Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by THINK-ISRAEL STAFF, September 30, 2011.



Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 30, 2011.

"If you won't be better tomorrow than you were today,
then what do you need tomorrow for?"
- Rebbe Nachman of Breslov


It takes a tiny bit of chutzpah to walk into a small Judaica shop and start photographing items for sale. Nevertheless, I follow the rule that flattery will get you everywhere. By taking a sincere interest in my subject, in this case a table strewn with shofars of various sizes, colors and shapes, I opened the door to photo opportunity. This tactic works especially well when seeking permission to shoot a human subject whom you don't know. By first taking an interest in their activity and observing without photographing, you communicate that your intent is genuine and not merely exploitative.

I like this shot because it veers from the traditional image we see at this time of year. In fact, there isn't a single shofar in this photograph which is clearly visible in its entirety. At the same time, there are plenty of visual clues which identify the subject. I chose to focus on the midsection of the large shofar which cuts across the middle of the frame to accentuate its textured surface. This shot was taken indoors with minimal available light, forcing me to use a wide aperture and squashing the depth of field. Yet the soft focus in and around the photo's central horn does not hinder the viewer's ability to wander the frame and ponder the inner composition. Kind of like what we do on Rosh Hashanah upon hearing the blasts of the shofar.

Shana Tova Umetuka. Wishing all of Am Yisrael a year of peace, blessings and the ability to appreciate the bounty in our lives.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 18-200 zoom at 95mm, f6.3 @ 1/100th sec., ISO 400

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at and visit his website: Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerrold L. Sobel, September 30, 2011.
Jonathan Pollard: 9474 Days in Captivity

Having been convicted of multiple murders in 1998, one of which the body still has not been found, Loren Herzog was released from Prison in Stockton California this past July, having served less than 10 years for his crimes.

Dec. 7, 1968 Pontiac, Michigan: Having been a suspect in the murders of several women in the Wolverine state, Nolan Ray George was convicted of second degree murder of a woman, Frances Ann Brown. After several mistrials, in 1973 he began serving 17 1/2-25 years in prison. Credited with 8 years, he was released 7 years later.... No, this isn't a segue into a "Law and Order" or a "CSI" police story. It's just a circuitous way of making a point.

Jonathan Pollard, on March 4, 1987 began serving a life sentence at the Federal Prison in Butler, North Carolina for the crime of espionage. To this date, 26 years later, he still languishes at that facility. Please be certain of one thing, this isn't going to be some tear jerk, sugar coated, die for Jonathan Pollard story. What he did was dastardly. To betray a country whose constitution you've sworn to uphold is nothing short of despicable, no matter how righteous the cause. Sanctimonious motivations aside, he also allegedly admitted to receiving $10,000 in cash and a $1500.00 a month stipend for additional classified material to be given to his Israeli handler, an air force colonel. So let there be no doubt, Pollard is not a choir boy. However, the plea agreement that was offered by the prosecution and signed onto by Pollard was not recognized by the presiding judge.

The terms of the agreement Pollard signed onto allowed him to plead guilty to: "One count of conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government." By doing so, his wife Anne also was allowed to plead out for her complicity in the crime. She served 3 years of a 5 year term and was released. In accordance with the plea, and to avoid life imprisonment, Pollard agreed to cooperate fully with a government espionage assessment team and pledged non-disclosure of sensitive material he had privy to. The judge, Aubrey Robinson Jr. wasn't having any of it, threw out the plea, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. So where are the mitigating factors?

From a legal standpoint, I'm not a lawyer, there might not be any. What is quite clear, from the time Pollard entered his plea in May 1986 to his sentencing ten months later, the government continually upped the ante on him. No longer content with the second tier of the espionage statute to which he plead guilty: "to the advantage of a foreign nation," they went after him on the more severe first: "to the injury of the United States." The judge simply failed to honor the deal brokered between the defense and the prosecution. Following this harsh sentence, Pollard did file one of several appeals that dealt with this issue but was denied in a two to one ruling for failure of his original attorneys to file the appeal in a timely manner. On a technicality, Pollard has effectively been denied his day in court. Other than pure vindictiveness, it makes you wonder why all these years he's been held back from withdrawing his plea and allowed to take his chances with a jury trial. From the outset, the whole idea behind the plea was to avoid the life term which he nevertheless received.

Most reports from credible sources claim then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, in a 46 page supplemental report contained in a pre-sentencing "Victims Impact Statement," excoriated Pollard and exaggerated the harm caused by his crime. The judge then decreed the maximum sentence. Is this justice? Maybe in Iran, but not in this wonderful country. What's worse, by their own admission in 1994, government sources acknowledge, "no one died as a result of the Pollards." Think of where you were and all the things you've done over the past 25 years, Pollard has been rotting in jail all this time. Did he deserve a stiff sentence? No doubt. But life in prison for selling information to a friendly government? By any enlightened standards, this is overkill. it's time to set him free. Most disturbing, his incarceration almost from the beginning became more about politics than justice.

For years, rumors have swirled that Arafat, during the laughable "final status" talks told Clinton that Pollard should not be released unless the Israelis acquiesce to a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. It sounds silly, no actually ludicrous until you read last week's news reports.

There have been reports, denied by the Israeli government that Netanyahu has offered a 3 month extension of the construction moratorium in exchange for Pollard's release. According to Israeli Army Radio, such a deal is on the table but is rightfully shunned in other areas. Israeli Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Yuli Edelstein dismisses this notion as a "cheap spin" and "trafficking in Pollard's suffering." Danny Dayan, the head of The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea Samaria and Gaza was even more pointed characterizing the idea as nothing short of paying blackmail. A sentiment, including this writer, few can argue with.

So the wrap up of this sad saga comes down to this, murderers, rapists, and repeat offenders of the worst order are routinely released well before 15 years in Prison. Jonathan Pollard has languished in jail for the past 26 years for selling secrets to a friendly power which caused no loss of life or political adversity to the interests of the United States. With no excuse for his criminality, he gave the Israelis intelligence what arguably should have been shared with the them to begin with: The information the U.S. was withholding from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities which were being developed for use against, guess who? If you picked Israel you're right. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

In any event:

  • Pollard has been serving a life sentence for crime he did not plead to.

  • Having spent 25 years in prison, it's the harshest penalty anyone has served for espionage since the execution of the Rosenbergs.

  • Starting with Yitzhak Rabin successive Israeli governments have requested his release.

  • He requested and was granted Israeli citizenship in 1995; he should be immediately freed and allowed to emigrate there.

  • For justice to finally prevail in this case, Pollard should be immediately released from prison on legal, humanitarian, and compassionate grounds, not as a political pawn.

For those interested in efforts to free Jonathan Pollard, please click here.

Epilogue: This article was originally published 1 year ago to the day. Unfortunately not has much changed since I wrote it. This travesty of justice continues on as Pollard, in ill health, still languishes in prison. However, during this past year he has garnered an increasing amount of support: Along with Major Jewish organizations headed by the B'nai Brith International, Barney Frank and a contingent of bi-partisan congressmen have taken up Pollard's cause. Eric Fusfield, Director of Legislative Affairs of the B'nai Brith aptly stated, "Jonathan Pollard has already served 25 years of a life sentence for one count of passing classified information to an ally, a crime that, for other offenders, carries an average sentence of much less than 10 years;" It's time to let him go.

Contact Jerry Sobel by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 30, 2011.


The White House has released a policy paper on methods to prevent terrorism. It took two years to draft this paper now praised by U.S. Muslim organizations known for defending or linking with terrorism. Sure they like it! It attempts to appease Islam and aligns its approach with Islamists, leftists, and multiculturalists.

Radical Islam is a global movement seeking dominance and resorting to violence when useful. Islamists here, however, deny that their ideology fosters violence. They rationalize away the 23,000 Islamist attacks worldwide since 9/11as done by criminals, lunatics, or misguided Muslims. Western leftists and multiculturalists support that notion. Apparently, so does the White House [except for identifying the small al-Qaida organization].

The House committee on Homeland Security investigated the radicalization of Muslims, because since 9/11, jihad has continuously menaced U.S. national security. [Jihad is 1,400 years old. It attacked the tail of the U.S. dinosaur before 9/11, but it took until 9/11 for the head to get the message.]

House Committee ranking Democrat, Bennie Thompson, suggested investigating equally the violent non-Muslims. Chairman Peter King (GOP, NY) perceives Islamism as a huge, often organized, often well financed, ideological movement attacking the whole world. This warrants study in itself. It requires being fought on many levels, including military. He considers other sources of violence not huge, not well organized, well financed, or international. They represent minor menaces for which ordinary law enforcement suffices. He feels jihad has been neglected and not sufficiently understood by the U.S.. Including other sources of violence in his investigation would water down the investigation.

As an example of lack of U.S. savvy, consider the Defense Dept. report on the Ft. Hood massacre. The report omitted the terrorist's name and his stated Islamist motivation. [In other words, they covered up the indicators of what is stewing and what they had missed, but instead made it seem like individual aberrations. And so there have been other attacks on U.S. troops by Islamist troops, without resulting in preventive measures.]

How to deal with jihad? The Islamist-Left-multicultural people emphasize civil rights, due process, lack of discrimination, goodwill, avoiding a backlash, and partnering with Muslims. Okay [but they pick Radicals, who cause the problem, to work with us on the resolving the problem]. The Right also would use intelligence gathering, arrests and incarceration, deportation, and military means.

The White House paper claims the problem is neo-Nazis and other anti-Semitic hate groups, racial supremacists, and international and domestic terrorist groups." The paper mentions neither terrorism nor Islamism, but "violent extremism." Although the menace is more than local, the paper relates the countermeasures to those used against gangs. Gangs are criminal enterprises for hoodlums, not zealots for an ideology. Mostly different methods are needed to combat them. Since the problem is ideological, there should be means of fighting the ideology.

The paper's nearest turn to reality is mentioning al-Qaida, but by far most Islamists are not with al-Qaida. Many now are "lone wolves" [Muslims aroused by Radical ideological prompting]. The paper's chief deficiency is its narrow scope and failure to recognize the problem. Rep. Sue Myrick (GOP, N.C.) finds "that the policy paper 'raises more questions ... than it answers.'"

The government's approach can be traced to a George Soros-funded 2004 initiative, the Promising Practices Guide: Developing Partnerships Between Law Enforcement and American Muslim, Arab, and Sikh Communities by Deborah A. Ramirez, Sasha Cohen O'Connell and Rabia Zafar. This Guide poses the main problem as not Radical Muslim terrorism and the ensuing thousands of murders, but U.S. bias against minorities. [It's our fault? What bias? Is that why Muslims attack each other?] Daniel Pipes suggests that the Guide's "...real purpose is to deflect attention from national security to the privileging of select communities." [That promotes jihad, which is subversive, not just military.]

While recommending partnerships with Muslims, the White House paper fails to differentiate between Muslims who are Islamists and Muslims who are anti-Islamists. Unfortunately, most U.S. Muslim leaders are Islamists, part of the problem. So, although the paper upholds Constitutional rights, it recommends partnering with terrorist supporting fronts that would overthrow the Constitution. No wonder the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council find the White House Report "very useful." [They see it as useful, the way the USSR's Lenin termed Communist fellow travelers "useful idiots."]

In a nutshell, President Obama's policy against terrorism is not to offend Muslims. The answer is to remove the Left and multi-culturalists from the government (Daniel Pipes, National Review, 8/29/11 with documentation obama-counterterrorism-policy).

Rep. King tries to alert us, but Democratic colleagues denounce him. They may commemorate 9/11, but they still don't understand what it was about. They and the White House still won't realize that the major U.S. Muslim organizations with which it cooperates are adjuncts of international terrorism.

Here we have international jihad as the primary global menace of our time, the way Nazism and Communism were decades ago, but our President refuses to admit it and lead us against it. He mostly appeases it, though he can't stop the wars cold turkey, and criticizes us. So he comes up with a paper that pleases Radical Islam and non-plusses us. He would work with the fox to defend the chickens. At what point does President Obama's ideology turn from being folly to being subversive?

Muslims throughout the world welcomed 9/11. How moderate are they? The U.S. should try to make clear to moderate Muslims that we do not seek to destroy them but only the Radical element that commits terrorism against them and us. We would ask their help in defending our society, within which they would have freedom of worship. Can they practice their religion without trying to dominate ours? The question remains whether they can join us, or whether they share the Radicals' hatred and religious imperialism, and are equally subversive, but simply are less militant or less violent. The answer to that question and our skill in enlisting genuine Muslim help rather than Radical quislings will determine our means of self-defense and how much struggle we face.


BACKGROUND. Who sets U.S. foreign policy, the President, Congress, or both? The Constitution allocates policy making primarily to the President, and the funding of policy primarily to Congress. We reported on the two institutions' dispute over this power, reflected in the passport controversy.

Congress passed a bill, signed by the President into law, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and requiring the Administration to move its Embassy there. The Executive Branch claims the law enables it to waive compliance. My reading of that law concludes that the waiver is for something else.

U.S. policy is to recognize as the capital of a country the city that the government of that country designates and controls. The capital city may be disputed, but until the dispute is resolved, effective control determines the city's status. The State Dept. makes an exception for Israel. It does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. State rationalizes that the UN General Assembly, in recommending partition of the Palestine Mandate, suggested that Jerusalem be an international city, you know, that anachronism all of whose examples have disappeared from public view. That rationale has no legal or ethical basis, nor is any cited.

In defending against Jordanian aggression in 1967, Israel acquired land originally part of the Mandate allocated to the Jewish people but seized by Jordan in earlier aggression. Israel annexed some of that land, including the Old City of Jerusalem, originally part of Jerusalem. The Old City contains Judaism's holiest site. Also, Jerusalem needed room for normal municipal expansion, so some additional acreage was added at the same time.

The State Dept. further differentiates between the annexed and other parts of Jerusalem, as if the annexed part belongs to the Arabs, who never had a country there and certainly had no capital there, and who were a minority in Jerusalem for more than 150 years.

Some American citizens, usually dual citizens, are born in Jerusalem. The State Dept. refuses to stamp "Israel" as country of birth. Instead it leaves a blank, as if the baby were not born in any country. We reported on that, but here is more.

STATE DEPT. PRACTICE — more. A State Dept. rule is that the country that currently exercises sovereignty over the birthplace is the one to enter on the passport, regardless of the date of birth. The State Dept. makes an exception of Israel.

Israel won sovereignty in 1948. Passport applicants born before 1948 in an area that the U.S. now recognizes as part of Israel may elect not to have "Israel" listed as their birthplace. They can have "Palestine" recorded. There is and was no sovereign state of "Palestine." That State Dept. listing is arbitrary and even offensive.

Americans born in Israel after 1948 may elect to have the country field left blank, the city field naming the town where they were born.

The State Dept. contends that if it recognized Israel on the passports of Americans born in Jerusalem, U.S. foreign policy would be impeded. Not true. State Dept. discrimination would be impeded, not policy. In other instances and on government websites, Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Jerusalem, without impeding U.S. foreign policy. When one of those sites was cited as evidence in a legal brief, the government hastily removed the mention of Jerusalem from that site (Zionist Organization of America, Fall Report 2011, p.14).

State Dept. policy toward Israel is motivated by old biases, not principles.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, September 30, 2011.

Don't miss this suspense thriller with its timely plot to save the planet from nuclear Armageddon!"


Operation Persian Gulf
by Amil Imani and Cyrus Azad
Publisher: Free American Press (August 29, 2011)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0983690901
ISBN-13: 978-0983690900


This book is dedicated to the valiant Iranians who are presently resisting the decimation of their heritage by waging a relentless campaign to purge Iran of the scourge of Islamism. We also offer it as a tribute to all those Iranians who have suffered incredible abuses under the oppressive mullahs' regime and paid the ultimate price in combating the evil of Political Islam.


Drums of war beat ever louder with each passing day. The mad mullahs ruling Iran work around the clock to acquire nuclear weapons. The world is worried but impotent to prevent them from achieving their goal. The U.S. and its sole serious ally Israel keep proclaiming that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. The maniacal mullahs, undeterred, double their efforts to make the unacceptable acceptable.

It is brinkmanship of monumental risks, which may lead to conflagration, since neither will the mullahs blink, nor are the U.S. and Israel willing to let the mullahs acquire the ultimate weapon.

Greatly disturbed by the ever-loudening drumbeats of war, a band of Iranian-American patriots and friends launches a well-conceived campaign to destroy the Islamic Republic's nuclear and military capabilities. They aim to preempt the need for military attack on Iran that may lead to massive loss of human life, spin out of control, and usher in the long-prophesied, dreaded Armageddon.

This small team of Iranian-Americans' deep love for their native land as well as for their adopted country compels them to take tremendous risks and do the seemingly impossible to prevent all-out war between their two countries.

From a command post in California, vital cooperation from Iran, and a mobile operational base in the Persian Gulf, this small group of young men and women targets vulnerable components of the mullahs' nuclear and military facilities.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and the thriller Operation Persian Gulf. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, September 30, 2011.

The Arabs, calling themselves Palestinians, are in fact nomads, as for drifters and migrants.

They have drifted and migrated into the land of Israel, mainly during the Ottoman empire when it was occupying, abusing and neglecting the land. Then also during the British Mandate when the pro-Arabism British Mandate authorities, fervently encouraged the Arabs to pour into the land so that they will outnumber the damn Jew, whose arrival to the land the British were curtailing by their White Paper immigration restrictions decree.

De facto, these Arabs chose to leave their homelands, where they were citizens, to live as nomads in no-man's occupied land.

When, in 1947 Israel declared her independence, Arabs, within her armistice lines, known as the Green Lines, acquired Israel citizenship.

However, the Arabs who remained to live in Israel's legal territories, which she lost to the Jordan and Egypt in Israel's War of Independence, remained orphans of citizenship.

The Arabs who then lived in the terrorist enclave Gaza Strip found themselves on the Egyptian side of the cessation of hostilities. The Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement of February 24, 1949 established the separation line between the Egyptian and Israeli forces, and established what became the present boundary between the Gaza Strip and Israel.

Both sides declared that the boundary was not to be an international border. The southern border with Egypt continued to be the international border which had been drawn in 1906, between the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire.

One must keep in mind that the Arab population of the Gaza Strip had been greatly augmented by an influx of Arabs who fled from the land of Israel before and during the 1948 war. Egypt did not offer the Arabs living in the Gaza Strip citizenship, rather issued to them All-Palestine passports. From the end of 1949, these Arabs received aid from UNRWA. The government was accused of being little more than a façade for Egyptian control, with negligible independent funding or influence. It subsequently moved to Cairo and was dissolved in 1959, by decree of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the dictator of Egypt.

Egypt continued to occupy the Gaza Strip until 1967, except for four months of Israeli occupation during the 1956 Suez Crisis war. Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip, but instead treated it as a controlled territory and administered it through a military governor.

From 1967 and until 1994, the Gaza Strip remained under Israeli military administration. During that period the military was responsible for the maintenance of civil facilities and services. In May 1994, following the Palestinian-Israeli agreements known as the Oslo Accords, a phased transfer of governmental authority to the Arabs [a/k/a Palestinians] took place. Much of the Strip, except for the Jewish communities blocs and military areas, came under the Arabs' control. The Oslo Accords gave birth to the Palestinian Authority (PA), led by Yasser Arafat, who chose Gaza City as the PA first provincial headquarters. In September 1995, Israel and the PLO signed a second "peace agreement," extending the Arabs' authority to most of what they named West Bank towns. The agreement also established an elected 88-member Palestinian National Council, which held its inaugural session in Gaza in March 1996. In 2005, Israel, in an unprecedented and notorious unilateral act, dismantled is Gush Katif, its total presence in the Gaza Strip. Since 2006, the Arabs living in Gaza are ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas and are heavily funded by UNRWA and foreign contribution, but are still nomads, or are the citizens of a terrorist organization enclave that is on the West's terrorists list and one of the most dangerous terrorist organization.

The Arabs who, then lived in what is known as the West Bank, ended up under Jordanian control. The name West Bank was coined by the Jordanians after the territory, conquered by Jordan's Arab Legion in the 1948 war, was annexed to Transjordan, forming, in 1949-50, the new Kingdom of Jordan. The term was chosen to differentiate the "West bank of the River Jordan", namely the newly annexed territory, from the "East Bank" of this river, namely Transjordan. Until that point, the area was generally known by the historic names of its two regions — Judea and Samaria, the term used by Israel today. This annexation was illegal and Jordan's claim was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

For 400 years, the area, now known as Judea and Samaria, a/k/a West Bank, was under the Ottoman Empire rule as part of the province of Syria. At the 1920 San Remo Conference, the victorious Allied powers of WWI, Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the USA as an observer, allocated the area to the British Mandate of Palestine. Following World War II, the United Nations passed the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), Future Government Of Palestine, which suggested to establish a two-state solution — Jewish and Arab — within Palestine. The Resolution designated the territory described as Samaria and Judea, a/k/a "West Bank," as part of the proposed Arab state. But following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, this area was captured by Transjordan which, in 1949 was renamed Jordan.

From 1948 until 1967, the area, then named "West Bank," was under the Jordanian rule. Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988, ceding its territorial claims to the PLO and wit it stripped the West Bank Arabs of their Jordanian citizenship.

In the 1967 Six Day War, the West Bank was returned to its legal owner, the state of Israel. With the exception of "east" Jerusalem and the former Israeli-Jordanian no man's land, Judea and Samaria, a/k/a West Bank was not annexed by Israel, rather remained under Israeli military control. The Arabs living in Judea and Samaria remained nomads.

At the time, when the Palestinian Authority (PA) rule of the Gaza Strip and West Bank was under the leadership of Arafat, it suffered from serious mismanagement and corruption scandals. Today, the PA, with its headquarter in Ramallah, is mismanaged and corrupt as well. Leopards do not change their spots.

In conclusion, the Arabs, living in Gaza and West Bank are nomads. Their homelands Arab countries, from where their fathers, or grandfathers, wander into the land of Israel, will not allow them to return home.

The land of Judea and Samaria is legally the land of the state of Israel and Israel is not occupying it. The sooner Israel finally annexes this land and puts it under her rule the better. More so, there is no real room for another Arab state to be established on this land and to end up terrorizing and threatening Israel's existence.

I have no solution for the Arabs living in the Gaza Strip, as their genocidal terrorist ruler, Hamas, wants nothing else but to obliterate Israel. Hamas is at war with Israel; best is an outright war, in which Israel must bring Hamas to a total defeat and end its rule in the Gaza Strip. Then Israel will see to help the Arabs living there to have a better life.

As for the Arabs living on the land in Judea and Samaria, I offer three solutions:

These Arabs can go live elsewhere, better yet, in Jordan, which is the official Palestine state, or,

They go along with what the author, Sari Nusseibeh, suggests in his book, 'What Is a Palestinian State Worth?'
( Worth-Nusseibeh/dp/0674048733), which the Mandate for Palestine decreed as well, "I propose that Israel officially annex Judea and Samaria [he calls it the "occupied territories] and that the Arabs [he calls Palestinians] in enlarged Israel agree that the state remains Jewish, in return for being granted all the civil, though not political rights, of citizens," or,

They take on the Swiss cantons method. The name canton is derived from the French Language word canton, meaning corner or district.

Israel must formally annex the entire Judea and Samaria territories. Once this is accomplished, Israel needs to commence negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) on matters pertaining to local and regional sovereignty, based on the Swiss Canton model. In Switzerland there are 26 cantons, all are member states of the federal state of Switzerland. In Israel's case, the Arabs will live in several cantons under the Democratic state of Israel rule based on the local and regional sovereignty agreement.

