over the lands of Judah and Samaria will step up and correct this Australian webmaster who wrongheadedly refers to Israelis as "settlers." Doing so would mean more coming from you than from us, the SC4Z.

We also hope your PM can be educated to abstain from referring to Israelis as "settlers". We fervently wish the Israeli government and its bureaucrats would become better educated to the nuances of the English language so that it could better combat the sly propaganda published against Israel by the British Foreign Office.

For instance, the first rule to be learned is "never let your antagonists frame the issues with their words" and "don't use their words." For instance, just because an arab from Tunisia enters Israel illegally and begins to call himself a "palestinian" doesn't mean you should refer to him as such. Instead, when referring to arabs who cannot prove they are legally in Israel, call them "arabs" or "Muslims".

Do NOT assume that an arab is a "palestinian." (Remind the world that the true Palestinians are Jews.) The same rule applies to the arab use of the word 'settlers'. Israeli communities is the proper term. And they belong in Judah and Samaria.

Stop calling the region the "West Bank" and don't allow language to divide Jerusalem into East or West. It's one city, and it belongs in its entirety to israel. Don't let the arabs place their words on your street signs. Allowing a foreigner do so is not a Jew displaying "tolerance," but rather, a Jew exhibiting an embarrassing display of fecklessness. If you want to show tolerance, retake the Temple Mount and allow every Jew to enter it.

Corollary: do not allow Hillary to govern Israel. She is going to be out of work rather shortly, which explains why she's in such a hurry to plunder Israel as fast as she can. She will try to extort even more foolish and unnecessary sacrifices from Israel. We believe she will use bribery, threats, and temper tantrums. She is shameless and will use Jews against Jews if she can. And she will try. Call her on it if she dares engage in this ugly ploy. Call her on it. Openly. Publicly. Don't behave as if you are afraid of her.

She's a lawyer and there's no excuse for her ignorance of the San Remo Resolution. BTW — anything Peres did in violation of the San Remo Resolution was and remains "ultra vires," that is, unlawful, if not criminal.

The article below is captioned incorrectly It is entitled "Thousands of settler homes planned as Israel mulls curb" and is from today's SpaceWar Express (spacewarexpress@spacewar.com). and is archived at
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Thousands_of _settler_homes_planned_as_Israel_mulls_curb_999.html).


Thousands of settler homes planned as Israel mulls curb

Jerusalem (AFP) Sept 13, 2010 — An Israeli settlement watchdog said on Monday that construction could begin on thousands of new homes this month if Israel does not renew a moratorium seen as key to US-backed peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly planning to let the moratorium expire while curbing construction in order to avoid a showdown with US President Barack Obama, who has urged him to extend the restrictions.

Hamas says peace talks 'humiliating and degrading'
Gaza City, Palestinian Territories (AFP) Sept 13, 2010 — The Islamist Hamas movement said on the eve of a summit on Tuesday in Egypt that the latest round of US-backed peace talks were "humiliating and degrading." Senior Hamas official Ismail Radwan said his movement remained vehemently opposed to the talks being carried out by Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, whose forces were driven from Gaza when Hamas seized power in June 2007. "(Abbas) is not authorised to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people and any agreements produced by these negotiations will not be binding on our people," he told AFP.

The militant Islamist group carried out two shooting attacks in the West Bank ahead of the relaunch of direct peace talks in Washington, killing four Israeli settlers, including a pregnant woman. It has vowed further attacks. Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and blacklisted as a terrorist group by the Israel and the West. It won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections in 2006.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, September 13, 2010.

Our G-d is a jealous god, as He repeats many times in his book. I intend not to denigrate his mercy. Don't argue with me — argue with Moses, who wrote Exodus 20:5. And he is a god of punishment. You wanta debate me? Don't waste your time. Read Isaiah 13:11. "I will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity." It is clear our G-d, contrary to Christianity, is a g-d who is passionate about justice, but dispenses mercy in carefully measured doses. And when I consider the many quotes announcing his celestial disciple — how else can mankind be civilized — I think of the real world from Sodom and Gomorrah to the 40's of our generation when we fought the evil threat of Naziism. Like Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, "there's nothing new under the sun".

Consider Sodom and Gomorrah. Merciful Abraham pleas for a reprieve if even five good people exist in that stew of iniquity. Evidently, they can't be found. G-d nukes the two cities of the plain. He either couldn't find five moral people or he ignored his debate with Abraham and eliminated a few innocents with the sinners.

Oddly, World War II — two millennia later — the debate reopened. The highest levels of allied leadership debated the bombing of German cities. (By now, man had almost the destructive power of G-d.) Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin not only possessed railroad junctions and armament plants, but innocent men, women, and children. The discussion didn't last long. We pulverized those cities like radiation therapy destroys healthy flesh along with the cancer.

If we believe in the epiphany at Sinai, we must believe that our creator destroyed thousands in the cities on the plain. Qualifications on both sides, though not stated, could be postulated. You might say: He couldn't find those five righteous people, the basis of his agreement with Abraham. Evil must be eliminated.

Opposing view: isn't it possible that some of the evil would change; eventually mend their ways? Were the children evil? Consider also some 2-3 millennia before. The flood obliterated mankind. Remember HE wiped out humanity except righteous Noah and his brood and a few animals so we'd have a zoo to amuse us.

These are difficult ethical conundrums for biblical scholars to reconcile with the goodness and mercy Judaism now believes G-d to possess. Do we dare ask: Did HE change or did WE change? Or must we painfully accept that our G-d, who provides goodness, not only hates, but stands ready to enthusiastically eliminate evil as we eradicate the malaria germ. This is a question not for me or three millennia of rabbis to answer. It is beyond our ken. But the question still hangs in the air like a cloud over Guantanamo, where innocent thousands were saved by merciless punishment to a few. But those harsh methods must have punished some small measure of innocence. What's the rationalizing arithmetic? 10,000 saved — 4 "innocents" put to pain? Let's face it, the Chumash would never hesitate on that tradeoff.

Israeli missiles often destroy the terrorist home or car, even if his pals or family go with him to that libidinous Islam heaven. There's nothing new under the sun, said Solomon — even convoluted moral questions. is there a calculus? Or even a simple arithmetic? One potential killer and three innocents require death to save the lives of fifty other innocents. Is that the deal? Or is it twenty — or a thousand? Who knows?

I would say the faithful believers of G-d's lecture on Sinai would destroy 10,000 sinners — some innocent — to save five of his people. Do you think the Maloch Hamoves, cruising the skies of 1350 BC Egypt checked the ethical character of his victims? No, says the book. He only looked for the lamb's blood on the door. He has mercy, but also a plentiful supply of wrath.

After consideration of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues, even Guantanamo; that saved thousands of our fellow citizens, we mourn the innocents, but do not let their peril paralyze our defense of goodness.

Again consider World War II. Military leaders of US and Britain, along with their Air Force chieftains, sat in a highly secured meeting room in London. Their topic was Genesis, especially the Creator's decision of Sodom and Gomorrah. An awesome decision — made more for G-d than man — faced them. Whether to punish the innocent with the guilty or prolong indefinitely the struggle with the current evil, Nazi Germany. Whether to pinpoint by aerial bombardment tactical military targets or the cities of Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dresden, Cologne, which contained military targets as well as women and children who did not build aircraft, tanks, or artillery. But the decision makers followed the theme of Genesis and pulverized the German cities. Man has always been less merciful than his creator. The same could be said of the Strategic Air Command — when G-dlike — they chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki for destruction.

We know nothing of G-d. I choose my woods carefully because we do know his desires of us. A thousand rabbis (and clergymen, too) tell you of his book and prattle of his desires. But he, himself, tells us his ways are hidden to us. "Who", "what", "why", even "when", are as obscured in the same smoke with which he crowns his mountaintops. Metaphorically, he tells us as much in the Chumash. Our Book abounds in mystery of good and evil, justice and mercy. According to his book, he will shelter us in the palm of his hand and obliterate us with a clench of that palm if he chooses. He hates evil. That's clear even to Sunday School children. And he punishes those that harm his people, as he repetitively states in his book. Therefore, I await the earthquake that will devastate the nuclear labs of Iran. Believe Torah? Then believe that. You say innocents will die. Remember the flood. Remember Sodom and

Gomorrah. The calculus is unknown.

Ted Roberts' essays appear in the Jewish press, web sites, and magazines. He is author of The Scribbler On The Roof, a book of short stories and commentary. Visit his websites at
http://www.wonderwordworks.com and

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, September 13, 2010.

Turning 60 two weeks ago, on the day that marked the 40th anniversary of my arrival in Israel, provided an appropriate pause for reflection.

After all, there is the tradition that a Jew is reborn upon arrival in Israel, when he assumes the inheritance of the land that G-d has given to every Jew.

To arrive in Israel in 1970 was to experience a nation which was experiencing some kind of "Post Miracle Traumatic Stress Syndrome".

In 1970, three years after the Six Day War, there was a post miracle atmosphere that enveloped Jerusalem at the time. In so many conversations, people would recall that three week wait before the war and share the fright of what it was like to live through the trauma of wondering whether the Jews would face yet another holocaust — this time in Israel.

Kibbutz Merom Hagolan. Summer 1971. My first kibbutz experience.

My friend Shaul from Hebrew University, a founder of the Kibbutz, had invited me to join him on the Kibbutz for a little while.

After each day in the field, Shaul took me walking through the abandoned Syrian Army camp in Kunetra, adjacent to the nascent kibbutz. And then we would ride in the Kibbutz jeep, from one abandoned Syrian bunker to another.

The Golan, four years after being wrested from Syria, looked like one massive abandoned Syrian army camp.

That first night on Kibbutz was the longest.

I was treated to my first artillery barrage.

Shaul was in a guard post somewhere. I will never forget that night in the Kibbutz shelter, listening to the Israeli record "Ish Chasid Hayah", sitting with Shaul's wife Yael and their three little kids. Yael, who had grown up in a kibbutz at the foot of the Golan, mentioned that she had grown up listening to hassidic records in the shelter, which she liked to listen to when the Syrians would let loose a barrage on her kibbutz in the Galilee.

Now, Yael said, her kibbutz "down there" was out of range, and Merom Hagolan was in range.

Until the ceasefire that Israel signed with Syria in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Merom HaGolan remained within range of the Syrian guns.

On my last day on the Kibbutz, Yehudah Fichtman, the kibbutz secretary, had the patience to spend time with me, and explained why he had come to live in the Golan. Yehudah's words have remained with me ever since.

He explained that he had fought for the Golan in 1967, and that he wanted to raise a family in the place where he had risked his life.

"We fought for it. Now we will live for it", said Yehudah, quite resolutely.

A few months later, Yehudah was killed in an artillery barrage while he was working in the fields, His wife and three children never left the kibbutz. Yehudah's grandchildren now serve in the IDF, on the Golan.

May 1973.

Nearing the close of yet a third year in Israel, and a student at the Pardes Institute in its first year, was a time I looked forward to seeing four of my closest friends who were "lone soldiers, without families in Israel", on a rare furlough in Jerusalem..

I felt kind of guilty, not yet in the army, but stomach illnesses would not go away. Three years of Alyah nervousness, you might say, kept me out of the IDF for yet another decade.

On Israel's 25th birthday, five of us got together for a "kumsitz" — the Israeli version of a barbecue, on the hill overlooking the Israel Museum, on the night before Israel Independence day in Jerusalem.

Each friend had come o Jerusalem to march in the IDF military parade, in full "ALEPH"-dress- regalia.

My four friends in the IDF served on the front lines. Each friend reported. matter of factly. that Syrians and Egyptians were poised to attack. They could not tell that to anyone. The attitude in Israel at the time was that Arabs are not capable of attacking Israel. Until the attack finally occurred on Yom Kippur.

These "single soldiers" were not surprised. Their commanders were.

David, whose Golani unit got the award for the "best marchers" in the parade, said that their "marching prize" was that they would get "more activities" and see more action.

It was no coincidence that it was the Golani brigade was selected to scale Mount Hermon six months later. Three young men around David were killed in that battle to retake the Hermon.

The Yom Kippur War.

The sudden attack on the Golan Heights in 1973 hit home.

I had been having terrible stomach problems my first few years in Israel, always nervous about the Israeli reality that I was living in.

On the first day of the Yom Kippur War, the man whom I called "my tummy doctor", Dr Moshe Ramon, the former Dr. Murray Raymond of Seattle, lost his oldest son.

I remember walking into his living room which doubled as a waiting room where I had been writhing in pain only a few weeks before.

I would never again feel the stomach pains that I had felt before. I said to myself that Moshe would have more pain than I ever would.

Moshe's son's friends from their Nachal kibbutz sat around the Ramon Shiva home and described the sudden Syrian attack, how the Syrian soldiers had scaled the fence of their community and mowed down the young,surprised Nachal soldiers, young men and young women, with automatic machine weapons firre, snuffing out fifteen lives in a matter of minutes. To this day, by the way, it has never been publicized that the Syrians had also killed a bunch of young women soldiers.

After the initial ceasefire, I hitched up to the Golan Heights to file a news story for the Jewish Student Press Service.

It was there that I witnessed the enormity of the Syrian advance. Rows of Syrian tanks and vehicles stopped in their tracks, strafed and bombed and left for any photographer to use his imagination as to just how close the Syrians had come to conquering the whole Golan Heights. Yet they had mysteriously stopped in their tracks.

After visiting the Golan, I went to stay in the mystical city of Tzfat.

It was there that I met a Rabbi HaLevi who told me an amazing story that he later put in a book. As soon as Rabbi HaLevi heard of the Syrian attack on the Golan, he organized a group of women to chant from the book of Psalms and to invoke the memory of Channah and her seven sons, who martyred themselves rather than convert from Judaism. Legend,has it that Channah and her seven sons are buried on a slope just below the Old City of Tzfat.

We associate the act of Channah and her seven sons with the Chanukah story and the war with the Hellenists. Yet there is an additional part of the story, mentioned in the Talmud, that Channah and her seven sons ask G-d for a favor in their merit. The legend goes that they ask that, in the merit of their self-sacrifice, G-d would save a Jewish city under siege. The first time that Rabbi HaLevy had asked a group of women to invoke Channah and her seven sons was when the 2,000 member Jewish community of Tzfat was under siege in 1948 from an Arab army of more than 12,000. There was no rational reason for the Arab that army to pull back. Yet the Arab army withdrew from Tzfat and the Arab residents of Tzfat fled, for no apparent reason

In 1973 the women had prayed again. The Syrian army stopped in its tracks, for no apparent reason.

Why the Syrian army stopped its advance remains one of the unknown factors of middle eastern warfare.

February, 1974.

I returned to the Golan for the Jewish Student Press Service to try to capture the spirit of those who returned to the Golan Heights after their homes had been overrun in the war.

Kibbutz Ramat Magshimim, on the southern tip of the Golan, seemed to be a logical place to travel to. Their kibbutz had been the first to be overrun. After ascending the Golan with the one bus that got there on a Friday morning, it took seventeen different rides until I got to Kibbutz Ramat Magshimim, where my postcard, saying that I would like to vist, had arrived only the day beforet.

They had no way of calling me, but I knew that this was the nation of miracles and hoped that this Shabbat visit would work out. Moshe Ben Tzvi's family with their four children welcomed me to their home.

The kids seemed to be regular kids.

During the Shabbat meal, two of the kids began to cry.

Moshe took me aside and said that they had cried almost constantly every Shabbat, since that terrible Yom Kippur in 1973, also on a Shabbat, when the families had been told by the regional IDF commander in the middle of the night to abandon the kibbutz because of the sudden advance of a Syrian tank column. The family came back to a badly damaged home, and Moshe explained that the kids were still disoriented.

Possibly the calmest moment on the Kibbutz Ramat Magshimim was the gathering of many of the families in a modest, improvised "moadon" clubhouse on Saturday night.

The children sang popular Israeli folk songs at the top of their lungs, while a young mother, Esther Ben David from Los Angeles, played the accordion and led them in communal singing

Esther had told me that she was determined to wipe the tears from the eyes of every nervous kid on that kibbutz. Now that is a good Kibbutz mother, I thought. I left on the bus back to Bar Ilan University the next morning with a "song in my heart", so to speak. On Monday morning, following class at Bar Ilan social work school, I walked by the Bar Ilan mensa cafeteria. I heard the lunchtime newsreel on the radio. An artillery bombardment had suddenly hit Kibbutz Ramat Magshimim. After the dust had cleared, Esther Ben David was found dead in a ditch near the baby clinic from which she had just emerged, where she was getting medicine for her baby boy, whom she was clutching in her hands. Esther was struck by a direct hit, yet had the presence of mind to hold that boy so that no harm would come to him. No harm came to that baby, who was found cuddled in Esther's lifeless arms. Esther, who brought so much happiness to the children in her kibbutz, saved the life of her little boy in those terrible seconds of the artillery barrage. That little boy, saved in a ditch on the Golan while his dying mother hovered over him, lived to marry a neighbor of ours, only a few years ago.

A year after the Yom Kippur War

Israel witnessed a series of brutal PLO attacks. One of these attacks was the Maalot massacre, where high school students were held hostage by the PLO, with carnage taking place at the end of the day. The PLO started the day with a slaughter of an Israeli family-parents and children.

At the end of the day, 22 youngsters were dead and 72 injured.

Our social work class volunteered to go to Tzfat to help the students who had survived. One girl sobbed that the doctor said that she would survive, not to worry, but that she would not be able to have children. It was hard to console the young girl.

Ten years later, when I was a social worker in Tzfat, the same girl walked by with a baby carriage. She had given birth to her first child, a girl. Without flinching, she said that the baby had been born despite the shrapnel, and that she had recited psalms for ten years, never missing a day of prayer.

That miracle baby represents the era of the Yom Kippur War.

As one less than observant Israeli friend said at the time, the outbreak of the war on Yom Kippur imposed a permanent solemnity on Yom Kippur for all of Israeli society. The 1972 Yom Kippur disco that had taken place in the Hebrew U dorm would never happen again.

No longer could any Israeli deny the weight of Yom Kippur on every Jew in Israel.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Amir Taheri, September 13, 2010.

Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is pro posed is not a mosque — nor even an "Islamic cultural center."

In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.

Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.

TOWER: The Ground Zero project doesn't fit the traditional minaret, pictured here. (AP)

This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn't be any of the above.

The groups fighting for the project know this; this is why they sometimes call it an Islamic cultural center. But there is no such thing as an Islamic culture.

Islam is a religion, not a culture. Each of the 57 Muslim-majority nations has its own distinct culture — and the Bengali culture has little in common with the Nigerian. Then, too, most of those countries have their own cultural offices in the US, especially in New York.

Islam is an ingredient in dozens of cultures, not a culture on its own.

In theory, at least, the culture of American Muslims should be American. Of course, this being America, each ethnic community has its distinct cultural memories — the Iranians in Los Angeles are different from the Arabs in Dearborn.

In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat — literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value.

Faced with the anger of New Yorkers, the promoters of the project have started calling it the Cordoba House, echoing President Obama's assertion that it would be used to propagate "moderate" Islam.

The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy.

In fact, Cordoba's history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn't force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid.

If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of "Muslim rule," the subtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule.

A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, "in your face" projection of Islam in the infidel West.

This thirst for visibility is translated into increasingly provocative forms of hijab, notably the niqab (mask) and the burqa. The same quest mobilized hundreds of Muslims in Paris the other day to close a whole street so that they could have a Ramadan prayer in the middle of the rush hour.

One of those taking part in the demonstration told French radio that the aim was to "show we are here." "You used to be in our capitals for centuries," he said. "Now, it is our turn to be in the heart of your cities."

Before deciding whether to support or oppose the "Cordoba" project, New Yorkers should consider what it is that they would be buying.

This appeared yesterday to New York Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by One Family Fund, September 13, 2010.

Sandra Samuel, the Indian nanny who saved two-year-old Moishe Holtzberg during the terrorist attack at the Chabad House in Mumbai where his parents were murdered, received her Israeli citizenship today. She was accompanied by her OneFamily caregiver, who played an important role all the way through the ordeal. Interior Minister Eli Yishai personally granted Sandra her honorary Israeli citizenship and official residency status in Israel, allowing her to remain in the country for however long she chooses.

She now carries an Israeli identity card. "I hope to honor this citizenship," Sandra said at the ceremony. "I love Israel, and I would give my life and soul for this country."

Just like in the most terrible of times for this family, OneFamily was right there with them during this celebration of honor. We are taught that a person who saves a life saves an entire world. Together with the rest of Israel, we stand in honor of Sandra Samuel and the world she has saved.


On November 26, 2008, terrorists struck the Chabad house in Mumbai, India, and killed five people, including Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg, who ran the house. The Holtzberg's were survived by their 2-year-old son Moishie, who was rescued from the house by his nanny, Sandra Samuel.

Following the attack, Sandra accompanied Moishie back to Israel, where they have been living with Rivka's parents in Afula. OneFamily was there with the family at the very beginning, providing financial and emotional support as Moishie began his life in Israel with his grandparents, and helping to renovate the house to accommodate Sandra and Moishie. And we have been there with them ever since, providing ongoing emotional support, legal assistance, and financial help where necessary.

When Moishie turned 3, OneFamily was there at his first hair cut in Meron. And when Moishie's aunt Chaya got married, OneFamily was at the wedding.

Moishie is now almost 4 years old. For the past two years, Sandra has been so devoted to him that she is the reason he has managed to acclimate to his new surroundings. He attends a religious kindergarten in Afula, and has been teaching Sandra Hebrew, including all the prayers he has learned in school.