I have deliberately omitted the name Palestinians. Reason being, back in the late 1990's the Arabs adopted a new tactic. They decided to stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn their terror war into a struggle for human rights, which they knew will have the West see them as victims and then Westerns will be eating out of their hands. The name "Palestinians" came as part of this grand scheme; this name came about as a political tool and part of the war the Arabs declared on, first the Jews who lived in the Land of Israel before Israel became a sovereign state, and then on Israel since 1948. This war is still ongoing and sadly, Israel has not got its full independence yet.

The only way Israel will finally have independence is for the Arabs to end all their hostilities and agree to live in peace with Israel based on agreement that will keep Israel a safe and secure Jewish State, as suggested above, or Israel must simply get rid of these Arab enemy cancer in her midst.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, September 29, 2011.

This was written by Habiba Nosheen and Hilke Schellmann and it appeared yesterday in the Atlantic Monthly

A Pakistani girl who says she was kidnapped and gang-raped faces a new threat: honor killings, a tradition here, but one that her family refuses to carry out


Rape survivor Kainat Soomro, left (Hilke Schellmann)

KARACHI, PAKISTAN — Kainat Soomro is a 17-year-old Pakistani girl who has become a local celebrity of sorts in her battle for justice in the Pakistani courts, a daring move for a woman of any age in this country, let alone a teenager.

She is fighting to get justice for a gang rape that she insists happened four years ago in Mehar, a small town in Pakistan.

We first met her in the office of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. A colorful traditional Pakistani shawl covered her head. Her father sat next to her as she recounted the 2007 incident.

"I was walking home from my school and I went to the store to buy a toy for my niece," she said, staring at the floor of the office. "While I was looking at things a guy pressed a handkerchief on my nose. I fainted and was kidnapped. Then four men gang raped me."

As she shared details of her days in captivity and multiple rapes, she kept repeating, "I want justice, I will not stop until I get justice." After three days, she was finally able to escape she said. As she spoke, her father gently tapped her head. He said he tried to get Kainat's alleged rapists arrested, but instead he was rebuffed by the police.

According to the Kainat family's account, the tribal elders declared her kari, (which literally means black female), for losing her virginity outside marriage.

In Pakistan, women and men who have illicit relationships or women who lose their virginity before marriage are at risk of paying with their lives.

"These are matters of honor and the leaders call a jirga and they declare that the woman or the couple should be killed," said Abdul Hai, a veteran field officer for the Human Rights Commission in Pakistan. These acts of violence are most commonly labeled as "honor killings."

The most recent report from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan noted that in 2009 roughly 46 percent of all female murders in Pakistan that year were in the name of "honor." The report noted that a total of 647 incidences of "honor killings" were reported by the Pakistani press. However, experts say that actual incidences of "honor killings" in Pakistan are much higher and never get reported to the police because they are passed off by the families as suicides.

Kainat said that despite the pressures her family refused to kill her.

"It is the tradition, but if the family doesn't permit it, then it won't happen. My father, my brother, my mom didn't allow it," she said.

And that defiance has left the family fearing for their lives. The family's new home in Karachi has been attacked a number of times.

But, according to Abdul Hai, Kainat is lucky: "The woman or the girl usually gets killed and the man gets away," he said. "Over 70 percent of the murdered victims are women and only 30 percent of victims of honor killings are male."

In Karachi, Kainat and her family are now sharing one room in a run-down apartment block, and they have to rely on charities to help them pay for food.

"We go hungry many nights," said Kainat's older sister.

But their fight might never pay off. A local judge has already ruled against Kainat in the case. "There is no corroborative evidence available on record. The sole testimony of the alleged rape survivor is not sufficient," the judge said in a written decision.

Another problem is that material evidence is usually not collected in rape cases in Pakistan since the police rarely believe rape victims and therefore don't order rape kits in a timely manner.

Without medical tests to corroborate her story, it remains Kainat's word against the alleged rapists. But even having lost her case at the local court, Kainat insists, "I am not giving up, I will take this all the way to the Supreme Court of Pakistan."

This story was reported with a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, an Atlantic partner site.

Contact Dave Nathan at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 29, 2011.

(This is not my usual point-by-point refutation, but an in-depth analysis of naïve responses to general demagoguery against Israel.)


You can't say you were not warned. Everybody knows about caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, and nobody admits trusting what politicians sell. But as soon as a politician gives a cleaver enough demagogic speech, he lulls the otherwise healthy skepticism. So it was with the UN speeches of President Obama and PM Netanyahu.

Their topic was the Muslim jihad against Israel, though neither has the honesty to acknowledge that more serious menace than the mere territorial dispute that they pretend it to be.

Jews should be more wary about politicians' assurances than most other nationalities. The Jewish people have experienced many betrayals of such assurances. European bishops promised Jews protection from antisemitic mobs, only to let the mobs take the Jews away. The British occupied the area conceived of as Palestine, to promote Jewish sovereignty, which they then sabotaged. The Nazis reassured millions of Jews that they were being sent to work, but they were sent to be slaughtered. Arabs signed peace agreements with Israel, but violate them. The U.S. proclaims friendship for Israel, but repudiates its guarantees when called to enforce them, secretly withheld intelligence about Arab military moves, and tried blackmailing Israel by withholding agreed-upon arms.

Not only politicians deceive. The financial crisis saw heads of major corporations reassuring stockholders of sufficient assets to withstand any panic. As the truth filtered out, their stocks fell. The whole bond rating system was fraudulent.


Although Pres. Obama professes friendship for Israel, we have heard his hostility toward them and his mildness toward their Arab persecutors. (The Zionist of America Fall Report documents Obama's record on this.) Nevertheless, after one Obama speech in the UN, many more Israelis think he is not so anti-Zionist as believed. Evidence beyond the speech? No. Did those Israelis see Obama remove his plethora of anti-Israel advisers? No. Those Israelis cannot see the difference between his record and a few words that do not change policy. They don't see the difference between long-range strategy against them, and short-range tactics that seem to favor them but also favor the long-range strategy.

People born yesterday can be excused for not knowing that: (1) Professing pro-Israel inclinations is a common tactic by most non-Muslim anti-Zionist politicians; and (2) U.S. politicians increasingly research what words are likely to elicit favorable response, whether the politicians believe those words or not. There would seem to be less excuse for Jewish adults, who have lived through much anti-Zionist deception, to be taken in.


But I do excuse it. I attribute it to my Jewish people having acquired a certain inferiority neurosis from centuries of persecution and powerlessness. To survive as a people, they curried favor with the ruling gentiles. Individuals perished, but the nation survived. This strategy had some merit before the era of genocide and Jewish sovereignty. Now invalid, the psychological straitjacket remains tied on.

Praise from a gentile leader suffices to relax my fellow Jews' vigilance. They do not pierce that leader's veil of insincerity. Enemies of Israel vie to mediate between Israel and the Arabs, yet Israeli leaders do not bar their efforts as biased. The Secretary of State may talk about "restraint needed by both sides," when it is needed only by the Arab aggressors' side, and Jews swallow the duplicity. They fall for pretended even-handedness.

Radical Jews go further. Apparently many of them feel they cannot retain their far left standing unless they join the Muslims against their fellow Jews. This stance impugns their claim to be independent thinkers, progressive (when they help the reactionary Muslims), and courageous. Courageous would be to retain their original positions of tolerance and democracy and to defy the radicals who have abandoned those positions. It does take courage, because radicals can be nasty to former comrades who refuse to accompany them to extremes.

There is another problem that impairs responsible public discussion. That problem is a lessening of diverse public knowledge and discussion and of the ability to analyze public affairs. The public is too dependent upon narrow-minded or biased media sources.


Biased media sources have type-cast PM Netanyahu as right wing. Indeed, his economic policies are conservative, prudent, and responsible for much of Israel's economic gains. Would that the Knesset let him institute more such policies! But each faction demands privileges for its own constituency. Result: a smaller economic pie to divide.

Netanyahu's policies on the Arab-Israel conflict are not right-wing. His demagoguery on jihad is of long duration. He has attempted to appease the Arabs as any acknowledged left-wing politician, just as futilely. Like them, he fails to learn from those blunders. He offers much of the core Jewish homeland to the Arabs, although he knows the Arabs will turn it to terrorist use against Israel. Earlier, he withdrew the IDF from the hills of Hebron, letting Palestinian Arab snipers take a bead on fellow Israelis, the one he is supposed to protect. Heeding Presidents Bush and Obama, he dismantled many checkpoints, through which more terrorists were able to pass freely. He does not enforce the law against Arab theft of land, illegal construction, and stoning of Israeli vehicles. He and his far leftist Defense Min. Barak enforce but also abuse the law against a few Jews whose construction is called illegal but usually is not. Now the far leftist Attorney-General is arresting rabbis who discuss the Talmud in ways he does not like but which are harmless. Netanyahu lets the broadcast authority deny national radio permits to nationalist enterprises. On and on.


How does he get away with it? His reputation as a right-winger helps him to. So does lack of an effective right wing opponent to expose his hypocrisy. Most of all, he reels off Jewish history and the nationalist line fluently. He gets taken at his word. However, he has been found to express sentiments that give a right-wing impression about some policy, and then when criticized for implementing that policy in a leftist way, he points out that the wording really means something else. Sophistry!

Netanyahu's UN speech contained what many Jews wanted to hear. They no doubt liked his summary showing how much Israel offered peace to the non-responsive Arabs. He did not, however, show that the Muslim Arab goal is conquest with or without war. He did not show that President Obama talks about Israeli security, but does much to undermine it. Therefore, the UN speech pathetically strove to show how good the Jews are for gentiles. He was eliciting their pat on the head.


A prime minister faithful to his duty would have pursued objectives beneficial to the Jewish nation and repudiated past appeasement as antithetical. This would include a litany of P.A. violations of Oslo in the interest of jihad. The litany should make it shameful to support the P.A., including for Pres. Obama. Netanyahu would expose the false assumptions and erroneous notions about land ownership, international law, "disproportionate" combat, etc.. He would assert the Jewish claim to the Territories and explain why it is a better claim than the Arabs'. He would stop subsidizing the P.A. and ask the West to stop subsidizing jihadists. He would start annexing Jewish communities in the Territories.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rabbi Shimshon Nadel, September 28, 2011.

There are many deep explanations that explore the symbolism of the mitzvah of sounding the shofar. One of the more famous expositions is that of the Rambam. He writes:

Even though the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a decree, it contains an allusion. As if to say, 'Wake up you sleepers from your slumber and dreamers from your sleep. Inspect your deeds, repent and remember your Creator...'(Hil. Teshuvah 3:4)

According to the Rambam, the shofar is a spiritual alarm clock. (Something we could all use!)

The shofar is supposed to sound like wailing and groaning. The Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 33b), in describing this crying sound, cites a verse from the Book of Judges, which mentions tears shed by the mother of Sisera. Sisera was the general of Yavin, a Canaanite king. When the Jewish People wage war against him, led by Barak and Devorah, Sisera flees. He takes refuge in the tent of Yael who lures him in with warm milk and a comfortable bed. He meets his fate when Yael drives a tent peg into his skull after she lulls him into a deep sleep.

Tosafot (ad loc.), based on a passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi, explains that the custom of blowing one hundred blasts is because of the one hundred tears shed by Sisera's mother.

What does this story have to do with Rosh HaShanah? And why, on one of the holiest days of the year, do we invoke the mother of the wicked Siserah?

You can imagine the scene: Siserah's mother waiting by the window, filled with uncertainty. Wondering. Asking herself: Will he come home? Knowing quite well that she will never see him again.

The Rav, Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik explained that the connection between the mother of Sisera and the shofar is the feeling of shock; paralysis. When we hear the sound of the Shofar we awaken from our spiritual complacency. It pierces us. Our illusions are "relentlessly shattered." Everything we took for granted or assumed comes crashing down like a house of cards.

During one of his five-hour marathon teshuvah lectures, the Rav candidly shared something very personal to illustrate this very point:

On the seventh day of Pesach, 5727 (1967) I awoke from a fitful sleep. A thunderstorm was raging outside, and the wind and rain blew angrily through the window of my room. Half awake, I quickly jumped to my feet and closed the window. I then thought to myself that my wife was sleeping downstairs in the sunroom next to the parlor, and I remembered that the window was left open there as well. She could catch pneumonia, which in her weakened physical condition would be devastating.

I ran downstairs, rushed into her room, and slammed the window shut. I turned around to see whether she had awoken from the storm or if she was still sleeping. I found the room empty, the couch where she slept neatly covered.

In reality she had passed away the previous month.

The most tragic and frightening experience was the shock that I encountered in that half second that I turned from the window to find the room empty. I was certain that a few hours earlier I had been speaking with her, and that at about 10 O'clock she said good night and retired to her room. I could not understand why the room was empty. I thought to myself, 'I just spoke with her. I just said good night to her. Where is she?' (Arnold Lustiger, Before Hashem You Shall Be Purified: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the Days of Awe, pp. 8-9)

The Rav explained that the shofar shakes us to our core:

We are jolted with the sudden awareness of the grievous extent to which our actions have alienated us from God...We find ourselves alone, bereft of our illusions, terrified and paralyzed before God." (Ibid.)

But the shofar is also a prayer.

Rav Soloveitchik taught of two different types of prayer: the articulated prayer and the un-articulated prayer. The music of the shofar is the un-articulated prayer. Some things can't be expressed in words. Maybe I don't know what to say or how to say it. The shofar's song, like a child crying, is the most basic expression of need; beyond articulation.

My wife and I are blessed with five beautiful children. Sometimes my three year old cries when she wants something. Sometimes she cries because she wants me. When we blow the shofar on Rosh HaShanah we are calling out to our Father in Heaven. We are saying, 'Tateh - Father, I don't know what I need. But I know I need You!'

After we sound the shofar, the chazzan and congregation recite three verses from Psalm 89 responsively. We begin, "Fortunate is the people who knows the teruah..."We don't just hear or listen, we know. It is an intimate and deep understanding; an intuition.

The call of the shofar is something beyond words. It speaks to us in a deep way and at the same time expresses what we cannot verbalize.

This year has not been an easy one for the Jewish People. As we begin anew, there is still so much uncertainty and doubt looming: Will this year see the declaration of a Palestinian State? More acts of violence? More rockets landing in Southern Israel? Will we finally see the release of Gilad Shalit? Will we finally see peace? Will we finally see the Redemption?

We live during challenging times. Both in Israel and abroad there is so much confusion. In these times of great uncertainty, the shofar speaks both to us and through us. With it we awaken something deep within ourselves, just as we awaken the Heavens.

May the shofar's song inspire you.

And may you and your family merit a sweet new year full of health and happiness.

With blessings from Jerusalem,

Rabbi Nadel is head of the Yeshivat Torat HaAretz, the Har Nof Community Kollel in Jerusalem. He is an educator, musician and author. . He also hosts the popular radio show "Ask the Rabbi" on Arutz Sheva — Israel National Radio. He served as Rabbi in Nebraska and Connecticut before making aliya. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, September 28, 2011.
This was written by Abigail Klein Leichman and appeared yesterday on the Israel 21c website.
( greatest-inventions-of-all-time).

One of Israel's sources of pride is the enormous number of inventions and innovations that have taken root on its soil over 63 years — despite challenges of geography, size and diplomacy. The ever-churning Israeli mind has brought us drip irrigation, the cherry tomato, the electric car grid, the Disk-on-Key and much more.

Through December at the Bloomfield Science Museum in Jerusalem, 45 indispensable Israeli inventions are being displayed and demonstrated. Curator Varda Gur Ben-Sheetrit tells ISRAEL21c that hundreds of ingenious inventions were considered for Inventions, Inc., which offers visitors a chance to learn more and try their own hand at coming up with something new.

She emphasizes that many other Israeli inventions are deserving of being included. "We were, of course, constrained by space limitations, and also not every company we invited to exhibit responded," she says.

Another feature of the exhibition is the Transparent Studio, where graduates of the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design conduct a course on innovation in the area of light and lighting design. Visitors can observe their work-in-progress and share their ideas and suggestions with the designers.

Here, ISRAEL21c gives Israel's top 45 inventions highlighted at the exhibition, in no particular order.

Visitors watch how the PillCam shows doctors what's going on in the gut. (Bloomfield Science Museum)

1. Given Imaging, a world leader in developing and marketing patient-friendly solutions for visualizing and detecting disorders of the GI tract, is best known for its PillCam (aka capsule endoscopy), now the gold standard for intestinal visualization.

2. Netafim is a worldwide pioneer in smart drip and micro-irrigation, starting from the idea of Israeli engineer Simcha Blass for releasing water in controlled, slow drips to provide precise crop irrigation. The kibbutz-owned company operates in 112 countries with 13 factories throughout the world.

3. Ormat Technologies designs, develops, builds, owns, manufactures and operates geothermal power plants worldwide, supplying clean geothermal power in more than 20 countries.

The world's first solar window.

4. Pythagoras Solar makes the world's first solar window, which combines energy efficiency, power generation and transparency. This transparent photovoltaic glass unit can be easily integrated into conventional building design and construction processes.

5. Hazera Genetics, a project of two professors at the Hebrew University Faculty of Agriculture, yielded the cherry tomato — a tasty salad fixing that ripens slowly and doesn't rot in shipment.

6. BabySense is a non-touch, no-radiation device designed to prevent crib death. Made by HiSense, the device monitors a baby's breathing and movements through the mattress during sleep. An auditory and visual alarm is activated if breathing ceases for more than 20 seconds or if breath rate slows to less than 10 breaths per minute.

7. EpiLady, the first electric hair remover (epilator), secured its leading position in the international beauty care market and since 1986 has sold almost 30 million units.

8. 3G Solar pioneered a low-cost alternative to silicon that generates significantly more electricity than leading silicon-based PV solar modules at a lower cost per kilowatt hour.

9. MobileEye combines a tiny digital camera with sophisticated algorithms to help drivers navigate more safely. The steering system-linked device sounds an alert when a driver is about to change lanes inadvertently, warns of an impending forward collision and detects pedestrians. MobileEye has deals with GM, BMW and Volvo, among others.

10. Leviathan Energy innovated the Wind Tulip, a cost-effective, silent, vibration-free wind turbine designed as an aesthetic environmental sculpture, producing clean energy at high efficiency from any direction.

11. Rav Bariach introduced the steel security door that has become Israel's standard. Its geometric lock, whose cylinders extend from different points into the doorframe, is incorporated into doors selling on five continents.

12. BriefCam video-synopsis technology lets viewers rapidly review and index original full-length video footage by concurrently showing multiple objects and activities that actually occurred at different times. This technology drastically cuts the time and manpower involved in event tracking, forensics and evidence discovery.

13. GridON makes the Keeper, a three-phase fault current limiter developed at Bar-Ilan University. The device, which blocks current surges and limits the current for as long as required to clear the fault, won an Innovation Award from General Electric's Ecomagination Challenge and is of interest to major utilities companies around the world.

14. Better Place electric car network, Israeli Shai Agassi's brainchild, is implementing the Israeli pilot that will provide a model for a worldwide electric car grid.

15. Intel Israel changed the face of the computing world with the 8088 processor (the "brain" of the first PC), MMX and Centrino mobile technology. Israeli engineers at Intel in the 1990s had to convince skeptical bosses to take a chance on MMX technology, an innovation designed to improve computer processing. It's now considered a milestone in the company's history.

16. Disk-on-Key, the ubiquitous little portable storage device made by SanDisk, was invented by Dov Moran as an upgraded version of disk and diskette technology through the use of flash memory and USB interface for connection to personal computers.

17. TACount real-time microbiology enables the detection and counting of harmful microorganisms in a matter of minutes, rather than the conventional method of cell culture that takes several hours to a few days. The technology applies to the fields of drinking and wastewater, pharmaceuticals and food and beverage production.

18. Solaris Synergy innovated an environmentally friendly and economically beneficial way to float solar panels on water instead of taking up valuable land, generating energy while protecting and limiting evaporation from reservoir surfaces.

19. HydroSpin is developing a unique internal pipe generator that supplies electricity for water monitoring and control systems in remote areas and sites without accessibility to electricity.

20. The Volcani Research Center of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development aims to improve existing agricultural production systems and to introduce new products, processes and equipment. Basic and applied research is conducted at six institutes and in two regional research centers by more than 200 scientists and 300 engineers and technicians.

A guide explains Rosetta Green technology to young museum visitors (Bloomfield Science Museum)

21. Rosetta Green, a 2010 spinoff of the agro-biotechnology division of Rosetta Genomics, develops improved plant traits for the agriculture and biofuel industries, using unique genes called microRNAs.

22. Mazor Robotics' Spine Assist and other surgical robots are transforming spine surgery from freehand procedures to highly accurate, state-of-the-art operations with less need for radiation.

23. The optical heartbeat monitor developed by Bar-Ilan University's Prof. Ze'ev Zalevsky is a revolutionary medical technology using a fast camera and small laser light source.

24. Elya Recycling developed and patented an innovative method for recycling plastic based on a specialized formulation of natural ingredients. Making the new raw material for handbags, reusable totes and lumber products requires 50 percent less energy than current recycling methods and 83% less energy than virgin manufacturing.

25. Like-A-Fish unique air supply systems extract air from water, freeing leisure and professional scuba divers, as well as submarines and underwater habitats, from air tanks.

26. Itamar Medical's WatchPAT is an FDA-approved portable diagnostic device for the follow-up treatment of sleep apnea in the patient's own bedroom, rather than at a sleep disorders clinic.

27. Zenith Solar developed a modular, easily scalable high-concentration photovoltaic system (HCPV). The core technology is based on a unique, proprietary optical design to extract the maximum energy with minimal real estate.

28. AFC (Active Flow Control) was developed at Tel Aviv University as an intelligent gas-air mixing system to replace all existing mixing technologies.

29. The Space Imagery Intelligence (IMINT) unit of Elbit Systems makes a "space camera," a compact, lightweight electro-optic observation system for government, commercial and scientific applications.

30. Turbulence, the world's first hyper-narrative, interactive movie, is also the name of the company developed by Prof. Nitzan Ben-Shaul of Tel Aviv University. The technology allows the viewer to choose the direction of the film's plot by pressing buttons on the PC, Mac or iPad at various moments in the action.

31. Decell Technologies is a global leader in providing real-time road traffic information based on monitoring the location and movement of phones and GPS devices. Swift-i Traffic, Decell's premium product, is incorporated in leading navigation systems, fleet management services, mapping operations and media channels in several countries.

32. NDS VideoGuard technology is the pay-TV industry's advanced suite of conditional access (CA) solutions. It protects branded service from piracy and ensures that consumers will have the choice and flexibility they demand in broadcast and on-demand content.

33. PrimeSense revolutionizes interaction with digital devices by allowing them to "see" in three dimensions and transfer control from remote controls and joysticks to hands and body. It is the leading business provider of low-cost, high-performance 3D machine vision technologies for the consumer market.

34. Takadu provides monitoring software to leading water utilities worldwide. The product offers real-time detection and control over network events such as leaks, bursts, zone breaches and inefficiencies.

35. Hewlett Packard (HP)'s Indigo digital printing presses for general commercial printing, direct mail, photos and photobooks, publications, labels, business cards, flexible packaging and folding cartons print without films and plates, allowing for personalized short runs and changing text and images without stopping the press.

36. Cubital's solid rapid prototyping machines craft 3D models of engineering parts directly from designs on a computer screen. They're used in the automotive, aerospace, consumer products and medical industries, as well as engineering firms and academic and research institutions.

37. The Zomet Institute in Jerusalem is a non-profit, public research institute where rabbis, researchers and engineers devise practical solutions for modern life without violating Sabbath restrictions on the use of electricity. Zomet technology is behind metal detectors, security jeeps, elevators, electric wheelchairs and coffee machines that can be used on Shabbat, as well as solutions requested by the Israeli ministries of health and defense, Ben-Gurion Airport, Elite Foods, Tnuva Dairies, Israeli Channel 10 Television and others.

All you have to do is lie down to be monitored by EarlySense for temp, movement and breathing (Bloomfield Science Museum)

38. The EarlySense continuous monitoring solution allows hospital nurses to watch and record patients' heart rate, respiration and movement remotely through a contact-free sensor under the mattress. The system's built-in tools include a wide range of reports on the status of patients, including alerts for falls and bedsore prevention.

39. TourEngine significantly reduces fuel consumption and harmful emissions by common engines through a sophisticated thermal management strategy. It can also be easily integrated with future hybrid engines, further improving their efficiency and environment-friendly attributes.

40. The superconducting fault current limiter (FCL), designed for limiting short currents, comes out of a $2 million project developed over two years by RICOR Cryogenics and Vacuum Systems with the Institute of Superconductivity at Bar-Ilan University.

41. Heliofocus led an industry trend to provide solar-energy boosting for existing coal or gas power plants, reducing carbon emissions and overall costs.

42. Transbiodiesel makes enzyme-based catalysts (biocatalysts) used in the production of biodiesel.

43. SolarEdge makes a module that optimizes every link in the solar PV chain, maximizing energy production while monitoring constantly to detect faults and prevent theft.

44. The 3D tethered particle motion system developed by three professors at Bar-Ilan allows for three-dimensional tracking of critical protein-DNA and protein-RNA cell interactions in the body.

45. Panoramic Power provides a current monitor solution that enables enterprises and organizations to reduce their operational and energy expenses using a breakthrough power flow visibility platform.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, September 28, 2011.

This was written by Elliot Jager and it is archived at content/module/2011/9/26/main-feature/1/ the-myth-of-mideast-stability


The U.S. Ambassador to Israel recently told the International Conference on Economic Regional Cooperation in Tel Aviv that unless Israel and the Palestinians resume negotiations, "the lack of peace will decrease stability dangerously" in the Middle East. The Ambassador was merely repeating an idea that has become diplomatic dogma — the notion that the absence of a peace deal contributes "dangerously" to regional instability.

Iraeli-Palestinian impasse, in relation to Middle East instability, is like a lighted match tossed into a three-alarm fire. The number of Arab League member-states not riven by violence and upheaval can be counted on one hand, with fingers to spare. The reasons for the Mideast's rolling boil are unconnected to the Jewish state.

Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began this year, remains a desperate place, in which unemployed teachers have threatened to commit suicide. After months of quarrels with other political groups, the Islamist party has agreed to elections for an assembly that will write a new Tunisian constitution. Given the Islamists' ascendancy, the odds that a Western-style democracy will emerge are low.

In post-Mubarak Egypt, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is baiting Israel in his bid to establish Turkey's regional leadership, continued his campaign with a trip to Cairo. Having won the adoration of Cairo's masses, old guard Muslim Brotherhood leaders pointedly warned the premier of non-Arab Turkey against making a play for Middle East hegemony. "We welcome Turkey and we welcome Erdogan as a prominent leader," said Essam El-Erian, the Brotherhood's deputy leader, "but we do not think that he or his country alone should be leading the region or drawing up its future." The Egyptians discouraged Erdogan from visiting Gaza or Tahrir Square; and Erdogan's Obama-style speech at the Cairo Opera House, meant to rally the Muslim world against Israel, was not broadcast live in Egypt. No matter who rules Egypt, its rivalry and tensions with Persia and Turkey will continue.

In near-forgotten Iraq, Sunnis and Shi'ites are still at each others' throats. In Syria, violence perpetrated by President Bashar al-Assad has claimed more than 2,400 lives, with no end in sight. The Shi'ites in power in Iran will likely stand by their client Assad, though they have backed off their public support. But Saudi Arabia's Sunni leaders have sided with the Sunni Syrian street, while Sunni Turkey has openly hosted anti-Assad opposition groups. Even the possibility that Syria will fragment can't be ruled out. Israel is nowhere in the picture.

Lebanon's fate is ever more precarious. The country's neighboring Syrian hegemon lies politically stricken, while Beirut's more distant Persian overlord is riven by acrimony between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. No wonder Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati — a puppet of Lebanese Hezbollah, allied with Syria and Iran — complains, albeit with notable understatement, about the "unhealthy mood" in Lebanon's polity. Lebanon's Maronite Patriarch, Bechara Boutros al-Rai's, with Hezbollah's boot on his neck, finds himself praising the Assad regime. Other Christian leaders feel emboldened enough to challenge Hezbollah's corruption.

Instability driven largely by the absence of political legitimacy is endemic throughout the region. Take oil-rich Libya: Centrifugal tribal forces, fractious Islamists beholden to the Gulf States, and comparative modernizers all vie for control. It's anyone's guess whether the country will cohere in the hoped-for post-Qaddafi era. Neighboring Sudan has been partitioned, yet north-south fighting continues along the new border. The situation is no less bloody in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is trying to finesse a deal to protect Riyadh's Sunni interests against those of the Iranian-backed Shi'ite Houthis. Here, too, the question is whether a war-ravaged country can hold together. Meanwhile, a similar Iranian-Saudi rivalry plays out in Bahrain.

Israel and the Palestinian situation are no part of these equations. Nor are they factors in the foreboding that regional turmoil continues to produce among the Christian, Druse, Alawite, and Berber minorities in the region — not to mention the Kurds, whose homeland stretches across parts of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey and whose rightful case for self-determination has been oddly shunted aside by champions of the Palestinian cause.

Conversely, there is no reason to think that UN approval of Palestinian statehood will increase regional stability. Certainly it will not increase prospects for long-term security in Jordan's Hashemite Kingdom. For the past several weeks King Abdullah, ostensibly angered over an Israeli remark implying that Jerusalem might pursue a "Jordan is Palestine" strategy, has lashed out at Israel and protested his fidelity to the idea of Palestinian statehood. Yet the king knows that Israel is his bulwark and that the threats to his throne come from Jordan's internal Islamist opposition, deep-seated economic woes, and the kingdom's episodically restive Palestinian Arab majority, not to mention the nightmare scenario of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank.

Speaking of Hamas, the UN's recognition of Palestinian statehood on the terms proposed by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which rules the West Bank, will not even increase stability within the Palestinian polity, let alone throughout the region. Can anyone imagine Hamas granting Mahmoud Abbas safe passage to visit Gaza?

The turmoil in the Arab world will persist irrespective of what happens on the Israeli-Palestinian track. To be gripped by the delusion that solving the "Question of Palestine" will deliver stability to the Middle East requires overlooking intrinsic regional, tribal, ethnic, and religious fault lines. The Middle East will continue to boil no matter how much "Palestine" is empowered, no matter the extent to which Israel's security interests are denigrated, and no matter how much diplomatic capital is invested in an attempt to fill the bottomless pit of the Palestinian sense of victimization.

Thus, no matter how much the international community wishes to cater to the Arabs on the "Palestine" issue, Israeli security cannot realistically be traded for regional stability. Misguided UN action on the Palestinian issue can have no significant constructive impact on regional unrest and will not provide breathing space for Arab and Muslim rulers threatened at home or abroad.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hana Levi Julian, September 28, 2011.

A New Year's campaign to free former Agriprocessors kosher meat packing owner Sholom Rubashkin has hit the Internet, led by the renowned Aleph Institute.

Sholom Rubashkin and 2 of his children. (Israel news photo: Justice for Sholom)

The campaign is timed to coincide with the start of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and appeals to supporters and others to sign an online petition pushing for Rubashkin's release from prison.

A father of ten with no previous convictions, the 52 year old Rubashkin was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison on charges of bank fraud. He was charged with defaulting on loans after his funds were frozen during a federal investigation into child labor violations that he was ultimately acquitted of, and immigration-related charges that the prosecution eventually declined to pursue.

The life sentence recommendation for a first-time offender was at the time deemed by a number of prominent attorneys — including Kenneth Starr, former Attorney General Janet Reno, and Professor Alan Dershowitz — as "disproportionate and shocking."

Tens of thousands were shocked by the 2009 sentence, considered unduly harsh and tantamount to life in prison.

The petition, which is being sent to the White House, urges President Barack Obama and the U.S. Justice Department to investigate "the extremely troubling circumstances surrounding [Rubashkin's] prosecution, trial and sentencing."

The organization urges people to sign the petition, saying it will be a tangible expression of unity with the many thousands of other Jews concerned about Rubashkin and his family, and who are "extremely troubled by the shocking circumstances of his case."

As noted in the petition, 47 members of the House of Representatives have separately and independently written to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an investigation into Rubashkin's prosecution, which the petition labels a "gross misjustice." In addition, 75 law professors and former U.S. Attorneys, including three Deputy Attorneys General have likewise called for an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct in the case.

The Aleph Institute is a U.S.-based NGO founded by Rabbi Sholom Lipskar more than 30 years ago at the direction of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson. The organization provides services to families in crisis, and to individuals in the military and institutional systems. But the organization is best known for its work with individuals and institutions in the criminal justice system, particularly involving faith-based rehabilitation and preventive ethics education programs through its Center for Halacha and American Law (CHAL).

To sign the petition, click here.

Hana Levi Julian writes for Arutz-7 (, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth Frantzman, September 27, 2011.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (right) shakes hands with Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen as Richard Holbrooke, special US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, looks on.

It is time for the US to downgrade ties with this dangerous "ally."

'Never before has a US official so publicly linked Pakistan to attacks on Americans. It is a sickening accusation given the fact that the US has been giving Pakistan nearly $2 billion a year, money to fight terrorism, not support it."

Those were the words Martha Raddatz, senior foreign affairs correspondent at ABC news, on September 22. The man whose name has headlined these revelations is Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he declared: "In continuing to use violent extremism, as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, army and ISI jeopardizes our strategic partnership."

Sitting beside the four-star admiral was US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who explained that "a very clear message [must be sent] to them and to others that they must take steps to prevent the safe havens that [terrorists] are using [in Pakistan]."

That Mullen made his blunt statement just days before he is due to retire suggests that he was asked to provide the stronger testimony before Congress whereas Panetta, who will remain secretary of defense, would set a softer tone.

The events at the heart of the recent allegations were an attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a September 13 attack on the US embassy there. The story that Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, was behind the attacks, through the use of Islamist proxies, was headline news in many newspapers in the West.

The Pakistani press has also reported about Mullen's comments. This has triggered a series of stories detailing meetings among Pakistani army officers aimed at "meeting amid tensions" with the US. The latest talking point being put forward by Pakistani commentators, such as Interior Minister Rehman Malik, is that the CIA was behind the creation of the Haqqani network.

The Haqqani network is actually a sort of family business that originated in the mountainous southern Afghan region of Paktia, which borders Pakistan's North Waziristan province. It was founded by Jalaludin Haqqani (born about 1950) and is now run in cooperation with his son. During the 1980s Haqqani initially allied himself with the hardcore Islamist Afghani Gulbeddin Hekmatyar. Later, he found his way not only to Pakistan's ISI but also to the CIA and US Congressman Charlie Wilson. He received arms and tens of thousands of dollars in US and Saudi aid to fight the Soviets, with much of the money and weapons being channeled through the ISI. This ISI-CIA campaign to throw the Soviets out of Afghanistan was the subject of the famous 2003 book Charlie Wilson's War, which was later made into a movie.

THE "REVELATIONS" about the role of the ISI in Pakistan and the double game it plays have been common knowledge to anyone reporting about the conflict in the region for more than a decade. The story of the ISA-Taliban relationship has been told in several books and numerous articles by Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid. In an interview with Harpers, Rashid said, "This lack of US interest [after 2001] coincided with the interests of the Pakistani army: to go after al Qaida, but to allow the Taliban to resettle in Pakistan. Quite soon the Taliban was once again patronized by the ISI."

Indian intelligence experts have long warned the US and the world that the ISI has been funding terrorist networks in Kashmir and Central Asia since the 1980s. Most recently, however, the US has come face to face with Pakistani complicity to an extent that is hard to ignore. The fact that Osama Bin Laden was found living in a town dominated by the Pakistani military clearly illustrated either the incompetence of Pakistan or it complicity in hiding him.

Some commentators have painted a picture of an ISI that is so autonomous that the Pakistani government cannot be held responsible for its actions. David Rohde at Reuters argues that "instead of blaming all Pakistanis for the action of the ISI, the United States must help moderate Pakistanis reform an out-of-step, out-of-control agency."

This is a convenient story for those that like to imagine that intelligence organizations such as the CIA are engaged in so many "black" operations that they are a law unto themselves. But to judge from their statements, at least some of Pakistan's politicians don't subscribe to this notion, and make no distinction between the ISI and the government.

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar responded to Mullen's allegations by threatening the US: "You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan, you cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people. If you are choosing to do so and if they are choosing to do so it will be at their own cost."

This is the Pakistani quagmire; politicians either blaming the CIA, claiming they are helpless against the power of the ISI, or daring the US to severe ties with them. They accuse the US of "losing an ally" in Pakistan or "alienating" the Pakistani people.

The US government must respond to the reality. The Pakistani people cannot be "alienated," and the US cannot "lose an ally" it doesn't have. The US faced the same duplicity when it worked with the South Vietnamese government in the 1960s.

Some argue that the ISI and Pakistan do, from time to time, turn in Taliban commanders.

But the reality is that this should be viewed much like a mafia family that turns in other mafiosi just so that it can get stronger. Pakistan's government has perfected the two-step, a dance routine where you step in one direction and then end up going the other way. Pakistan hands over the Taliban it doesn't like, to weaken those factions it can't control, while holding close to those like Haqqani who have been allies with the ISI since the 1980s. Pakistan paints a picture of a Mexican stand-off with the US, where the US can't ditch its useless "ally," but Mike Mullen's statements may finally point the way to a realistic severing or downgrading of ties with this dangerous, unstable country.

Seth J. Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Contact him at and visit his website: This essay appeared on his website.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 27, 2011.

To: Editor, Wall Street Journal

Dear Editor:

Your reporters increasingly adopt the Palestinian Arab's false narrative of the Arab-Israel conflict. They report superficially. Readers are being misled, as you can see from my rejoinder, below, (to Bill Spindle's September 26 piece,"Palestinian Moves Reshape Attitudes" which will be posted to the website,


In discussing the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) quest for UN approval of statehood, Bill Spindle observes a mood of confrontation replacing the P.A. mood for negotiations, "which most feel have failed to deliver after nearly two decades." But the confrontation will be non-violent.

[One cannot assume that what Arabs say they feel is what they feel, nor that what they feel is valid. Negotiations really did not fail; rather, the P.A. failed to negotiate. Their delegates walked out or refused to walk in.]

[Not confrontational, before? Forgot the Intifadas, the individual terrorism, the constant slander, and P.A. honoring of terrorists? Let us not be simplistic, and draw conclusions from a single turn of approach! The Communists taught Arafat to alternate fighting with diplomacy. Our short-sighted diplomats and journalists think that a period of less fighting means an end to periods of fighting. But Jihadists will switch to whatever means they think will work for them now. When diplomacy seems to be working, they hold off fighting if violence would discourage foreign diplomats.]

[Talking about Palestinian Arab feelings, they feel the Islamic imperative to conquer their non-Muslim neighbors. Hence Abbas' bid for UN recognition stated that it would help him continue opposing Israel. The P.A. stops negotiating when asked to really make peace by recognizing the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own homeland. Indeed, the P.A. denies it is the Jews' homeland.]

[Non-violent? Like the Palestinian Arabs and others who tried to crash through the Israeli lines with rocks and firebombs? The P.A. calls that non-violent. Do you? Should Mr. Spindle? And when the Arabs commit the more severe violence that Abbas admits is violence, he demands that Israel release convicted perpetrators, despite the P.A.'s signed obligation not to commit or permit violence.]

[Sometimes Arab demonstrators start out non-violent, but incite themselves to violence. Even the original demonstrations should not be called "peaceful," because it is a form of warfare.]

The Olso Accords are said to have laid out a framework for a "two-state 'solution.'" [No, they just call for final status negotiation. Can the P.A., which continuously violates Oslo expect Israel to respect it?]

A 24-year-old Arab mechanic is quoted, without stating his qualifications. He seemed to indicate that if the P.A. becomes a state, Arabs will patrol the area (9/26, A7).

That means terrorists will patrol, because many P.A. police were recruited for their terrorism and the whole population favors jihad.


Now this, for a change of pace:

Because pets eat food and breathe out carbon dioxide, the Environmental Protection Agency has declared pets a source of global warming pollution and a cause of rising food prices. Americans will have to give up their hundred million pets. That would leave more acreage available for corn ethanol, which fosters energy independence by importing oil to run the tractors, so as to cultivate corn ethanol, so cars use less petrol. Get it?

Accordingly, the EPA has drafted a 500-page set of definitions of "pets." Hundreds of green jobs will be created by its ruling, to interpret these rules and administer hundreds of euthanasia clinics.

To finance the program, President Obama will ask Congress for authorization to impose an immediate, general tax surcharge of $25, including compensation of $10 per pet owner. Owner compensation will help stimulate the economy, Pres. Obama said. He did not explain how taking money from some tax payers (including those who invest in the economy) to give to others stimulates the economy.

The euthanasia program is scheduled to start in five years, allowing three years for lawsuits over interpreting the 500-page rule book. Already, humane organizations threatened to sue over the method of execution. They oppose lethal injection because the current formula allows a minute of discomfort. They somehow do not suggest putting an overdose of confiscated heroin into the formula, to make the execution shorter and not uncomfortable. Some social conservatives would object to the use of heroin on moral grounds. The humane groups also oppose the kosher method of animal slaughter, because they consider it not as humane as the alternative of hitting the animal's head with a mallet, and hitting it, and hitting it, until it succumbs. That is the humane way by which Canadians "harvest" seal pups.

Some critics think that the proposed fees do not suffice. In case they are right, Pres. Obama is prepared to add a $10 per person pollution fee. He says these fees will be just temporary, until no pets remain. Then, having terminated the pets, he anticipates, Congress would remove the fees and not claim that some other use justifies retaining them. A truly temporary tax would be a novelty!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, September 27, 2011.

Have you read "House of Bush — House of Saud"? I think this book would bend your mind in a different direction. Also, take a look at the Koran. A good Muslim is defined by his or her submission to the dictates, dogma, kadiths and fatwas, etc. etc. of the Koran. Pick it up and read it one of these days. Then compare it to Nasser's Red Book and Mein Kampf. We did this years ago, when one could get a useful education at UCLA and USC. The reading exercise made the hair rise on the back of one' neck. The fountain of fascism, writ large. All of which was at one time espoused by the fascist relics in the British Foreign Office. Remember Neville Chamberlain? The views of the senior Henry Ford?

So, here are some basic questions: Who is this "Dror Shalom" and why would he want to undermine the sovereignty of Israel over its lands? Why would "Dror" want to plant an armed arab fighting force in the heart of Israel? Why would any Jewish Israeli want to be compressed into smaller and smaller spaces? For easier extermination by the so-called Palestinians and the fascist ruling class of Iran who have already made it clear that this is their objective? Are the arabs who want to call themselves Palestinians willing to conquer and/or exterminate the Muslims who hold onto their Israeli citizenship? Or would these Muslims be spared by their arab cousins so that only Jews are either converted or killed? This "Dror Shalom" doesn't sound like much of an "intellectual" to any of us here. Perhaps more like a crazed contrarian?

And are you certain that the so-called "leftists" speak for all Jews "whenever and wherever they are to be found"? What about the majority of Israelis who do not want to sacrifice more land for "peace promises"? What about the majority of non-Jews who do NOT want yet another arab state voting against Western values and Western democracy in the already corrupt United Nations?

Are you Jewish? Are you frightened of being Jewish? Or are you only a non-Jewish Semite? Which begs this question: There seems to be an issue here that is never discussed: The apparent dichotomy of being a member of a religion (Judasim) as opposed to being a member of a race (Hebrew). No one has ever been able to tell me whether a Jew is defined by religion or by ethnicity, the latter further defined by a nationality, such as a nation, Israel? Isn't this dichotomy the issue what really bothers and divides non-Israeli Jews?

If a Jew helps the arabs destroy the nation of Israel, does this free the Jew from being tagged as a member of a racial group (Hebrew) such that he or she can now escape their presumed heritage in order to blend into another religion? Is this need to escape from the clutches of one's would-be persecutors rather than fight them, a characteristic of the Jews who are helping the arabs destroy Israel?

And who is funding these "protesters"? And what sort of "Palestinian State"? One that forbids the presence of non-Muslims or one that just forbids the presence of Jews? And here is the BIG question: What happened to all the Jewish Palestinians? That is, the Jews who settled the larger region known and recognized during the last century as "Palestine"? Where did they go? All to the tiny state of Israel? Or mostly to the United States and Latin America and Europe?

Isn't it true that they were forcibly driven out of their ancestral homes and then offered a new space to plant themselves in the tiny new state of Israel? What about their "Right of Return"?

And what ought to be done about Jordan? Jordan exterminated Yasser Arafat's legions? Why wasn't Jordan punished for this? Why did the Britz reward Jordan by unlawfully giving it the largest part of the Jewish Homeland? What will Jordan do with all the arabs sequestered into ghettos because they suddenly decided they wanted to have their own state and be known as "palestinians"? Ship them to the lands belonging to Israel that the arabs are currently scheming to steal from Israel?

As a member of the SC4Z or simply as an American, I can make my case for supporting Israel as a Jewish state: Israel is the boulder on the road of islamic imperialism. Judaism, so far as I understand it, Israel, being a Jewish state, is as a matter of founding principle, the very antithesis to the principles of Islam and we rever this resistance to Islamic imperialism.

Since I never intend to convert or be converted to either Judaism or Islam, I support Israel for protecting people like myself from losing the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in any organized religion or spiritual deity/dieties. This does not mean I am an atheist, although when I see the cruel effects of organized religion upon humanity, I am sorely tempted. On the other hand, Christianity, as well as ancient beliefs attributed to early Egyptian dynasties, re-introduced the concept of "agape." Something sorely lacking today.

Thanks for the debate and if you can answer some of the questions about the duality of ethnicity vs. religious belief, we would appreciate.

How 'bout this: Go read House of Bush — House of Saud by Craig Unger. And while you're at it, why don't you study the San Remo Resolution and then figure out why the Polish-born president of Israel, Shimon Peres, feigns ignorance of the sovereign rights of his adopted nation? Why did his eminence cozy up to Yasser Arafat. You don't know why? Well how 'bout you Google "Shimon Peres Cayman Islands Yasser Arafat." Might give you a clue. Seems these old cooters knew what side of the bread could be buttered for themselves if they got together to loot Gaza. This avaricious ambition is the very quality they shared with the Clintons. The love of money is a very very tenuous basis for establishing peaceful relations between disparate faiths.

I think you're correct about annexing the so-called "territories." Actually, they're not "territories" they are part and parcel of the Jewish Homeland according to the San Remo Resolution. So yes, logically speaking, the government of Israel should annex its territories and stop pussy-footing around.