Every Day in Every Way

The OneFamily Fund is the central organization providing comprehensive assistance to Israel's victims of terror. Since 2001, OneFamily has helped more than 2700 bereaved and wounded victims and their families with financial assistance, therapeutic programs, holiday events, youth and children's programs, support for young adults and orphans, and the constant, caring presence that comes with family.

You can help >>>

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, September 13, 2010.

In spite of the nonstop efforts of Israel's media, operating under the hegemony of the Israeli secularist Left, Israelis are in fact more religious than ever. Almost 60% of Israeli Jews define themselves as religious to one extent or another. Of the 42% claiming to be secularist, large chunks still observe important religious traditions, like fasting on Yom Kippur, building a succah, and so on. Quite a few sometimes go to synagogue. There are more Jews who claim they are becoming more religious than the number claiming they are getting less religious.

Now these numbers will no doubt upset the Radical Left. After all, with so many people embracing Judaism, how in the world will they ever manage to get Israelis to commit national seppuka and capitulate to all the demands of the Arab Islamofascists!?

The Full poll results follow:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ poll-fewer-than-half-of-israelis-see-themselves- as-secular-1.313462


1. Poll: Fewer than half of Israelis see themselves as secular 8% of Jewish Israeli adults define themselves as ultra-Orthodox, 12% as religious, 13% as traditional-religious, and 25% as traditional but 'not very religious,' according to Central Bureau of Statistics survey.

By Moti Bassok

Eight percent of Jewish Israeli adults define themselves as ultra-Orthodox, 12 percent as religious, 13 percent as traditional-religious, and 25 percent as traditional but "not very religious," according to a survey by the Central Bureau of Statistics conducted last year and published yesterday.

Meanwhile, 42 percent of the Jewish population characterize themselves as secular, according to the poll, conducted among Jews over 20. Seventy-two percent said they had visited a synagogue over the previous year.

Among secular respondents, 24 percent reported that they had attended synagogue on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur or both. Among secular Jews, 26 percent said they had fasted on Yom Kippur, 17 percent build a sukkah and 82 percent regularly conduct a seder at Passover.

Some 67 percent of secular respondents light Hanukkah candles and 29 percent light Shabbat candles. Ten percent of secular respondents kept kosher over the year and 22 percent observed Jewish dietary laws — kashrut — during Passover.

Among secular and traditional respondents, 52 percent light Shabbat candles at home but only 11 percent refrain from traveling by car on Shabbat. The rate of kashrut observance among the two groups collectively is 48 percent during Passover and 33 percent during the year as a whole.

Some 21 percent, which would amount to 790,000 Jewish Israelis, are more religious than they had been in the past. About 14 percent are less religious.

Among adult male Israelis, 23 percent go to synagogue daily, and 25 percent do so only on Shabbat and/or holidays, 11 percent on Rosh Hashanah and/or Yom Kippur and 16 percent on special occasions such as celebrations for memorial prayers. Meanwhile, 24 percent don't visit a synagogue at all.

Among women, 31 percent go to synagogue on Shabbat and/or holidays, 16 percent only on Rosh Hashanah and/or Yom Kippur, 18 percent only on special occasions and 32 percent not at all.

2. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/ how-i-became-an-evil-settler-1.313491

I am an Evil Settler
(printed in Haaretz of all places)

How I became an evil settler

I am the 'other,' the archetype of Israeli evil. Otherness is the darling of people who love to hate. It allows people from any camp, left, right or center, to isolate themselves from certain people, turn them into an inhuman group and hate them without guilt or torment.

By Avinoam Sharon

I am a "settler." Because I am a settler, artists and members of the academic community — some of whom are my close friends — have decided to boycott my home. I am a settler, the archetypical Other of Israeli evil.

Otherness is the darling of people who hate. It allows people of every stripe, left, right and center, to dissociate from certain people as a dehumanized class without thought or regret, and to hate without pangs of guilt. Throughout history, Jews have played the role of Other. In the world community today, Israel itself often plays the role of Other. Now I am the Other. I am the Other because I am a "settler," and in the eyes of some, that is what defines me.

How did I become this embodiment of all that is wrong and unjust?

When I married, I had hoped to continue to live in Jerusalem, to raise my family in the city in which I had grown up. But the Israeli Government had different ideas. By the time I married, successive Israeli Governments — left and right — had pursued a policy of discouraging young couples from purchasing homes in the major cities, and of directing them to development towns and to the Territories. It was a policy that, for example, made it necessary for a young couple to put up as much as 60 percent of the purchase price of an apartment in cash in order to qualify for a mortgage or other housing loans, while providing free land and subsidized housing assistance of 85 percent and more of the cost of a home in "areas of national priority."

My wife and I did not want to live in an area of national priority. We didn't want to leave Jerusalem. But after moving from one rented flat to another four times in five years, I wrote to the Minister of Housing. He replied. He advised me that generous incentives were available to those who moved to rural communities and to the Territories.

Like many in our situation, we began to look. We found a small community near the Green Line, overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport — a settlement "in the national consensus." It was a community that had been built after the Government had convinced the Supreme Court that it was absolutely needed to serve vital interests of national security.

Despite the high-sounding pronouncements of the politically correct, greater legal minds than Oded Kotler, Zeev Sternhell, Cynthia Nixon and Mandy Patinkin (among them, the Israeli Supreme Court and the legal advisors of the U.S. Department of State and of the United Nations) had determined that there was nothing illegal about building my home. And even after the Government of the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin announced a policy of "drying up" the settlements, my community continued to receive preferential loans, grants and generous incentives from his Government.

But things have changed. Negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian state have turned me and my neighbors into political pawns. The security barrier now separates us physically from the State of Israel. The two policies have contributed to rendering my home a valueless asset, an economic trap — a prison. Yet, no Israeli government, left, right or center, has been willing to state what will become of me or of my neighbors.

Like most settlers, I am a Zionist. I believe that settling the Land of Israel is about national self-determination. I believe — in true Zionist tradition — that Zionism is about Jewish national sovereignty in the Jewish homeland, not about its specific borders. I believe that the so-called "settler leaders" who declare their determination to remain in their communities even if they become part of a Palestinian state, represent a misguided minority that puts the Land of Israel before Jewish sovereignty. Their messianic view is not Zionism at all. It is a betrayal of Zionism.

A Zionist, by virtue of his ideals, must say that if the duly elected Government of the State of Israel has decided that a particular piece of territory is to be relinquished to another sovereign, or that a particular community does not serve the national interest, then he will move to a place where the Jewish national interest will be realized. The opposite statement is anti-Zionist.

Nevertheless, I am now dismissed as an irredeemable Other — unworthy of education, of culture and of support. I am condemned for my choices by those who have robbed me of choice. The signatories of the various petitions and supporters of the boycotts might bear in mind why I have become the object of their anger, hate and condemnation. It is because, like them, I dreamt and continue to dream of a better Israel. It is because, by and large, we value the same ideals. So, when they accuse me, they should bear in mind that I am guilty only by association with them.

Avinoam Sharon is a retired IDF lieutenant colonel, a lawyer and a resident of Nili.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, September 13, 2010.

In Memory of Victims of Islamic Terror Worldwide.

Since 9/11 attack on the United States there was no popular demonstration, staged by Muslims in their countries, not a PR exercise organised by local community bureaucrats, in protest of brutal Islamic terror against Western countries. In contrast, Muslims are quite prompt and extremely vocal in their mass protests against the cartoons or a Qur'an burning.

Few days ago, on September 11, at the end of Ramadan and during the Eid festival, Muslims around the world did not repent the sins committed by their brothers against humanity, but they were vigorously protesting against fake intention of self-promoting pastor to burn Qur'an. In Muslim countries burning of our flags, putting people in prison for their religious believes, destroying Bibles, even of transit passengers in airports, is widespread practice. If there are moderate Muslims, where are they and why are they silent?

We are told by our inapt leadership to be tolerant and understanding of Islam. We have done so — but our enemies have no interest in acceptance or respect of others. They have been committing acts of terror in hideous and hateful manner worldwide, enjoying global energetic or silent support from the majority of Muslims. Appeasement does not work — it is time to regain our self-respect and fight back. We own it to the victims of Islamic terror! Modern Western political correctness is self-destructive. Our enemies are just laughing at us.

Jewish Blood as Portrayed in the Western Media.
by Professor Phyllis Chesler

Four young civilians: human beings, fathers, mothers, one of whom was also pregnant, collectively the parents of seven children, were brutally gunned down by armed, masked terrorists. Their murders were openly celebrated in the streets by their attackers and by thousands of their supporters.

You would think that the world would recoil in horror — or that those who report the news, world-wide, would do so. Think again. These four precious souls were Israeli "settlers" and, as such, have already been so demonized that they are now seen as having provoked their bloody, pitiless deaths&

The New York Times, which presents this incident on page 4, not on page 1; the early pages are usually reserved for all incidents in which Israelis fight back so that Israeli "evil" is seen immediately and framed as among the most "important" world news of the day. The accompanying Times headline? Unbelievably, it is this: "Killing of 4 Israeli Settlers on the Eve of Peace Talks Rattles Leaders on Both Sides." It's really not clear who killed the "settlers." What is clear is that "both sides" are "rattled."

...The piece also positions President Mahmud Abbas as the "good" guy who, like his negotiating partner, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has "condemned" the attacks. Yes — even as Abbas is busy honouring the Palestinian terrorist who planned the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games, Amin Al-Hindi, as well as the Palestinian terrorist, Omar Muhammad Ziyada, who murdered an Israeli civilian in a human bomb homicide in 2002.

My point here is simply this: If American journalists, professors, scholars, teachers, read and trust only the New York Times, they will continue to view "militant Israeli settlers" as more blameworthy than Islamist Palestinian terrorists... In edition after edition, this point is made over and over again...

Dear friends, I need help with proofreading of this editorial letter. If you have good knowledge of English, some computer skills and commitment to assist with promoting true Zionist ideals worldwide, please contact me for details at: stevenshamrak@gmail.com

Food for Thought. Steven Shamrak

There is a Jewish saying: "Any evil can be justified by quoting Torah out of context". Anti-Jewish bigots have been readily justifying Islamic terror, not just again Israel, in order to diminish the right of Jews to live in peace on Jewish ancestral land?

When Praying is a Crime. Two Jews who entered the Fatah-controlled city of Jericho were arrested by IDF forces after praying along with eight other worshipers at the ancient Naaran Synagogue. (There will be no freedom of worship in PA control territories, Jews will not be allowed to live there and Christians will be forced to study Koran, as they do in many Muslim countries. Why is Israeli government facilitating this insanity?)

Actuality of 'Peace' Process. Thirteen armed Palestinian groups, including the militant Islamist movement Hamas, say they have set up a centre to co-ordinate operations against Israel. "We have decided to create a co-ordination centre for our operations against the (Israeli) enemy," said Abu Obeida, spokesman for the Ezzedine al-Qassam brigades, Hamas's military wing, speaking on behalf of the 13 groups. He pledged to hit "the Zionist enemy in any place at any time", adding that "all options are open" in response to a question on the possibility of firing rockets at Tel Aviv from Gaza. (It is time for Israel to open all options for consideration!)

Strange Deal. Russia and Israel signed a framework military cooperation deal that Rassion Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov suggested would lead to further purchases of Israeli weapons and technology. "It's very important to us that in the transition to a new image, the Russian armed forces use the experience the Israeli armed forces have and the work they have done," Serdyukov said. (What will stop Russia from selling those weapons and technologies to the enemies of Israel?)

Stillborn Negotiation. Nabil Shaath, a member of Palestinian negotiations team, told the Voice of Palestine radio that the Palestinian negotiating team turned down Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request to discuss the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state during the upcoming round of peace talks in the Egypt. (They want to create another Islamic state on Jewish land, but will never recognize Israel. full stop! In response, we are still pretending that there is a peace process.)

Time to Worry. Head of the left-wing Peace Now group, Yariv Oppenheimer, has congratulated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for creating a positive atmosphere for negotiations with the PA. In his speech, Netanyahu referred to Judea and Samaria as the "West Bank", not Judea and Samaria, called PA chief Abu Mazen his "peace partner" and called for "painful concessions", which Israel only "must" make. (When a self-hating Jews, enemies within, makes compliment to Prime Minister of Israel it is time to be concerned!)

Another Israel "Lover" in the Media. Time Magazine's latest issue has a cover story "Why Israelis Don't Care About Peace", slamming and accusing the Israeli people of not wanting peace, claiming that Israelis have abandoned the idea of peace and that they are mainly engaged in worldly matters like making money and spending time at sea (Why shouldn't Jews in Israel have some normality in their life? It is long overdue! Time Magazine, like all other Jewish 'friendly' media bigots, does not question if PA wants peace and what "painful concessions" has it made or ready to make to achieve it! The answer is — None!)

Neglect of the Judaism's Holiest Site. State Comptroller is expected to release a damning report on the State's mismanagement of the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site. Israeli media report that the report will slam the government for not enforcing Israeli law on the site — first and foremost the law forbidding digging or building on an archaeological site by Arabs.

Open Your Eyes — problem is Global! A police official in Germany reported that there has been an increase in the number of Muslim citizens training in terrorist bases outside the country, including Afghanistan. According to the report, law enforcement officials in Germany have identified more than 400 radical Muslims living in Germany and at least 70 German citizens have participated in military training in terrorist bases.

Hypocrisy in Action:

Mideast peace talks can secure Clinton's legacy — Security of Israel or genuine peace is not essential? The short-lived 'legacy' is important, at any cost!

"Troubling" is not Enough! The White House said that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran was speeding up its uranium enrichment was "troubling". A statement by the United States presidential staff said the report showed that Tehran is still trying to develop its ability to create nuclear weapons. Iran has produced 2.8 tons of enriched uranium.  

Low Expectations — No Result!
by Steven Shamrak (Mar 2003)
(I published this article 7 years ago. Has anything changed?)
Re: Middle East Leaders Set Bar Low in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks

President Bush said: "I'm the master of low expectations". What does it mean? For 55 years the voice of Jewish national aspiration — Greater Israel — was subdued in order to achieve normal life — Peace. With each year even this "low expectation" became more and more illusive. The true leader must inspire people and lead them toward realization of their highest potentials. One can't achieve it by setting mediocre goals. There is another saying: "Aim low and you get nothing". That is precisely what Israel is getting by building peace on faulty foundation and pretence:

In the Gaza Strip on Friday, thousands of armed masked Hamas followers marched against the Middle East road map and demanded continuation of anti-Israel violence. Many Arab Palestinians have been dismayed by Abu Mazen's statement in Aqaba. He actually, did not say much at all. But they are always angry. There is a need to blame someone but not themselves!

Six Israeli casualties when three Palestinian gunmen opened fire on an Israeli military position at Gaza Strip-Israeli crossing early Sunday. They approached the position in heavy early morning mist. They were dressed as Israeli solders and were hiding among Arab workers on the way to Israel. Terror shop was never closed. Business as usual! But, Arabs are never blamed!

PA Deputy Foreign Minister 'Adli Sadeq described President Bush as the "the head of the snake". He could be right. Media and President Bush are still blaming Sharon for 'driving down road map'! They were silent, as usual and did not blame Arabs for wrecking the peace process when 4 solders were killed in Gaza and Hebron. President Bush refused to negotiate with Al-Qaida, Teliban and Iraq. At the same time Israel must. Why? Michael Semel, 24, a security guard from Jerusalem, said "Nobody rewarded Al-Qaida for blowing up the 'twin towers', so why are we giving these terrorists who murdered us a prize?"

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 Paul Lademain, September 12, 2010.

Don't burn your Koran. Read it. Then you will know that the Youtube message spells out the truth. Then read Mein Kampf and Nasser's Red Book. If you cannot see how one inspired the other, then you're either blind or already a dhimmi.

Unforturnately, there are some individuals of Jewish extraction rushed early on to convert to Islam in order to save their lives and fill their purses. Call them the "first wave" of early adapters. We say they are selfish ignoramuses, acculturated to surrender and play both sides of the street rather than stand up against the horrors of Sharia. The early adapters are rewarded for dancing on both sides of the street and their lives and fortunes are protected at the expense of 1) their relatives and 2) their fellow citizens, and 3) the principles of law that underlies the US Bill of Rights.

For instance, how many of you know that the great architect of Jew-hate, Hanan Ashwari, is of Jewish extraction? She and her family bowed to Islam in the years when this guaranteed her family heaps of adulation from the oil-rich Saudis who funded not only her career, but also the terrorists lead by none other than her handler, Yasser Arafat. Many don't know that Yasser was driven from the new state of Jordan by the Hashemite king, Hussein, who battled and killed 10,000 troops in Yasser's army. Hussein's son, the succeeding king of Lebanon, is currently spoiling for trouble with Israel and he, like Ashwari, is working both sides of the street, at great profit to himself and his relatives. The US sends him billions and our State Dept. holds the check book. Our State Dept. is tainted by Saudi influence resulting from the millions paid to X-POTUS' tax-exempt presidential libraries and tax-exempt educational subsidiary organizations maintained by Harvard, Duke, Cornell, etc. This bribery began with the Carter Administration (his tax exempt "peace" NGOs receive millions from arab sources) and the Bush family and the Clintons received even more largesse from this same fountain of overwhelming largesse. In short, the Saudis, flush with US dollars, are playing our politicians the same way our politicians have historically been playing them. And this is NOT OK because our politicians tax the US middle class in order to perpetuate these games. To keep the foreign funds flowing, the State Dept. dances to the Saudi-Dubai-UAE tune, to the long-range detriment of the American middle class whose sons and daughters are contracted to lay down their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the middle east in exchange for relatively huge salaries.

There are more than three things you should know about Islam: One is that Jihadists retreat when they encounter strong resistance.

Do you really believe a man born a Muslim and educated in a Muslim school can abandon his teaching? Do you really believe he converted to Christianity under the tutelage of a certain "reverend" Wright — who had made a career for himself and a very nice living by preaching to his choir how much he, a "Christian" despises America, Israel, Jews, and "whitey"? Do you really believe that this convert, a youngish man who can only describe the 9/11 Muslim jihadists as "a sorry band of men," has the will to marshal resistance to Sharia?

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Zvi November, September 12, 2010.

Three hundred years ago the age of witchcraft had more or less run its course. Witches and Jews (defined as heretics) were no longer burned at the stake. However, Jews in Europe and the large Turkish Empire could only live where they were permitted to reside. For instance, Jews in Poland were forbidden to live in royal towns. Indeed, most Jews lived in crowded ghettos that could not be expanded to accommodate population increases. Local potentates would invite Jews into their domains if it suited them and expel them when they were no longer needed. The Jews of Stropkov where my grandfather was born were, over the years, expelled several times.

Back in 1710, Jews were never citizens of the princedom in which they dwelled. In fact, Jews (who had a long history of overseas trade involvement since ancient times) did not own or operate ships in this mercantile era because no king would allow Jews to fly his flag nor protect Jewish owned ships that were attacked or commandeered.

Local rulers related to Jews as a corporate body. They dealt with the Jewish community's leader who was responsible for collecting taxes from members of the community and paying them annually to the prince. In effect, Jews were foreign nationals. A community was a nation within a nation. Jews were responsible for their own internal affairs; education, welfare and dispute resolution. Although life centered on the synagogue, Jews could not build synagogues unless given permission. When permitted, synagogues had to be unobtrusive and out of the way. Under no circumstances could a synagogue be taller than a church.

Jews, of course, were restricted to dirty or dangerous vocations. Tanning hides, butchery and long-distance trade were common Jewish activities.

During the 18th century, things began to change. A Jewish garment industry developed in London. Likewise, Jews in Germany gravitated to the big cities where many became shopkeepers and a few started banks. In 1782, enlightened Joseph II became emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after his anti-Semitic mother, Maria Theresa died. In 1787, Joseph II promulgated a 100 page tolerance law (I have a copy) that listed Jewish families by name and granted them residence rights, allowed them to engage in additional economic spheres and even send their children to public schools. Jewish children, however, were not allowed to participate in Christian religious instruction because the Austrians feared that they would subvert the Christian message. The tolerance law also mentions itinerant Jews who were denied any rights whatsoever since they were illegal aliens.

Louis XIV had expelled the Jews from France in the 17th century. However, France is a huge country (1/2 million square kilometers) and so numerous small Sephardic communities continued to exist in remote provinces under the guise of "new Christians".

The situation in France and in Europe in general changed dramatically with the outbreak of the French revolution in 1789. Suddenly, people became citizens of a republic that eliminated the nobility and attacked the clergy. During the reign of terror the churches were closed. After some debate, it was decided to grant equal rights to French Protestants. Following this precedent, a while later, Jews were also made citizens who could be taxed individually and conscripted into the army that was spreading radical ideas of equality all over Europe.

Until the 18th century enlightenment and French revolution, Jewish names followed the biblical formula of Yoseph ben Moshe (Joseph, son of Moses). Now, in this new age, governments wanted to keep track of everyone individually. Jews were forced to take family names. The Austrian and Prussian authorities assigned names to the Jews in their territories which included Poland that had been divided between Austria, Prussia and Russia.

Most Jews today have German family names like Goldberg, Stein and Baum because the law specifically stated that family names had to be German names. Sometimes, the army officers and clerks who registered names created humorous names such as Dreyfus (three feet) to mock the Jewish recipient.

The Russians followed suit and so many Jews have Russian names (e.g. Moskowitz). Then in 1825 the Czar issued an edict which legalized the forced conscription (abduction) of Jewish boys who were sent far away to Siberia and many never returned.

During the 19th century, Jews became citizens and soldiers of their respective countries. They even fought and killed one another when their countries went to war. Even in peacetime army life for Jews could prove problematic. The anti-Semitic high command in France forged documents to accuse Alfred Dreyfus of treason in 1894. Dreyfus was stripped of his rank, humiliated and shipped off to Devil's Island. After his exoneration in 1906 Dreyfus retired from the army but re-enlisted in 1914 when WWI broke out. What loyalty!