The problem is this: If it did so the Saudi-controlled US State Department would cut off aid to Israel and fund the arabs occupying Judea and Samaria. The State Dept. sends the arabs mega-millions. Did you ever stop to ask yourself how all those por-por arabs Christianne Amanpour weeps about, the arabs who wannabe Palis, can sport designer footwear and high fashion jeans and appear with brand-spanking new banners whenever they hit the street en masse?

Do you think the Saudis are the only state supporting the arab infiltrators? American taxpayers are having their pockets picked by force in order to fund Pakistan, Egypt, the arabs occupying Judea and Samaria, the arabs occupying Gaza, and worse still, we send a small fortune to the Jordanians. Why? Well, here's an answer: We Americans are taking a load off the Saudis in exchange for their promise to pump oil to match our needs. This symbiotic relationship has greased the skids to Armageddon. As for the Saudis--they love really, really wealthy Jews, but they view the average Jew-in-the street as worthless as the slaves they import from Indonesia. Howzat for something for you to chew on?

Another question for you: why do you assume that every arab on Israel's soil is a "palestinian"? Does any agency take a census of the arab occupation? Curios minds want to know.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 27, 2011.

This is most likely the last posting before Rosh Hashana begins tomorrow night. And so here I extend my wishes for a year of blessings and peace to everyone.

Dip your apple in the honey: Take the time to know life's sweetness.


As for Klal Yisrael (the Community of Israel), my prayer is that we will stand together during these hard times, protected from Above.


Last week, I spoke about the marvelous counter-conference — "Perils of Global Intolerance at the UN" — held in a hotel across the street from the UN while Durban III was going on. Sponsored by the Hudson Institute and Touro College, under the dedicated and vigorous guidance of Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN, the conference hosted a magnificent series of participants.

I had wanted to summarize some of their talks, but found it a bit overwhelming, What I hoped was that the talks would appear on video on the Internet, and indeed this has turned out to be the case. The streaming video live presentation was done under the auspices of PJTV (PJ Media) and it is PJTV that is now carrying the videos.

I strongly urge you to access these videos and watch at least some of them. It takes a bit of patience, but it's worth it and then some. Go to and register. This can be done without making payment, although some subscription deals do require payment. Once registered, you can access "Durban Watch" in the library of videos.

So many superb speakers to choose from. My recommendations:

Elie Wiesel, author and Nobel Prize Laureate, who was deeply touching.
John Bolton, diplomat, who gave background on how the UN can be fought if there is determination.
Simon Deng, Sudanese human rights leader, who gave an extraordinarily moving presentation.
Dore Gold, former Israel ambassador to the UN, who gave a clear explanation of Israeli security needs.
Douglas Murray, UK journalist and author, who managed to be incisive and very funny at the same time.
Ruth Wisse, Harvard Professor, who speaks with breathtaking intelligence.
Khaled Abu Toameh, Arab-Israeli journalist, who tells the truth about media bias against Israel.
Shelby Steele, Hoover Institute Fellow, who looks hard at Palestinian Arab self-perceptions.

Not to be missed!


So far so good. Netanyahu has let it be known that he will not pursue another freeze in building in Judea and Samaria in order to bring the PA to the table. "Been there, done that," was the sense of his message on the topic. This demand — being made once again by Abbas — was, he said, merely a ruse, an excuse to avoid coming to the table.

The prime minister declined today to intervene in a meeting of the District Planning Committee of the Ministry of the Interior that was called to discuss construction of additional housing units in Gilo, which is over the Green Line. This in spite of the fact that the Quartet had pointedly asked that there be no "provocative actions" taken.

And indeed, the Committee today approved the construction of some 1,100 housing units and ancillary buildings such as schools. May no bureaucratic or behind-the-scenes delays prevent this from truly happening!

The PA has already charged that this is a "unilateral" move, and that we are building on "Palestinian land." Not so. Gilo is on land that had been purchased by Jews before WWII. It is solidly part of the city of Jerusalem.

A member of the Committee said, "We must clarify to the world that Jerusalem is not up for sale."


I just mentioned Khaled Abu Toameh above, and here I recommend an article of his, "Abbas Gives the Finger to Obama."

Abbas, says Abu Toameh, has decided to stop swimming against the anti-US tide seen in a good part of the Arab world:

"By distancing himself from Washington, Abbas has moved closer toward the Arab world's anti-US camp, led by Iran and consisting of Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical groups.

"It is no surprise, therefore, that some Hamas leaders have come out in support of Abbas's decision to spit in the face of the Obama administration. In a sign of improved relations between the two parties, Abbas's Fatah faction has now decided to resume unity talks with Hamas in the hope of forming a new government in the near future.

"The campaign of incitement against Obama and the US will also whip up anti-American sentiments in the Arab world and could lead to endangering the lives of US citizens and troops in the Middle East." abbas-gives-finger-to-obama

All the more reason to block a Palestinian state. Let's see how Obama responds.


There is momentum in the Knesset both with regard to sanctioning the PA and annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria. The Land of Israel caucus in the Knesset, jointly with Coalition Head Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) and heads of the Shas, National Union and Habayit Hayehudi factions, have written a letter to the prime minister calling for the sanctions, and for increased building in Judea and Samaria, with gradual annexation of areas that have been settled. Additionally, it calls for a halt to all Arab building in Area C (under Oslo, under full Israeli control).

Says the letter:

"Israel will defend its interests, and turn the crisis into an opportunity. Any diplomatic attack will be turned into a victory....

"The Palestinian commitment to avoid unilateral steps is the only thing Israel got in return for all it has given up since the Oslo Accords. The PA's unilateral bid for recognition of statehood in the UN is a clear violation of the agreements, which for the last 18 years cost us a high price."

The letter warned that failure by Netanyahu to take these steps will, "encourage the Palestinians to continue acting against [Israel] in the international arena.

"The international damage to Israel from the UN vote is much smaller than the damage Israel may inflict on itself if we do not follow the principle of 'if they give, they will get, if they don't give, they will not get,' [a well-known quote from Netanyahu's first term as prime minister]. This principle has saved Israel from deteriorating into the abyss opened by the engineers of the Oslo Accords."

Sweeter than honey is the sound of Israeli leaders standing up for the nation with determination. Let this be the beginning of a badly needed new tone for the new year. Little by little, let the situation change.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, September 27, 2011.

Israel's survival ultimately depends on national unity. Nothing is more conducive to unity than revealing the convergence of Torah and science. Hence the importance of Gerald L. Schroeder's book The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom. This essay is very much indebted to his work. Dr. Schroeder, a physicist, writes: "Of all the ancient accounts of creation, only that of Genesis has warranted a second reading by the scientific community. It alone records a sequence of events that approaches the scientific account of our cosmic origin."[1] Dr. Schroeder has especially in mind the Big Bang theory. Based on Einstein's general theory of relativity, the abundance of evidence confirming the Big Bang has made creatio ex nihilo the reigning cosmological principle in the community of scientists. The dogma of the eternity of the universe, which held sway for millennia in philosophy and science as well as among eastern religions, has thus been discarded. In fact, more and more astronomers, astrophysicists, physicists, and mathematicians — hitherto atheists or agnostics — now admit that the universe, having had a Beginning, must have had a Beginner.

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth ..." contains a unique and seldom used word in the Torah, namely, bara. This word, translated as "created," has as its primary definition " bringing into existence something that did not exist before." In Genesis 1:1, bara means creation from nothing. Here "nothing" signifies the absence of matter and energy as well as the dimensions of space and time — hence nothing which any human being can detect and measure. The Big Bang theory therefore accords with the Genesis account of Creation. How did scientists arrive at the big bang?

When Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity in 1916, the cosmological doctrine of an eternal universe held in a static state throughout infinite time reigned supreme. Although his field equations predicted an expanding universe, Einstein was trying to construct a static model universe that would not collapse as a result of its own self-gravitation. But since Hubble's discovery in 1929 of the recession of the galaxies, the theory of an expanding universe has dominated cosmology.[2] Knowing the rate at which the universe is expanding, one can extrapolate backwards to determine the size of the universe "in the beginning," that is, at the moment when expansion began. At that moment, about 15 billion (Earth) years ago, the entire universe — all the galaxies, with their millions of stars, the dust and gas, the intergalactic matter, all the energy and even the four dimensions of space and time — was squeezed into an "atomic nucleus" or "singularity" of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and pressure. That singularity, at which all known physics come to an end, was itself created (bara) from "nothing." From that singularity, whose volume is very much smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, the universe burst forth and expanded, and it continues to expand. What an incredible and unintended confirmation, by science — indeed, by a Jew who was not even a believer — of the infinite power and majesty of God! Strange indeed are God's ways. Strange too that estimates of the age of the universe from Jewish sources antedating the fifteenth century range from 2.5 to 17.5 billion years.[3]

Ponder, therefore, the words of the great Torah scholar and Kabalist Nahmanides (1194-1270). Commenting on Genesis 1:1 some seven hundred and fifty years ago, Nahmanides writes:

The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing [into existence] something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by God.[4]

This "primary matter" is nothing other than energy, which can be converted into matter (and vice versa) according to Einstein's celebrated formula E=mc2. Commenting further on the first verse of Genesis, Nahmanides says, " with this creation, which was like a very small point having no substance, everything in the heavens and on the earth was created." That point, of course is the previously mentioned "singularity" from which the Big Bang originated. Nahmanides derived this knowledge from the Talmud (ca. 500 CE). Physics has thus confirmed the first verse of Genesis, whose meaning was known 1,500 years ago by Rabbis who had received this secret knowledge via the oral tradition going back to the time of Moses. However, more fundamental than energy is wisdom: "With wisdom God created the heavens and the earth." (See Proverbs 3:19.)

Since the reliability of the evidence confirming the Big Bang depends primarily on the accuracy of general relativity's predictions about the dynamics of the universe, consider the following. General relativity predicts that, over time, two neutron stars orbiting about one another will radiate so much gravitational energy that they will spiral inward toward one another causing their orbital periods to speed up. With measurements extending over twenty years (1974-1994), general relativity was confirmed over all to an accuracy of no more than one part in a hundred trillion. This prompted physicist Roger Penrose to say, "This makes Einstein's general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science." [5] In fact, no other theory of physics has ever been tested in so many different contexts and so rigorously; general relativity has withstood all these tests, which solidifies the Big Bang theory.

Given the infinite or near infinite temperature of the singularity which exploded in the Big Bang, one of the predicted consequences of this explosion is cosmic background radiation. The most compelling evidence of such radiation — which evidence showed how the galaxies were formed out of the Big Bang — was provided in the 1992 findings of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite. Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (a reputed atheist) said, "It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time." Astronomer George Smoot declared, "What we have found is evidence of the birth of the universe. It's like looking at God."[6]

Many other kinds of evidence confirming the Big Bang theory have been accumulated. Consider the Anthropic Principle, which has been elaborated during the last three decades, and which postulates a linkage between the structure of the universe and the prerequisites of human existence. The Anthropic Principle suggests a Creator-God concerned about man. Michael A. Corey writes:

The gravitational constant (G), for instance, appears to be exceedingly fine-tuned for the existence of life. If it were slightly larger, stars would have burned too hot and much too quickly to support the fragile needs of life; but if it were slightly smaller, the intrastellar process of nuclear fusion would have never initiated, and life would have been incapable of arising here.

This same rationale can also be applied to the expansion rate of the nascent universe ... If the ... expansion rate happened to be slightly greater than the presently observed value, life-supporting galaxies would have been unable to form; but if it were slightly smaller, the early universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the Big Bang. Either way and no life forms would have been possible.

This is significant, because the various parameters that comprise the cosmic expansion rate [mass density of the universe, the explosive vigor of the Big Bang, and the strength of the gravitational constant] also had to be fine-tuned to better than one part in 1060 in order to generate a "flat" universe, so that normal Euclidian geometry (in which the sum of a triangle's three angles add up to 180 degrees) could then become applicable. A similar degree of fine-tuning can be found throughout the remainder of nature's fundamental parameters.

The challenge is to find a plausible explanation for this fine-tuning. According to the British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, the odds that our biocentric universe could have accidentally evolved into its present fine-tuned configuration are an astounding one in 10 to the 10123, which is a number so vast that it couldn't be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe. This is why many theorists have posited the existence of a "super-calculating intellect" to account for this fine-tuning.[7]

The fine-tuning of the universe includes dozens of parameters whose values must fall within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any sort to exist. Mention may also be made of the ratio of the number of protons to electrons, the carbon to oxygen energy level ratio, the speed of light (299,792,458 kilometers per second), and the fine structure constant necessary for DNA to function.

Although the validity of the Anthropic Principle has been challenged by various scientists, its general formulation is consistent with the Torah, according to which the universe was created for man. Scientist and former skeptic Fred Hoyle concludes that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding, "It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature' s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." No less than Stephen Hawking concedes: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."[8] But let us return to the big bang.

Since the Big Bang theory entails a finite universe, the question arises: What is there beyond? Outside the universe there is no space. The notion of emptiness, as opposed to fullness, applies only inside the universe. It bears repeating that space was created at the moment of the big bang. Hence there are no dimensions outside the universe (and of course the human mind reasons and calculates in terms of spatial dimensions). The same applies to time. The question of what went on before the big bang is meaningless, since time itself was created with that awesome event.

Leaving aside the two religions derived from Judaism, only the Torah unambiguously states that time is finite, that time has a beginning, and that God created time, as should now ring true from the Genesis account of Creation. Indeed, Dr. Schroeder, using Einstein's equation for gravitational time dilation, shows that the duration and events of the billions of years which followed the big bang, and the events of the first six days of Genesis, are in fact one and the same! Here are some relevant passages from his The Science of God. Schroeder suggests that we read the opening chapter of Genesis a few times, paying particular attention to the description of the events and the flow of time related to those events. Then read any other chapter in the entire Bible, again concentrating on the flow of events and the related flow of time. Note how the context changes. The description of time in the Bible is divided into two categories: the first six days and all the time thereafter.

During those six days, blocks of time are described and then we are told that a day passed. This is repeated in a totally objective fashion six times.... There is no intimate relation between the events and the passage of time.... Rather, we are told that the land and waters separated, plant life appeared, "And there was evening and there was morning a third day" (Gen. 1:9-13). No hint is given for the time each of these major events took.

With the appearance of humankind the accounting changes dramatically. The events now become the cause of the flow of time. Adam and Eve live 130 years and are the parents of Seth (Genesis 4:25; 5:3). Seth lived 105 years and is father to Enoch (Gen. 5:6). The passage of time is totally tied to the earthly events being described. These are indeed years of an earthly calendar.

Now here's a puzzle. If, as th[e] ancient commentators claimed, the six days of Genesis are twenty-four-hour days, then why not include them in the calendar? Why not have the calendar start six days earlier? And why must these commentators tell me the days are twenty-four hours each? The Bible says "day." I know a day takes twenty-four hours to pass. Why did they think I would think otherwise?

[Actually] ... our questions were anticipated thousands of years ago. The six days are not included in the calendar because within those (six twenty-four-hour) days are all the secrets and ages of the universe. The confusion mounts. How can six days contain the ages of the universe? And if they are truly ages, then why refer to them as days?

The ancient realization that somehow the days of Genesis contained the generations of the cosmos is based on two biblical verses: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Eternal God made the earth and the heavens" (Gen. 2:4); and "This is the book of the generations of Adam in the day that God created Adam" (Gen. 5:1). In both verses, generations are juxtaposed to days [that is, to one day] of Genesis.

If the six twenty-four-hour days of Genesis were adequate to include all the days of the universe, the cosmic flow from the creation at the big bang to the creation of humankind, we clearly require an understanding of time that is not obvious to our unaided senses. Albert Einstein provided that understanding....

The law of relativity tells us that the flow of time at a location with high gravity or high velocity is actually slower than at a location with lower gravity or lower velocity. This means that the duration between ticks of a clock ... in the high-G (or high-V) environment is actually longer than the duration between ticks on a clock ... in the low-G (or low-V) environment. These differences in time's passage are known as time dilation....[9]

After explaining the equality between the six days of Genesis and fifteen billion Earth years during which the entire universe was created, Dr. Schroeder refers to Nahmanides' above quoted commentary on Genesis 1:1, and points out that the great Kabalist learned from his teachers that the first word of the Bible, beresheet — "In the beginning of" — means in the beginning of time. Biblical time thus begins with the appearance of matter — an extraordinary insight. Of course, it remained for the mathematics of general relativity to show how the six days of Creation recorded in Genesis is equal to fifteen billion (Earth) years.

It follows from the preceding discussion that the modern dichotomy between science and religion, or rather, between science and the Torah, has been placed in question by science itself. Indeed, a recent scientific article in one of the foremost international journals of physics bears the title, " Creation of the Universe from Nothing":

At the 1990 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Professor John Mather of Columbia University, an astrophysicist who also served on the staff of NASA's Goddard Center, presented "the most dramatic support ever" for an open universe [i.e., one which supports a cosmological proof of God's existence]. According to a journalist present, Mather's keynote address was greeted with thunderous applause, which led the meeting's chairman, Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge [an atheist astronomer], to comment: "It seems clear that the audience is in favor of the book of Genesis — at least the first verse or so, which seems to have been confirmed."[10]

This is only the beginning!


[1] Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (New York: Broadway Books, 1997), p. 80.

[2] See Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 24-25.

[3] See Aryeh Carmell & Cyril Domb, Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1976), p. 282, n. 10.

[4] Ramban (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah (5 vols.; New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971). I, 23, Chavel trans. [5] Cited in Ross, p. 104.

[6] Cited in ibid., p. 31.

[7] From According to Hawking, Theory, p. 104, "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller, by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."

[8] Quotes in this paragraph are cited in Ross, pp. 157, 159.

[9] Schroeder, pp. 45-47.

[10] Cited in Lawrence Kelemen, Permission to Believe: Four Rational Approaches to God's Existence (Jerusalem: Targum/Feldheim, 1990), p. 40.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, September 27, 2011.

This was written by Dennis Prager and it appeared in Jewish World Review prager.php3


About five years ago, I was invited by the Hoover Institution to lecture at Stanford University over the course of a week. Coincidentally, Israel's Independence Day fell during that week, so I was invited to speak at the celebration held by pro-Israel students. In my talk, I noted that the crux of the problem in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was that most Palestinians wanted Israel to cease to exist.

After my talk, a woman walked over to me and introduced herself as a peace activist. She told me that she could not agree with me because Palestinians, in her view, were quite willing to accept Israel's existence.

As it happened, about 50 feet behind the pro-Israel celebration was an anti-Israel demonstration led by Palestinian students. So I told the woman to go over and introduce herself to the Palestinian students as a peace activist — that way they would immediately trust her — and ask them if they were willing to acknowledge the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist. I told her that I would bet her $5 that they would not answer in the affirmative.

She accepted the bet and walked over the Palestinian students.

After about 10 minutes, she returned.

"So," I asked her, "who won the bet?"

"I don't know," she responded.

"I don't understand," I replied. "Didn't they answer you?"

"They asked me, 'What do you mean?'" she answered.

I told her she owed me $5 but that I wouldn't collect.

Earlier this month in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the Palestinian Authority, I interviewed Ghassan Khatib, director of government media for the Palestinian Authority and the spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. I asked him the same question: Do the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state?

He was more direct than the Palestinians students at Stanford.

His long answer amounted to: "No."

There is no Jewish people, he told me, so how could there be a Jewish country? The Palestinian position is that there is a religion called Judaism, but there is no such thing as a Jewish people. (Interestingly, the Jews are referred to belonging to a religion only once in the entire Hebrew Bible — in the Book of Esther, by the anti-Semite Haman.)

In other words, Palestinians — people in a national group that never existed by the name "Palestine" until well into the 20th century — deny the existence of the oldest continuous nation in the world, dating back over 3,000 years. Now, that's real chutzpah.

Indeed, the Palestinians deny that the Jews ever lived in Israel. That is why Yasser Arafat could not even admit that Jesus was a Jew; rather, according to Arafat, "Jesus was a Palestinian." To acknowledge that Jesus was a Jew would mean that Jews lived in Israel thousands of years ago, in a Jewish state, moreover — long before Muslims existed, long before Arabs moved there, and millennia before anyone called himself a Palestinian.

In the Palestinian president's speech to the United Nations last week, this denial of Jewish history was reaffirmed. Thus, in a speech about Israel and the Palestinians, he never once uttered the word "Jew" or "Jewish."

Here is an example of Abbas's Jew-free view of the history of Israel/Palestine:

"I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) ..."

No mention of Jews. Apparently, only Christians (Does Abbas know that Jesus was a Jew?) and Muslims have lived in "the Holy Land." And for Abbas, the Holy Land is not Israel, it is Palestine. That it was the Jews who made that land Holy is a fact of history denied by the Palestinians.

Israel, in the Palestinian view, is an Israeli state, not a Jewish state.

As Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, wrote in The Washington Post this past Friday:

"Two Israeli peace proposals, in 2000 and 2008 ... met virtually all of the Palestinians' demands for a sovereign state in the areas won by Israel in the 1967 war — in the West Bank, Gaza and even East Jerusalem. But Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the first offer and Abbas ignored the second, for the very same reason their predecessors spurned the 1947 Partition Plan.

Each time, accepting a Palestinian State meant accepting the Jewish State, a concession the Palestinians were unwilling to make.

That is the issue. Not settlements. Not boundaries. The Palestinians, like most of their fellow Arabs and like many Muslims elsewhere, have never acknowledged that the Jews came home to Israel because they have never acknowledged that the Jews ever had a national home there. And they don't even acknowledge that the Jews are a people.

Do the Palestinians want peace? I have no doubt that they do. Just not with the Jewish state.

Contact Hands Fiasco at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, September 27, 2011.

The Infamous State of Palestine by Giulio Meotti

There are already 22 Arab states out of a total of 58 Muslim states... So what will this famous "State of Palestine" be like? It will be a racist state ethnically cleansed of Jews, as the PLO representatives proclaimed last week.

It will be a state led by Holocaust enablers like Hamas or by a Holocaust-denier like Mahmoud Abbas, who in a book downgraded the number of Jewish victims and denied that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews. In any case, it will be a state committed to the destruction of nearby Jews' homeland.

A state that will stone to death Arab homosexuals and prostitutes, who are now finding a shelter in Israel. A state that will torture Arab inmates in prisons and that will throw political dissidents from the roofs of public buildings.

A state where the Iranian clergy will preach the Khomeinist ideology. A state that will accept cheques and support from the genocidal Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists who assassinated Egypt's Anwar Sadat in 1981, in the name of the Islamic caliphate.

A state where the sharia — the Islamic code — will be the only rule of law. A state that will be put to death human beings simply because they are guilty of apostasy (conversion to Christianity). A state where the women will be obliged to wear headscarves. A state where "honour killings" will terrorize the female population.

A state that will commemorate terrorists, human bombs and baby killers in public squares, streets and monuments. A state that will not hold democratic elections, but that will be a combination of corruption, dictatorship, Islamic theology and "binladenism"...

A state where security forces will arrest people for expressing opinions unpopular with the regime, as well as punishing media organizations and journalists for their coverage of such statements...

A state that will declare war on Judaism, depicting Jewish history in the Middle East as no more than an insignificant, brief sojourn by arrogant colonizers.

Who would live in such a state? So why is the world drooling at the mouth about the creation of a "State of Palestine"? Is it because Arab state number 23 and Muslim state number 58 will be the perfect tool to evaporate the lone Jewish state in the world?