The 19th century was an epoch of technological progress, liberalization (the Church even disbanded the Inquisition) and nationalism. Following their emancipation, Jews were eager to be Englishmen, Frenchmen and Germans just like their neighbors. Especially in Germany, Jews exerted enormous efforts to be accepted as full-fledged Germans albeit of the 'Mosaic' faith. "Speak German" was their slogan. They became expert in German dress, manners and culture but ignored the increased emphasis on the 'German volk' concept which, in essence, made their inclusion in a German nationality impossible.

To be a real German, some Jews simply converted to Christianity. Heinrich Heine and Karl Marx's father are two well-known examples. Karl Marx's father converted to get ahead in the bureaucracy where he worked. His famous son went a step further and became an anti-Semite accusing Jews of being economic parasites. Marx himself lived off of his mother and was later dependent on Engel.

In 1871 the numerous principalities of Germany and Italy achieved national unification. Jews were overwhelmingly supportive of national unity. New liberal laws let them become entrepreneurs, teachers, doctors and lawyers. Actually they had little choice because covert anti-Semitism kept them out of banking, large corporations and government. In France, a popular weekly newspaper was called "The Anti-Semite".

In the late 19th century, European nations moved toward the complete separation of church and state which, obviously, made life easier for Jews. The 1905 Laicity law in France was the most radical piece of legislation to keep religion out of the schools and peoples' lives in general. It is in this era that many countries, including Italy and Germany, enacted laws to allow civil marriage. Jews and gentiles could now intermarry freely. Not a few Jews took advantage of this new freedom to more fully integrate into the dominant milieu.

Jews in Germany, early on, realized that leading a traditional Jewish lifestyle was inconsistent with being a fully assimilated German. Since not everyone was prepared to convert to Christianity or suffer rejection by a gentile spouse's family, some other solution to their 'Jewish problem' was needed. The reform branch of Judaism was, consequently, invented in Germany as a way to be both Jewish and German simultaneously. The Reform temple liturgy and rituals imitated Protestant observance.

Being enthusiastic German nationalists, the Jews of Germany did not support Zionism. Neither did they pay much attention to growing working-class anti-Semitism.

Zionism took root in Eastern Europe thanks, in part, to the Russian and Ukrainian pogroms. As a little girl in Kishinev in 1903, Golda Meir witnessed the murder of fellow Jews. These atrocities were brought to the attention of the US Senate which passed a resolution condemning the Kishinev massacre.

Equally cruel Arabs launched similar pogroms in Palestine in 1929 and between 1936 and 1939 (euphemistically referred to as "disturbances" by the British) even though there was no Israel or "occupied territories" at that time.

The rebirth of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel was a consequence of many forces that exerted themselves on and within the Jewish people during the past three hundred years. A contributory factor was the failure to become completely integrated Frenchmen and Germans despite tremendous efforts to be equal. The new anti-Semitism ('Jews want to take over the world') that replaced or supplemented the old anti-Semitism ('Jews killed Christ') led Jewish thinkers and activists to conclude that the solution to the Jewish problem requires the creation of a sovereign state in the ancient Jewish homeland.

Now, after sixty-two years of independence ninety percent of Israel's leaders are afflicted by the same Diaspora mentality of identifying with the other. No one lectures the world about the legitimate rights of the Jewish people or the intractable nature of Arab hate and aggression. On the contrary, Israeli officials attend conferences and negotiate accords that are based on the Arab narrative. They make concessions that invariably diminish Israel's ability to protect itself. Instead of explaining Zionism, Israeli negotiators talk about 'Palestinian suffering', 'occupation' and 'two-state solution as if they were Palestinians. In the previous government, Yuli Tamir, Minister of Education even introduced the study of the self-imposed Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) into the Israeli curriculum.

Not one single Israeli principle is sacred. Every round of appeasement talks brings on more demands while Arab/Palestinian terror attacks continue as before. And ironically, it is Israel that gets blamed for intransigence. Amazingly, the current Netanyahu government, which is trying hard to accommodate the "quartet" (US, UN, EU and Russia) is constantly pressured by the Israeli media and left-wing academics to yield more and more to the Arabs whose aggression (e.g. the 2000-2005 Intifada war) is completely forgotten.

Israeli society is presently led by politicians who, like their Jewish counterparts in the West, just want to be accepted. Powerful media pundits and defeatist intellectuals urge outright conversion. Not only do they insist on creating another (in addition to Jordan and Gaza) Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, some even call for Israel's outright dissolution.

No other nation in the world has such a great capacity for creativity on the one hand and a suicidal disposition to self-destruction on the other.

Go to: www.trafford.com/08-0128 for information about ISRAEL in REALITY.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, September 12, 2010.

By Professor Paul Eidelberg
The Jewish Press,
September 3, 2010

Israel is constantly retreating. Why? Is it U.S. pressure? What prevents Israel from standing up to pressure? There may be several answers to this question, but I dare say the decisive answer is this:

Israel's policy-makers and opinion-makers — politicians and political analysts — have removed G-d and the Sinai Covenant (with G-d Almighty) from the domain of statecraft. Israel's ruling elites have therefore emasculated themselves and eroded the Jewish people's confidence in the justice of Israel's cause. This is not so with Arab rulers and that's why they are advancing.

Stated another way: Whereas Israeli politicians and political analysts view the conflict between Jews and Arabs in political terms. Israel's enemies view the conflict in religious or theological terms. As a consequence, Israel's elites believe that the conflict between Jews and Arabs can be resolved by negotiations and mutual concessions. In contrast, the Arabs may agree to engage in negotiations, but their Koran precludes them from reaching any lasting agreement with infidels based on compromise or reciprocity. Now, you don't have to be religious to understand that compromising with an uncompromising foe is self-defeating. But, if you lack religious convictions and the courage of such convictions, you're likely to succumb to a smug political "realism" even though such realism is demonstrably unrealistic in the Arab-Israel conflict.

Furthermore, once politicians and political analysts have pursued and construed the Arab-Israel conflict in secular or political terms — and have done so year after year — it would be extremely difficult for them to change their language of discourse and adopt a religious or meta-political approach. It needs to be stressed however, that their failure to change their secular peace process rhetoric has pernicious consequences.

First of all, their pliant political language encourages Arabs to persist in their religious objective, to destroy Israel. Second, their merely political approach induces the people of Israel to believe that by making territorial concessions to the enemy, reciprocity will follow and thus lead, eventually, to an end of the conflict.

Gulled by their political and intellectual leaders, Israelis do not understand that reciprocity is impossible! It's impossible because the Arabs can offer no equivalent to Jewish territory — nothing more than words on a piece of paper. But, while Israeli politicians and political analysts persist in omitting G-d from public discourse — omitting, therefore, Israel's G-d-given right to the Land of Israel — they render the people of this country more inclined to support territorial concessions to the enemy, thus risking their survival.

Now, in contrast to Israel's secular elites, who minimize the all-important religious dimension of the Arab-Israeli conflict, consider their Arab counterparts. Thus, even before the Six-Day War, one Arab commentator declared: "The propagandists of secularism, who leave out of account the religious factor in the Palestine problem, ignore the fact that this is the only bone of contention in the world which has persisted for thirty centuries..."

Another Arab spokesman avowed: "... apart from the political conflict, there is a basic philosophical and spiritual incompatibility between the two contending nationalisms. Even if all political disputes were to be resolved, the two movements, Zionism and Arab Nationalism, (And, the entire Western world, for that matter) jsk, would remain spiritually and ideologically, worlds apart — living in separate 'universes of discourse' which are incapable of communication or meaningful dialogue."

These Arabs are serious — something that cannot be said of Israel's secular elite who, even if they recognize Islam's genocidal objectives, fail to adjust their policies and analyses to the theological reality of the Middle East. They fail to see that Israel's only realistic approach is to sanctify G-d's Name, that is, to go on the offensive by emphasizing the Sinai Covenant, which alone can inspire and solidify the Jewish people on the one hand, and justify as well as perpetuate Jewish possession of Eretz Yisrael on the other.

Professor Eidelberg is the founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He can be reached through the FCD website: http://www.foundationl.org


And, to absolutely prove Professor Eidelberg's discussion above:

Jewish Press,
September 3, 2010
Week in Review
compiled by Jason Maoz, editor:

A survey of 3,001 Arab residents in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas, conducted last month by the PA-affiliated Arab World for Research & Development, found that 86.3 percent of respondents see violence for the purpose of achieving a Palestinian State as anywhere between "essential" and "tolerable."

In addition, 75 percent of those polled say the demilitarization of a future PA State is "unacceptable and over 84 percent say it is "essential" that all of Jerusalem, including the areas that have been Israel's capital since 1948, be part of a future PA state.


So with whom and for what are you negotiating and giving away vital Israeli territory in your obvious disregard of the simple facts above? Are you hellbent on destroying your own country? Do you really want another terror state breathing on your back and making you even more defenseless?

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 Gerald A. Honigman, September 12, 2010.

Hitler wanted to rid the world of Jews, making it Judenrein.

He came close — exterminating one third of the Jewish population of the world, and most of Europe's.

The current American President now wants Judeans — Jews — to consent to making Judea Judenrein, extinguishing it too of both Jews and its Jewish heritage.

So, get ready for some necessary follow-up...

Firstly, those Judean Hills have to be renamed — as Arabs have already done (and worse) with many other Jewish sites.

Secondly, Christians — Get ready to change Jesus' birth place in the New Testament from Bethlehem of Judea to Bethlehem of the West Bank.

There are other changes which will need to occur as well, but enough on this issue for the time being.

So, now let's really begin.

Let's get something straight right from the start...

Mahmoud Abbas's threat to not return to the latest round of Jew arm-twisting ("negotiations") is only indirectly related to the freeze in Israel's new construction in Jerusalem and points east.

That Israel's leaders habitually fail their resurrected nation and allow enemies to frame the very language of the debate is an old "hasbara" problem.

The issue — and the key to the problem — has everything to do with whether or not the sole, miniscule state of the Jews (find it on a globe without a magnifying glass — I dare you) finally gets the real, relatively secure, defensible borders it was promised by UNSC Resolution 242 after the 1967 Arab attempt on its life, or is forced to remain the 9-15 mile wide sub-rump state that it was left as due to the '49 armistice lines which were drawn up when the fighting came to a halt after a half dozen Arab states attacked it upon its rebirth in May 1948.

As I repeatedly stress, President Obama has stated repeatedly that he expects Israel to accept the alleged Saudi Peace Plan — which the current negotiations are largely based upon. He has been quoted as calling Israel "crazy" to reject it.

Two key provisions of that plan call on Israel to reject the call for it to get the promise of 242 — a bit of justice backed by such Presidents as Johnson, Reagan, and imbedded, not long ago, in two crucial letters that President George W. Bush gave to Prime Minister Sharon as well upon Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Recall the "peace" the Jews got from that move...

Among other things, Israel had been assured by the final, accepted draft of 242 that it would have to return to that 9-15 mile wide sliver of an existence again — a constant invitation to be dissected by its enemies. It was to get more defensible, real borders — not armistice lines — and any withdrawal at all was to made in the context of real treaties of peace — not hudna-type ceasefires, which even alleged Arab "moderates" claimed were only a Trojan Horse (their very own words)to be used in furthering the Arabs' actual, again openly-stated, destruction-in-stages goals for the Jewish State.

Subsequently, it was also later made clear that any resolution to the Arab refugee problem — started by the Arabs themselves by attacking Israel in '48 — would have to involve Arabs moving to the new, 22nd Arab state — not inundating Israel to overwhelm the Jews. Note: More Jews fled Arab/Muslim lands as a result of the Arab assault on Israel in 1948 than vice-versa.

The Saudi plan, which President Obama and the perpetually hostile, Arabist State Department (which fought President Truman over Israel very rebirth)endorse, insists that Israel return to the indefensible '49 armistice lines and allow itself to be flooded this way. President Obama, just days ago, held a news conference in which he once again, for starters, all but demanded that Israel cave in on at least that first issue.

The territories in question, Judea and Samaria in particular, are not, as Arabs like to tell it, purely Arab land. Keep in mind that Arabs also call virtually the entire region "purely Arab patrimony"- — despite the presence of scores of millions of non-Arab peoples (Amazighen/"Berbers", Kurds, Copts, black African Sudanese, Assyrians, Jews, pre-Arab Lebanese, and others)whom Arabs have subjugated, intimidated, forcibly Arabized, and so forth.

The territories were known as Judea and Samaria for thousands of years before the additional name, "West Bank," was created, as a result of British imperialist shenanigans, to distinguish them from the future state the Brits created for Arab nationalism in 1922 on the east bank of the Jordan River out of almost 80% of the original 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine — the Emirate of Transjordan, now Jordan.

No matter how many times Arabs indulge in their well-known taqiyya (deliberate lying for the cause), the lands in question are not purely Arab land. They were open to habitation by all of the Mandates' residents — Arab, Jews, and others as well. As has been pointed out repeatedly before, Jews have thousands of years of history tying them to those territories and lived there until their slaughter by Arabs in the early 20th century.

A Judean living in Judea should not be a bone of contention — unless the aim is simply to rid the entire area of Jews, making it Judenrein...the Arabs' real goal now which is now supported by the Obama Administration. Recall, as well, that there is oodles of solid documentation showing that most Arabs were indeed newcomers themselves coming into the Mandate from elsewhere in the region...Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements.

Despite all of the pressure coming even from its "friends," Israel must hold its ground on this crucial issue.

And there will be shame on any 3,000-mile wide America, with two vast oceans separating it from most enemies, which forces its tiny friend and ally to once again become a mere zipper of a state, ripe for slaughter by vast numbers of its assorted enemies.

During these High Holy Days for Jews, let's look at some excerpts from the Hebrew Bible, I Samuel, 1:1-2:10 for starters, which Jews read on Rosh HaShanah...

There was a man from Ramathaim of the Zuphites, in the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham...He had two wives, one named Hannah and the other Peninnah; Peninnah had children, but Hannah was childless. This man used to go up from his town every year to worship and to offer sacrifice to the Lord of Hosts at Shiloh. — Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord there.

One such day, Elkanah offered a sacrifice. He used to give portions to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters; but to Hannah he would give one portion only — though Hannah was his favorite — for the Lord had closed her womb. Moreover, her rival, to make her miserable, would taunt her that the Lord had closed her womb. This happened year after year: Every time she went up to the House of the Lord, the other would taunt her, so that she wept and would not eat.

After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah rose. The priest Eli was sitting on the seat near the doorpost of the temple of the Lord. In her wretchedness, she prayed to the Lord, weeping all the while. And she made this vow: 'O Lord of Hosts, if You will look upon the suffering of Your maidservant and will remember me and not forget Your maidservant, and if You will grant Your maidservant a male child, I will dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever touch his head.'

As she kept on praying before the Lord, Eli watched her mouth. Now Hannah was praying in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard. So Eli thought she was drunk. Eli said to her, 'How long will you make a drunken spectacle of yourself? Sober up! And Hannah replied, 'Oh no, my lord! I am a very unhappy woman. I have drunk no wine or other strong drink, but I have been pouring out my heart to the Lord. Do not take your maidservant for a worthless woman; I have only been speaking all this time out of my great anguish and distress.' 'Then go in peace,' said Eli, 'and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of Him.'

Elkanah knew his wife Hannah and the Lord remembered her. Hannah conceived, and at the turn of the year bore a son. She named him Samuel, meaning, 'I asked the Lord for him.' And when the man Elkanah and all his household were going up to offer to the Lord the annual sacrifice and his votive sacrifice, Hannah did not go up. She said to her husband, 'When the child is weaned, I will bring him. For when he has appeared before the Lord, he must remain there for good.' Her husband Elkanah said to her, 'Do as you think best. Stay home until you have weaned him. May the Lord fulfill His word.' So the woman stayed home and nursed her son until she weaned him.

When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with three bulls, one ephah of flour, and a jar of wine. And though the boy was still very young, she brought him to the House of the Lord at Shiloh. After slaughtering the bull, they brought the boy to Eli She said, 'Please, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who stood here beside you and prayed to the Lord. It was this boy I prayed for; and the Lord has granted me what I asked of Him. I, in turn, hereby lend him to the Lord. For as long as he lives he is lent to the Lord.' And they bowed low there before the Lord.

Shiloh, dear friends, is on the "West Bank"... in Judea.

Next, consider where four Jews were recently murdered in cold blood...Hebron.

From Genesis 23...

Sarah died at Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan, and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah...Abraham said to the Hittites, 'I am a sojourner and foreigner among you; give me property among you for a burying place, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.' The Hittites answered Abraham. 'Hear us, my lord; you are a prince of God among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will withhold from you his tomb to hinder you from burying your dead.' Abraham rose and bowed to the Hittites, the people of the land. And he said to them, 'If you are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me and entreat for me Ephron the son of Zohar, that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as property for a burying place.'

Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham...'No, my lord, hear me: I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it. In the sight of the sons of my people I give it to you. Bury your dead.' Then Abraham bowed down before the people of the land. And he said to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, 'But if you will, hear me: I give the price of the field. Accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there.' Ephron answered Abraham 'My lord, listen to me: a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and me? Bury your dead.' Abraham listened to Ephron, and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants.

So the field of Ephron in Machpelah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave that was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city. After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan.

And generations later, 2 Samuel, 5:3...

So there at Hebron, King David made a covenant before the LORD with all the elders of Israel. And they anointed him king of Israel.

1 Chronicles, 3:1...

These are the sons of David who were born in Hebron: The oldest was Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam from Jezreel. The second was Daniel, whose mother was Abigail from Carmel.

There are many other references regarding the importance of Hebron in the history of the Jews as well.

Now, please keep in mind that Arabs knew nothing of Hebron until their prophet, Muhammad, took flight (the hijrah) from his enemies in Mecca and fled to the date palm oasis of Medina, farther north on the Arabian Peninsula. Medina was established by Jews fleeing the Roman conquest of Judea centuries earlier.

Medina's influential Jewish tribes and their pagan neighbors (who were also much influenced by the former) gave the future Prophet of Islam refuge from those who would kill him. Regardless of any conversations he supposedly had with the Angel Gabriel (again — like Abraham, Ishmael, Jerusalem, Moses, and so forth — another figure or place right out of the exclusive writings of the Jews with no prior knowledge to pagan Arabians), the Jews had an enormous impact upon the formerly pagan refugee, Muhammad. When they refused to accept his religio-political leadership, he turned on them with a vengeance. Before long, with the exception of Yemen to the south, the Arabs made the Arabian Peninsula Judenrein. This occurred over 1,300 years before the birth of modern Israel.

Next... Genesis 28...

Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran..When [Jacob] reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the Lord, and he said: 'I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring...When Jacob awoke...he was afraid and said, 'How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven. Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it. He called that place Bethel, {which means 'the house of God}.

Genesis 35:1...

Then G_d said to Jacob, "Go up to Bethel (House of G_d)and settle there, and build an altar to G_d, who appeared to you when you were fleeing from your brother Esau."

Like the other sites above and yet to come, Bethel is near the border area between Judea and Samaria.

Jacob would later be renamed Israel by G_d nearby as well — a moving story befitting the High Holy Days, when man is expected to make true atonement not only for sins committed against G_d, but also against his fellow man. Jacob had to conquer his own inner shortcomings, and not until he made a true peace of the heart with his brother, Esau, and became a better human being could he become Israel. That happened at Penial.

The Jews' most important political leader, King David, was born in Bethlehem.

Ruth (David's ancestor) the Moabite went to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law, Naomi, after the death of her Judean husband, proclaiming, "whither than goest, I shall do, your people shall be my people, their G_d, my G_d."

While there are many other examples which could be used here, let's end this for now with the hottest potato of all in the land of Judea...

Jerusalem is mentioned over 600 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is not mentioned even once in the Qur'an. It is alluded to in the latter in passages about the Hebrew Kings, David and Solomon, and the destruction of the Temples of the Jews. Even "moderate" Arabs deny that Jewish Temple ever existed there. They call the Temple Mount "Buraq's Mount," after Muhammad's allegedly winged horse. But a mention of Jerusalem itself is nowhere to be found in the Muslim holy book.

Since David made Jerusalem his capital and it became the site of his son Solomon's Temple, Zion became the heart and soul of Jewish national and religious existence. Jews from all over the early diaspora made their pilgrimages and sent offerings to its Temple.

"By the Rivers of Babylon we wept..." and "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning..." were just a few of the many Biblical expressions of the Jews for Zion. Such yearning persisted throughout subsequent millennia in the Diaspora as well. Indeed, "Next Year in Jerusalem" sustained the Jew throughout countless degradations and humiliations, culminating in the Holocaust.

There is no doubt among objective scholars that Jews had an enormous impact on both Muhammad and the religion that he founded.

As discussed earlier, the holy sites for Muslims in Jerusalem (i.e., the shrine and mosque erected on the Temple Mount of the Jews) are now deemed "holy" precisely because of the critical years Muhammad spent after the Hijrah with the Jews.

The Temple Mount had absolutely no prior meaning to pagan Arabs.

While the actual timing of Muhammad's decision on the direction of prayer (qibla) may never be known, during his long sojourn with the Jews of Medina, his followers were instructed to pray towards Jerusalem. Early prominent Arab historians such as Jalaluddin came right out and stated that this was done primarily to win support among the influential Jewish tribes, the "People of the Book."

When the Jews refused to recognize Muhammad's claims, after slaughtering the men and enslaving the women and children, he thus eradicated most of the Jewish presence from the Arabian Peninsula. The direction of prayer was then changed away from Jerusalem towards the Kaaba in Mecca instead...

To say that Jerusalem has the same meaning for Muslims as it has for Jews is to simply tell a lie. And to order Jews not to live there is a major travesty.

While I do not expect everyone to accept the religious/historical writings and political aspirations of the Jews as their own, it is unreasonable to expect the Jews themselves to reject and totally abandon them as is now being demanded at current "peace talks." This is precisely what's being asked when Jews are told that Judea must become Judenrein and that they can't live where they want to in the sole capital of the sole Jewish State.

That's what's at stake now — not merely apartments or settlements.

A fair compromise must be reached regarding the territories in question — regardless of what Arabs and their supporters demand.

For millennia, Jews have been forcibly converted, expelled, massacred, humiliated, demonized, inquisitioned, ghettoized, declared the "deicide people," "killers of prophets," and so forth, to one extent or another, in both the Muslim East (where they are also known as kilab yahud — Jew dogs —and sons of apes and pigs) as well as the Christian West.

They are determined that their rights in the land which is named for their own people —Judea — and in the sole capital of the sole, microscopic, reborn state that they possess — Jerusalem — will not be sacrificed on behalf of any 22nd state created for Arabs...especially since the latter show, in poll after poll, that regardless of how much more Jews will be pressured to bare the necks of their children for the sake of peace, even the so-called moderate Arabs will not accept the legitimacy of a viable Jewish Israel anyway. Indeed, Israel's alleged "peace partner," Mahmoud Abbas, just repeated those very words almost at the same time as President Obama was holding his latest news conference tightening the screws on Israel yet again.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth and has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. He is author of "The Quest for Justice in the Middle East." Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php

To Go To Top

Posted by Errol Phillips, September 12, 2010.
A riveting article by Dinesh D'Souza writing for Forbes.com cracks open the wall of Obama's pathological roots and exposes what we are up against. The complete article is below. It's called "How Obama Thinks"
(http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics- socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama- business-problem_print.html).

Dinesh D'Souza, the president of the King's College in New York City, is the author of the forthcoming book The Roots of Obama's Rage (Regnery Publishing).

Pass it on to everyone you can. As I said, very early on — "Houston ... we have a big problem."

On this ALTALENA List are many that want Obama to do well ... as well as some that actually think he is doing well for the Country. I know fantasies die hard ... but You, your Children and your Grandchildren are going to pay an awful price for the insanity of our so called ruling Class. In my opinion we have somehow lost our way.

In my opinion, the only good thing Obama has done is awaken an overwhelming majority of our Citizens out of a 50 year coma. Even some Jews are catching on.

Errol Phillips
An Independent Jewish Realist


Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling — but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro — not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.

More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?

The oddities go on and on. Obama's Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed's "stress test" was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.

The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing. This does indeed seem unfair —to the rich.

Obama's foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.

Recently the London Times reported that the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans. This was an eye-opener because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama Administration publicly and appropriately complained. The Times, however, obtained a letter the Obama Administration sent to Scotland a week before the event in which it said that releasing Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland and would be "far preferable" to sending him back to Libya. Scottish officials interpreted this to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi's release were "half-hearted." They released him to his home country, where he lives today as a free man.

One more anomaly: A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America's space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world. Come again? Bolden said he got the word directly from the President. "He wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering." Bolden added that the International Space Station was a model for nasa's future, since it was not just a U.S. operation but included the Russians and the Chinese. Obama's redirection of the agency caused consternation among former astronauts like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, and even among the President's supporters: Most people think of nasa's job as one of landing on the moon and Mars and exploring other faraway destinations. Sure, we are for Islamic self-esteem, but what on earth was Obama up to here?

Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community —including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse — tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist — not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.

THESE THEORIES AREN'T WRONG SO MUCH AS THEY ARE INADEQUATE. Even if they could account for Obama's domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse — much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama's own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years — the first 17 years of his life — off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.

A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King's dream? Or something else?

It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. They believed the nation was a "new order for the ages." A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating "a distinct species of mankind." This is known as American exceptionalism. But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.

Perhaps, then, Obama shares Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. The President has benefited from that dream; he campaigned as a nonracial candidate, and many Americans voted for him because he represents the color-blind ideal. Even so, King's dream is not Obama's: The President never champions the idea of color-blindness or race-neutrality. This inaction is not merely tactical; the race issue simply isn't what drives Obama.

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future.

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country's independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

ANTICOLONIALISM IS THE DOCTRINE THAT RICH COUNTRIES OF THE WEST got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama's acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, "The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909-72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana's first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"

As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

While the senior Obama called for Africa to free itself from the neocolonial influence of Europe and specifically Britain, he knew when he came to America in 1959 that the global balance of power was shifting. Even then, he recognized what has become a new tenet of anticolonialist ideology: Today's neocolonial leader is not Europe but America. As the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said — who was one of Obama's teachers at Columbia University — wrote in Culture and Imperialism, "The United States has replaced the earlier great empires and is the dominant outside force."

From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.

Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more. More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize, and therefore reduce, America's carbon consumption. Both as a U.S. Senator and in his speech, as President, to the United Nations, Obama has proposed that the West massively subsidize energy production in the developing world.

REJECTING THE SOCIALIST FORMULA, OBAMA HAS SHOWN NO INTENTION TO NATIONALIZE the investment banks or the health sector. Rather, he seeks to decolonize these institutions, and this means bringing them under the government's leash. That's why Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks — so that he can maintain his control. For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them. He even promised them expanded business as a result of his law forcing every American to buy health insurance.

If Obama shares his father's anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anticolonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn't really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just. Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances.

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan. He views some of the Muslims who are fighting against America abroad as resisters of U.S. imperialism. Certainly that is the way the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi portrayed himself at his trial. Obama's perception of him as an anticolonial resister would explain why he gave tacit approval for this murderer of hundreds of Americans to be released from captivity.

Finally, nasa. No explanation other than anticolonialism makes sense of Obama's curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach. We can see how well our theory works by recalling the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. "One small step for man," Neil Armstrong said. "One giant leap for mankind."

But that's not how the rest of the world saw it. I was 8 years old at the time and living in my native India. I remember my grandfather telling me about the great race between America and Russia to put a man on the moon. Clearly America had won, and this was one giant leap not for mankind but for the U.S. If Obama shares this view, it's no wonder he wants to blunt nasa's space program, to divert it from a symbol of American greatness into a more modest public relations program.

Clearly the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. And we can be doubly sure about his father's influence because those who know Obama well testify to it. His "granny" Sarah Obama (not his real grandmother but one of his grandfather's other wives) told Newsweek, "I look at him and I see all the same things — he has taken everything from his father. The son is realizing everything the father wanted. The dreams of the father are still alive in the son."

In his own writings Obama stresses the centrality of his father not only to his beliefs and values but to his very identity. He calls his memoir "the record of a personal, interior journey — a boy's search for his father and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American." And again, "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Even though his father was absent for virtually all his life, Obama writes, "My father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!"

The climax of Obama's narrative is when he goes to Kenya and weeps at his father's grave. It is riveting: "When my tears were finally spent," he writes, "I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America — the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago — all of it was connected with this small piece of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father's pain."

In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that "I sat at my father's grave and spoke to him through Africa's red soil." In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father's spirit. Obama takes on his father's struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.'s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.'s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son's objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father's struggle becomes the son's birthright.

Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.[emphasis added.]

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.[emphasis added.]  

Correction: Dinesh D'Souza writes that on June 15, 2010, Obama gave a speech in response to the BP oil spill that was "focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans 'consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources.'" D'Souza slightly misquoted the President who said, "2% of the world's oil reserves." In addition, Obama's speech did discuss concrete measures to investigate the oil spill and bring it under control.

Contact Errol Phillips by email at ep@pinehurst2.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, September 12, 2010.

We respond to Isi Leibler's article in the Jerusalem Post — November 25, 2009 — who asks "Why does so much of the world hate us?"

There are many answers to this question: Here's some views from the SC4Z (Secular Christians for Zion.)

1) Because whenever a Jew asks "Why does so much of the world hate us?" you invariably ring the bell in the minds of people who would never think to hate you and then they prick up their ears out of curiosity and search in all the wrong places to answer that very question and of course they find your enemy's propaganda instead of your own. Part of this, a small part of this animosity toward Israel, reposes with Jews who failed, utterly, to create effective propaganda in order to passionately rebut the insults contrived by the Islamics. Instead, prominent Israeli in-tell-leck-shu-alls wrote boring essays rebutting the scurrilous accusations contrived against Israel.

Like the dullest of pedants they would carefully recite, paragraph after paragraph, the accusations against Israel, and then analyze them for paragraphs more. Worse still, these well-meaning bores would conclude their magnum opus with so few words in defense of Israel and these in phrases so coldly dispassionate and so tediously logical that an uninformed reader would come away with the feeling that Israelis were confessing their guilt. This unintended consequence was unfortunately reinforced even more by Israel's peculiar leadership who repeatedly offered to make "painful concessions" for "peace" — words uttered not by the righteous and never by the virtuous but rather by people who are "down, dirty, and guilty-as-sin."

2) Then there are the frightened Jews who are quick to agree with their Islamic accusers in order to relieve themselves of their fear of receiving a thrashing at the hands of their clever enemies. They suffer from what we refer to as the "running Jew" syndrome and their trembling faints invite the very attacks they hope to avoid. We suspect these Jews whom you refer to as "leftists" are at bottom glued to each other in fear. And their fears might very well be justified because Israel's leadership has been, at least during their lifetimes, such a profound and unsettling disappointment. Ever since Israel defeated their enemies in 1967 and thereafter proudly relinquished their gains and abandoned their advantages with such inexplicable displays of foolishness that the "running Jew" cadre has had every right to fear that their leaders are either corrupt or nuts, and hence willing to sacrifice their brethren for the sake of self-aggrandizement. Shimon Peres' ridiculous behavior turns the stomach of all those who watched him simpering over Yasser Arafat even as Arafat's myriad goon gangs slaughtered Israeli women and children. Peres' response? He kissed his "dear little arab" and clutched him even closer to his sagging bosoms. How many Jews knew that while Arafat's goons paraded through the streets of Jerusalem that Peres and Arafat were planning to do business together through their Cayman Islands tax haven corporate-NGO nominees?

3) Jews hypersensitivity to criticism: Instead of responding to Euroid slurs with a loud "How DARE You!" the Jew, embodied in the personae of such senile old men as Sharon and the ever-plumping Ehud Barak, would cringe and then meekly offer to make "painful concessions" for "peace" with the arab squatters occupying Israel's lands. This encouraged the Islamics to hate Jews even more because arabs despise weakness even more than they fear power. Jews who offer "painful concessions" in the hope of parading "superior civilities" and who lack the will to confront their bullies invite disrespect instead of admiration. And once disrespect sets in, it can swiftly resolve into loathing. In short, far too many Jews give the impression that they are willing to rush to the cross and nail themselves up in order to forestall their enemies from dispensing worse punishment.

4) Jews have little or no experience when it comes to acquiring and then holding onto land. Islamics, on the other hand, have over a thousand years of experience when it comes to acquiring land and subjugating the natives.

5) We beg to differ with your opinion that Europeans have abandoned their "nationalism". To the contrary, the Euroids remain as nationalistic as ever. Have you forgotten how the UK bashed Argentina (with US support) in order to retain ownership and control of the Falkland Islands? Have you forgotten how Spain send warships to evict a few arabs from the disputed island known as "Perejil" to the Spaniards and Leila to the Moroccans? And are you unaware of the fact that Spain refuses to cede even so much as an inch of its lands to the Basque?

6) Jews mistake their own laziness for enlightenment when they refer to every arab occupying the region between the ocean and the sea as a "palestinian". We shouldn't have to be the ones to remind Jews that the only true Palestinian is a Jew. The Islamics are fakers and false takers. Israelis should have declared so years ago. And all Jews should have loudly reminded the Euroids that Jews have superior "rights of return" to the lands from which they were driven when Israel became a nation in 1948. Truly, more Jews were forced to become refugees and to flee for their lives than the arabs who now claim, without any proof, that they were "driven" from the remnant of Jewish Palestine that became the tiny nation of Israel.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z!

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 12, 2010.

This was written by A. Savyon, Director of the Iranian Media Project.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org; P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837; Phone: (202) 955-9070; Fax: (202) 955-9077; and www.memri.org.

This article is from MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis|634 |September 7, 2010, "Proliferation of WMDs/U.S. and the Arab & Muslim World."


The past few months have seen some highly significant developments in U.S. nuclear policy, and in this policy's ramifications for the Middle East. This paper will examine these developments.

The Pendulum of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Policy

Upon taking office in 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his intention to promote his vision of global nuclear disarmament. On April 5, 2009 in Prague, he presented an ambitious strategy for achieving this goal, based on three major components: 1) Taking concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons by reducing existing nuclear arsenals; 2) Strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and keeping new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons; 3) Ensuring that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. To achieve the last, President Obama announced a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.

As a further step towards the realization of these goals, on April 12, 2010 President Obama convened the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC, with the participation of most of the leaders of the free world.[1]

One month later, in May, the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was convened in New York. In light of President Obama's desire to harness this conference to his own vision, and to make sure that it would be a success — i.e. that it would produce resolutions passed by consensus - his administration was forced into agreeing to the condition, set by the Arab countries and led by Egypt, for international pressure on Israel and for Israel's isolation in the international nuclear community in exchange for such consensual resolutions.[2] Capitulating to the Arab-Egyptian pressure, the Obama administration ultimately decided not to use its power of veto, but to vote for the concluding resolution calling on Israel to accede to the NPT and to place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.[3]

President Obama himself welcomed the resolution, saying that it "includes balanced and practical steps that will advance non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which are critical pillars of the global non-proliferation regime."[4]

By voting for the resolution, the U.S. abandoned its traditional stance supporting Israel's position that a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East is possible and in fact essential, but must include not only nuclear weapons but all types of non-conventional weapons - such as chemical and biological weapons in the possession of Israel's neighbors — and, moreover, that this goal can be realized only after the attaining of comprehensive peace agreements in the region.

The Obama administration's acquiescence to Arab pressure, and its deviation from long-standing U.S. policy, was perceived by Israel as a threat to its security, and Israel demanded that the situation be rectified. The administration complied; as soon as the conference's concluding resolution passed, administration officials hastened to issue statements aimed at softening the impact of the U.S.'s vote on Israel-U.S. relations. For example, in a May 28 statement, President Obama's national security advisor Gen. James Jones said that the U.S. deplored the decision to single out Israel in the NPT document's Middle East section, and that the U.S. remained committed to Israel's security.[5]

A more significant backtrack came during Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington on July 6. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that in talks since the conference, the Americans clarified that the decision had been a "mistake," and that "in an effort to clarify the administration's stance on the Israeli nuclear question, it was determined that — in coordination with Israel - the full details of the high-level understandings [on Israel's status of nuclear ambiguity] between the two sides, reached during the 1960s, would finally be revealed."[6] The White House released a special press announcement stating: "President [Obama] told Prime Minister [Netanyahu] he recognizes that Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats, and that only Israel can determine its security needs."[7]

With this public proclamation, the Obama pendulum swung back to long-standing U.S. policy. However, in the circumstances in which the statement was made — that is, to rectify the U.S.'s vote for the NPT Review conference resolution isolating Israel — Obama's declaration constitutes a public and explicit confirmation of Israel's special nuclear status. The statement expresses the U.S.'s guarantee of Israel's existence and security, and its preservation of Israel's preferred nuclear status in the Middle East. President Obama went even farther, also recognizing Israel's right to deterrence — that is, that Israel is entitled to possess its own strategic deterrent capability. Thus, this statement by President Obama ushered in the end of the era of Israel's nuclear ambiguity.

Consequently, the White House statements following the Netanyahu meeting, i.e. that the U.S. would not touch Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity, mean nothing, because President Obama had already recognized Israel's nuclear status and its right to maintain it.

Conclusions and Ramifications

The actions in recent months by the Obama administration in nuclear affairs, aimed at advancing a vision and a policy of global nuclear disarmament, have had the exact opposite effect. In his efforts to advance global nuclear disarmament, Obama brought to the fore what the U.S. had for four decades managed to downplay and marginalize — U.S. recognition of and partnership with Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity. By openly acknowledging what his eight presidential predecessors had recognized implicitly — i.e. that Israel needs nuclear capability to defend its very existence — President Obama has put an end to Israel's status of nuclear ambiguity.

This development could lead to stepped-up demands for nuclearization by leading Arab states that feel threatened by both Israel and by Iran — and could result in accelerated moves in that direction.


[1] The stated goals of the April 12, 2009 summit were: "Discussion of the nature of the threat and development of steps that can be taken together to secure vulnerable materials, combat nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism;" and "agreement on a joint communiqué pledging efforts to attain the highest levels of nuclear security, which is essential for international security as well as the development and expansion of peaceful nuclear energy worldwide."
http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/ 2010/pril/20100406143850zjsredna0.789776.html.

[2] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 617, "The New UNSC Iran Sanctions Resolution — Main Ramifications," June 22, 2010,

[3] http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp? symbol=NPT/CONF.2010/50%20%28VOL.I%29.

[4] http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec.../ 20100601133524esnamfuak0.697735.html.

[5] http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/ 2010/June/20100601133524esnamfuak0.697735.html

[6] Haaretz (Israel), July 8, 2010
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ obama-administration-israel-has-right-to-nuclear- capability-for-deterrence-purposes-1.300652.

[7] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ readout-presidents-meeting-with-prime-minister- netanyahu-israel-0.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Resa LaRu Kirkland, September 11, 2010.
UnConstitutional Generation

Watching FOX news today, I again had to hear from Dems how the overwhelming percentage of Americans don't want the Bush tax cuts continued on the wealthiest Americans, in other words, the top 2%.

Let's assume that's true. Let's assume it is just the top two percent, and will not in any way affect anyone else on earth, despite the laws/patterns of history, economics, nature, and math. Let's assume that the majority of Americans are that snarky, whiny, selfish, and childish that we just can't handle anyone making one dollar more than we do, no matter how hard they work or how well-deserved it might be...or how secretly we wish it was us. Let's assume the "Oh yeah?" attitude of the easily led Islammunists of the world really is deeply embedded in the majority of Americans.

Does that make it right?

Why have we yet to learn the cardinal rule, the mathematical pattern of history: what starts with one group never ends with that group?

When we OK the wrong thing against one person, one group, one demographic, we have sealed our own fate. It is a mathematical certainty, whether it takes one month or one century for it to reach us matters not; it WILL reach us.

There are reasons income tax is evil, all of them grounded in law. Let's start with America, the law of man, and the Top Two Percent.

The laws regarding Income Tax, first declared in 1861 to pay for the Civil War, expired in 1871, then tried again in 1894, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, took final and permanent hold in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson. (CAVEAT: Note the "temporary tax" to pay for the Civil War. America may have gotten a temporary reprieve from the ungodly tax, but the addiction had been triggered. THE LESSON? Never trust a "temporary tax." There is no such thing as temporary with the lucre possessed.)


Because Wilson the Wicked and his followers promised that less than the top one percent of Americans would have to pay, and don't you just want to stick it to those rich SOB's? Wilson had the first Democratic Congress in 18 years, and through arm-twisting and good old class warfare, he made Mammon (Aramaic for "riches") our new God, and the law of the land its brutal enforcer. Had we stood our ground and said, "It's just as wrong to tax my brother's increase as it is to tax mine," we would not have the increasingly unconstitutional and crippling taxes that have people overwhelmed, overburdened, and enraged. The 1% in Wilson's reign quickly became the vast, vast majority, and it took only a very few years for income tax to become the chief source of income for the government.

And these are the lucre addicts we continue to trust and enable? It now takes the average American until JULY before he is working for himself. In spite of the laws against slavery and indentured servitude, the income tax gave politicians the right to live off the sweat of your brow. It created the slave state, at least for half the year. (And perpetual property tax negated another Constitutional favorite: the right to private property. We now rent our land from the state, even if it's paid for in full.)

Which brings me to my next point: the Higher Law.

Let's begin with the very first mention ever of the need for man to give a portion of what he creates with his talents, hands, heart, and back to someone other than himself: the Old Testament and the law of tithing.

Tithing is giving 10% of any increase in your flocks, herds, or substance back to He who gave you the earth, its contents, your talents, skills, health and free will to create or not create to your heart's desire. It is an act of humility, an acknowledgment that all you have is because of Him, and He is the only one who has a right to ask for a portion back. After all, He is the founder of the feast; we are the tenders of the garden.

All throughout history the biggest indicator that a people were dealing with a wicked ruler was the demand that a man pay not based on what he spends (which is a fair tax, when reasonable, because you always have at least some control over it. Don't want to pay that tax? Don't buy that item, or buy as little of it as suits you.) but on what he earns, creates, or builds.

In other words, that wicked ruler, a mortal man, is in essence saying, "I am on par with God. You have what you have because of ME; therefore, you owe me a portion back." And in classic mortal arrogance, it is ALWAYS and inevitably more than the 10% God Himself asks for. As Ray Stevens says, "If 10% is good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for Uncle Sam?"

If I remember my Sunday School correctly, doesn't the Bible mention a thing or two about any mortal who elevates himself to God status? And isn't the true tell of what a man believes what he does, NOT what he says? So by that logical sequencing, wouldn't any man whose actions are those of seizing what belongs only to God, who in turn entrusts it to you, be an indication that he believes himself a god? And if God trusts us with our free will, shouldn't we be suspicious of any mortal who doesn't, who thinks he knows better and needs to govern over us, not on behalf of us?