Six miles is the distance between the Israeli city of Afula and the "State of Palestine". 9 miles to the city of Netanya. 11 miles to reach the skycrapers of Tel Aviv. 4 miles to bomb the Ben Gurion International Airport. Just a mile to the city of Kfar Saba. Building the small Palestinian caliphate on Israel's shoulders is the first step of throwing Jews into the sea.

Happy New Year - ShanaTova!

Hag Samayach

Message is Clear — PA Does not Want Peace!

After rebuffing President Barack Obama, Abbas has taken on the Quartet and rejected its proposal for resuming talks with Israel because it does not include pre-conditions. The Quartet the United States, United Nations, Russia and the European Union — set a timetable for an agenda for peace talks within a month and concrete proposals within three months. It also set the end of 2012 as a new deadline for an agreement between Israel and the PA.

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

This is a fake nation which was forged in 1964 to destroy Israel. It never lived up to the agreements it signed. It has not denounced terrorism. For many years it has been given the opportunity to self govern and build a democratic society, but did not. It made clear that it will ethnically clean all Jews if it gets statehood. But the United Nations embrace it with love! I wonder why?

Mother of 4 Terrorists Launched Statehood Campaign

The Palestinian Authority chose the mother of four terrorist murderers, one of whom killed seven Israeli civilians and attempted to kill twelve others, as the person to launch their statehood campaign with the UN. In a widely publicised event, the PA selected Latifa Abu Hmeid to lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and to hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

New Islamic Champion is Emerging

Turkey sharply ratchets up its threat of war with Israel. Three Turkish frigates were ordered to the eastern Mediterranean and instructed to disable Israeli military ships if encountered outside Israel's 12-mile territorial waters. Erdogan visited Egypt on Tuesday for talks with the transitional government as part of a bid to solidify Turkeys standing in the Arab world. The visit came as media in Turkey reported that its defence industry has developed a new identification system for its F-16 fighter jets that will allow it to attack Israeli planes.

Let Terror Entity Collapse! Why is US Supporting it?

On Tuesday, the PAs top monetary official warned that a cessation of foreign aid from the United States could lead to fiscal ruin and collapse. "It would have a major impact on the economic situation in the West Bank, if they lose $500 million (in US aid) of financial support for development in the West Bank," Palestinian Monetary Authority Governor Jihad al-Wazir said.

No US Drones for Turkey

The Obama administration has turned down a Turkish request for drones or for the deployment of US Predators at Turkish bases until Ankara stops threatening Israel with armed attack. Since expelling the Israeli technicians, Ankara has been unable to operate 10 Israeli-made Heron drones. This has crippled its military campaign waged against the Kurdish PKK rebels. (Turkish agression against Kurds in the North of Iraq has been ignored by the UN for many years. Now Erdogan has threatened Israel with war!)

Israelis Answered to the Threat but Goverment is Mum

Israeli tour operators say they are canceling charter flights to a Turkish resort town because Israelis are not booking trips there. Israeli goverment stuck to its policy (of appeasement which never works) of restraint despite continued threats from Turkey that it will attack the IDF.

It was not a Sacred Peace, but Grab for Money

Foreign ministry officials summoned the Egyptian ambassador to Israel to clarify statements made by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf who stated "The Camp David agreement... and we could make a change if needed." (Egypt signed peace with Israel in order to regain control over the Sinai, get sizable cash contributions from the US and prepare for the next war against Israel. There was nothing sacred about this worthless piece of paper.)

Must Israel Accept every Denigration?

US and European negotiators have urged Israel to refrain from taking punitive measures against Palestinians if they press ahead with their attempt to win recognition of their state at the United Nations. The Israeli government is considering a range of retaliatory steps, including withholding customs revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Oslo accords. Around 400m shekels (£69m) are forwarded to the PA each month. (Turkey sent terrorist to Gaza and demands an appology from Israel. Egypt allowed the attack on Israel embassy, cut gas supply and even banned export of palm fronds to Israel for the Jewish holiday of Succoth. When is enough is enough?)

Egypt Moving Toward Conflict Escalation

Egyptian natural gas is flowing again to Jordan — but not to Israel. Cairo has broken off negotiations with Jerusalem on new prices — so making sure that supplies to Israel are cut off for good. As Egypt pulls away from peace ties with Israel, security is breaking down on their common border and the Israeli ambassador's return to Cairo is indefinitely postponed.

Israel is Gutless Gluton for Punishment

Despite the Palestinian Authority's upcoming unilateral statehood bid at the United Nations, Israel is urging the international community to continue to provide financial aid to the PA. (Israel politics is lacking selfrespect and moraly bankrupt. Why Israel is worried more about the wellbeing of the enemies than its own citizens?)

Quote of the Week:

"Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbours that have waged repeated wars against it... Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israels children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map." — President Obama — They all know this, but the members of the "Ugly Nothing" are still giving legitimacy to the terror infested, fake nation called Palestinians!

PLO's UN Logo Reveals the Truth

The Palestine Liberation Organization's mission to the United Nations has, on its logo, wiped Israel off the map. The logo is displayed on the website of the Palestinian Authority's mission to the UN, which is technically represented by the PLO, the "sole representative of the Palestinian people."

The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine, as it is known, displays on the website — and reportedly on the letterhead of its official reports — a map that shows Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a single entity, according to Weekly Standard blogger Anne Bayefsky. "Absent from the logo is any hint that Palestine consists of anything other than Arab territory," she writes. As far back as 2008, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was filmed at a PLO Central Committee meeting with an emblem that negated the existence of the State of Israel, hanging in the background.

The emblem included the PA flag above a map which depicted Palestine replacing the entire State of Israel. (And yet, in spite of this overwhelming display of intention to destroy Israel, the "Ugly Nazi", UN, let the terrorist organisations, PLO and Hamas, be represented in this deeply anti-Semitic international body and have been considering their aplication to legalise occupation of Jewish land! People of Tibet, Chechnya or Basque do not enjoy such generosity of the "Ugly Noting" forum! Did you know that Argentina brought the case of the Falkland Islands' dispute to the UN last week assembly? Almost no one heard about it!)

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Greenfield, September 27, 2011.

In the Washington Post's "On Faith" section, a story asks; 'Judaism without God? Yes, say American atheists'. You can have Judaism without G-D, much as you can have an "On Faith" section without anything to have faith in.

Wolf in sheep's clothing

It's all a matter of definition. If you define Judaism by its covenantal document as a binding agreement between a people and the Creator of the universe, then an atheistic Judaism is a contradiction in terms. But if you define it as a cultural experience that calls us to social work and spirited debate, then it makes no real difference what you believe, so long as you volunteer at the Tikkun Olam soup kitchen.

What goes for Judaism, also goes for Christianity. The issue is not atheism, it's the nature of religion and what it is and what it isn't. Either religion is a specific belief in a deity accompanied by textual revelations, or it's the Democratic party with its own pulpit.

The issue comes up every time the left tries to insist that its version of Christianity and Judaism, where the worst sin imaginable is not driving a hybrid is the right one, because it's compassionate and spiritual. A spirituality that consists wholly of compassion and a compassion that consists wholly of following a left of center ideology while claiming that their grab bag of the welfare state, anti-war activism and environmentalism is highly spiritual.

Take Rabbi Arthur Ocean Waskow, please. Waskow, a left-wing activist and a member of a non-theistic movement, and his disciples, are usually found wherever Israel is demonized and the mass murder of Jews by Islamic fanatics is promoted with the beatific smile of the hazed out humanistic fanatic.

The paradox of a paragon of a humanistic un-religion making common cause with men who believe that their specific revelation entitles them to commit genocide is baffling. Or it would be if Waskow really was a humanist. In reality Waskow is a socialist with a pulpit. Even if it's only an imaginary one.

Waskow's idea of Judaism exists only as a metaphor for left of center ideology. The bible is only relevant to the extent that it can be used as a mythological connection to civil rights, nuclear war or global warming. The civil rights movement is just like Passover, nuclear war is just like Noah's flood and Judaism becomes a lens for giving depth to left-wing causes. There is no god but Das Kapital and Waskow is its prophet.

This replacement theology often goes unremarked upon, even as it has become a base for Waskowites to call for Jewish genocide in the name of Jewish values.

The Waskowites, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan's bastard spawn, support Hamas, denounce Israel and join hate groups such as J-Street and Jewish Voice for Peace. Rabbi Phyllis Berman was affiliated with J-Street and a former member of Jewish Fast for Gaza. Rabbi Rebecca Alpert sits on the Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street and the Rabbinic Council of JVP.

And because there's always something worse than worse, there's Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization which supports a boycott of Israel and its destruction through a One State Solution. Its Rabbinic council includes Rabbi Rachel Barenblat of Velveteen Rabbi, Rabbi Brant Rosen, who can never decide if he hates Israel more than he hates the Republican party, and Rabbi Brian Walt, along with plenty of others.

As Rosh Hashana comes along, many of them will mount pulpits to explain why Israel is the enemy and why it must be destroyed in the name of Jewish values. They won't say it in quite so many words, they will dwell on checkpoints and blockades and bring up apartheid and the civil rights movement. They will hardly mention Hamas, except to sigh that it hasn't chosen the path of non-violent resistance, but that won't stop them from supporting its goals anyway.

Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan certainly did not mean to found a movement of genocidal apologists and activists. In 1958, at the Rabbinical Assembly of America, he sounded positively hawkish as he warned that Israel might be becoming the Czechoslovakia of this era.

He warned that Western countries would scapegoat Israel through a "futile policy of appeasing Arab nationalism" and that Zionism was the force best qualified to "reconstitute the continuity, spirituality and structure of Jewish life."

Could he have foreseen that Israel would become a scapegoat within his very own movement, which would view Zionism as its sworn enemy? Kaplan sought a larger Jewish unity through Israel, but his divisive disciples are only interested in unity with the agenda of the far left and serve as the public relations arm of the murderers of the Jewish people.

Where Kaplan had envisioned a Jewish rebirth, his movement instead became another vector for the left's replacement theology, hijacking it as thoroughly as its Muslim allies were hijacking planes. It has spawned rabbis whose only religion is the left, whose only god is the left and whose only scripture is the works of the left.

It is entirely possible to be an atheist or a humanist and support Israel — but what is not possible, is using left wing ideology as your scripture and being anything other than an enemy of Israel and the Jewish people. The Waskows, Alperts, Bermans and Barenblats prove that.

It's an old lesson taught by the Jewish Communists who cheered pogroms as the will of the oppressed peasants and workers, who served the Bolshevik takeover and lined up to turn synagogues into cultural centers and send Rabbis and Zionists to the gulags — only to eventually end up there themselves when their red masters no longer had any use for them.

As Lenin wrote; "Jewish national culture is the slogan of the rabbis and the bourgeoisie, the slogan of our enemies."

"Whoever, directly or indirectly, puts forward the slogan of Jewish "national culture" is (whatever his good intentions may be) an enemy of the proletariat... he is an accomplice of the rabbis and the bourgeoisie.

On the other hand, those Jewish Marxists who mingle with the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other workers in international Marxist organisations, and make their contribution... towards creating the international culture of the working-class movement... uphold the best traditions of Jewry by fighting the slogan of "national culture"."

This position is still virtually indistinguishable from that of the Jewish left on Israel today. The Jewish nation is the enemy of the proletariat of "brown people" and the accomplice of extremist Rabbis and the middle-class. Only those Jews who join in an international working class movement uphold the "best traditions of Jewry" as determined by V.I. Lenin.

The modern Jewish left uses "tribalism" or "ethnonationalism" in place of Lenin's "separatism" and "national culture". It uses "materialism" in place of the "bourgeoisie" and "solidarity" in place of the "proletariat", but the "best traditions of Jewry" slogan remains unchanged.

What are the best traditions of Judaism? We have the Lenin and Waskow interpretation. The one that says the best tradition of Judaism is to destroy it, to boycott Israel, join hands with the murderers of Jews and make war on the Jewish people. Anyone who wants to see where that interpretation leads can take a tour of the gulags, where the Yevesktsia's own members ended up, after they were done collaborating in the Communist genocide of Russian Jews. Or they can take a tour of J Street's offices.

The ideological space between them isn't that great. Listen to a JVP speech and you hear echoes of a Yevsektsia (Jewish Section) member ranting about Zionism chauvinism and outmoded religious fanaticism, and the rise of a new generation of Jewish youth committed to the struggle for the working class.

The end of that ideology is a retired gentleman whom I met, with a Jewish last name, who was a former member of the Soviet military establishment, and spoke proudly of training suicide bombers. He was rather disappointed in his grandchildren for moving to Israel, and thought that young people today just don't have the same principles that they once used to when he was a young man. He would have fit in perfectly at Jewish Voice for Peace.

On the other end of the spectrum is Rosh Hashana, the beginning of a new year. To much of the Jewish left, it is a mere cultural event, or a chance to reflect on the traditions of social justice. But though it is a new year, it is not actually the first month of the calendar. That honor belongs to Nissan, the month of the Jewish exodus from Egypt.

Even within the Jewish calendar, the peculiar separatism of the Jews places the month of the redemption from Egypt as its start, recognizing that there is no Jewish peoplehood without the exodus. Rosh Hashana is the beginning of a personal and communal new year, but the era of the Jewish people always begins with their national liberation and the beginning of a national covenant with G-d.

Blowing the shofar

This is not a metaphor for the civil rights movement or the oppressed farm workers of Belize or any of the other nonsense that the replacement theology of the left tries to jam in. Their old shell game of covering everything up and then replacing it with a trojan horse that has nothing but left wing ideology inside doesn't work here. The Jewish people begin here in the trackless desert, in the sacks of unleavened dough and the long journey to the promised land. Not an idea of it, but the reality of it.

Abstraction is the left's game, it turns everything into a metaphor, removes the context, replaces it and dares you to identify whether you're drinking coffee or crystals. But Jewish history is very much a concrete thing. As is Jewish identity. It is simply the history of a people. Jewish civilization is not about working class solidarity or the highest ethical traditions, it is the sum total of our achievements and failures. Our theology is the way that our history has paralleled our relationship with our G-d.

This is who we are. This is how we have survived. The left may try to replace us, but it can never succeed no matter how many collaborators it recruits and how many warped ideas it puts forward.

Lenin was right. Jewish national culture was the slogan of his enemies. And we are his enemies. As we are the enemies of the Waskows. The old Cain and Abel struggle has never ended. But what the Cains always forget is that while they are throttling Abel, Seth will come to take his place. The Cains of the left may think that they have their hands around our throat, only to rise baffled from the corpse to see that the Jewish people still live.

The Yevsekstias and Kapos did their damnedest, only to turn around and witness the rise of Israel. Their spiritual descendants are now desperately hammering on Israel, venting their full fury on the Jewish state. But even if Israel is destroyed, the Jewish people will still go on. And the left will not. Daniel Greenfield blogs on the Sultan Knish website. This article is archived at replacement-theology.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, September 27, 2011.

I went to a funeral today, September 26, 2011. I went via internet to the funeral of a young handsome father and the most handsome jovial infant son. And I cried and cried and cried. I cried to bring them back, so handsome, so alive, my family of Jews from Kiryat Arba, the resting place of the four holy couples of the ancestors of the Jews. I did not know these beautiful people created in the image of G-d, for good, for life, by love, for lovingkindness. I cried as I watched my family of Jews and their rabbis crying. Yes, Again. I cry for this lost generations of precious Jewish lives.

I cried with a voice of protest as I demonstrated at the UN on Thursday, September 22, with the picture of a beautiful baby girl, stoned in Eretz HaChodesh, her cheek cracked, but alive. Why do we ignore the "philistinian hate" the hate of the invaders, the dead race conquered by Kinf David, the un-nation described in Ha'azinu, the big liars that those who wax too fat believe, the fraudulent, the killers, the mass haters, the murderers. Why do we negotiate their hate, minimize their hate, call it an accident. It was pre-meditated multi-murder. I cry why Jews for Jihad mimicking Jews, protest on a platform against the state of Eretz Hachodesh returned by a miracle of Yad B'Hashem, partners with the murderers, teaching their sons that hate the Jews is okay even as the Persians in Iran protest their cruel murderers, Hizballah, welcomed to the UN and to speak to the students at Columbia.

I cry out against the guilt of the silent, the Jewish woman married to a Persian worrying about the philistinian killers for a state demanded for killing, hate, apartheid, not Jews from the land where every inch is rich with their Torah, the truth, their presentation of the good ideology, Hashem's roadmap for civilization.

I cry as the world ignores the sacrifices of our innocent, as Netanyahu wants to sacrifice more for peace without accountability. He gave away 80% of Hebron and still keeps the Jews off their owned Jewish property. His reciprocity is pogroms against the Jews like in destroying Migron, learning by their example and teaching them to beat Jews. I cry because there is no accountability against the attacks, murder, mutilation of Jews, only "turn-do" reciprocity, what they do to us, Netanyahu does to us, calls murder an accident, ashamed to call evil evil and lets it linger, not to incite the inciting.

I cry in NY. I went to a funeral a day before. A wonderful Jewish woman survived and lived to almost 99. I cried because I knew her, so many knew her and benefited from her living, life, love, good generations.

I cry for Asher and Yonaton, may their murderers get just punishment. with the help of Hashem.

I cry for the end of the philistinianization of the UN, the EU, the Middle East, the Far East, the evil agenda of a world that is killing its neighbors, children, sons, raping women in Sudan, enslaving Coptics in Africa, slaughtering Kurds and ignoring the deaths, the thefts, the victims of themselves.

I cry for Asher and Yonaton, the beautiful people who made this a beautiful world in the midst of philistinian ugliness. I cry against the invention of an unnation, a fake race against religions, righteousness, history, identity, good, their own children, giving out sweets to the bitter, worshippong death. I cry that the UN, the press, so many are so prejudice joining those who put suicide belts on their toddlers and direct bombs at Jewish school buses.

I cry for Asher and Yonaton. The sacrifice is too much. I cry with Mother Rachel as they cried when the Twin Towers imploded with 3000 lives from all nations, the living, loving, working, caring, creating. I cry: Pan-Philistinianism is a goliath of hell.

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 26, 2011.

This was written by David Keyes and it is archived at newsletter_opinion.php?id=557

David Keyes is the executive director of Advancing Human Rights and cofounder of He can be reached at


Many support the Palestinians' bid for statehood via the U.N. because they perceive President Mahmoud Abbas, and particularly his Fatah party, to be moderate. Someone needs to say it: Fatah is most assuredly not a moderate party. Only in comparison to Hamas, one of the most bloodthirsty, fanatic terrorist organizations in human history, is Fatah middle of the road. For this distinction, no accolades are deserved.

A moderate party would accept the presence of a single, infinitesimally small Jewish state in the Middle East alongside 21 neighboring Arab states. Abbas said categorically in June "[W]e refuse to recognize a Jewish state." Nabil Shaath, head of Fatah's foreign relations, said of the two-state solution, "We will never accept this." Fatah's 2009 General Congress affirmed its commitment to armed struggle, saying it "will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated."

A moderate party would assure its neighbors that a peace accord means respect and coexistence. Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki proclaimed that "Israel will collapse" after a Palestinian state is created.

A moderate party would eschew violence against civilians. Fatah's poster child (until recently), Mohammed Dahlan, readily admitted that during the "worst clashes" of the second intifada, a senseless terror war in which thousands of civilians died, "Fatah participated more than Hamas did."

A moderate party would refuse to make an ally a brutal, theocratic terrorist organization like Hamas. Yet Dahlan said that his security apparatus once protected all of Hamas' military commanders. "I personally told our brothers in Hamas that they must hide [arch-terrorist Yihyeh Ayash], because Israel wanted to assassinate him," he said. During the 2009 war in Gaza, Fatah deputy minister Ziad Abu Ein pressed Hamas to share its weapons so the two groups could fight Israel together.

A moderate party would not glorify terrorism. Fatah legislator Jihad Abu Zneid glowingly praised arch-terrorist Dalal al-Maghrabi, a female terrorist who murdered nearly 40 Israeli civilians, saying, "We all wish to die, Allah willing, for the sake of Palestine." Zneid went on, "And to become brides for the sake of Palestine — all the women and girls of Palestine wish for that. Dalal was a role model, and we were raised on her memory, and on this outstanding Palestinian image of that great Palestinian commander."

A moderate party would castigate those who murder children. Referring to the Lebanese terrorist who bashed in the head of a 4-year-old Israeli girl and killed several others, Fatah legislator Najat Abu Bakr said, "To Samir Quntar, the outstanding commander ... I say to him: congratulations to you, and congratulations to Palestine for your [release], Samir. We pledge to continue calling you a son of Palestine."

Setting the bar so low that Fatah is labeled "moderate" is demeaning to Palestinians and dangerous to Israelis.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 26, 2011.


For years, the Muslim Students Union (MSU) promoted a kind of antisemitic propaganda on the University of California Irvine campus so virulent as to intimidate Jewish students. Two Jewish students transferred out for what they believed was their own safety. MSU defended its agitation as free speech.

MSU did not accord freedom of speech to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. When the Ambassador got to the podium, a group of MSU members shouted individually and long enough to bar his talk. They were found to have had a written plan indicating conspiracy. The plan included a false claim that they were not doing this as part of MSU.

The small Muslim group interfered with the rights of the 700-member audience. MSU called it "our university," apparently believing that they have the right to decide who gets to speak.

A jury convicted 10 MSU students. The convicts had anticipated they would get away with their crime without being arrested. The penalty was three years of probation and 56 hours each of public service. This may be the beginning of an American crackdown against such assaults on freedom of speech (Zionist Organization of America, press release, 9/26/11).

Free speech is supposed to mean free discussion, not speech to intimidate. By forfeiting authority in the past, American universities have allowed thuggish students to repress others and in effect deny them their free speech.

Ironically, many universities have anti-hate speech codes that they use to squelch politically incorrect speech but often not direct expression of hatred and slander by Muslims.

Note how slow the Western world is to defend itself from Jihad! President Obama won't mention jihad.. Britain consults radical Muslims on how to deal with jihadists. Israel thinks it can make peace with diehard jihadists.


Shlomo Brun and Shimon Stein wrote an essay
( cat=21&incat=&read=5530) that sees Israel's increasingly difficult diplomatic position as an opportunity for Israel to make friends with its enemies and secure peace.

In support of its optimism, the authors contend that Turkey turned against Israel because of some actions by Israel. They do not inform us what those actions were. [Nor do they acknowledge that Turkey now is ruled by an Islamist party that naturally turned against Israel and toward the evil axis. Brun and Stein inadvertently endorse the premise of antisemites that what Jews do causes antisemitism.]

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA points out that Turkey has been deceitful in its mediation. [Most foreign governments that offer to mediate the Arab-Israel conflict are not neutral.]

The authors suggest that Israel cooperate with Turkey to send in a pre-inspected flotilla. [Turkey has been deceitful about its earlier flotilla. Its purpose has been to impress the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. The purpose of flotillas is to break Israeli inspection against weapons smuggling under false cover of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.]

The essay forecasts violence, if the UN General Assembly boosts Palestinian Authority (P.A.) standing. They put it as both sides becoming violent, when masses of Arabs advance on Jewish communities and the IDF feels forced to defend them vigorously. [Israelis rarely lose control. The authors should not equate the two sides.]

To avoid that violence, Brun and Stein suggest that Israel ask the P.A. to resume negotiations, this time on what Israel needs to do to recognize them as a state. Don't, they advise Israel, react by withholding funds from the P.A. or by annexing large settlement blocs. That would only make foreign parties angrier at Israel and the P.A. less stable. [Jewish concern for gentile approval is neurotic. The global anti-Israel movement cannot be appeased. Whatever Israel does, the bigots will criticize. Therefore, Israel should do what advances its national security and interests. Annexing large settlement blocs would advance both. Brun and Stein use sophistry in a way that would prevent any Zionist success.]