Man has no right whatsoever to demand a portion back of what we make with our God-given talents, skills, ambition and hard work. It is a hallmark of pride and it's various symptoms: sloth, greed, and lust. And God Himself declares it an undue burden on his people, one that the true holders of freedom — the individual — have an obligation to reject by vigilance, vote, and inevitably throughout history if we do not do these first two, by violence (war, which is the natural consequence when we forget vigilance and are slothful in voting).

Render unto Ceasar only what is rightfully Ceasar's. If you are foolish enough to wind up with a Ceasar, your rendering will leave you rear-ended. That's where the whole vigilance/voting thingy comes in.

The pattern of history has clearly shown what happens when we allow ourselves to be enslaved and subjugated by wicked leaders with a God-complex. But my concern now isn't in the past, but the future, and what God Himself has said it holds.

Luke 21: 31-32: So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

The above scripture serves a purpose. In Biblical speak, a generation is thought to mean 100 years. We are coming up on the 100 year anniversary of the ungodly income tax. As always, the biggest indicator of what the future holds lies in what has happened in this income tax generation.

So what does Luke say will happen in that final generation?

Luke 21: 23-26 indicates this: Great distress, fall by the sword, led away captive, Jerusalem trodden down by Gentiles, signs in the sun, moon, and stars, the earth in distress, as well as the sea and waves roaring, men's hearts failing them, the powers of heaven shaken.

Within 5 years of the income tax, America experienced its first World War, followed by a Great distress (depression), another world war, unleashing of nuclear power that shook the powers of heaven, many falling by the sword, the restoration of Israel followed by the constant assault and siege of Jerusalem by Gentiles, exploration of space and more consciousness of its activities and clues, more earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, massive floods and volcanic explosions, the earth in upheaval, and the Political Castration of Americans that has us fearful of mere words, let alone actions.

Don't tell me it's just a coincidence that all of these horrors began after we allowed our leaders to claim the throne of God and steal His portion and then some. We have mocked and robbed God. That is what income tax does — mocks and robs God. There is only one way to right this wrong. But Obama's not the man to do it.

And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

Therefore, I the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.

I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore you are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

Nevertheless, when the wicked rule, the people mourn. Doctrine and Covenants 98: 5-9 (Modern day revelation given to Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith)

Are ya mournin' yet?

We are free, for God hath declared it. Let's act like free men. Let's not OK income taxes on anyone, not even the top two percent. Income taxes are simply wrong; they are enslavement, and since God has made us free, man has no right to take it from us. This country survived for over 100 years without income tax and overpaid lawyers commanding us. Get rid of them and we will be able to get rid of all unconstitutional taxes, beginning with income. Hold our leaders to our Constitutional laws. And ourselves.

Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.

Resa LaRu Kirkland is a columnist, writer, speaker, military historian and anti-feminist. Visit her website at http://americaswarchick.blogspot.com. Contact her at resalaru@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 11, 2010.
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

And in this case, just shortly after Rosh Hashana as well.

"Facing the Future"

For those of us who are observant Jews, the world of news has shut down for the last three days.

I wept as I prayed this Rosh Hashana. How could one pray from the heart for the defeat of our enemies and not weep?


And I note the date: 9/11. It's been nine years. Also cause for weeping, twice over. For what happened on that horrendous day, and for the failure even now of Americans to fully grasp the import of that attack. If anything, the understanding has dissipated over the years.

In memorial observances today, as I understand it, much of the focus has been on the Ground Zero mosque. I will not deal with that now. Before turning to other matters, I prefer to share the posting on the subject of 9/11 by Daniel Greenfield (writing as Sultan Knish) — "The Day the Sky Fell":

"That Tuesday we faced a new world. A world in which the sky fell. And some of us rose to face the challenges. And some of us fled into the comforts of the Monday that had [come] before, and all the days and years before it. Escaping history. Fleeing destiny. Forgetting that the world had changed, and no amount of politics as usual could make it stay the same."
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/ 09/day-sky-fell.html

(With thanks to Gary A. for calling this to my attention.)


I've picked up rumors of a plan that may be advanced by PM Netanyahu with regard to "peace negotiations": Sign an agreement now, and implement it in stages over the next 30 to 40 years. Unless this has been put out by a comedian, seeking to poke fun at the whole process (and I don't believe that), it is breathtakingly stupid — whether it truly belongs to our prime minister or is being floated by someone else seeking to advance an idea.

What this represents is a colossal admission that establishing a "Palestinian state" within the parameters routinely touted (viable, democratic, etc. etc.) is a total impossibility. And not something that can be established in a short time (two years? five years?) either. We're talking generations here. Thirty or 40 year might be realistic (putting aside the question of whether there should be a Palestinian state on our land at all).

Why, then, even think about coming to an "agreement" now, if it cannot be implemented? To make Obama and the larger international community happy. If that isn't stupidity, I confess that I don't what is. Who knows what might happen during those years. Besides which, once the terms were to be set out in writing, it's almost a sure thing that the Palestinian Arabs would come around to demanding implementation sooner. Either the PA is in a position to establish a state, or there should be nothing to talk about.

But, alas, Netanyahu is planning to show up in Sharm el-Sheikh this week to continue those "negotiations."


I wrote the other day about a PLO demand for all of Jerusalem, rather than just "eastern" Jerusalem. Now reader Jerome V. has sent me a piece from JPost of August 8 of last year, when the Fatah (the controlling party of the PA) held its conference:

"The sixth Fatah General Assembly decreed on Saturday that the return of both east and west Jerusalem to Palestinian control was a 'red line' which was nonnegotiable...Israel Radio reported.

"According to the report, a document adopted by the delegates of the assembly declared that Fatah would 'continue to sacrifice victims until residents of Jerusalem are free of settlements and settlers.' The document went on to state that all of Jerusalem, including the surrounding villages, belonged to the Palestinians, and lands conquered following the Six-Day war shared the same status as those located within the green line." (Emphasis added)

I stated the other day, and say it again here: The call for "eastern" Jerusalem is bogus — a stage in the infamous PLO "Strategy of Stages" — with the ultimate intention being to take all of our city.


I confess that I entirely missed this, when it happened. That's because I was very focused on the fact that the Fatah, at its conference, also voted not to remove the clause about "resistance" (i.e., violence) against Israel from its charter.

Our "peace partner."


Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said last week that making sure that a Palestinian state was "sustainable" would cost the international community some $50 billion.

This is for the state that's supposed to be "viable." The PA probably has the worst collective case of "welfare mentality" the world has ever seen. It has already received more in international assistance, per capita, than any other group or nation. Why should anyone have confidence that they'll ever be viable?


U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones is promoting the idea that a multinational force should be placed in Judea and Samaria to expedite the possibility of Israel pulling back. This is an overt acknowledgement that the PA security forces are not ready to handle matters (i.e., prevent a Hamas takeover or major Hamas infiltration and step-up of terrorism) on their own.


These are worrisome variations on a theme: The Palestinians cannot cut it on their own. But the international community, infuriatingly, wants to create that state for them and buoy them up in a host of different ways. This state has become some sort of holy grail of the diplomatic community.

The IDF is opposed to the use of international forces, and with very solid reason. UNIFIL, for example, has done zero with regard to preventing the re-arming of Hezbollah.

See Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror on this issue:


See JINSA Report# 1,020 on why the "peace talks" will fail.

"Senator Mitchell said there is a 'window of opportunity' now. With due respect, it is not a window but trompe l'oeil — the French decorating trick that 'fools the eye' by drawing outdoor scenery on solid walls..."

The Report then provides a hypothetical conversation between Netanyahu and Abbas that manages to shed a good deal of light on Abbas's real concerns.


Aaron Lerner, who directs IMRA, is of the opinion that Netanyahu is playing games (he calls them a "striptease") with regard to negotiations, but expresses some very serious concerns as to the dangers of doing this:

"Now if the post talk scenario indeed turns out to be an indefinite stalemate in which the Palestinians are blamed for their short sightedness while Israel gains points as it implements a series of measures to improve the lot of the Palestinians...then there might be some logic to an Israeli 'striptease' before the music stops.

"But that's a huge 'if.'

"Because the Palestinians are gearing up for a very different post talk scenario.

"They anticipate an internationally imposed 'solution' in the wake of the breakdown in the talks. A 'solution' that would take into account the Israeli and Palestinian positions at the failed talks."

And if the PA walks before there is sufficient negotiation to have put Israeli positions on the table?


Closing tonight with the latest from Caroline Glick's Latma satire:

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by FSM, September 11, 2010.

This was written by G. Murphy Donovan and it appeared in FSM — Family Security Matters. It is archived at
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.7337/pub_detail.asp

G. Murphy Donovan is a former Intelligence officer, former senior research fellow at RAND Corp, and former Director Research and Russian Studies, ACS/I, HQ USAF. His work has appeared in numerous strategic and Intelligence journals.

The myth of the Islamic victim is one of the most jarring and dangerous false narratives of the early 21st Century. The whining began in 1978...


I think it will be found that experience, the true source and foundation of all knowledge, invariably confirms truth. — Thomas Malthus

The myth of the Islamic victim is one of the most jarring and dangerous false narratives of the early 21st Century. The whining began in 1978 with Edward Said's Orientalism, a revisionist survey of Europe's colonial treatment of Arab and Muslim countries and post-colonial attitudes in the West.

In 1963, Said had landed an academic sinecure as an English professor at Columbia University. He was at the time, a Palestinian refugee from Jerusalem and a self-described victim. Said's augments provided the academic gravitas for a worldview with the following tenants: imperial Europe never understood or appreciated the "Orient" or its cultures, subsequent American policies in the Middle East reflect this ignorance, and anti-Zionism (nee anti-Semitism) is a legacy of colonialism — i.e. the Israeli plantation. In short, if some or many Muslims behave badly today; Europeans, Americans, and Jews have no one to blame but themselves.

Or in barnyard logic; pigs might be peacocks if horses behaved better. These are predictable consequences when angry English majors attempt to write history books. Said's Orientalism still sells well today on campus.

Never mind that military, political, and religious conquest was the dominant external idiom for Islam from the 7th through the 15th Centuries. And never mind that many Greek, Roman, Renaissance, and Enlightenment notions of reason and democracy never took permanent root in the barren soil of dar al Islam. And never mind that most historians agree that the Ottoman Empire collapsed like a rotten pomegranate because the Islamic caliphate was corrupt, autocratic, and semi-literate. Never mind that the Sunni and Shiite varieties of anti-Semitism, irredentism, and xenophobia have roots that predate European colonialism and the state of Israel by millennia. And never mind that much of the contemporary, global Wahhabi, Deobandi, and Taliban sectarian intolerance, proselytizing, megalomania, misogyny, and violence (nee jihad) are flaws, internal to contemporary Islam. Never mind any of this and remember that Islam is a "religion" of peace — the philosophical and moral equivalent of any other religion.

Never mind also that Bernard Lewis, a true scholar of Islam and the Near East, has discredited Edward Said's self-serving assertions about imperialism and racism while at the same time identifying "the theology of Jidad" as a "licence to kill." Lewis also anticipated the "clash of civilizations." Never mind that other historians like Paul Johnson have underscored Lewis's analysis of Islamism in terms that makes Professor Lewis look too generous. And never mind that progressive philosophers of the left like Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens have condemned Islamism as both an irredentist shield and totalitarian sword. Berman argues that Islamism is just another toxic variety of fascism — forever joining "terror and liberalism." The Hitchens' arguments speak for themselves:

...the general apathy and surrender of the West in the face of a determined assault from a religious ideology, or an ideological religion, afflicted by no sickly doubt about what it wants or by any scruples about how to get it...demography and cultural masochism, especially in combination, are handing a bloodless victory to the forces of Islamization...liberalism has found even more convoluted means of blaming itself... in the stupid neologism "Islamophobia," which aims to promote criticism of Islam to the gallery of special offenses associated with racism.

Never mind that serious scholarship of the right and left, historians and philosophers, have designated militant Islam a threat to Muslims and infidels alike. Never mind that Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, the ground zero imam, and religion "scholars" like Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post have internalized Edward Said's agnotology in spite of overwhelming contrary evidence and analysis.

Never mind all those young Muslim men who think "martyr" is just another career choice; and never mind those burka bimbos who wear dynamite like Allah's bustier. Never mind Luxor, Lockerbie, 9/11, Beslan, and Mumbai. We had it coming.

Never mind any of these things and reject your Islamophobia. Reject Islamophobia and embrace Islamophilia; a progressive masochism which caters to your worst religious, political, cultural, and survival instincts. Embrace Islamophilia and end your days like Daniel Pearl; headless and butchered like Ramadan lamb. And in the end remember that Pearl died for three reasons; he was a Jew, he was an American, and he was a journalist.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Ruth King, September 11, 2010.

As memory of 9/11 recedes our policy makers, military leaders and pundits are more worried about offending Moslem sensibilities and being accused of Islamophobia than actually confronting the facts about jihad.

There is much nostalgia today for President George Bush the 43rd. Count me out.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 jihad, President Bush delivered strong speeches to the United Nations, the Congress and the American public and his rhetoric often soared.

However his total whitewash of Saudi Arabia and its role in enabling and funding terrorism and its repressive and brutal enforcement of Sharia law was appalling, and, thanks to efforts of his administration, the Saudis were engaged in a series of meetings with U.S. officials, on September 19 and 20, 2001, in Washington D.C., followed by talks with with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Riyadh on October 4, 2001, and with Vice President Dick Cheney later that year to discuss joint efforts to " combat terrorism".

Since then, Saudi Arabia has contributed to American universities and think tanks where their "munificence" has altered curricula and policies in favor of the Arab/Moslem war against Israel and the West.

President Bush also exonerated Islam from the events of 9/11.

On September 20th he said: "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam."

The "fringe" went on to commit atrocities throughout the world, and the Bush administration continued to back away from confronting the truth about jihad.

In September 2003, the President said "We have learned that terrorist attacks .... are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans........ so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

Engage what enemy? The "fringe"?

By the time President Bush was winding down his tenure, the election debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the subsequent ones with John McCain did not even mention Islam or jihad.

Well, we now do meet the enemy " on our streets and in our cities." Remember: Times Square on Christmas 2009, where a bomber almost caused a major disaster; November 2009 on an airline where the "panty bomber" with explosives hidden in his shorts almost brought down a craft with hundreds of passengers; in our military bases where a homegrown Moslem terrorist killed soldiers on November 5th, 2009; in May 2007 when Moslem terrorists almost caused carnage in Fort Dix, N.J.; in a military recruitment center in Arkansas in June 2009 where a jihadist targeted soldiers and killed one. The list is endless, but the "fringe" remains nameless in spite of their stated purpose.

And here's what the "fringe' Hamas minister and cleric Yunis Al-Astal had to say on April 11th, 2008 (thanks to Andrew Bostom) on AlAqsa Palestinian TV:

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs [i.e., Jews, Koran 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166, and other foundational Muslim texts] in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam — this capital of theirs [Rome] will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe. I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad...

These statements do not deter the pundits, statesmen, academics and President Obama who continue to perpetuate the tribute to Islam that started so shortly after 9/11.

They forget the adage: "Even if you feed endless amounts of meat to the tiger he will not become a vegetarian."

Ruth S. King is a freelance writer who writes a monthly column in OUTPOST, the publication of Americans for a Safe Israel. This article appeared today in Family Security Matters.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ashraf Ramelah, September 11, 2010.

I shall never forget that very sad morning in September nine years ago, when Arab-Muslims committed their Manhattan and Washington, D.C. Gazwa, leaving about three thousand innocent people murdered. "Gazwa" is an Arab term used to indicate a successful attack upon the enemy or an invasion of enemy territory.

In the weeks following this horrible tragedy, I began to examine my Egyptian roots, which I had denied from the time I left Egypt for Rome in 1968 until the moment of this attack. Having assimilated into the Italian lifestyle and culture, I took the Italian language as my new first tongue and never looked back, only making occasional visits to my family in Cairo.

There was a reason I left Cairo beyond my choice of university to study architecture, and after Mohammad Atta, an Egyptian Arab-Muslim, slammed a jet into the world trade towers, I decided to fully explore this reason. I could no longer ignore the memories I had buried so long ago and what I had witnessed as a young boy growing up as a minority Copt subject to Islamic rule. I might say that in the aftermath of September 11, I took on a new resolve to remember my own personal history and face the oppression and persecution of my people, for I realized this was the best way to better understand the progress made by Arab Muslims toward their goal of conquering and subjugating the Kafir (non-Muslim population). I pored over ancient and contemporary Arabic texts in my original language, studying the behavior of Arabs throughout history and the development of Islam, to discover more about the land I grew up in and the politics which dominated my country.

The tragedy of the Christian Copts in Egypt as an oppressed and persecuted population inside their own country — stripped of their identity and living under fear and intimidation for their faith, prohibited from real participation in government and all other important sectors of society — all began with the violence of a Gazwa in the year 651.

Islamic-Arab aggression began with the first year of the Islamic calendar of Hegira and repeated itself once again in New York City in 2001. For 1,400 years, the people of Arab-occupied countries have suffered a rewrite of their own histories, their identities erased for the purpose of satisfying Arab-Muslim occupation and supremacy.

Looking back upon the weeks following this tragedy, I try to recall which leaders from the Arab-Muslim world reacted honorably in response to the horrible tragedy. No remarks of condolences were said, and no declarations of war against terrorism were stated by any one of the Arab state leaders or any imam within any mosque across the world. Instead, we witnessed unchecked celebrations in the streets by Arab Muslims while the American people were grief-stricken and shocked. Muslims living in America mostly either remained silent on this issue or celebrated as well.

After the 9/11 tragedy, Arab-Muslim media were reporting the success of bin Laden against the Kafirs in America. This same media, along with some Western media, spread rumors that the tragedy was planned and achieved through an inside job done by the FBI. Meanwhile, in this same timeframe, President Bush took a prompt from his Saudi Arabian associates and, based upon abrogated verses from Qur'an, declared Islam a religion of peace!

Statements like this from America's leaders, including some recently made by President Obama, have helped pave the way for us to receive the final emblem of triumph from the Arab Muslim over the American way, namely the Cordoba initiative, an Islamic Center to be built on hallowed American ground.

As an Egyptian-born Copt, I have a decided advantage over my American friends in that I have grown up in clear view of the unfolding Islamic agenda, as well as been victimized by it. The director of the Center for Islamic Study, Bill Warner, poses a question to Americans in one of his recent articles, titled "Do you have any Armenian, Serbian or Coptic friends?" (see below). He goes on to note that these individuals could be the key to understanding the progress of Islam in America and give the proper answers to those who question the opposition to building a mosque at ground zero.

The groundbreaking of the Cordoba mosque at Ground Zero will be a symbol of Arab-Muslim Gazwa of New York City, as currently projected in the Arab media, and will directly lead to the Islamization of America.

This in turn will be the beginning of the demands by Muslims for separate Shariah law and Shariah courts.

What a far-fetched conclusion, our American reader might say — mainly because we have had no precedent for this in American culture. Shariah law compliance? Surely our Constitution will protect us from whatever this Shariah is.

The majority of those who gather in opposition to the mosque this weekend, exercising their freedom of speech, do so upon their objection to the insensitivity and disrespect toward the victims and their family members demonstrated in Imam Rauf and his financiers' stubborn determination to build it at Ground Zero, all the while conceding to Rauf his perfect right to build it.

Using America's freedom of religion for the establishment of a religion that holds steadfastly to cutting off freedom of religion and freedom of speech in both principle and practice places the religion of Islam in direct contradiction with the American way of life. American secular culture, informed with Judeo-Christian principles, is heading on a collision course with its foreign antithesis, a culture I am all too familiar with.

When I ask my American friends about the proliferation of Islam in America, the typical response is that everything will work out just fine in America because America allows room for practice of all religions and all beliefs. Some even quote their Muslim friends who are adept at refuting the skeptics. Americans have become apologists for Islam without knowing the important facts about Islamic religious beliefs and practices, particularly the practice of taqiya.

Lying is allowed, as stated in Islamic doctrine, when a believer (Muslim) is speaking to a non-believer (non-Muslim) for the purpose of achieving his goal, the advancement of Islam. When this convenient tool is utilized by a Muslim in speaking to the non-Muslim, it is especially effective in promoting acceptance of Islam.

Our democracy is at work as we exercise our freedom of speech and assemble in the streets on 9/11 this year to prevent the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero, a symbol of victory commemorating the profound material and psychological damage caused by the enemy of our nation in an attack upon us nine years ago. If the will of the people of New York City combined with the many voices around our country is able to halt this project, then not only is it a testimony to the strength of democracy in America, but, equally as important in defeating this travesty, it becomes the stumbling block to what will be the flagship used in launching the ideological forces aimed at destroying this very process.

"Muslim Friends" by Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam.

When you read the comments section of an article about Islam, you will see the argument: I have some Muslim friends and they are good people.

The conclusion: good Muslims mean that Islam is good. If the talk is face-to-face, the person may ask: Do you have any Muslim friends? There is a hidden implication that if you do not, then you don't really know anything about Islam and you could be a bigot.

What is actually going on? The Kafir (non-Muslim) with Muslim friends does not know any real facts about Islam and wants to move the argument to feelings, not facts. If the Muslim friend is nice, Islam is nice. There is no need to know any facts about Islam. And, if Islam is nice, then speaking against it is bigotry.

It is amazing how much people can talk about Islam and never mention a single fact. It is easy to tell if someone is speaking about Islam factually. A fact-based discussion will include the Koran and the Sunna, which means that the words Mohammed and Allah will be heard. If there is no Mohammed or Allah, then the discussion is not about the facts of Islam; it is about opinions that come from the media, authorities and the web.