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA points out that since the P.A. admits it seeks UN recognition in order to be able to harass Israelis in court for alleged war crimes, it makes no sense to expect resolution with the P.A.. He thinks the P.A. is bluffing, because statehood would subject its troops and leaders to prosecution for actual war crimes. e thinks its threat of going to court is bluff.

On to Egypt, which wants to regain its regional leadership. Evidence of that is the supposedly successful [but not fully implemented] mediation it did between Hamas and Fatah. Therefore, the authors urge Israel to invite Egyptian participation and also to invite Egypt to renegotiate the Sinai non-aggression pact. [Bringing together the two terrorist organizations shows that Egypt has no ethics against jihadists.]

[Egypt wants to change the treaty in order to more fully militarize the Sinai. That fits its military doctrine of invading Israel. Israel should not want to change that pact. The authors would greatly jeopardize Israel's survival.]

As for Egypt, Dr. Lerner warns about its instability. Nobody knows what sort of government Egypt will have. It could be folly to involve Egypt if it soon will turn Islamist.

Then there is Saudi Arabia. Israel should agree to negotiate peace on the basis of the Saudi plan, Brun and Stein think (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, 9/26/11,

Surely they read the Saudi plan. It is not a peace plan but a prescription for Israeli surrender. It demands an end to much of Israeli security and at first to some Jewish national self-determination, but then, when the weakened Israel is conquered, to all of Jewish national self-determination.

They must have heard the Saudi ultimatum, take it or leave it, no negotiation over it, no reduction in its demands. The Muslim world considers non-Muslims inferior. "Masters" don't resolve problems with 'inferiors," they set the terms of abject submission.

Like most Arab plans, the Saudi plan promises nothing to the non-Muslims. It hints that perhaps, after Israel has given up all its bargaining chips, the Arabs might make peace with it. Fat chance!

The article is mendacious in its thesis that Israel must appease the Muslims and foolish in its premise that such appeasement can work. All the evidence shows otherwise. Israelis should revert to being proud Zionists, and should realize that international jihad must be opposed, not helped.

U.S. and Jihad

Finally the U.S. recognizes the danger of terrorism by individuals. These individuals are more difficult to intercept, because they do not communicate with other people. As a result, the government cannot eavesdrop on them. Raymond Ibrahim of the Middle East Forum considers that new recognition a sign of U.S. failure. If the U.S. had been successful, it would have prevented the phenomenon.

Part of the failure is not studying the ideology of jihad and the mindset of our opponents. The Obama administration continues its predecessor's focus on al-Qaeda and not jihad as a whole. The Administration seems to imagine that its decimation of al-Qaeda mostly ends jihad. Jihad long preceded al-Qaeda.

Also the Administration is not positioning itself to understand what produces lone wolves. It refuses to use accurate descriptions and words, such as jihad and Islam, making it difficult to discuss the problem intelligently.

Likewise, the U.S. establishment supposed terrorism to be a foreign problem to which U.S. Muslims were immune. But U.S. Muslims are susceptible to radicalization, because they share Islamic beliefs with radicals.

If the Administration and its experts were alert, they would have expected attacks from U.S. Muslims (Raymond Ibrahim, Jihad Watch, 8/18/11,


For the first time, the UN has barred UN Watch from monitoring its Durban III "anti-racism" meeting
( un-watch-barred-from-monitoring-un-durban-iii- anti-racism-meeting/)

By contrast, the UN approved a group with close ties to Libya's Gaddafi regime. Because the Durban conferences singled out Israel for condemnation, the U.S. and other Western democracies will not attend the meeting from which UN Watch was barred. Approval is up to member states. They gave no reason for the ban (Patrick Goodenough, 9/15/11, from IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis,

The reason Western regimes give for not attending the next conference is not satisfactory. The reasons should be: (1) Most members of the Durban conference are biased and are wholesale violators of human rights; (2) The members have shown no interest in combatting racism, which they practice; and finally,(3) They distort the agenda into Israel-bashing, by which means they abet religious bigotry.


Somalia is divided into a central government hemmed into the capital, Islamist and tribal forces in most of the rest, and pirate nests along the coast. The Islamists are called extremists. How different are the Islamists from the government?

An Islamist group called al-Shabaab has been eradicating remnants of Christianity from the country. They do not do so by persuasion. On August 21, it is believed that three members forced Juma Nuradin Kamil, who had converted from Islam to Christianity, into a car. Within a fortnight, Mr. Kamil was found beheaded. Decapitation of Christian converts is a Shabaab practice.

The transitional government at war with al-Shabaab calls itself moderate, but its President Ahmed follows Islamic law that mandates the death penalty for those who abandon Islam. All four Islamic schools of thought do. However, the Hanafi School permits beating and imprisoning females until they recant and return.

In Uganda, a teenager switched to Christianity. Her father starved and maimed her for it. By the time when was rescued half a year later, her weight had fallen to 44 pounds and was too weak to walk or talk. The father had threatened to stab her to death if she converted. She would have died of hunger and thirst, but her young brother sneaked food and water to her.

What did the government of Uganda do to the father who so abused his daughter for thinking for herself? It soon released him. He was, after all, upholding Islam.

Torture and execution of converts from Islam is increasing. It is one of Islam's attempts to repress freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. No other religion acts that way. Therefore, Islam is more a political system than a religion (Raymond Ibrahim, Jihad Watch, 9/16/11,


The TLC TV network announced a reality series on the lives of five Muslim families in Michigan. The announced motive is to expose the "misconceptions and conflicts" those families face, and to show, with care and compassion, how they blend U.S. and Muslim values.

That subjective program does not help our country. The program would indirectly indoctrinate Americans about Islam via this small sampling. The U.S. needs objective knowledge about Islam, via Muslim theology, history, politics, and current events.

TLC aims to show Islamic diversity, by means of families leading different sorts of lives and that "challenge the Muslim stereotype [whatever that is]. One girl has sports piercings and tattoos. What does that signify about Islam? What do the five families signify about the billion Muslims?

Other characters are depicted as trying to balance roots with environment, or working "tirelessly to educate...about the Muslim religion in an effort tor educe discrimination and ignorance." The idea is to show Muslims are "just like us." Sounds like a plan to gain sympathy for Muslims.

Actually, Dearborn, Michigan is known for Islamic extremism. The FBI had a shoot-out in the streets with jihadists there. A former resident was incited in a terrorist plot. A U.S. politician says that Islamic law holds sway there. There a Christian preacher was shouted at with the Islamic war cry, "Allahu Akbar." Those facts are not likely to be part of the show. Now that would be an element of realism! Realism is important in this time of war.

At the time of the announcement, CNN found that more Americans have a positive view of U.S. Muslims. What need for the show? While the network tries to show U.S. Muslims as like our non-Muslims, the Arab media depicts Westerners as on a "crusade" to destroy Islam, call Jews "pigs and monkeys" conspiring against them. That is what Americans need to know, not unrepresentative and biased propaganda (Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson New York, 8/4/11

The notion of working to educate about Islam could be a euphemism for the indoctrination and softening up phase of Islamic infiltration of non-Muslim societies. That kind of softening up is part of the jihadist program.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by LouL, September 25, 2011.

Bob Beckel is Either Too Partisan or Too Lazy to Check His Israeli "Settlement" Facts

Posted by Jeff Dunetz, Sep 25th 2011 in Featured Story, Fox News:


This week President Abbas made a disastrous application for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations. This bid, more than anything, was a result of Barack Obama's disastrous Middle East policy, but not according to Bob Beckel. Beckel on Friday's "The Five" suggested that Obama's policies had nothing to do with the UN disaster, nothing to do with the fact that Abbas refuses to negotiate, and nothing to do with Palestinians's refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. It's all the fault of the settlements, the settlements, the settlements.

Honestly, I can't remember if he repeated the words "the settlements" three or four times but Beckel certainly made his point. He also proved that he is either too partisan to admit the truth, or too lazy to research recent history, but either way he is wrong.

Allow me to explain the facts and for brevity's sake I will start with the Obama Administration.

While the Palestinians have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new communities in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.

It was the Obama administration's naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view Obama was telling adult Israelis that their children could no longer live near their parents. He was also saying that a policy not accepted in the United States (allowing people of a certain faith to live anywhere they want) was OK as long as it appeased the Arab world.

It is interesting that the man who pushed for Muslims to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and for illegal immigrants to live in Arizona, believes that Jews should be banned from living on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Making the settlement a cornerstone of the new administration's Middle East policy was a major naivete-driven error by the Obama administration. It was further compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. This turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who would be more inclined to support a settlement freeze demand. A May 2011 Smith Poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post showed that only 12% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israel while 40% believe he is pro-Palestinian.

Obama's demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration.

Obama, through his Secretary of State Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says that the administration is lying.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talks, they used Obama's demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement building freeze in Judea and Samaria. It was approved by the Knesset and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first nine months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table until September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended, a fact lost on Mr. Beckel.

After the freeze ended, Abbas once again hid behind Obama's naivete, another fact that Beckel forgets. Pressure was put on Jewish State to extend it indefinitely. No one questioned the Palestinian Authority's refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.

The US began to negotiate with Israel to extend the freeze and the two sides came close to a deal. Based on their experience with Obama and the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing as any oral deal with the Obama administration was not worth the paper it was printed on.

The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State Clinton wasn't negotiating in good faith. Instead, Ms.Clinton was playing bait and switch.

As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source came forward saying that no such letter is on its way. Secretary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. did not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.

The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama — who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

Despite the Obama administration's bait and switch, Netanyahu tried to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October 2010 he made a very simple offer to the PA. If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze. As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.

Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".

"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.

The Palestinian side still refuses to take that first step toward peace, recognizing the Jewish State of Israel. While Barack Obama was willing to destroy the prospects for negotiations by making the settlements an issue the way it never was before, he has avoided upsetting the Palestinians by demanding that they recognize the Jewish State of Israel. Obama tap danced around the issue as recently as his speech in front of the General Assembly last week. Those, Mr. Beckel are called facts.

It's not just Bob Beckel, he is just the most annoying. The real story of a settlement freeze has been ignored by the mainstream media. Earlier this week Gretchen Carlson of "Fox and Friends" reported that the Administration was trying to get Israel to return to the table, despite the fact that Israel never left the table, the Palestinians did. Israel offered a ten month freeze to help the US out of a problem caused by our President's naiveté, the Palestinians ignored the freeze until it was too late, an extension of the freeze was first sabotaged by Hilary Clinton's bait and switch tactics and a refusal to put things in writing, then by PA President Abbas because he didn't want to recognize Israel.

Whether Beckel is ignoring the truth because he desperately wants to turn around the progressive Obama's fortunes, or because he is too lazy to investigate the truth, it doesn't really matter.What matters is that there is a dearth of truth coming out of the main stream media, even on Fox News. I guess bias and or/laziness is bipartisan.

Contact LouL by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, September 25, 2011.

Atlit is a town on the Mediterranean, twelve miles south of Haifa. Due to its natural large bay — second only to Haifa — the site was inhabited as early as the Canaanite and Israelite period. Later it was a Phoenician port and functioned as a port during the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods.The Crusaders built a large castle at Atlit to protect the pilgrims' road along the coast from Acre to Jerusalem. Atlit was the last remaining Crusader outpost in the Holy Land and after the Crusaders retreated in 1291 A.D., it was partially destroyed. The fortress was repaired and held by the Mamlukes. During Napoleon's failed expedition to conquer Acre in 1799, Atlit served as a French navy port. During the 19th century, the fort was heavily damaged by an earthquake, and many of its stones were looted and reused by the Turks in other cities.

The modern town of Atlit was founded in 1903, under the auspices of Baron Edmond de Rothschild.

As the 1930s drew to a close, the British, seeking to enforce the provisions of the various White Papers which severely limited Jewish immigration, built a detainment camp in Atlit to house refugees from Europe who attempted to violate their blockade of Palestine. The Atlit camp was surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers. When they entered the camp, the detainees were sprayed with DDT, then told to undress and enter the showers. Men were sent to one side, women to the other. Some of those interned remained as long as 23 months. From 1939 until 1948, the jailed immigrants were housed in eighty rectangular wooden huts, each containing 40 bunks.

When World War II came to an end, the Jews who survived the Holocaust had few options. The Zionists among them, as well as thousands of European Jews who were rendered stateless, headed to Palestine defying the British blockade. These Jews were called Ma'apilim and their movement Ha'apala, meaning "ascending." Many of the Ma'apilim came to Palestine on barely navigable ships that were often rammed, run aground and chased into stormy seas by the British. While the Haganah, Israel's fledgling military force, was able to rescue many passengers, others were caught by the British and sent to Atlit.

There were horrific similarities between the Nazi concentration camps and Atlit Detention camp. For Holocaust survivors the showers, the disinfection process, the long barracks lined with cots, and the barbed wire were appalling reminders of what they had so recently experienced. Still, for the Ma'apilim even a detention camp in the land of Israel was a symbol of life and future in a Jewish state.

On October 10, 1945, the Haganah special forces unit Palmach broke into the camp and freed 200 detainees. Yitzchak Rabin planned the raid and Nachum Sarig commanded it. After this, the British began deporting Jewish illegal immigrants to internment camps in Cyprus which operated from 1946 until the establishment of the State of Israel.

My mother, Rachel Katz, was a member of the Hashomer Ha'tzair's Zionist youth movement in Europe. From the age of 19 to 23 she worked in Nazi labor camps. At her release by the Russian army, she weighed 40 kilograms (85 Lbs) and was alone in the world. Fluent in Polish, Russian, Yiddish and Hebrew, she obtained a job with one of the rescue and information centers in Poland established by the Jewish Agency. At the Center she met her future husband, my father, who had lived in Israel since 1942 and was a soldier in the British Army's Jewish Brigade stationed in Belgium. He came to Poland seeking family survivors. He found none. But my dad found my mother.

In June 1946, my mother embarked on the ship "Biria" from Marseilles, heading for Palestine. The conditions aboard the ship were atrocious. The vessel began to keel over and transmitted S.O.S signals. The British answered the call and accompanied the vessel but would not give the Ma'apilim water or food, nor would they tow the ship into Haifa port. On July 1st Biria finally arrived at Haifa, where her passengers were arrested by the British. The Jewish Agency negotiated with the British who agreed to move the Ma'apilim to Atlit (rather than Cyprus). There my mother was detained until she was released to join her future husband, my dad. I was born in 1947, Israel was born in 1948 and the rest is part and parcel of modern Israel history, being written as I write.

After independence, Atlit became a transit center for immigrants, but stopped functioning within two years. It was eventually dismantled leaving only two of the original buildings. In 1987 Atlit was declared a National Heritage Site. Today the town's population is 5,300 and the Atlit Detainee Camp is now a museum of the history of Ha'apala and a base for Israel's Naval Command.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at Visit her blog: This is called "The Atlit — Detainee Camp-Museum Site:" and is archiv ed at =260&ArticleID=65

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, September 25, 2011. national/la-raza-leader-sentenced-to-37-years- for-drugs-murder-conspiracy

La Raza Unida is a radical group whose members believe they must re-conquer the U.S. Southwest. (Police Times Magazine)

A La Raza Unida gang leader in Corpus Christi, Texas, was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison for drug trafficking and 10 years for conspiracy to murder as part of a racketeering enterprise, according to an alert obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police on Friday.

The sentence resulted from a joint ongoing investigation dubbed "Operation Prison Cell" conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Office of Inspector General; and the Corpus Christi Police Department's Gang and Organized Crime Units.

La Raza Unida (The United Race) gang leader Rudy Rodriguez, 31, a resident of Corpus Christi, was sentenced September 22 to 27 years in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and 10 years for conspiracy to murder by U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack.

Judge Jack was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas created by 104 Stat. 5089. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 10, 1994, and received her commission on March 11, 1994.

Rodriguez pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit murder. Rodriguez and 13 other members or associates of La Raza Unida gang had been charged with violent crimes in aid of racketeering (VICAR), conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 11 pounds of methamphetamine, and various federal firearm offenses.

The VICAR indictment alleged that La Raza Unida gang members committed three violent crimes in Corpus Christi by, including a home invasion in which a man was shot, and two other shootings at Corpus Christi nightclubs.

Rodriguez pleaded guilty to a VICAR count which alleged that he and other Raza gang members conspired to kill another gang member, known as "Casper," for stealing Raza drug money. Rodriguez was an inmate in the Texas prison system at the time of the offenses and contributed to the conspiracies by using an illegal cell phone.

Rodriguez's sentences are to be served concurrently. There is no parole in the federal prison system. Rodriguez has been in federal custody pending Wednesday's sentencing hearing. He will remain in prison pending transfer to a Bureau of Prisons facility to be designated in the near future.

History of Violence and Hate

"We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population." - Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder and spokesman.

Last August, La Raza Unida leader Johnny Joe Guerra, 33, Ricky Alejandro, 25, and Anthony Torres, 35, all U.S. Citizens and residents of Corpus Christi, Texas, were sentenced Friday by U.S. District Judge Janis Jack.

All three defendants pleaded guilty in June to various counts of the indictment in which they and 11 other members or associates of La Raza Unida were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of methamphetamine and various federal firearm violations.

The indictment alleged three violent crimes committed in Corpus Christi, Texas, by La Raza Unida gang members, including a home invasion in which a man was shot and two other shootings at Corpus Christi nightclubs.

Guerra was sentenced to life without parole for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Ricky Alejandro was sentenced to three concurrent sentences of 140 months for assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering to be followed by an 84-month consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence for a total prison term of 181/2 years. Anthony Torres was sentenced to 57 months for assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering to be followed by a consecutive sentence of 120 months for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence for a total of 177 months incarceration.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 25, 2011.


Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, makes the right points, but then draws an upside down conclusion. We can imagine the psychology behind his mental head stand.

Starting strong, Amb. Oren states that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) made a pact with the Hamas terrorists. [But Oren did not admit that the P.A. is itself a terrorist organization. Now P.A. head Abbas wants the UN to unilaterally declare a state for him. The U.S. and Israel prefer him to negotiate one. Why didn't he?

That question should be asked by all. Amb Oren answers it simply: Abbas and his P.A. want a state without giving Israel peace in return!

This is the same behavior by the Palestinian Arabs in rejecting the UN partition plan of 1947 and going to war, instead. In 1993, the Oslo Accords gave those Arabs another opportunity to negotiate peace. In 2000 and 2008, Israel offered almost everything the Arabs demanded [i.e., in their initial demands — initial Arab demands would be followed by more demands and war]. Arafat and Abbas rejected those offers, because they did not want to recognize Jewish sovereignty anywhere. Instead, Arafat started another war.

In between those offers, in a show of goodwill [though the Arabs never reciprocate Israeli concessions], Israel withdrew from Gaza. Consequence: the Arabs in Gaza started another war on Israel. [Israeli naïve goodwill cost Israeli lives and property.]

Nevertheless, Israel upholds the vision of two peaceful adjacent states. [By this time, you must be wondering why Israel retains this vision.]

Again, in 2009, Netanyahu offered to negotiate, Abbas refused. But in another concession, Netanyahu ordered hundreds of checkpoints removed. Their removal boosted the P.A. economy but not P.A. goodwill. [Checkpoint removal provided more opportunities for Arabs to murder Israelis.]

Still again, at Pres. Obama's request, Netanyahu imposed a 10-month moratorium on only Jewish construction in the Territories [which is discriminatory], to give Abbas time to negotiate. Again Abbas [the supposed moderate) refused to discuss Israel's growing security needs.

Even at the UN this month, Netanyahu offered peace, but Abbas made clear his intention of using sovereignty to pursue claims against Israel at the UN and to internationalize the conflict.

Ambassador Oren concludes, "By accepting the Jewish State, the Palestinians can have their own." (Wall St. Journal, 9/24/11, op-ed.) Somebody should inform Amb. Oren that Palestinian Arabs have their own state, in Jordan.

A logical conclusion would be: So long as Islam retains jihad as a cardinal and active principle, Israel will not get genuine peace. Therefore, Israel will not waste further time negotiating and hoping without the necessary reform of the Arabs' religious motive for war. Instead, Israel declares the Oslo Accords nullified by the P.A.'s constant and broad violations. Israel will pursue Zionist goals, which will end Israeli subsidy of proven enemies, will enforce the law on terrorism, land ownership, and building, will stop offering citizenship to Jerusalem Arabs, and will annex Jewish communities in the Territories and largely vacant areas.

Why did Amb. Oren draw an illogical or unrealistic conclusion? No matter how offensive the P.A., and no matter how preponderant the evidence that it seeks to conquer Israel, the West and the Netanyahu regime make believe that with a few magic words and a willingness to negotiate, peace is attainable. Peace is not attainable.

Amb. Oren's conclusion hampers Israeli security, entitlement, and development. I think that the Netanyahu regime is left wing, as shown by its wanting to appease the Arabs. It lacks the courage to tell the truth to politically correct foreign countries. Those foreigners, including the U.S. State Dept., use political correctness as a mask for anti-Zionism or appeasement of the Arabs. Inability to face reality afflicts the West so badly, that its economies are failing.


A young Israeli and his year old son were killed by what the police called a "traffic accident." Police claimed the driver was speeding. Hence, they said, he lost control of his car near Kiryat Arba, adjoining Hebron. The car flipped over twice in the air, before landing with a destructive crash. The Army stated that soldiers in the area had not seen Arabs throwing rocks or fleeing from the road.

This is an area of daily Arab stoning of Israeli cars, including many where the two relatives were killed. Will the government stop those attacks? No, doesn't want to. Top ranking officers have instructed junior commanders that "rock attacks are sufferable." Jews will have to live with it; the Army will not try to apprehend to terrorists attacking them

Many Arab stone-throwers no longer stand alongside the road. They drive toward an Israeli car, and just before passing it, they throw a rock out their window in front of the Jew's car. The combined momentum of the two cars makes the rock strike with tremendous force. Such is the recent mode of attack just where the alleged accident occurred.

On that fatal Friday, the reason nobody was seen fleeing on foot probably was because the rock was thrown from a moving car which in seconds was out of sight. The rock broke the windshield and must have hit the driver in the face, causing him to lose control of the car. The hole in the windshield was of the type caused by a thrown rock. Less probable is the police notion that the car scooped up the rock from the car's crash landing.

Our source, David Wilder, Hebron Jewish community spokesman, has been told that the police knew that this was no accident but deliberate murder. The police are covering up the Arabs' murder of two Jews. Perhaps they are afraid that more Jews will fight back and kill Arabs. You know what happens then. The world condemns Israel, whether Israelis are defending themselves from Turkish Islamists at sea or Hamas radicals in Gaza.

So the police tell the family that the father was reckless and responsible for killing his baby. The Arabs killed his body, and the police killed his reputation. The government also would save paying the widow terrorist victim compensation and searching for terrorists (David Wilder, Hebron Jewish community spokesman,, 9/25/11).

This is what really happens, while the New York Times "fully informs" readers that Palestinian Arab violence has diminished because P.A. police prevent it. And you think Israel is a Jewish state? And people who don't read my articles think that Israel oppresses the Arabs? They think that the Palestinian Arabs outside the Palestinian Arab state of Jordan "deserve" a state of their own. Those Arabs are among the most brutal and least worthy people in the world. They want a state in order the better to promote war.