Here are questions to ask people with Muslim friends.

  • Do you have any Muslim apostate friends?

    An apostate is one who has left Islam and under Sharia law may be murdered. Who would know more about the true nature of Islam than someone who knows it at the core of their being? The apostate knows both sides of the story.

    Here are other questions to ask those with Muslim friends:

  • Do you have any Christian friends from the Middle East?
  • Do you have any Armenian, Serbian or Coptic friends?

    These people have suffered cultural and religious annihilation by Islam over the past 1400 years, shouldn't you also meet them? About 60 million Christians have been murdered over the last 1400 years, and Armenians, Serbians, Copts (Egyptians) and the rest of the Christians of the Middle East furnished the body count. Doesn't it make sense to talk to who has personal experience in engaging Islam?

There are other questions to be asked. There are 13 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir. How can this not be talked about? According to Islam, we are Kafirs. Why can't friends talk about such things?

Koran 4:144 Believers! Do not take kafirs as friends over fellow believers. Would you give Allah a clear reason to punish you?

What this means is that a Muslim may be friendly with a Kafir, but if a Muslim has a choice between favoring a Kafir or a Muslim, he will favor the Muslim. Why can't this be discussed among friends?

Now to the most critical question: Is a Muslim ever really the friend of a Kafir? Any Muslim who fully accepts the doctrine of Islam cannot be the true friend of a Kafir — friendly, yes, but not a true friend. If he is a true friend, then he is not obeying the Koran and not following the Sunna of Mohammed.

The difference between friendly and a friend is that a Muslim who is true friend will sometimes choose the Kafir's side in a dispute about it. A friendly Muslim will be pleasant, but will always choose Islam's side in any politics or dispute about Islam. A Muslim friend who is a true friend will listen to reasonable criticisms and occasionally tell you that you have a point there. The Muslim Arabic FBI translators who cheered on 9/11 were quite friendly, but chose Islam over the Kafirs on 9/11.

This does not mean that a person, who calls himself or herself a Muslim, cannot be a real friend. They may see the Golden Rule as more attractive than Islam's dualistic ethics. If they can see the other person as not being a Kafir, but a human being, then they can be a true friend.

It is important to see that these ideas concern implications about the practical application of Islamic doctrine. In this case the Islamic doctrine of friends is examined. These ideas are not about any particular person who calls themselves a Muslim. Generally, to be a Muslim, you must act according to Islamic doctrine. However, the term Muslim has come to mean anybody with any degree of adherence to Islamic doctrine, however if such a person adopts the Kafir Golden Rule then they can be a fine person and a fine friend.

This friend business is perhaps one of the worst parts of the Islamic ideology and shows how great the divide is between Islam and all other doctrines.

Dottore Architetto Ashraf Ramelah is an Egyptian Copt, resident in Italy. Contact him at aramelah@voicerofthecopts.org. His websites are
www.voiceofthecopts.org and

This article was published today in American Thinker.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 10, 2010.

Most people I meet call themselves "liberal." They mean to be fair and merciful. Since liberals differ on the Arab-Israel conflict, I will refer more to "leftists," to indicate appeasers of the Arab side.

I mean to be fair and merciful, too. Eclectic, I dispute many leftist proposals. Then whose proposals are fair and merciful?

How does one find out from leftists who end the conversation upon finding disagreement? Some rely mostly upon sources of a single viewpoint, that of, say, the New York Times, NPR, and perhaps the Nation. In these times of advocacy journalism, such dependency misleads people.

A knowledge of history and international law helps in assessing current events. I studied general and Israeli history, before bias overtook much of academia and journalism. I read the Times, the Wall St. Journal, and many other sources. My Israeli sources steadily reproduce Arab and leftist articles. I have made detailed analyses of pro-Arab books. I know the pertinent viewpoints and the NY Times caricatures of Zionist views.

Whereas most people perceive two opposing views, I find more. It helps to have lived through, and thought about, three totalitarian movements bent on world conquest: Nazism, Communism, and Islamism (Radical Islam). I used to debate with Communists and their fellow-travelers. Current discussions resemble those arguments, because the three movements share their most significant aspects.

They share a totalitarian and imperialist drive, duplicity as the norm, and religious intolerance. All have been antisemitic, but can deal with Jews when advantageous. Naïve people mistake their dealing with Israel or the U.S. as peace-making.

War has changed faster than have people's understanding of it. War for ideology has become total. It is waged against a total population and by diverse means. Totalitarian ideologies use any means, however illegal and inhumane. Hence boycott, lawfare, UN denunciation, false historical narrative, terrorism, and duplicitous diplomacy. Americans tend to see each method as a separate issue, but they are arrows in the same quiver.

The Nazis lied routinely; Communism had false "agitprop;" and Islam, not just Islamism, endorses deception ("takiyya") in behalf of the cause. How unwise to take Islamists at their word! Many Americans and Israelis do!

Of course, duplicity is not exclusively totalitarian. The West betrays allies. The U.S. and the UN offer "guarantees," but the U.S. has broken "guarantees" and promises to Israel. A fool and his life are soon parted.

As the Mideast Forum has explained, lslamic terrorism in recent decades combined, radicalized, and popularized Sunni and Shia elements. War crime has been a major Arab tactic against Israel. What are leftists doing supporting the Muslim Arab side that pummels minorities, oppresses its own people, represses women, persecutes gays, perpetrates aggression and by war crime, promotes bigotry and terrorism, and practices genocide? Is that being fair and merciful?

When I explain that Radical Islam is waging jihad all over the world, and that the Arab-Israel conflict is just one manifestation of jihad, friends listen but their later comments indicate that they do not absorb that fact. Why not? Why do they not acknowledge such points that make sense and affect their national security?

Many people fail to perceive the basic unity of global jihad. They do not notice the common jihadist ideology of imposing a global caliphate. They ignore the Islamist wars in various stages of demands for tolerance (tolerance of efforts to subvert), demands for privileges and imposition of parts of Islamic law in the Western world, Saudi bribery of U.S. diplomats, subversion of university Islamic studies centers, and financing of radical mosques, the terrorism that draws Muslims from all over, and the various wars in many countries. Put two and two together!

Most people imagine, and the State Dept. and Times cultivate the misimpression, that the Arab-Israel conflict is a territorial dispute. No, it is a religious one. When not in propaganda mode, the Arabs admit it. Therefore, getting the Arabs more money and land does not make peace but strengthens Islamist imperialism. Likewise, when we ignore global jihad, we impair U.S. national security. A similar misunderstanding almost cost our survival against the two earlier totalitarian imperialisms.

Indeed, some liberals and the more leftist allies of the Islamists emulate the Communist fellow-travelers I knew. That is, they divert attention from good points contrary to their views. They make excuses for the Arabs, just as fellow-travelers made for the Soviets. Many people do not realize jihad's global reach. They have no idea whether and how to defend the West. They mistakenly assume that the enemy is as benign as themselves.

My generalizations can go only so far. Many conservatives are mixed up. There is not enough proper education or faithful news dissemination.

Not only liberals fail to study the Islamist political program. The U.S. government wages wars without understanding the enemy.

We humans misuse brains to rationalize falsehood. One such rationalization is to cloak jihad against Israel as a peace process. Here is not the space for detailed proof, but the Muslim Arabs do not want peace, they want conquest. Their Covenants spell this out. Arafat explained it to fellow Muslim leaders. Abbas refuses to recognize Israel of any size as a Jewish state, meaning he does not recognize its right to existence. (When leftists hear this, why does it not shake their certainty?)

So the solution is not a further partition of Palestine. By the way, how many people, who think that Palestinian Arabs should have a state, know that Palestine was divided before, with the Arabs getting the lion's share, now called Jordan? When told, how many see there is no need for another Palestinian Arab state?

The primary role of propaganda by the pro-Arab side is overlooked. Unfortunately for candor and insight, mislabeling as a form of defamation is common. Examples: "extremist," "moderate," and rightwing.

For example, Jewish nationalists are called "extremist," for wanting Jewish national rights. When are Muslim Arabs called extremist for wanting Muslim Arab hegemony and exclusive residency? How "moderate" are Israeli leftists who want Israel to give up: (1) The cradle of Jewish civilization to Arabs seeking to make Israel the grave of Jewish civilization; (2) Most of arid Israel's water supply; and (3) Secure borders? If Jewish national suicide is "moderate," what is extreme?

For another example, propagandists have taught readers to call the Likud Party and its head, Netanyahu, rightist. Convenient but not accurate. Netanyahu has a record of caving in under U.S. pressure and rationalizing away his supposed nationalism. Labels are not assigned factually, but in ignorance if not as a form of warfare by vocabulary ("wordfare").

For example, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forbids working for Israelis, imposes capital punishment on Arabs who sell land to Jews, and wants to take Israel away from the Jews. Israel does not do those things, but Israel and only Israel is called "apartheid." How fair and merciful is that?

People reiterate the slogans of the day. They assert that most Arabs want peace and that the P.A. was "democratically elected." Why don't they consider how can a people that supposedly mostly want tolerance, non-violence, and peace "democratically elect" regimes that want discrimination, terrorism, and war? That is self-contradictory.

Either those Arabs are not as imagined, or the election was not as imagined, or both. I say, both. Arab society is collective. Constant propaganda keeps it so. The Arabs in the P.A. support the regime's jihad. They make this clear in polls and by mob action. So undemocratic is their society, that the few dissenters get silenced.

How can one consider a society which lacks freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion, and which oppresses minorities and controls NGOs, democratic? Are elections in which the only choices are between rival terrorist gangs "democratic?" Abbas' term of office expired years ago. He has little support, his Prime Minister has none, and if he deviated from his own propaganda line and sought to make peace, he would be assassinated.

Suppose the P.A. were democratic. Would that legitimize bigotry, deceit, aggression, and terrorism?

Saddam was committing genocide, against Kurds and marsh Arabs. Sudan is committing genocide (and slavery), first against non-Muslim blacks but now also against Muslim blacks. The Palestinian Arabs are trying to commit genocide. Where is the Left and its cry for social justice? Leftists, if not other liberals, protest vigorously — against a Jewish family that buys a house in eastern Jerusalem, and not against Arabs who steal land in Israel or in the territories. Is that being fair and merciful?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY- Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 10, 2010.

This was posted by Michelle Malkin today and filed under FrontPage.
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/10/the-eternal-flame -of-muslim-outrage/?utm_source=FrontPage+ Magazine&utm_campaign=89a2757ae8-RSS_ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email


Shhhhhhh, we're told. Don't protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don't burn a Koran. It'll imperil the troops. It'll inflame tensions. The "Muslim world" will "explode" if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the "Muslim world" not ready to "explode"?

At the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways.

Just a few months ago in Kashmir, faithful Muslims rioted over what they thought was a mosque depicted on underwear sold by street vendors. The mob shut down businesses and clashed with police over the blasphemous skivvies. But it turned out there was no need for Allah's avengers to get their holy knickers in a bunch. The alleged mosque was actually a building resembling London's St. Paul's Cathedral. A Kashmiri law enforcement official later concluded the protests were "premeditated and organized to vitiate the atmosphere."

Indeed, art and graphics have an uncanny way of vitiating the Muslim world's atmosphere. In 1994, Muslims threatened German supermodel Claudia Schiffer with death after she wore a Karl Lagerfeld-designed dress printed with a saying from the Koran. In 1997, outraged Muslims forced Nike to recall 800,000 shoes because they claimed the company's "Air" logo looked like the Arabic script for "Allah." In 1998, another conflagration spread over Unilever's ice cream logo — which Muslims claimed looked like "Allah" if read upside-down and backward (can't recall what they said it resembled if you viewed it with 3D glasses).

Even more explosively, in 2002, an al-Qaida-linked jihadist cell plotted to blow up Bologna, Italy's Church of San Petronio because it displayed a 15th century fresco depicting Mohammed being tormented in the ninth circle of Hell. For years, Muslims had demanded that the art come down. Counterterrorism officials in Europe caught the would-be bombers on tape scouting out the church and exclaiming, "May Allah bring it all down. It will all come down."

That same year, Nigerian Muslims stabbed, bludgeoned or burned to death 200 people in protest of the Miss World beauty pageant — which they considered an affront to Allah. Contest organizers fled out of fear of inflaming further destruction. When Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel joked that Mohammed would have approved of the pageant and that "in all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them," her newspaper rushed to print three retractions and apologies in a row.

It didn't stop Muslim vigilantes from torching the newspaper's offices. A fatwa was issued on Daniel's life by a Nigerian official in the sharia-ruled state of Zamfara, who declared that "the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed. It is abiding on all Muslims wherever they are to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty." Daniel fled to Norway.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by M.S. Kramer, September 10, 2010.

If you are planning to be in New York Thursday, November 4, and want to be intellectually stimulated, stop by the New York Times building at 7pm to hear David Hazony debate Christopher Hitchens, the well known atheist, on "Are the Ten Commandments Still Relevant?" Hazony, born in America to Israeli academics, grew up in the Boston area, received two degrees from Yeshiva University in the '80s, and moved to Israel when he was 24. His primary reason to make "aliyah" was to get in touch with his innate Jewishness, in an atmosphere where Judaism is an intrinsic part of life. Hazony, a writer and blogger, has a rich intellectual life in Israel, where he was formerly editor-in-chief of Azure, Israel's leading journal of Jewish public thought, published by the renowned Shalem Center. He has written dozens of essays and reviews on Judaism and the Middle East for The New Republic, Moment and other publications and is a regular contributor to Contentions, the blog of Commentary magazine, perhaps America's premier monthly opinion magazine. David is a doctoral student in Jewish Philosophy and lives in the Jerusalem area.

I met David for lunch recently, where he told me about his new book, The Ten Commandments, just published by Scribner. (Order at http://books.simonandschuster.com or other online booksellers.) In it, Hazony grapples with the vast complexities of the Ten Commandments and how they have been interpreted historically, while attempting to reveal the meaning they bear for our times. We began discussing the ambiguous role of the Ten Commandments in American life. While the Ten Commandments are unquestionably part of America's ethos, their public display is frequently challenged in the courts by atheists and others.

On his website: www.davidhazony.typepad.com, David recently took on the New York Times' veteran legal commentator, Linda Greenhouse, who warned of "the continuing effort by state and local governments to post the Ten Commandments in public places," as well as an upcoming attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling in 2005 that barred the posting of the Ten Commandments before two Kentucky courthouses. Greenhouse finds it hard to imagine the Bible representing anything other than religion. "The prospect of watching lawyers and justices engage in still more contorted efforts to attach supposedly secular meaning to obviously sectarian objects and texts," she writes, "is not a pleasant one."

David asks, "But is this fair? Can't the Ten Commandments — indeed, the Bible as a whole, with its thousand pages of ancient stories, speeches, poems, proverbs, laws, and histories — have secular meaning?" In Israel, the Bible is seen very differently. Even though the country was founded on an ultra-secular socialism, it has refused to cut itself off from the Jewish people's ancient textual heritage.

In his web post of September 3, "Can a Sacred Text Be Secular as Well?" David writes: "The Bible is not just a sacred text. It's also a major pillar of our civilization — no less so than the works of ancient Greece, Enlightenment Europe, or the American Founders. Biblical stories and figures were invoked in every successful progressive movement in American history, from the revolution to emancipation to women's suffrage to the civil rights movement. To presumptively dismiss public presentation of the Bible's most famous encapsulation, the Ten Commandments, as 'sectarian' is to cut ourselves off from this great fountainhead of wisdom, history, and self-understanding that we desperately need in our constant search to understand what the experiment of modern democratic life is really all about."

David told me that the 10 Commandments are not so much commandments (must do) as obligations (should do), even though some rabbis say all 613 "mitzvot" (commandments) are included in them. We discussed Shabbat, which is the name for Saturday in Hebrew. This is the only obligation of the "10" that tells us to do as God did. He rested from his work of creation after six days in order to make a separation in what would otherwise be endless toil. This day of rest opens a world of reflection and study that otherwise wouldn't be possible, a time when we can invest in our own hearts and minds and relationships. The ancient rabbis taught that Shabbat was given so that we could study the Torah — which for them meant deepening ourselves as moral, wise, loving people, in order to have something meaningful to give to others.

The 10 Commandments are the basis of Judaism and building blocks of "Tikkun Olam," the Jewish concept which starts with improving one's self and concerns itself with man's actions on earth, without emphasizing an afterlife. I'm sure David will say that Tikkun Olam is a Jewish tenet that even an atheist would agree to!

David told me that when he was in his twenties, he felt a need to deepen his Jewish identity by reading through the whole Bible in the original Hebrew, which took about three years with the help of an English translation. He was really surprised to discover that the ancient Hebrew writings seemed to contain a whole outlook on life that had somehow been lost in the translation to American culture, both Jewish and Christian. Instead of seeing the cold, harsh, law-enforcing "Old Testament God" that everyone spoke of, he saw a teaching of "this-worldly" love, that begins with taking responsibility for our lives and communities. It's less about which faith you choose than about the way you look at what it means to be human. Then a few years ago, a friend suggested that the key to this insight lay in reading the Ten Commandments not just as laws but as core values that spell out this whole outlook.

We spoke about Israel's precarious standing in the world and what the future might bring. David feels strongly that Judaism is an intrinsic part of Israeli life, even if it's not formally recognized by all Israelis, who nonetheless live in the ancient Israelite land, celebrate holidays based on our seasons, and speak our ancient language. David ended our conversation optimistically, declaring that it's more likely that Israel will exist 100 years from now, than that some of the European countries, even large ones such as France, will endure.

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." His recent book is entitled Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture.

To Go To Top

Posted by Albert Wendroff, September 9, 2010.

This was written by Sebastian Vivar Rodriguez and it appeared November 21st, 2004 on www.science.co.il.

Another reason to reject the Two-State solution.


I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth — Europe died in Auschwitz.

We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.

In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake made by miserable Europe.

Contact Albert Wendroff by email at wendroff39@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 9, 2010.

This was written by William Katz. Visit his website: www.urgentagenda.com


QUOTE OF THE DAY — The usual religious suspects were out in force yesterday, holding press conferences to protest against a rising tide of American Islamophobia which, strangely, doesn't show up in any survey. The Ground Zero mosque controversy is too much for these pious pipers:

WASHINGTON — Prominent Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders held an extraordinary "emergency summit" meeting in the capital on Tuesday to denounce what they called "the derision, misinformation and outright bigotry" aimed at American Muslims during the controversy over the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero.

"This is not America," said Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the emeritus Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, flanked by three dozen clergy members and religious leaders at a packed news conference at the National Press Club. "America was not built on hate."

This is totally outrageous. I've seen very little hate in this national discussion. In fact, according to FBI statistics, Muslims rank rather low, as compared, say, to Jews, in the number of hate crimes committed against them.

Most of the hate I've seen has been directed at those who, out of sensitivity to the dead and the mourning, oppose the location of the mosque. They've been called racists, bigots, morons, fascists and warmongers.

The great Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the terorrists in the first World Trade Center bombing, replies with some blistering truth, at NRO:

For the better part of two decades, Americans have been murdered by Islamists and then lectured that they are to blame for what has befallen them. We have been instructed in the need for special sensitivity to the unceasing demands of Islamic culture and falsely accused of intolerance by the people who wrote the book on intolerance. Americans have sacrificed blood and bottomless treasure for Islamic peoples who despise Americans — and despise us even more as our sacrifices and gestures of self-loathing intensify. Americans have watched as apologists for terrorists and sharia were made the face of an American Muslim community that we were simultaneously assured was the very picture of pro-American moderation.

Americans have had our fill. We are willing to live many lies. This one, though, strikes too close to home, arousing our heretofore dormant sense of decency.

That is the quote of the day, maybe the quote of the year.

We are all for respect here. We're perfectly prepared to show respect for Islam. But to get respect, you've got to give some. We're still waiting for the Muslim world, which this country has helped time and time again, without so much as a simple thank you in return.

We wait, and we hear the silence, and we're told by the fashion plates of the American elite that it's all our fault. No it isn't, and we draw the line.

THANKS A LOT, GUYS — Well, it was a good thought, I guess. So-called "peace talks" began last week between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Now the president of the PA has pretty much cancelled the whole affair in advance:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's talk about an "historic compromise" and said there would be no compromises on core issues such as Jerusalem and borders.

Then what is the point of peace talks? In the end, these talks always end with Arab rejectionism.

Abbas also reiterated his rejection of Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "We're not talking about a Jewish state and we won't talk about one," Abbas said in an interview with the semi-official Al-Quds newspaper. "For us, there is the state of Israel and we won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

Gee, neat. What if we refused to recognize Muslim states as Muslim? Can you just see our embassies burning? Obviously, statements like this will not advance peace. Abbas makes them because he has Arab extremists and the Western left behind him. He could talk genocide and the Western left would still applaud.

We wonder whether President Obama will get on the phone with Abbas today and read him the riot act. Don't hold your breath. Riot acts are only read to America's allies. It takes backbone to read them to enemies. Backbone hasn't shown up on any of the president's recent X-rays or MRI's. Specialists are upset.

So, right from the start, these talks are on life support. Hillary Clinton will go to the Mideast later this month to preside over the second round of talks. Given Abbas's stand, there isn't much to talk about....unless Hillary will take a big political risk and start knocking Palestinian heads. She's experienced at knocking the Israeli heads.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 9, 2010.
This was written by Caroline B. Glick.

On August 28, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck confounded his colleagues in the media when he brought hundreds of thousands of Americans to the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC for a rally he called "Restoring Honor."

While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker, the rally was decidedly apolitical. The speakers said nothing controversial. The crowd was enthusiastic but not rowdy. US President Barack Obama was never even mentioned by name. In the event, the massive crowd gathered, prayed, celebrated American military heroes, listened to patriotic speeches and songs. Then the participants picked up their garbage and went home.

So what was it all about? Why do many people see it as a watershed event?

Although Beck called the rally "Restoring Honor," it wasn't really about restoring honor. It was about restoring something even more important. It was about restoring the American creed.

That creed is so ingrained that it has served as the subtext of every major political and civic speech by every American political and civic leader since the eighteenth century. The American creed has two main components. First, its core belief is that America is an exceptional country and that the American people are an exceptional nation. Second, it asserts that as Abraham Lincoln first said outright, America is the last, best hope for mankind.

The reason Beck's rally was a watershed event is that in the Age of Obama, millions of Americans for the first time feel the need to reclaim what they believe is their birthright as Americans. Because what distinguishes Obama from his predecessors is that he is the first American President who clearly rejects the American creed.

This basic truth was first brought to the public's attention during Obama's visit to Turkey last year. A reporter there asked him, "[Do] you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of 'American exceptionalism' that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?"

Obama replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

That is, the US President said, no, he doesn't believe in the American exceptionalism. He rejects the American creed.

Obama's unprecedented position stands at the core of the actions he has taken and the positions he has adopted since coming into office. From his move to nationalize the American healthcare system, to his attacks on the free market; from his insinuations that his political opponents are bigoted and primitive to his effective rejection of the mantle of US superpower status and global leadership in favor of transnationalism, Obama has clearly rejected the building blocks of America's national DNA.

O And this is why Beck's rally was important. At the rally Beck and the crowd he assembled committed themselves to repairing the damage Obama is causing. What the multitudes who congregated at the Lincoln Memorial two weeks ago understood is that America's greatness as a nation is entirely predicated on its creed. If the creed is abandoned, while America may hang around for awhile, its path to ruin will be inexorable.

Lincoln once called Americans "G0d's almost chosen people." In saying that, he linked American history to the history of the Jews. Whereas the Jews singled ourselves out as the chosen people by agreeing to accept G0d's law, in Lincoln's view, Americans accepted the burdens and the gifts of a unique national path and mission in accepting the American creed.

The American creed has been cultivated, preserved and defended for some 350 years. The Jewish creed America's founders turned to for inspiration has been cultivated, preserved and defended for 3,500 years.

The Jewish creed is predicated on the dual destiny of the Jews: to be both a nation that dwells alone and a light to the nations.

G0d bestowed the Jews with three tools to achieve these twin, and seemingly contradictory missions. He gave us the Law of Israel. He gave us the Nation of Israel. And he gave us the Land of Israel.

The law of Israel, the Torah, is the human path to righteousness and holiness. By obeying the laws and recognizing the frailty of mankind as a collective, the Jews comprise a distinct nation that is a blessing and an inspiration to the world.

By building our lives in the land of Israel, our birthright, the Jews are able to cultivate our heritage and perform our dual mission in relative peace and make the blessing of choseness tangible for ourselves and the world as a whole.

For 3,500 years, successive generations of Jews have understood our mission and creed. They internalized it and lived their lives by it.

Since the dawn of modern Zionism, the overwhelming majority of Jews, in Israel and throughout the world have recognized the return to the land of Israel as the harbinger of redemption for the Jewish people — and through it, for the world. This understanding has been so ingrained that it has seldom necessitated a mention.

On almost every level, the State of Israel has been an overwhelming success for the Jewish people and for the world that has enjoyed its blessings. Economically today, the Israeli economy is the envy of the world. And this is no mean feat. In its first forty-five years of independence, Israel's socialist and otherwise economically backwards leaders went to extraordinary lengths to stifle market forces and essentially doomed Israel's economy to sclerotic performance and basket-case status.

But the reforms enacted over the past fifteen years or so, mainly initiated and pushed through by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have transformed Israel into an economic powerhouse. Although much remains to be done to expand economic opportunity and growth, because of Netanyahu's sound economic leadership, Israel has been largely immune to the recession now plaguing much of the Western world.

Technologically as well, as the world is now recognizing, Israel has become a pintsize superpower. As George Gilder demonstrated in The Israel Test, Israeli computer entrepreneurs created the foundations of the digital age by inventing, among other things, the microprocessor and the main components of cellular telephone technology. The world we inhabit would be inconceivable without Israel's pioneering role in building it.

As for Judaism, it is flourishing in Israel today as it never has at any time in the past two thousand years. The Jewish people emerged from the brink of annihilation 65 years ago to build a Jewish state whose population is more learned in Jewish law than any Jewish community has ever been. More Jews study in institutions of Jewish learning in Israel than have studied at any time in our history. And even non-observant Jews live Jewish lives in Israel to a degree their families could never have enjoyed or imagine just four generations ago.

Israel's extraordinary success is marred by but one failure. Since Theodore Herzl's untimely death in 1904, Israel has lacked a leader who recognized the importance of espousing the Jewish creed both to the world and to the Jewish people. That is, since Herzl, Israel has lacked leaders who have understood the first principle of statecraft. For a nation to flourish and succeed over time, its leaders must assert its creed with utter confidence both to their own people and to the world at large. They must assert their nation's creed with complete confidence even to leaders who reject it. And they must never give anyone else the right to deny their people their identity.

That is, whereas Obama is the first American president to deny and denigrate the American creed, Israel has never had a prime minister who was willing to assert Israel's creed. Leftist prime ministers have failed to assert the creed because they don't accept it. Rightist prime ministers have failed to assert our creed because they fail to understand what it means to have the confidence to boldly assert an identity that people don't want you to have.

Many scholars have argued that Jewish history is also the history of anti-Semitism. By not asserting Israel's creed, Israel's leaders have essentially accepted this claim. But this claim is utterly false. The history of the Jews and the history of anti-Semites are based on parallel narratives — one is true and one is false. And like parallel lines, they never intersect.

Throughout history, anti-Semites have sought to deny Jews the right to define ourselves by replacing our creed of law and holiness and homeland with a false creed of conspiracy and avarice and rootlessness. Today the instruments anti-Semites employ to tell Jews who we are involve accusations against a monstrous "Israel lobby," and an attempt to deny our rights to the land of Israel.

Jews have survived repeated attempts to destroy us not because we have argued the finer points of the anti-Jewish narrative of the day, but because we have been faithful to our creed. That is, we have not survived by attacking anti-Semitic slurs, but by loyally upholding our truth.

Yet in Israel, rather than proudly assert the extraordinary, tenacious and indeed miraculous nature of our people, our law and our land, our leaders have turned our creed into a bargaining point. And if this course is not soon abandoned, it will be our undoing.

Our leaders are leading us astray by insisting that it is possible to achieve peace in the near term with our neighbors. Peace today is impossible because our neighbors reject at least two of our national creed's three components: Jewish nationhood and the Land of Israel.

Furthermore, by introducing the demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as the Jewish state, our leaders are only making matters worse. In presenting this demand, our leaders are suggesting that the Arabs have the power to grant or deny that which is not theirs to give or take away.

This evening we begin our observance of Rosh Hashana. The bible describes Rosh Hashana as the day of trumpeting. When we assemble in prayer and blow the shofar, we engage in a loud and boisterous celebration of national unity and uphold our sacred birthright to our religious heritage and the land of Israel.

At his rally Glenn Beck reminded us of the importance of loud, boisterous celebrations which recommit nations to their destiny and creed. Yet what Lincoln referred to as "the mystic chords of memory" cannot only be recalled in times of celebration. Like the American nation, for the Jewish nation to survive and prosper, that creed must resonate in all we do on all the other days of the year when the trumpets are silent.

It is my prayer for the coming year that our leaders take a measure of strength from our people and our creed. I pray that they recognize that it is both their sacred duty and their great privilege to confidently represent and defend our exceptionalism and our destiny as the nation of Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by LS, September 9, 2010.

This was written by Manfred Gerstenfeld, who has published 18 books, several of which deal with European anti-Semitism. It's from Israpundit.


The latest anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli attack from the upper echelon of the European Union came from Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, who represents Belgium. He said that Israel frustrated US-led peace efforts and blamed the Jewish lobby in Washington for blocking peace. After the Israeli rejection of his comments and global Jewish protests, he had to apologize. His statements were too much of a liability even for the EU commission with its frequent bias against Israel. It is sad to note, however, that Israel fell back into its usual position of rejecting the accusations instead of at the same time explicitly accusing De Gucht about the anti-Semitic content of some of his remarks.

Two weeks before it had seemed that the Foreign Ministry had finally seen the light: that if you are attacked you have to counter-attack instead of just denying accusations or defending yourself. Then the EU Foreign Policy Chief, Catherine Ashton, expressed concern at the conviction in an Israeli military court of a Palestinian protester Abdallah Abu Rahma. The accused had incited protesters to attack IDF soldiers at the Bilin separation fence.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry, as is usual, protested such EU statements. However, the Ministry's spokesman, Yigal Palmor, responded that interfering with the transparent legal procedure of a democratic country is not consistent with promoting European values. Furthermore, an unnamed government official went further still, saying that Ashton's statement was ridiculous. She found the time to criticize Israel but did not say anything about the release by a Scottish court of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was responsible for the bomb that killed 270 passengers. The official also mentioned the current expulsion of hundreds of gypsies from France, to which Ashton had not given any attention.

One would have hoped that this was the beginning of a systematic policy of the Israeli government and its allies to start exposing persistent double standards, the dominant type of Western discrimination against Israel. All Western countries — and certainly the non-Western dictatorships — can be continuously criticized for the many things they do wrong on a daily basis. If one criticizes Israel only — either rightly, or in many cases wrongly — while remaining silent about events far worse elsewhere, one has developed an effective discrimination system. The only way to confront this is to strongly expose those people who use this practice, of which Ashton is a typical and frequent example.

There are many more diverse examples of double standards. For instance British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said "I admire Israel but will not stop criticizing its government." He should immediately be asked whether he admires Turkey but will not stop criticizing the Turkish government. For Clegg this is a no-win situation. If he says that he will not criticize Erdogan then he is identified as a supporter of this anti-Semitic hate monger and Holocaust inverter, who said that the world perceives swastikas and Stars of David as having become one and the same. If Clegg says that he admires Turkey but will not stop criticizing the Turkish government, he will get into trouble with Turkey. And when did Clegg last say something about the chopping off of hands of thieves in Arab countries?

More than five years ago the EU recognized that double standards are part of the new anti-Semitism against Israel. Its own definition of anti-Semitism includes the application of double standards, by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected of any other democratic country. Such standards are, however, exactly those which for instance Ashton applied.

Last year I spoke at a conference held in Europe where the speaker before me was the resident Israeli Ambassador. He said that when he served at a United Nations body he had cultivated good private contacts with the Ambassadors from Arab countries, but in public they demonized Israel. He was proud that he had never responded in kind. I did not want to publicly criticize the ambassador, however people like him greatly damage Israel's interests. The Arab ambassadors know that they risk nothing when they demonize Israel because the Israeli ambassador will not retaliate by exposing the multiple criminal acts of their governments and the cruelty of their country's legal systems.

Changing the attitude in the Israeli diplomatic and hasbara approach is crucial. One should expose the attackers. Otherwise one will have to defend oneself endlessly against attacks both true and false, whereas the ugly attackers will get off scot free because nobody exposes the far greater misbehavior in their countries.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arnie Barnie, September 9, 2010.

Why is it OK for our Obama headed government to burn Jewish-Christian Holy Bibles but not Islamic Korans?

This is archived at
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/ 05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/


Story Highlights

  • Unsolicited Bibles sent by U.S. church were confiscated about a year ago
  • The Bibles were printed in two most common Afghan languages
  • Military feared they could be used for proselytizing, which is forbidden to troops
  • Military didn't want to risk any distribution of the Bibles and angering Muslims

The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.

Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation, Wright said.

"The decision was made that it was a 'force protection' measure to throw them away, because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," Wright told CNN on Tuesday.

Troops at posts in war zones are required to burn their trash, Wright said.

The Bibles were written in the languages Pashto and Dari.

This decision came to light recently, after the Al Jazeera English network aired video of a group prayer service and chapel sermon that a reporter said suggested U.S. troops were being encouraged to spread Christianity.

The military denied that earlier this month, saying much in the video was taken out of context.

"This was irresponsible and dangerous journalism sensationalizing year-old footage of a religious service for U.S. soldiers on a U.S. base and inferring that troops are evangelizing to Afghans," Col. Gregory Julian said.

The military says a soldier at Bagram received the Bibles and didn't realize he wasn't allowed to hand them out. In the Al Jazeera video, which shows the Bibles at the prayer service, an unnamed soldier says members of his church raised money for them.

The chaplain later corrected the soldier and confiscated the Bibles, Wright said.

Military officers considered sending the Bibles back to the church, he said, but they worried the church would turn around and send them to another organization in Afghanistan — giving the impression that they had been distributed by the U.S. government.

That could lead to violence against troops or U.S. civilians, Wright said.

Al Jazeera English, a Qatar-based international news service, said its reporters tried to get a response from military officials for its story but were unable to do so.

The U.S. military air base at Bagram is home to thousands of troops from all branches of the U.S. military. The vast majority of the troops do not leave the base and are in various support roles for U.S. troops across Afghanistan.

Contact ArnyBarnie by email at ArnyBarnie@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nabil Bissada, September 9 2010.

Why do I support Koran burning ?

Only for example:

Muslims have used the Bible as a toilet paper in the Native church.

Muslims still burn hundreds of Christians for their faith.

Muslims kidnap women and girls for their Christian faith.

Muslims rape women and girls for their Christian faith.

Muslims kill men for their Christian faith.

Muslims persecute Christians for their faith.

Muslims, in their country, never allowed any Christians or any non Muslims to have the equal rights.

Muslims have a plan to conquer the world, if they could and convert them to Islam.

Muslims are the reason for 9-11-2001, Madrid, London, USA embassy in Africa, Marines in Beirut,etc..

Muslims only flag is the book of the Koran and the Hadith.

Muslims have the right to lie and it is not a sin (takeya)

Muslims never give the same right they ask you to give to them.

Muslims believe women are half of the men (witnes, heritage, etc..)

Muslims deceive the world by changing translation of the Koran and the Hadith.

Muslims follow the book of the Koran and the Hadith to make all the trouble around the world

Muslims use the book of the Koran and the Hadith as an evidence to terrorize the world..

For all of that I support Koran burning...

Nabil Bissada was a prisoner for 6 months at Abuzaabel prison in Egypt for his Christian faith. Contact him at nabilbissada@sbcglobal.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Udi Schayat, September 9, 2010.

Mark Hass wrote the following message, after a thorough investigation he did on it.

Here is part of his message, as a summary:

"Muslim laws .... dictate how all non Muslims..... are to live by Allah's written laws (kept in a book in heaven). Islam teaches that these eternal laws....[is] the highest laws on Earth according to all Islamic schools of jurisprudence. That includes both mainstream and traditional Shi'a and Sunni ideology. "

Please forward to educate the western people about it.

This below is called "Islamic invasion of America: The 20 Point Plan" and it is by Mark Hass, Director of Educate USA.


Good morning Everyone,

There are piles of evidence against the domestic terrorist fronts of the Brotherhood who are acknowledged in the international and domestic intelligence communities as a covert network of fundamentalist Islamists committed to the destruction of America and the replacement of all man made laws by sharia law.

Muslim laws do not separate mosque (church) and state, as do our constitutional laws, but rather dictate how all non Muslims (everyone living in Mountain View and Los Altos and everywhere else that Muslims live), as well as traditional and mainstream Muslims are to live by Allah's written laws (kept in a book in heaven). Islam teaches that these eternal laws are "uncreated" (have always existed) and are considered by virtually all Muslims as the highest laws on Earth according to all Islamic schools of jurisprudence. That includes both mainstream and traditional Shi'a and Sunni ideology.

The Muslim concept that addresses these laws is a totally foreign concept to most everyone except Muslims. It is called tawhid. Like da'wa (spread of Islam by any and every means that benefits Islam and Muslims), and taqiyya (religiously endorsed lying to promote harmony and the spread of Islam), which are Islamist tactics used in the west to spread the laws of Allah in western lands and to eventually subjugate all people to the highest laws of the Muslim ummah (secret community), tawhid is the underlying world view that make inseparable Muslim politics from Muslim religion in the real world. Be aware that if you Google "tawhid", you will find very little discussing this truth. That is because nearly all translations and descriptions of Muslim concepts that are foreign to western thought and anti American are vetted by activist Islamists (as they do with California public school text books) who make sure only their politically correct definitions are promoted in the west. This is part of what is meant by "stealth jihad" in the west.

Here is more evidence which our FBI and most other intelligence agencies do not tell the America people. It seems to me to be a real life "James Bond 007" story where there are secret FBI identified "bad guy" terrorist organizations all over the place, in our public schools, funneling public funds to be used in a covert (and not so covert) war against America (and Israel), getting involved in politics to subvert our constitution, and "Civilizational planning", as well as revisionist history.


Mark Hass
Director, EducateUSA
Chapter Leader,
Silicon Valley ACT! for America

Islamic invasion of America: The 20 Point Plan by Pamella Geller

This sums up the Muslim Brotherhood project in America quite succinctly. On November 7, 2001, international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of "cultural invasion" and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades. (Note from Mark: This evidence is provided by EducateUSA at www.EducateUSA.org as we train activits to stand up against the international terrorist organization, Muslim Brotherhood in America, and their front organizations in America including the Muslim Students Association on our local public school campuses.)

Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as "The Project", and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as "a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies."


Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada's Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to "establish an Islamic government on earth" — identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by "Islamic researchers" associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you want to read more of the Muslim Brotherhood project, go here.

U.S. Arab-American author outlines secret 20-year strategy to undermine country — WND A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam's 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020

Anis Shorrosh, author of ''Islam Revealed'' and ''The True Furqan,'' is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.

''The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,'' Shorrosh says. ''Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?''

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ''Abed.''

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corportations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America — black gold. America's economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims a medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical l companies (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

  • Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).
  • Use no birth control whatsoever — every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
  • Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years — since one can't legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
  • Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ''sleeper cells'' have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia's Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools — free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ''Centers for Islamic studies'' with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America's justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Contact Udi Schayat by email at udischayat@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank Salvato, September 9, 2010.

The subject of the attacks of September 11, 2001, seems to validate the notion that the American public has an attention span issue. How else can we explain the "tolerance" argument being foisted upon the citizenry by proponents of the Islamic Center and mosque slated for construction just 500 feet from the epicenter of Ground Zero? How else can we explain the abundance of Wahabbist literature in Saudi funded mosques all over the United States? And how else can we explain the fact that a grotesquely overwhelming number of violent acts are committed, daily, in the name of Islam?

Can anyone possibly believe these issues would have been embraced with apathy and conciliation on September 12, 2001; just one day after Americans watched their countrymen leaping from jet-fuel infused infernos only to partially disintegrate as they impacted with the ground below?

Can anyone imagine any family member of anyone killed by the bloodthirsty and barbaric Islamist ideologues on that fateful day rationalizing the construction of an Islamic center and mosque on what is literally the graveyard for 2,977 souls; souls dispatched in the name of Allah and Muhammad?

And what of the encroachment of Sharia into the Western culture, into the American culture? Would anyone who still remembered how they felt when they saw the first tower of the World Trade Center collapse be inclined to debate whether Muslim communities should be permitted to establish Sharia councils to mitigate issues within their communities here in America; councils that operate outside the constitutionally constrained legal system? Does anyone in their right mind believe that the barbaric Islamic traditions of honor killing and genital mutilation have a place in the 21st Century?

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, Americans from all political corners joined hands, minds and hearts in a firm determination to finally say that the scourge of radical Islamist violence needed to be confronted; needed to be vanquished; needed to be erased from the face of the Earth. On September 12, 2001, each and every American knew that to walk away from this battle — a battle foisted upon us not by our own choosing but by fundamentalist and violent Islamists — was to invite an even more catastrophic event to our shores, one that, perhaps and God forbid, could test the strength of the American will in the face of a massive bio-chemical or even nuclear attack.

Yet today, nine years later, we have elected as our leaders sympathizers and appeasers who are using the Iraqi and Afghan battle theaters as pawns in an ideological political game; who call the war against aggressive, radical and violent Islam an "overseas contingency plan"; and who do practically everything in their power to undercut the West's most valuable ally in the Middle East — Israel — short of attacking her themselves.

Today, nine years after Muslim radicals, in an aggressive and offensive act of terrorism, dispatched 2, 977 human beings from the Earth, cries from beyond the grave beg for us to protect those still living from a similar fate; cries that ride on every wind that navigates the urban canyons of Manhattan, every ring of the Pentagon and through the fields of Shanksville.

But, increasingly, the American public cannot hear the cries. We are listening to agenda-driven news outlets that spotlight our elected leaders telling us we are to blame, that America is bad. We are commanded by the Progressive-Liberals to listen to CAIR and the "bridge-builder" Feisal Abdul Rauf explain to us that we are at fault, that our government made Osama bin Laden and the murderous cretins of September 11, 2001, who flew planes into buildings screaming, "Allahu Akbar!" We are too busy arguing politics to hear the pleas from beyond that warn us all — each and every one of us — to take this confrontation seriously. We are too busy.

A cursory examination of the Islamic culture (of which, admittedly, I am not a fan) reveals that the warriors and war designers of the Islamic world view confrontation and conquest in the measurement of centuries not decades or years. By contrast, the United States of America (only 234 years old, give or take the formative years prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence) and more importantly, the American culture, has been trained by the ideologically opportunistic to employ a sitcom attention span to all of the issues it faces; everything must be reconciled in thirty minutes, minus commercial breaks, titles and credits. Where Muslims of conquest are planning for a global Islamic Caliphate ruled by Sharia law, Americans are planning for the weekend.