Israelis seem to have three approaches to the Arab-Israel conflict: (1) Depend on other governments to protect Israelis' (2) Pray to God for deliverance; and (3) Fight for one's people.

The government often takes approach 1. Approach 2 requires too much religious unity to expect any time soon, worthy as it may be, as if innocent people must keep getting killed and evil people must triumph, because among the innocent Jews are less worthy ones, religiously. Approach 3 is called "right wing extremist," but seems to me the most practical, although approach 3 does not rule out approach 2.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, September 25, 2011.

This was written by Michael Devolin and it appeared in Magic City Morning Star.


Euripides wrote, "There's nothing like the sight of an old enemy down on his luck." Reading in the newspaper recently that the Palestinians will face stiff opposition from the United States and Canada to their bid for United Nations membership does not cause me any grief. In fact, I am happy that there are at least two countries out there who have allied themselves to Israel and who remember just exactly what Mahmoud Abbas and his henchmen are really made of. Who should feel sorry for a political leader (or his ersatz people) who, when being interviewed by Western media, positions himself before a portrait of Yassir Arafat, a terrorist of bloody renown and responsible for the murder of numerous innocent Jews, both in Israel and beyond. No, I do not feel sorry for the Palestinian's failed attempt at statehood. Why should I?

Avigdor Lieberman points out in an interview with Jonathan Kay of the National Post that Mr. Abbas, when asked why Israel should continue with "peaceful" negotiations with the PA when they are still under missile attacks from Gaza, replied, "I'm not responsible. I'm not in power [in Gaza]." And yet, Lieberman points out, Abbas claims, "I'm the representative of all the Palestinian people....including Gaza" when expounding about his future bid for "a sovereign state of Palestine" to the UN General Assembly. Is Mr. Abbas saying, therefore, that he also represents Hamas, the democratically elected terrorist entity presently dictating the rule of law in Gaza? If so, such a proclamation by Mahmoud Abbas would drum up very old and very painful memories for many of Israel's Jews. It would seem that Mr. Abbas has forgotten or has willfully obfuscated the very criminal and terrorist past of those "former" Islamists (police and intelligence personnel) now in his employ. Why would anyone wish success to such a party of religious savages? It would be imprudent to do so.

Alain Juppe, the French Foreign Minister, stated (as reported in the National Post Sept 20/2011) that the present Palestinian position is "neither acceptable nor tenable." Apparently Mr. Juppe is afraid to come right out and state the obvious, which is that these so-called Palestinian people have never behaved toward Israeli Jews in an "acceptable" or "tenable" manner. They have a problem keeping even their allies in tow: Arab donor states have "failed to distribute promised funds," which means that the Islamists in the employ of Mr. Abbas' PA will soon have to find work elsewhere. And we all know where unemployed Palestinians find work when times are tough: killing Israeli Jews. These unrealistic demands from Mahmoud Abbas are nothing out of the ordinary for those of us who have been following events in the Middle East for decades now.

Mr. Lieberman related to Jonathan Kay that since the disengagement of Gaza in 2005, 12,000 missiles and shells have fallen on southern Israel, "on peaceful towns." It would seem that if the West (and those Arab Muslim "donor states") fails to send multiple millions in aid to these Palestinian politicians, violence and bloodshed against Israel's Jews is the choice of alternatives for those Muslims who now dream of an independent state contiguous to Israel. How does a Muslim people with such a penchant for violence and anti-Jewish hatred remain so naive as to believe that the allies of Israel in the Western world should ever forget or fail to notice that such an overt penchant for terrorist violence and anti-Jewish hatred crouches in their midst. Old sins cast long shadows.

My Dad once remarked philosophically, "The good Lord said, 'Turn the other cheek,' but watch out when I run out of cheeks." Israel has run out of cheeks when it comes to dealing with her enemies, but especially so in dealing with the Palestinian people. Abbas' refusal to come to the table again for "peace talks" (not that Abbas ever had any intention for peace anyway) is indicative of the total and absolute hatred the Palestinian leader holds against Israel and the Jewish people. Do Israel's Jews know this? Of course they do. Do Israel's Jews wish Abbas well in his bid for Palestinian statehood? Certainly not, and who can blame them? There's nothing like the sight of an old enemy down on his luck.

Contact GWY by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Maayana Miskin, September 25, 2011.

Residents of the victims' hometown of Kiryat Arba expressed outrage. "It's shocking to think that police spokespeople covered up the murder of a baby and his father just to avoid 'price tag' operations and a disruption to Bibi's speech," said Bentzi Gofshtein, a member of the local council, who added, "The time has come for the Israel police to investigate itself."

The revelation Sunday that evidence points to terrorist involvement in the deaths of a young father and son near Kiryat Arba did not come as a surprise to local leaders, who had suggested from the beginning that the incident may have been a terror attack. What caused outrage is police's initial insistence that the fatal crash was caused by driver error.

The Knesset's Land of Israel Forum, led by MKs Aryeh Eldad and Zev Elkin, said, "The Forum is appalled at the police's attempt to cover up the facts regarding the terrorist attack in which a father and his baby son were murdered in the Hevron Hills by Arab murderers, shortly before Abu Mazen's speech in the United Nations.

"The Forum calls on the Prime Minister not to act as the police did, but to reveal and condemn this Palestinian murderousness, and to make it clear to local Jews that their blood will not be freely split."

MK Eldad (National Union-Ichud Leumi) filed an urgent request for information Sunday in the Knesset, asking Minister of Internal Security Yitzchak Aharonovich, "Why did the police hurry to determine that this was a traffic accident and not the result of a terrorist rock throwing attack of the type that has occurred many times in the area of late? Was the intention to cover up the background of the event? Does the Israel Police intend to publish an updated report?"

On Friday, police spokesmen said that terrorism had been ruled out as a possible cause in the crash. Alternate explanations for the crash suggested that victim Asher Plamer, 25, had either fallen asleep at the wheel or had been driving recklessly.

Findings revealed two days later in the autopsies suggest that Plamer lost control of his car after being hit in the head by a massive rock hurled by passing Palestinian Authority terrorists.

Ketzaleh: Police Brought Joy to Murderers

MK Yaakov "Ketzaleh" Katz called for introspection among top police and military officials. "They must ask themselves how it happened that their behavior falls in line with that of the worst of Israel's enemies," he said.

"How did it happen that a father and his baby son were murdered and, while everyone knew the truth, IDF and police spokesmen hurried to say it was a traffic accident, all in order to deceive the people and keep the people unaware, in order not to disturb the UN assembly? How did it happen that the security apparatus in the state of the Jews adopted such a miserable, exile mentality?" Ketzaleh asked.

He added, "One can only imagine what rejoicing there was in the house of the despicable murderers when they heard that, instead of trying to find them, the spokespeople for the security apparatus were blaming the victim... and they, the murderers, can plan their next murder in peace."

Maayana Miskin writes for Arutz-7, where this appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, September 25, 2011.


Israel Police Chief: 'Car Accident' Was Terror Attack

A tragic car crash that killed a young man and his baby son near Hevron was caused by terrorist rock attack, Israel Police chief confirms.

Asher Palmer and his son Yonatan


The Palmer family is very special. I don't know many people whose 'mesirut nefesh' for Eretz Yisrael is greater than theirs. They came to Israel about 30 years ago. They moved because they wanted their children to grow up in a Jewish environment. Moshe, the father of the family, has a special expertise and despite numerous, numerous attempts, was never able to find suitable employment in Israel. As a result, he works in the United States, coming home to his family in Kiryat Arba several times a year, celebrating with them various Jewish holidays and events.

Molly Palmer brought up her children with much love and care for Eretz Yisrael. She has worked for many years teaching English in Kiryat Arba and the Southern Hebron Hills region. I also seem to recall that she's an excellent cook and baker. In the past she sold various pastries, of which I remember enjoying immensely.

On Friday afternoon Molly Palmer and her family were stunned, as were all that know them, by the terrible news that her 25 year old son Asher, together with his year old son, were killed in a 'traffic accident.' Police reported that as a result of speeding, he had lost control of his car not too far outside of Kiryat Arba. The car flipped over twice in the air, being totally destroyed as it crash landed.

Immediately, even before the victims were identified, the army released a statement that soldiers stationed in the area hadn 't witnessed any rock-throwing, or any Arabs fleeing from the area of the 'accident.'

This past Friday was one of those times when no one had any idea what the day would bring. As a rule, when Arabs want to protest, Friday, after their prayers, is the time. Following Obama's rejection of a UN-declared palestinian state, together with Abu-Mazen's speech scheduled for Friday, tension was high. Bolstered security forces were stationed throughout Judea and Samaria, prepared for the worst.

Those fears were a double-edged sword. Media account over the past few weeks centered not so much on Arab violence, rather on Israel responses, and most particularly, those of 'radical settlers.' Normal, everyday Jews are so being labeled. For example, New York Times Bureau chief Ethan Bronner, in an article posted Friday, writes, "...Bat Ayin, a fenceless settlement near Bethlehem known for its radicalism.' Known by whom? Bat Ayin, a community of Hassidic Jews in the Gush Eztion area, is far from 'radical' as I would define the word.

The police/security establishment has one fear, and one fear alone. It is not dead Jews. It is dead Arabs. They are petrified of the thought that Arabs will attack Jews, on the roads or in communities, and that the Jews will respond, causing Arab casualties, resulting in Arab propaganda campaigns, similar to those following the Marmara debacle, leading to massive foreign pressure on Israel.

The area of the accident is quite prone to rock attacks. Cars are stoned daily, many times in areas known from their vulnerability. Unfortunately, very little, if anything, is done to prevent these attacks. Very high ranking officers, during instructions to lower-level commanders, have been quoted as saying that 'rock attacks are sufferable.' In other words, the IDF really doesn't have any responsibility to stop such attacks or apprehend the terrorists hurling the rocks. The 'settlers' can and will just have to live with this reality.

However, lately, our enemies have begun using a new method in their continued attempts to kill Jews. Instead of standing on the side of the road and throwing a rock, they are heaving them from moving cars, coming at you from the opposite direction. They toss a rock out their window, in front of your car, just prior to passing you.

The impact is tremendous. The rock is flying at the speed at which the car was driving. When it impacts with the car moving in the other direction, the force is phenomenal.

I've been told of numerous such incidents in recent weeks, in the exact area where the 'accident' killing Asher and Yonatan Palmer occurred.

On Friday afternoon, this is exactly what happened. That's why no one was seen fleeing on foot, because the rock was thrown from a moving vehicle. It hit the windshield, breaking it, hitting Asher in the face, causing him to lose control of the car. The rock was found in the wrecked car. A hole, the type of which caused by a thrown rock, was also identified in the windshield. Yet the police and army climbed up a very high tree, claiming that the 'accident' was Asher's fault. They claimed that the rock entered the car as it flipped over in a rock-bed on the side of the road. All this in an effort to cover up the murder of two Jews by Arabs. According to my sources, the police have already concluded that the 'accident' was not an accident, that it was cold-blooded murder; the killing two Jews.

Palmer car after drive-by Arabs threw stones at it

There are other details which have not yet been released, and I'm hesitant to fully publicize them for the moment. Some of Asher's possessions seemed to be missing and have not yet been found at the scene of the crash. [Editor's Note: Palmer's gun was stolen from his holster.] There are also signs of possible additional violence at the site. These details prove, without any doubt, that the accident was Arab terror.

The police, not yet weary of the additional pain they've already caused the Palmer family are continuing to torture them; they went to court to obtain an order allowing them to perform an autopsy on the two bodies. Jewish law, excluding unique circumstances, forbids autopsies. However all evidence, including examinations of the bodies, the car, and the scene of the attack are proof enough. Why continue to cause unnecessary suffering?!

The seriousness of this cannot be downplayed. Israeli security forces intentionally attempted to cover-up murder. The implications are mind-boggling. In order to prevent possible 'disturbances' between Jews and Arabs as the result of this terror, they killed Asher Palmer twice. First, Arabs killed him. But then Israeli police killed him again, blaming him for his own death, due to reckless driving, and being responsible for killing his one year old son, leaving his widow and family to live with this horrible reality for the rest of their lives.

Of course, these facts would preclude having to search for 'terrorists.' And would also prevent Asher's widow from receiving financial aid provided by the State to terror victims' families.

Such lies, on the part of Israeli security forces, must be uncovered and dealt with to the fullest. It is unthinkable that Israeli security forces would lie about a terror attack in order to prevent 'Jewish responses.' Additionally, a Jew cannot be blamed for crimes that he did not commit. Blame where blame lies: with murderous Arab terrorists.

Asher and Yonatan Palmer will be buried tonight, Sunday, Sept. 25, in Hebron. The funeral procession will leave the Palmer home in Kiryat Arba at 18:00. May their memories be blessed and may HaShem Yinkom Damam.

Editor's Note: Added September 26, 2011:

Funeral of Asher and Yonatan Palmer (Photo: Noam Moskowitz)

See these video:

Video of Palmer funeral

Video 2.

Video 3

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: or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, September 25, 2011.

This is my personal appeal, and I am sure many will join me, to two very coherent and cognizant Israeli law makers, MK Danny Danon and MK Aryeh Eldad. My request is that you two not only discuss this matter with your Prime Minister Netanyahu but you find a way to bring him to action of victory rather than him continuing his ludicrous defeatism.

So here we go...

To: MK Danny Danon and MK Aryeh Eldad

To: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

To every Israeli and Jew with sense of reality and pride

I sincerely hope that you will NOT allow Prime Minister Netanyahu to go lower than he has gone already.

Netanyahu was elected to prevent the creation of the Palestinian state, yet, he is fervently promoting it. Netanyahu was elected to produce something utterly different for Israel, yet he is as bad as the two Ehud's Barak and Olmert, or even worth, as he offers Israel on the golden platter to the Arabs not as his predecessors did, in ne chunk, but piece by piece.

As we read in this article, MK Eldad tells INN: "Netanyahu is Weak, He Fell into a Trap"
(, right from the outset as a Prime Minister, Netanyahu collapsed under pressure from Obama and the Quartet and declared his support for a Palestinian state and he still does. The question is, where will he allow to establish such state and still guarantee security for his people? Look at what happened in Gaza? Palestine will not be a coast line terrorist enclave, rather a terrorist enclave in the heart of Israel, fully ready to destroy it from the get go.

Many have used uncontrollable repetition of what I say here. I find it risible that Israel, a democratic state, by far not perfect, but very advanced in scientific, cultural, and social institutions is the only nation in the world its legitimacy is challenged. I also find it even more perverse that Israel's Prime Minister offers Israel's birth rights and legitimate and historic claims in exchange for "recognition of its right to exist as a Jewish state"?! Huh!

The very phrase, 'recognition of its right to exist as a Jewish state' is awfully offensive. Recognition? By whom? Genocidal terrorists who are illegally parked on Israel's legal land and are adamant it is theirs? Recognition by whom? By beasts whom Israel is treating humanely, while they are planning their next murder of Jews?

It is high time that Israel should also offer some recognition, in exchange for this absurd notion:

I, the Jewish State, recognize that Israel's enemies are a group of Islamonazis, jihadist barbarians with a blood lust that can only be satisfied with the demise of the State of Israel, and

I, the Jewish State, recognize that these beasts live in the corner of a hell, where parents gladly offer their children as suicide bombers for a few bucks and a lot of praise from their neighbors; where they indulge in killing their own offspring for some perceived "dishonor"; where the truly decent and peaceable people among them fear for their lives and a loss of their heads if they protest the harsh reality of this faith driven hatred, and.

Now that I, the Jewish State, recognize the Arabs, going by the name "Palestinians" for what they are, they can shove their recognition, as deep as possible!

And Israel's Prime Minister who is, by default, the guardian of Jewish destiny, should grow balls, courage and resolve, and finally have the spine to say so instead of babbling about negotiations?! Negotiations that have been dead for 18 years and have made Israel the mockery of the world, the doormat of the USA, the EU and the UN and is now so isolated.

Why not declare a political and media warfare? Go on the offense against these genocidal terrorists. After all, they have been on the offense and Israel on the defense for 64 years.

Congressman Republican Joe Walsh and 30 co-sponsors have already paved the way for Israel's offense. They have issued a resolution supporting Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria. Annexation may sound like a radical formula but it is not. The fact is that Israel already implemented a similar move twice, when it applied Israeli law to Jerusalem and to the Golan Heights. And guess what, the heavens didn't fall in either case, rather the situation on the ground was stabilized. By applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria, Israel would reverse one of the most pernicious and debilitating effects of the 18-year-old phony peace process: the continuous erosion of international recognition of Israel's sovereign rights to these areas.

We must not allow the notion that on political issues with the Arab-"Palestinians", Netanyahu is one of the weakest Prime Ministers Israel ever had.

Offense is the only path to victory. Go for it already and end our screeching perseveration.

--------- References: my-say-recognition-for-recognition/ Article.aspx?id=239093

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 24, 2011.


King Abdullah II of Jordan rejected remarks some Israeli officials made about Jordan being a natural Palestinian Arab homeland. He said that Jordan is the home of Jordanians and "Palestine" is the homeland of Palestinians.

He also said that Jordan has defended Palestine before (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis,8/22/11

His country didn't defend anything. In 1948, His country invaded Mandate territory and seized it for itself. In 1948, his country used the seized territory of Judea-Samaria as a base for firing upon Israel, including Jerusalem, although Israel asked it to stay out of the war started by Egypt and its allies.

"Palestinians" is a slippery concept never defined. Difficult to define when it is not a nationality. Does it include only the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza? Does it include Arabs who stayed behind in Israel, when the Arabs attempted to expel the Jews? Does it include the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled from the defeat of their attempted genocide in 1947? Does it include the residents of Jordan? Of the Golan Heights?

Early in the 20th century, the Zionist movement became more successful and attracted outside Arabs to the resulting employment opportunities in that previously desolated area. By the beginning of the 3rd decade, Britain and France set up with the League of Nations the Palestine Mandate dedicated to establishment of the Jewish national home. Following biblical maps, they drew the Mandate boundaries to include Judea, Samaria, Gaza, what are now the states of Israel and Jordan, and the Golan Heights. For its own reasons, Britain withdrew the Golan Heights and put it under the Syrian Mandate.

The people in the Trans-Jordanian provinces, now called Jordan, were the same sort of Arabic speaking Muslim people with the same culture as the Arabs of what now is Israel and Judea-Samaria. In Jordan, there was a higher proportion of nomads. Britain let into Jordan a couple of thousand refugees from what became Saudi Arabia, a country renamed by the Saudi house that conquered it. In with them came the Hashemites, from which the royal family descends. There is no Jordanian nationality and no Syrian nationality; there is an Arab nationality and a Jewish nationality.

After only a couple of years into the Mandate, Britain illegally closed Jordan to organized Jewish development, though Jews own land there, land that Jordan did not return or compensate for. In 1946, Britain sponsored statehood for Jordan, which took it out of the Mandate. Now people have forgotten that Jordan was inside the Palestine Mandate.

Based on that history, Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state. The King's denial of that fact is false but understandable. Since the Palestinian Arabs under Abbas are radical, if they federated with Jordan, they might overwhelm the Bedouin tribes loyal to the monarchy, and dethrone him.

If I were Israelis, I would not suggest that the Arabs of Judea-Samaria federate with Jordan or move to Jordan. They likely would turn it into a terrorist state. Islamists would more likely take over the region, to the detriment of Israel and of the U.S..

Perhaps Israelis should say that if Abbas were to gain control over Judea-Samaria and bar it to Jews, then Israel would Arabs from Israel. It would be a rhetorical point, though it would help end the Arab struggle to expel the Jews from Israel.


The Sea of Galilee long has been known for fish. But the catch there has declined from 2,144 tons in 1999 to 157 tons in 2009.

Partial explanations have been given as drought and over-fishing. Most Mediterranean countries ban such fishing in summer, to give time for females to mature and breed. Israel didn't. Now it is experimenting with temporary bans. But the problem may not be too many fishermen — there were at least as many fishermen centuries ago.

The main reason is political. The decline in fish largely is due to the drop in water levels. Much of that drop is due to appeasement of the Arabs. Barry Chamish discovered the major cause when he was Israeli correspondent for a London newspaper.

Interviewing the chief Israeli negotiator of the Water Treaty between Israel and Jordan, he heard a prediction that the Lake will not be useful within a generation. The reason is that the government wanted to give Jordan 50 million cubic meters of water a year. Not having water to spare, the negotiator said they would have to take water from brackish streams west of the Lake and by damming the Yarmuk R. and giving that water away.

Other so-called peace agreements with the Palestinian Authority take another 23 million cubic meters.

"By a natural near-miracle, the Golan Heights' snow melt in March, fill the Jordan River, Hula Lake and the Sea of Galilee with sufficient clean water to last until next spring. But in the 1950's, Israel, all but completely, drained her second largest lake, the Hula, mostly to plant a few more avocado groves. The country got a few more avocados and endlessly more methane fires, rat infestations, and ecological devastation from the dead lakebed." [The "peace" processors want to let Syria take over the Golan, which would block most of that source of water for the Sea of Galilee or pollute it.]

"Water, that used to be filtered of bacterial disease and infections by Lake Hula, poured straight into the Kinneret [a.k.a. Sea of Galilee], some 300 ft, below sea level, and via the southern exit of the Jordan River, polluted the Dead Sea, some 100 ft. below sea level. The result for the Dead Sea, at least partly, was an environmental breakdown."

Israel's third largest body of fresh water, a lake formed by damning the Kishon River, also had made good fishing. One year, its tilapia, carp, eels, and catfish all lay belly up. No explanation was given. A few years later, the lake was found drained. Again, less filtering of water entering the Sea of Galilee.

After some pollution of water jointly used by Jordan and Israel, Israel agreed to compensate Jordan with still more of its own water. Jordan might have channeled the polluted water into its own water treatment plants, but did not.

The Sea of Galilee is likely to turn into another Dead Sea. The Dead Sea has no outlet, so the salt accumulates. The Sea of Galilee is fed by salt streams, but empties into the Dead Sea. If insufficient fresh water replenishes the Sea of Galilee, salt will overwhelm life in that Sea, too.

The amount of water given to Jordan is so great as to cause the water level to drop toward the "black line," below which life in the Sea of Galilee is untenable. A sovereign and prudent government would not propel its main water reservoir toward the black line. In the summer of 2011, the fluctuating water level just about reached the black line. But the promises of water to Jordan do not recede (Chamish, 7/8/11).

One would think that the promise of water at least would be condition on their being sufficient water.

In addition, Prof. Steven Plaut once wrote a paper about Israel having an irrational government system of rationing water. The government does not charge equally for water usage. As a result, some water-intensive users can afford to waste water.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, September 24, 2011.

President Obama's September 21, 2011 speech, at the UN General Assembly, reaffirmed his world view on global affairs in general, and on the Palestinian issue in particular.

For instance, the President reiterated his, and Secretary Clinton's, assessment that the seismic turmoil on the Arab Street constitutes "transition to democracy," featuring "[non-violent] youth delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship." Obama believes that "the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart."

In reality, the stormy Arab Winter reflects intensified violent power struggles and fragmentation along tribal, religious, ethnic, ideological and geographic lines. In fact, the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood terrorists are gaining momentum in Egypt; almost all Muslim women in Egypt are victimized by female genital mutilation; Al-Qaeda is emerging as a winner in Libya; and thousands of moderate Tunisians have escaped to the Italian Mediterranean island of Lampedusa. In February, 2010, the US elevated diplomatic relations with Syria "because Assad could play a constructive role." The expectation for a near-term Arab Spring could produce another victory of wishful-thinking over experience, yielding a delusion-based policy, which would further traumatize the Middle East.