And still the lost souls of September 11, 2001, continue to scream, to implore, to plead to anyone who will listen.

While we should be asking why the Islamic culture facilitates an overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world, doing so in the name of Allah, Muhammad and Islam, many in the West — mostly Progressives, Liberals and one-worlders — insist that Islam is a "religion of peace." Why? The facts do not lead to that conclusion. Truth be told, the facts lead to the exact opposite.

Since September 11, 2001, there have been approximately 16,000 acts of Islamist terrorism. That breaks down to approximately 4.8 acts of violence, 4.8 acts of Islamist terrorism, each and every day. Does this qualify Islam to claim the moniker "religion of peace?"

As with every other religious text, there are contradictions in the Quran. But, unlike other religions, the Quran mandates reconciliation for these contradictions. It is explained in the Quran that if two passages contradict each other the passage written later supersedes the one written earlier. Given that the "peaceful" and "tolerant" passages of the Quran were written in the early years and the violent conquest and supremacist oriented passages in the later years, the violent tenets of Islam — per the Quran — abrogate the peaceful tenets. Why haven't we taken the time to understand this absolute fact about this ideology? Why haven't the so-called "moderate Muslims" shared this fact with other cultures? Why do we allow appeasers and sympathizers to Islam mislead us on what the Quran actually mandates?

And what of the Wahabbist tenet of al taqiyya? Al taqiyya is defined, literally as,

"Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger — whether now or later in time — to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."

In essence, al taqiyya can be generally defined as the legitimization of deception. Yet Progressives, liberals and one-worlders insist on the peaceful purity of Islam, as they seek to negotiate, to extend an "unclenched fist," to Islamists like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syria's Bashar al-Assad; to enter into peace talks with the Taliban and Mullah Omar. Would we be so quick to accept the "sincerity" of fundamentalist and radical Islamists were we not ignorant of the deception employed through al taqiyya?

What else don't we understand about Islam? About jihadists? About the Quran? Why are Progressives, Liberals and one-worlders entered into such a dysfunctional relationship with Islam? Why are they playing the roles of "useful idiots" to Islam's thirst for conquest?

If we do anything to honor the 2,977 souls lost on September 11, 2001, we should weigh heavily on the facts surrounding Islam, its history, its philosophy, its ideology and the intentions of those who follow the Quranic edicts of Muhammad blindly. If we do nothing else to appease the restless souls of those slaughtered by the Islamists of 9/11 we must quest for the truth so that we might act to secure our future.

We, Americans, have forgotten the pain of the fire that burned us on September 11, 2001. We have allowed the pain to subside, the scar to heal; we have done our best to "move on." Sadly, in a confrontation of cultures, such as this is — ideological, violent, totalitarian, deceptive and oppressive — moving on leaves our society and the culture of the Western World open to conquest. We "move on," we forget, at our own peril.

God bless the lost souls of September 11, 2001, comfort their families and friends and give us the strength to survive, as individuals and as a nation.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative Contact him by email at franksalvato@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 8, 2010.

The Continuous Terror Paradigm was proposed by Dr Shalev and colleagues from Hadassah University Hospital.

This below was written by Dr. Baruch Margolioth-Trappler M.D. His original research, case reports and letters to editors have been published in various peer-reviewed journals, including the American Journal of Psychiatry and the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. His various clinical research findings have been presented at National Conventions, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Geriatric Psychiatric Association. He has served as a Journal Referee in professional journals.

Until now Dr Trappler has limited his activities to the academic environment but has now developed a Website where patents and clinicians alike have the opportunity to read his material in the form of short articles or blogs, subscribe to articles or e-books, or get his opinion about a trauma-related problem. See "A Professional Perspective on Terrorism"
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/ content.cgi?ID=4041&q=1


While Efrat (the directly exposed community) and Bet Shemesh (an indirectly exposed community) are located at similar distances from Jerusalem (11 miles for Efrat and 15 miles for Bet Shemesh), during the eight months preceding the data collection, the directly exposed community was practically under siege, whereas the indirectly exposed community was not. Specifically, shooting incidents occurred frequently, and erratically blocked the roads leading to Efrat.

Stoning of cars occurred daily. Snipers killed and wounded several residents. While stress exposure was far more pervasive in the directly exposed community of Efrat, the prevalence of PTSD symptoms (26.95%) for the directly exposed community sample compared with that of 21.35% for the indirectly exposed community was not statistically significant. These findings reflect a high frequency of traumatic anxiety in neighborhood communities exposed either directly or indirectly to continuous threat.

When comparing the effects of circumscribed catastrophic events with those of a continuous terror paradigm, a spectrum emerges representing two contrasting stress models with differing psychological, behavioral, neurobiological, and sociological implications.

In fact, the fear-conditioning model has guided the neurocircuitry theories of PTSD and its pathophysiology(Southwick, Psychiatric Annals, August 1998).

Previous exposure to trauma is the important risk factor for PTSD. Furthermore, studies have shown that previous history of stressors may alter the HPA axis response to subsequent stressors.

Fear conditioning leads to heightened threat responsiveness, overgeneralization of fear responses, and failure of extinction.5 kindling and sensitization within the Amygdala is the accumulative result of multiple traumas and predicts the development of PTSD(Davis, M., "The Role of Amygdala in Fear and Anxiety". Annual Rev. Neurosc. 1992).

In the Continuous Terror Model, because of sensitization to repeated fear conditioned cues and neurological kindling, PTSD is more likely to endure (McEwen: "The Effects of Stress on Structural and Functional Plasticity in the Hippocampus", Neurobiology of Mental Illness, Oxford University Press, 1999).

The mechanisms involved here may include both long-term potentiation as well as lasting changes in the genetic regulation of neurotransmitters, intracellular messengers, and cellular structures. These changes affect primarily the Amygdala, hippocampus, and medial prefrontal cortex-the triad of structures implicated in fear conditioning.

In "The Continuous Terror Study", conducted by Shalev and colleagues, the investigators expressed concern regarding the implications of living under continuous terror, where recuperation may not occur as it does following a discrete occurrence.

These observations are consistent with the findings of the "Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Aging Study (CALAS), funded by the U.S. National Institute on Aging." Thirteen hundred and sixty nine Holocaust survivors interviewed from the Israel National Population Registry reported a high incidence of cumulative life events distress, a lower level of lifestyle activity, and poorer social functioning ("A Broad-Scope View of Holocaust Survivors in Late Life", Shmotkin and colleagues, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2003).

Overall, the findings indicated that older Holocaust survivors randomly approached in a nonclinical setting still endure the sequelae of their trauma. These findings are consistent with the theory of sensitization, and are particularly pertinent to the Continuous Terror model posed by Dr. Shalev and colleagues.

Not only does this bode poorly for life quality on a long-term time trajectory, but also raises concern for the potential impact in the U.S.of a major national disaster of the magnitude of a September 11th event in a pre-traumatized population.

In fact, Solomon and Prager reported this vulnerability to re-traumatization, when survivors of the Nazi Holocaust showed more pronounced psychological symptoms following the SCUD missile attacks during the Persian Gulf War than the rest of the population (Am. J. Psychiatry 1992).

Dr Shalev responds

Dr Trappler expands the implications of our study, of the effects of continuous terror, by commenting on the potential long-term effects of repeated trauma exposure.

These are very important points, since our study only concerned reactions during adversity, whereas Dr Trappler`s comment implies that there might be a hidden sensitizing effect masked by an external resilience.

This could lead to currently resilient survivors becoming more sensitive to subsequent stressors and developing PTSD in the future.

The debate regarding the sensitizing or immunizing effect of exposure has not been resolved. A study of Israeli soldiers exposed to two successive wars (Yom Kippur War of 1973 and Lebanon I in 1982), supports both views ("Reactivation of combat-related PTSD", Solomon et al, Am J Psych, 1987).

Those who developed combat stress reactions during the first war were more likely to develop PTSD in 1982 (a sensitizing effect). In contrast, soldiers who did not develop combat stress showed lower stress-reactions in 1982 than newly exposed combatants (an immunizing effect).

Clarifying these issues is of particular relevance in an era where US soldiers may be called for second or third tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Moreover, some specifics of current warfare and terrorism (including the vivid visual communication of suffering) significantly extends the circle of those affected by these traumatic events.

Theory suggests that controllable stress tends to immunize, whereas uncontrollable stress sensitizes (Brewin, J Consult Clin Psychol, 2000).

Poor social support after a trauma is a major risk factor for PTSD (Liu, Science, 1997).

A series of animal studies have established the role of soothing body contact in reversing the stress-sensitizing effects of early maternal separation ("Increased CRF concentrations in the spinal fluid of non-human primates exposed to adverse experiences as infants" Proceedings for the National Academy of Science, Coplan, Rosenblum, Gorman, Nemeroff, 1996, Ed).

We therefore come back to the old adage: Hug a veteran today.

It behooves us, during these dire times, to protect and support those among us who have been repeatedly exposed to stress, by giving them as much personal support as we can.

This might not prevent exposure to stress, but helps those already exposed.

Dr Trappler responds

My comments on the "Continuous Terror" model proposed by Dr Shalev, focused on a continuous compounding effect of repeated trauma exposure.

Neurological kindling theory would suggest that the Sympathetic Nervous System becomes more prone to both hyper-arousal, and more likely to heightened stress-responses to trauma-triggers.

What Dr Shalev identified was two subgroups of combat-exposed veterans. The sub-group who developed controlled stressed was "immunized", while the sub-group that experienced "uncontrolled stress" became "sensitized".

This is relevant in terms of predicting which victims are more prone to PTSD in the long run.

There are important neurobiological ramifications to this concept, which will determine the long-term prognosis (in terms of life-quality) of trauma survivors.

I found two interesting publications that illustrate "controlled" versus "uncontrolled" stress in terrorist situations.

In a study on the "Psychiatric Aspects of Terrorist Violence in Northern Ireland", Peter Curran found that what began in the late 1960s as legitimate unrest, soon gave way to widespread street rioting, evolving into social upheaval, as thousands scurried to the comparative safety of ghettos, within which paramilitary organizations constellated.

When the British Army entered the scene as "peacemakers", the IRA launched a campaign of bombing targets throughout Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

As the killings rose from indiscriminate bombings and sectarian executions, former Home Secretary Reginald Maudling imposed direct rule from Westminster as he tightened control to "an acceptable level of violence".

At 18-year follow-up, Curran found, that except for the small proportion of actual victims, the rest of the community rebounded to a state of psychological well-being (Br J Psychiatry, 1988).

In contrast, in a study by David Kinzie and colleagues, previously traumatized Bosnian and Somali refugees living in New York showed significant deterioration in their sense of safety and security, as well as PTSD reactivation, in response to widely televised images of the Twin Tower bombings (Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 2002).

While the first study demonstrates the effect of stress-containment leading to an immunizing effect, the second study illustrates the "sensitizing effect" of an uncontrolled stress. (The idea that nowhere is safe).

Another valuable variable mentioned by Dr Shalev is the issue of duration of exposure by veterans within the combat theatre, in proportion to shorter tours of active duty with longer periods of respite.

This very short turn-around between of active tours duty will certainly put returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at greater risk.

The clinical significance returns to the physiology of stress circuitry and the imperative to shorten periods of sustained "stress-activation" in order to protect limbic brain structures from the deleterious effects of toxic stress-induced neurohormones.

Stress sensitization and reactivation is also relevant in the treatment of victims with Complex Trauma: Victims of prolonged trauma, as described in the "Continuous Trauma" syndrome, may be prone to chronic over-arousal, a failure to regulate affective responses and social-skill deficits (Herman, "Trauma and Recovery", Basic Books, 1992).

According to Marylene Cloitre, victims of chronic trauma may first need "Skill Training In Affective Regulation" known by the acronym "STAIR", in order to help victims identify their fears, learn how to self-soothe, and regain a sense of autonomy ("Treating Survivors of Childhood Abuse", Cloitre and colleagues, Guilford Press, 2006).

A failure to insert this into the treatment might result in a patient when exposed to trauma narratives.

When "Sensitized" patients are "therapeutically challenged"to re-visit "split-off" traumatic memory fragments, they might experience the unmanageable dread for which Cloitre advocates the STAIR method.

Ultimately, the most effective way of restoring a personal sense of security is by creating a safe holding environment, one with a secure boundary that keeps the predator well away.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 8, 2010.

"Forced out of Algeria, my father and I — and millions of other Jews expelled from Arab countries — are entitled to redress."

This was written by Danny Ayalon


As a sitting member of a democratic government, it might appear strange to declare that I am a refugee.

However, my father, his parents and family were just a few of the almost one million Jews who were expelled or forced out of Arab lands. My father and his family were Algerian, from a Jewish community thousands of years old that predated the Arab conquest of North Africa and even Islam. Upon receiving independence, Algeria allowed only Muslims to become citizens and drove the indigenous Jewish community and the rest of my family out.

While many people constantly refer to the Arab or Palestinian refugees, few are even aware of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

While those Arabs who fled Mandatory Palestine and Israel numbered roughly 750,000, there were roughly 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Before the State of Israel was reestablished in 1948, there were almost one million Jews in Arab lands, today there are around 5,000.

An important distinction between the two groups is the fact that many Palestinian Arabs were actively involved in the conflict initiated by the surrounding Arab nations, while Jews from Arab lands were living peacefully, even in a subservient dhimmi status, in their countries of origin for many centuries if not millennia.

In addition, Jewish refugees, as they were more urban and professional, as opposed to the more rural Palestinians, amassed far more property and wealth which they had to leave in their former country.

Financial economists have estimated that, in today's figures, the total amount of assets lost by the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, including communal property such as schools, synagogues and hospitals, is almost twice that of the assets lost by the Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, one must remember that Israel returned over 90 percent of blocked bank accounts, safe deposit boxes and other items belonging to Palestinian refugees during the 1950s.

Even though the number of Jewish refugees and their assets are larger than that of the Palestinians, the international community only appears to be aware of the latter's plight.

There are numerous major international organizations devoted to the Palestinian refugees. There is an annual conference held at the United Nations and a refugee agency was created just for the Palestinian refugees. While all the world's refugees have one agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Palestinians fall under the auspices of another agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

UNWRA's budget for 2010 is almost half of UNHCR's budget.

Equally impressive is the fact that UNHCR prides itself on having found "durable solutions" for "tens of millions" of refugees since 1951, the year of its establishment. However, UNRWA does not even claim to have found "durable solutions" for anyone.

If that is not distorted enough, let's look at the definitions and how they are applied: normally the definition of a refugee only applies to the person that fled and sought refuge, while a Palestinian refugee is the person that fled and all of their descendants for all time. So, according to the UNRWA definition of conferring refugee status on descendants, I would be a refugee.

However, I do not consider myself so; I am a proud citizen of the State of Israel. The Jewish refugees found Israel, so too, the Arab refugees should find their national aspirations being met by a Palestinian state.

With direct negotiations resuming between Israel and the Palestinians, the spotlight will be returned to this issue.

The so-called Palestinian 'right of return' is legal fiction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, the supposed source for this 'right' does not mention this term, is not legally binding and, like all other relevant United Nations resolutions uses the intentionally ambiguous term 'refugees' with no appellation.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, still seen as the primary legal framework for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict asserts that a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement should necessarily include "a just settlement of the refugee problem." No distinction is made between Arab refugees and Jewish refugees.

In fact, one of the leading drafters of the resolution, Justice Arthur Goldberg, the United States' Chief Delegate to the United Nations, said: "The resolution addresses the objective of 'achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.' This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees."

In addition, every peace conference and accord attended or signed between Israel and its Arab neighbors uses the term "refugees" without qualification.

During the famous Camp David discussions in 2000, president Clinton, the facilitator and host of the negotiations said: "There will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land".

In 2008, the US Congress passed House Resolution 185 granting, for the first time, equal recognition to Jewish refugees, while affirming that the US government will now recognize that all victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict must be treated equally.

I am proud of the fact that the Knesset passed a resolution in February of this year that will make compensation for Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries after 1948 an integral part of any future peace negotiations. The Israeli bill stipulates that "The state of Israel will not sign, directly or by proxy, any agreement or treaty with a country or authority dealing with a political settlement in the Middle East without ensuring the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries according to the UN's refugee treaty."

Before 1948 there were nearly 900,000 Jews in Arab lands while only a few thousand remain.

Where is the international outrage, the conferences, the proclamations for redress and compensation?

While the Palestinian refugee issue has become a political weapon to beat Israel, the Arab League has ordered its member states not to provide their Palestinian population with citizenship; Israel absorbed all of its refugees, whether fleeing the Holocaust or persecution and expulsion from Arab lands.

People like my father, the hundreds of thousands who came to Israel and the millions of Israelis descended from these refugees are entitled to redress. It is vital that this issue return to the international agenda, so we don't once again see an asymmetrical and distorted treatment of Arabs and Jews in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, September 8, 2010.

Three wanted Hamas leaders have taken refuge in Red Cross offices in Jerusalem — while Hamas prevents RC from visiting Gilad Shalit in Gaza. A rally demanding Israeli action and protesting the Red Cross will be held at Red Cross offices tonight.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has given "asylum" to three Hamas leaders who fear that the Israeli police might arrest and/or deport them. The three have been there for 40 days. Israel is clearly hesitant to arrest them on Red Cross premises, for fear of "how it will look" — and the standoff continues.

Meanwhile, the three have opened a type of headquarters at the Red Cross, with visitors and journalists constantly coming and going. Hamas took responsibility for last week's terrorist murders of four Jews near Hevron and for an attempt to kill two more the next night.

Israel National News (INN) spoke to stand-in ICRC spokesperson Cecilia Goin, who explained, "We have made it clear that if the police come to arrest them, we do not have extra-territorial status and we will do nothing to stop the police."

Asked, "Why, then, are you letting them live on your premises?" Goin explained that the ICRC considers eastern Jerusalem "occupied territory" and that the three Hamas men "are considered protected persons under international humanitarian law, as stated in Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

"Interpretation of that article is a matter of dispute," INN noted, "but why is the ICRC not consistent with its interpretation and protecting the Hamas men from what it feels would be an illegal arrest by Israel?" Goin reiterated that the ICRC could not/would not prevent the Israeli police from arresting them.

What About Gilad Shalit?

Another question hovering in the air was the question of Gilad Shalit. Goin explained that the ICRC has met several times with Hamas regarding Shalit, "and each time we demanded that we be allowed to visit with Gilad Shalit, or at least to pass him the thousands of letters, cards and messages that are stored in our Gaza office for him. But each time, Hamas has refused."

"On the one hand," INN asked, "Hamas is not letting you visit Shalit, while on the other hand, you host Hamas leaders — not in order to protect them, because you say you will not block their arrest, but giving them a platform for the media, etc. — who are representatives of the very organization holding Shalit and not allowing you to visit him. Is this a case of one ICRC arm not being aware of what the other is doing, or simply a double standard at Israel's expense?"

The spokesperson repeated that Hamas is not allowing ICRC to visit Shalit, despite its attempts, and that the Hamas leaders are receiving humanitarian protection.

A protest will be held outside the Jerusalem Red Cross offices at 6 PM this evening (Monday) demanding that both Israel and the ICRC put an end to the situation. David Ish-Shalom, organizer of the protest, says, "Just last week, Hamas took 'credit' for murdering four Jews near Hevron — and now, its leaders are guests of the Red Cross, right in the heart of Jerusalem [the Shimon HaTzaddik/Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood]. The Israeli security forces deserve great credit for pursuing terrorists, but isn't it about time that Hamas leaders — who in this case happen to be only 100 meters from the city's police headquarters — should be caught as well?"

"While Gilad Shalit does not receive any visits from the ICRC or anyone," Ish-Shalom continues, "the ICRC itself hosts Hamas on its premises. We will protest outside the ICRC for as long as this dangerous, absurd and sick situation continues."

ICRC Doesn't See Hamas as a Terror Org

Sam Sokol of the Five Towns Jewish Times originally reported six weeks ago that the ICRC does not categorize Hamas as a terrorist organization. "It is not up to the ICRC... to confer a particular status on people or organizations or to recognize their legitimacy," a spokesperson said, adding that the Red Cross differentiates between the "militant" and "political" wings of terrorist organizations.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that Israel does not accept this distinction, Sokol reported: "Distinguishing between a military branch and a 'political' or 'charitable' branch of a terror group is like distinguishing between the two hands of a convicted murderer," Palmor said.

Hillel Fendel is Editor, Israel National News

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, September 8, 2010.

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. Contact them by telephone at 972-2-5022202 or go to their website at www.haforum.org.il


Shana Tova to all of our friends and supporters,

The building freeze in Judea and Samaria was the first and most significant issue this year. The Legal Forum, which had accrued considerable experience from the Disengagement from Gush Katif and its aftermath, knew how to prepare for the confrontations surrounding the freeze. We supplied members of the Knesset Committees with information on the scope of the anticipated damages to be caused by the freeze, which eventually forced the government to improve the conditions of the compensation. Had it not been for The Legal Forum's efforts, individuals and municipalities hurt by the freeze would not have received any assistance in coping with the financial damages caused them, and the government would have been able to extend the freeze as it wished. Due to the furor caused by The Legal Forum's activities, the government must consider the cost to the citizens as part of any governmental decision. To date, NIS sixty million have been allotted, but not yet paid. Compensation of potential claims may reach NIS 300 million! In short, your contributions to The Legal Forum have contributed to the well being of Israeli citizens hurt by governmental decrees. Your support of The Legal Forum may be efficacious in changing the government's policy in their