President Obama highlighted the toppling of Mubarak as a major achievement. He lumps Mubarak together with Qaddafi, Ben Ali of Tunisia and Gbagbo, the ruthless dictator of the Ivory Coast.

In reality, Obama's attitude toward Mubarak reminds pro-US Arab leaders of President Carter's stabbing in the back of the Shah of Iran and the facilitation of the rise of Khomeini. Obama's policy toward Egypt has been perceived by pro-US Arab leaders — all of whom are struggling to survive systematic subversion — as desertion/betrayal and as yet more evidence of the erosion of the US power of deterrence. Obama's yearning for democracy in Arab lands is interpreted, by the Arab Street, as a lethal threat to every pro-US Arab leader and a tailwind to anti-US insurgents.

President Obama takes pride in the pending evacuation of Iraq "at the end of this year" and Afghanistan "between now and 2014." He claims that "the tide of war is receding... we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength."

In reality, the expected evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan is seen by Muslim and Arab regimes as an extension of American retreats from Vietnam and Cambodia (1973), Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993), further eroding the strategic posture of the US and emboldening rogue regimes and terrorists. Moreover, the evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan could trigger a series of volcanoes, threatening the integrity of Iraq itself and the survival of regimes in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, etc. Coupled with the tectonic Arab Storm, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the increased penetration of the Middle East by Russia and China and the 14 centuries old tradition of Arab fragmentation, violence and terrorism, the evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan may not reduce the warlike atmosphere in the region; it may add more fuel to the regional fire.

President Obama reiterated his Israeli-Palestinian strategy, considering the Palestinian issue to be "a test for American foreign policy." He insists that the issues of the 1948 Arab refugees [which refer to pre-1967 Israel] and [the repartitioning of] Jerusalem should be on the table. And, he applies moral equivalence to the Palestinians — a role model of international terrorism, hate education and alliance with US enemies — and Israelis — a role model of counter-terrorism, democracy and unconditional alliance with the US.

In reality, as evidenced by the New Arab Disorder, the Palestinian isue has never been a root cause of Middle East turbulence, of anti-US Islamic terrorism, of the Arab-Israeli conflict or the crown-jewel of Arab policy-making. Obama's strategy constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to peace. It signals to the Palestinians that they are not expected to pay — and, in fact, they are rewarded — for hate education, 100 years of terrorism and violation of commitments.

Tactically, President Obama decided (in reaction to growing public and Congressional resentment of his attitude towards the Jewish State) to highlight Israel's predicament: "Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it..."

However, one should focus on Obama's strategy rather than Obama's tactic and note that leopards don't change their spots, only their tactics.

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

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, September 24, 2011.

This was written by Bill Levinson and appeared yesterday in American Thinker. It is archived at palestinian_statehood_and_the_united_nithings.html

William A. Levinson, P.E., is the author of several books on business management, including content on organizational psychology as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.


Nithing, a word of Scandinavian origin, is the most inherently offensive word in existence. It means an enemy of humanity whose evil goes far beyond the rational self-interest of a common criminal. A criminal might kill for gain, but a nithing, like Lawrence Russell Brewer or Ted Bundy, murders for pleasure. If somebody called you a nithing in Viking times, you had to fight a duel (holmgang) with him to avoid outlawry.

The U.N. has proven repeatedly that it is a liability and not an asset to world peace. It has instead served as an enabler for international aggression and terroristic violence, and it should accordingly be called the "United Nithings."

Our purpose is not merely to assign a clever name to the U.N., but instead to demonstrate that the U.N. is in fact a collective nithing: an enabler and facilitator of pure evil ranging from terroristic violence to genocide. The U.N. was fatally defective from the moment of its foundation as an alliance against Nazi Germany. We refer to the charter membership of the Soviet Union as ruled by Adolf Hitler's equally genocidal counterpart Joseph Stalin.

Stalin was about a decade ahead of Hitler in putting people into cattle cars for deportation to concentration camps and/or liquidation. He then colluded with Hitler to attack Poland in 1939, which led to the collapse of Polish resistance against the Nazis. Stalin then attacked Finland, thus forcing it onto the Axis side when Hitler finally turned on his accomplice in mass murder and genocide. Field Marshal Mannerheim, however, refused to allow the deportation of Finnish Jews: "While Jews serve in my army I will not allow their deportation."

The U.N. became an enabler for military aggression and terroristic violence shortly after the Axis' defeat. By "enabler" we do not mean an active participant in a crime against humanity, but rather an entity that uses its international prestige to legitimize such a crime. The Soviet Union could and did use its Security Council veto to prevent any serious response to its invasion of Hungary in 1956. The inaction of the so-called world government therefore legitimized and enabled this act of violence according to the principle that silence gives consent.

Mainland China also holds a veto in the Security Council, so the U.N.'s silence gives consent to China's illegal occupation of Tibet, its massacre of protesters in Tiananmen Square, and its use of political prisoners for "medical" exercises worthy of the Nazi scientist Joseph Mengele. The very presence of China, which has almost the worst possible Freedom House ratings for political and civil rights, in the United Nations at the expense of the free nation Taiwan underscores the U.N.'s total lack of moral legitimacy. China is also why the U.N. remained silent in the face of North Korea's murderous act of war against South Korea in 2010.

The Palestinians' application for U.N. membership will include two proven lies, as shown by this statement: "Any candidate for U.N. membership must first submit a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stating it is a 'peace-loving' state and accepts the U.N. Charter." The deliberate and unprovoked launch of a single rocket or mortar shell, let alone dozens or hundreds by the Palestinians, at a sovereign nation is an act of war. A "country" that does this cannot claim to be peace-loving. The Palestinians are also holding an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and prisoners of war are not held during peacetime. "Palestine" is therefore legally at war with Israel and can be held collectively responsible through unrestricted counterattacks on all military-related assets including roads, infrastructure, and any factory that produces war-related material.

The Palestinians have also proven repeatedly that they do not accept the U.N. Charter: "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors." The Palestinians selected the mother of four terrorists to represent their statehood campaign, and their schools encourage young children to grow up to be terrorists. If Ban Ki-moon accepts the Palestinians' letter of application, he will have effectively signed his name to two proven and blatant lies.

The United Nations' total impotence, if not willful inaction, in the face of numerous acts of genocide underscores further its total unworthiness of respect or even recognition by any civilized person. Helmuth von Moltke (1800-1891) actually predicted the U.N.'s uselessness long before it or its equally worthless predecessor, the League of Nations, existed:

Some have proposed to replace diplomacy with a permanent assembly of deputies chosen by different nations to adjust the various international disputes and interests and thus to prevent all future wars. ... I have more confidence in the judgment and power of governments than in the Areopagus of delegates selected by the peoples and international brotherhood or what has been proposed in this direction, which is suited only to create Babylonian confusion. (Daniel J. Hughes, Moltke on the Art of War; Selected Writings)

The work "10 Reasons to Abolish the UN" elaborates considerably with material that was not available to Count Moltke during his lifetime. There is an obvious way to trim our massive federal deficit by more than $6 billion, and it is past time to put it into practice.

The best way for an authority figure to destroy his or her authority is to issue an order which he knows his subordinates, or those he regards as subordinates, will not obey. We therefore almost hope the U.N. General Assembly will vote to create a Palestinian state so Israel can treat the resolution with the contempt it deserves, and/or treat "Palestine" as an entity with which it is legally at war by the latter's choice. This will underscore the fact that the U.N. has neither moral legitimacy nor any authority that any civilized nation is obliged to respect, and will relegate it to the well-deserved status of "United Nithings."

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 24, 2011.

This was written by Sue Reid and it is archived at 2041244/Polygamy-Investigation-Muslim-men- exploit-UK-benefits-system.html


Ghulam is a taxi driver who lives in Blackburn, a once-booming textile town in Lancashire. He has a terrace house near his local mosque (one of 53 in the area), a silver Nissan car and a very complex private life.

For he has so many children that he struggles to remember their names, and five wives from various countries, including Yemen, Egypt, Turkey and his own birthplace, Pakistan.

Ghulam's latest bride is a shy 20-year-old called Hafeza. He brought her to Britain from Morocco, soon after his 45th birthday earlier this year. They married in an Islamic wedding ceremony called 'the Nikah' in her village, with Hafeza's pleased parents among the guests.

Two experienced Lancashire social workers say that in their estimation there are 20,000 bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK (Andrew Fox/eyevine)

Thirty miles across the Pennines in Yorkshire, pizza delivery driver Wasim, 27, has an equally complicated domestic life.

He lives in a part of Dewsbury called Savile Town, a network of 11 terrace streets dominated by one of the biggest mosques in Europe, where most residents are Asian with origins in Pakistan or India.

Wasim has three wives, the first of whom lives with him and their three teenage sons. His other two wives have separate houses in Savile Town, one down the road and another round the corner. He visits each two nights a week.

The women have had several of Wasim's children and he hopes the youngest bride (aged 19) will soon present him with another baby.

Ghulam is a taxi driver who lives in Blackburn, a once-booming textile town in Lancashire. He has a terrace house near his local mosque (one of 53 in the area), a silver Nissan car and a very complex private life.

For he has so many children that he struggles to remember their names, and five wives from various countries, including Yemen, Egypt, Turkey and his own birthplace, Pakistan.

Ghulam's latest bride is a shy 20-year-old called Hafeza. He brought her to Britain from Morocco, soon after his 45th birthday earlier this year. They married in an Islamic wedding ceremony called 'the Nikah' in her village, with Hafeza's pleased parents among the guests. Two experienced Lancashire social workers say that in their estimation there are 20,000 bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK

Two experienced Lancashire social workers say that in their estimation there are 20,000 bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK

Thirty miles across the Pennines in Yorkshire, pizza delivery driver Wasim, 27, has an equally complicated domestic life.

He lives in a part of Dewsbury called Savile Town, a network of 11 terrace streets dominated by one of the biggest mosques in Europe, where most residents are Asian with origins in Pakistan or India.

Wasim has three wives, the first of whom lives with him and their three teenage sons. His other two wives have separate houses in Savile Town, one down the road and another round the corner. He visits each two nights a week.

The women have had several of Wasim's children and he hopes the youngest bride (aged 19) will soon present him with another baby

I learned of Ghulam and Wasim this week while investigating a subject that is taboo in politically correct Britain. It is the huge rise of bigamy (having two wives) and polygamy (more than two) in our Muslim communities.

The issue was recently bravely highlighted by Baroness Flather, a crossbench life peer who was herself born in Lahore, now part of Pakistan.

She warned the Lords (and also wrote an article for the Mail on the subject) about how our shambolic benefits system is being exploited by men hailing from Pakistan and other Muslim nations who indulge in multiple marriages — with taxpayers forced to foot the bill.

As Baroness Flather explained: 'The wives are regarded by the welfare system as single mothers, and are therefore entitled to a full range of lone parent payments.

'As a result, several "families" fathered by the same man can all claim benefits, as they are provided for by the welfare state, which treats them as if they were not related,'

The issue was recently bravely highlighted by Baroness Flather (Denis Jones)

Lady Flather also lamented the reluctance of politicians to address the issue: 'It is certainly difficult to discuss this phenomenon of serial marriage and exploitation of the benefits system, with few people in Britain seeming to want to confront the disturbing truth.'

Two years ago, another peer, Baroness Warsi, born in Dewsbury to Pakistani parents, and now a Coalition Cabinet Minister, also voiced her concerns. She said cultural sensitivity was stopping politicians addressing the problem.

Yet this week I found those — from within the heart of the Asian communities — who were prepared to speak out.

Although the Government says there are only 1,000 such bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK, two experienced Lancashire social workers — one of Indian-English heritage and the other with Pakistani origins — told me that, although it's difficult to be precise, in their estimation the figure is closer to 20,000.

The social workers said the multiple marriages are encouraged by a welfare system which allows a second, third or fourth wife to be treated as a single mother who gets a house and an array of other state payments for herself and her children.

Controversially, it means that a man can take a new spouse (from anywhere in the world), sire any number of children with her, and yet have no responsibility for this family's upkeep or care.

To avoid breaking Britain's matrimony laws, the men marry their extra 'wives' in an Islamic Nikah ceremony, either in their own homes or a mosque.

These marriages are not recognised officially, so they do not appear in government statistics or have any status under the law. They also do not count when assessing welfare payments.

Another technique is for a couple to marry legally under British law but then divorce, leaving them then to have a Nikah ceremony and continue living together. The woman will then be entitled to welfare payments as a single mother and the man can then bring another woman from abroad and legally marry her in Britain.

Men also cheat the system by bringing brides from abroad as nannies for their children, or as carers for a sick relative. The bride gets a year's visitors' visa, disappears into a tight-knit local community, and is entitled to receive welfare hand-outs.

While it has long been a cliche for men to complain that their wives and children take up most of their income, the reality for polygamous husbands is that the more babies he sires, the more money pours in for him and his wives.

As Tariq Ali, the 45-year-old co-founder of Project BME (Black Minority Ethnics), a charity based in Darwen, Lancashire, admits: 'There are thousands of bigamous and polygamous marriages in the UK's Pakistani community — the same community into which I was born.

'Every single man of my age who I bump into seems to have a third, fourth or fifth wife.

'The issue is going unreported but in the Asian communities this is becoming a way of life. I think the number of polygamous relationships must be 20,000.

'The men find second wives in the UK as well as any Muslim country abroad. The new favourite places to find women are Turkey and Morocco, because the men can drive there by car to meet them and bring them back.'

His colleague, Zed Ali, the manager of Project BME, added: 'These arrangements satisfy a man's sexual desires when he is trapped in an unhappy or sexless arranged marriage with a first wife and their families don't countenance a divorce.

'The first wives often accept the situation as a compromise. There is a limitless number of girls living in Muslim countries wanting to come to the UK for what they, and their parents, think is a better life even as a second, third or fourth wife.

'What's more, they are virgins — which the men like. But it means British laws are being abused, and something should be done by the Government. A first step would be the registration of Nikah weddings in this country at least.' This would prevent many bigamous marriages.

Baroness Warsi said cultural sensitivity was stopping politicians addressing the problem

Baroness Warsi said cultural sensitivity was stopping politicians addressing the problem

Baroness Warsi said cultural sensitivity was stopping politicians addressing the problem (Daily Mail)

Officially, bigamy and polygamy are punishable by up to seven years in prison. It was declared illegal in England and Wales in 1604, when the Parliament of James I took action to restrain 'evil persons' marrying more than one wife — on penalty of death.

But officialdom now turns a blind eye because of cultural sensitivities.

A 2007 Government report estimated there were 1,000 bigamous or polygamous marriages in England and Wales.

It claimed that men living in a harem arrangement, with their wives under the same roof, were each claiming state handouts of £10,000 a year for the spouses through income support, housing and child benefits.

But the report ignored the thousands of men squeezing more money from the state by having a string of wives living in separate homes, all claiming benefits intended for single mothers and their children.

Those women are eligible for full housing benefit — reaching £106,000 a year in some parts of London — and child benefit paid at £1,000 a year for a first child, and nearly £700 for each subsequent one. Little wonder there has been an increase of foreign brides.

Lady Flather believes this free-for-all should be reduced — by giving full benefits to a woman's first two children, three-quarters for the third and half for the fourth child. Then there should be no more benefits for any extra children.

It was also wrong, she said, that families were moving to ever larger taxpayer-funded homes, simply by expanding the number of children they have. Yet tackling this phenomenon will be difficult.

I was told this week that even the mosques' preachers — the imams themselves — have second or third wives, some chosen from among their own worshippers.

One female health visitor in Lancashire, whose parents were born in Pakistan and came here in 1971, explained: 'My sister has been asked by her own imam in Manchester to marry him as his second wife.

'She is 38 and went to school here. She played netball, socialised normally, and had British friends. But her marriage to a British Asian broke down when she became very fundamentalist about religion and wanted to wear a burka. Then she turned to the mosque for advice.

'The imam, who recently arrived from Africa, suggested a bigamous marriage to him would be the solution. My family are horrified, but plenty of imams in the UK have more than one wife.'

A little later in the day, I was introduced to Javeria, a 26-year-old British-born Muslim who is the second wife of a 29-year-old man in Rochdale, Lancashire.

He was also born in Britain and has a first wife, with whom he had an arranged marriage organised by his parents when he was 21. The forced union was an unhappy one, and they had no children. Javeria originally met her husband at an Islamic community gathering.

'I was under pressure from my mother to get married,' she says. 'Most girls in my community are wives by 22, even here in the UK. I was prepared to compromise because I liked him.

'I knew from the start there would always be his first wife and he would not divorce her.'

Javeria and her new husband had a small Nikah ceremony at her parents' house conducted by the local imam.

Now she lives in a block of flats with her two children, aged five and three, and works in a bank as a cashier.

Her husband, meanwhile, lives half a mile away with his first wife and their three children in a semi-detached house with a garden. He visits Javeria three nights a week.

'His first wife knows about me and is pleased because the arrangement gives her freedom from him and it also gives me freedom to pursue my career. He is devoted to his children. But he does not have to pay for my family.'

She adds: 'I get tax credits because I am on low pay and have young children. I also get housing benefit, because the council says I need three bedrooms for myself and the kids. The child benefits for our son and daughter are paid into my account.'

But, of course, not all multiple marriages work this well.

Each year, London solicitor Anne-Marie Hutchinson, of family law firm Dawson Cornwell, advises around 20 Muslim women who have married in a Nikah ceremony — many of them second or third wives now facing marital breakdown.

'These women are left unprotected,' she explains. 'They cannot claim matrimonial rights. They get no maintenance payments or share in their husband's pension contributions. They are not wives in the eyes of the British legal system.'

No one knows that better than one Bangladeshi-born mother of three children who works in a care home in Slough, Berkshire. Orpita contacted me through her lawyer when she heard I was writing about multiple marriages in the Muslim community.

She was deserted by her husband of 20 years when he went on holiday to Bangladesh and returned to say he was about to marry a girl of 19, called Saba, in a Nikah ceremony, and wanted to bring her to Britain as his second wife.

Despite the pleas of Orpita and her children, one a teenage boy who — in fury at the betrayal — hit his father in the face, the husband told the British immigration authorities that Saba was from his home village and was to be a nanny for his children. They needed, he lied to them, a caring person who understood his family's cultural heritage.

They officials believed him and, after the Nikah in Bangladesh, Orpita's husband set up home with his second wife two years ago in Maida Vale, North London. They now have a one-year-old baby.

'I am only just recovering from the shock,' says Orpita.

'We are not divorced, because I will not allow it. When he walked out, he said the state could look after me and that was how it worked in Britain.

'All over the place, in London's East End, in Yorkshire towns, down the road, across the street, I see Muslim men taking second or third wives. I cannot count the number of times I have been approached to be a second wife myself by Bangladeshi men who know I am now on my own.

'This bigamy and polygamy is destroying families. Children grow up angry and bewildered. Many rarely see their own fathers because they have so many wives to visit.'

Then, she tucks a scarf around her head and adds, sadly: 'It is a tragedy for everyone in this country, whether they are Muslim or not.

'And it is the crazy welfare system that encourages it all to happen.'

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 23, 2011.


Let's examine the nonsense in some of September's news and make sense of it. Public discussion is based largely on misconception or deception. Public policy decisions now are no more based on knowledge, experience, and analysis than they were in the Middle Ages. The difference is that now the fools in charge have college degrees and therefore bigger egos.

For example, what do they call spending and regulatory programs by the Federal Reserve, Obama, Pelosi, and Dodd, programs that drag back the economy? "Stimulus." For another example, what do they call the Taliban and Palestinian Arab pursuit of jihad? "Peace process."

Most opinion makers describe setting up a Palestinian Arab state on the other side of the Jordanian one as a "two-state solution." What solution sets up a state pledged to use its new sovereignty to continue the struggle to oust the Jews from Israel?

Nevertheless, President Obama declares that the Palestinian Arabs "deserve" a state. Do they deserve it from years of murdering thousands of people? Just what the jihad-embattled U.S. needs — another terrorist dictatorship. It may not seem so bad to Pres. Obama, because he does not recognize our being confronted by global jihad, just by al-Qaeda.

A New York Times editorial (9/23/11) admits that the Obama administration "misplayed the diplomacy from the start; they promised 'confidence building" measures they couldn't deliver and lost sight of the bigger deal."

Yes, Pres. Obama is notorious for his arrogance and he exhibits his ignorance in miscasting the villain and the issues. Thus he blames Israel's PM Netanyahu "who refuses to make any serious compromises for peace." What does Obama call Netanyahu's agreeing to eventual statehood, his subsidizing the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) economy for stability, his removing most checkpoints, and his temporary barring of Jewish construction so P.A. head Abbas could negotiate though he doesn't negotiate?

Name one compromise by the P.A., Pres. Obama! Why no rebuke of Abbas for preferring war to negotiation? And for walking out of negotiations if he even walked in?

What should Obama do? The editorial suggests he "push" both sides hard, and put a map on the table. That is a euphemism for pushing Israel, because the U.S. does not push the Arab side. Nor is the issue the business of foreigners with axes to grind.

A reader concludes that the "so-called moderate Palestinian leadership is not committed to a real two-state solution." Yes, a jihadist leadership is not moderate. What would another Islamist Arab state solve?

Referring to former PM Olmert's spurned offer to Abbas, another Times reader spotted an omission from PM Olmert's op-ed proposing a negotiated pact. Olmert failed to mention that the Arabs in the Territories elected Hamas, indicating to the reader unconcern with, or favoring of, terrorism. Actually, the reader's point is not as strong as he supposes. The only other voting choice allowed was Fatah, also an Islamic terrorist organization. Point is, the whole population there favors conquest of Israel. That is why there cannot be peace.

Taking the Arab side, a third reader wonders how can a new state be independent, when its area would have Israeli towns, "which are constantly growing in size and number." The reader's premises are incorrect. The number of Israeli communities has not grown. Neither have their municipal boundaries. Rather, houses have been erected on empty lots within those bounds. If the reader were consistent, he would ask, how can Israel maintain its own independence, when the number of illegal Israel Arab houses and community are constantly growing in size and number. Why this one-sidedness against the Jews and in favor of the Arabs?

As for independence, Israel has granted the Arabs autonomy, but then has had to curb some Arab travel for security against Arab terrorism. Don't blame Israel for Arab terrorism. Arab terrorism is attempted frequently. Will nobody suggest that the answer is for Israel to end Arab autonomy, break up Arab terrorist organizations, annex areas that are settled by Jews or are sparsely settled, and withdraw support from the P.A. economy? Many Arabs would move out, terrorism with them. Pity the country where they land!

A pair of Wall St. Journal readers attempt to clarify a lawsuit on the status of Jerusalem, but somewhat mischaracterize the issue and egregiously misclassifies the city's legal status. The lawsuit is brought for American babies born in Jerusalem. The State Dept. refuses to enter onto their passports the city and country of birth. Yes, the dispute is another way of taking Congress' side in its struggle with the State Dept. over who sets foreign policy. But those people were not born in no-man's land.

The legal status of Jerusalem is that of a city, actually the capital, of Israel. Part of that city in the east and north was annexed after the 1967 war. That was a war of aggression by the Arabs. Israel won. It had the right to annex areas for security from further aggression.

The State Dept. contends that the UN resolution of partition suggested that Jerusalem be an international city. (The several other international cities all were annexed by surrounding countries. Internationalization does not work.) UN suggestions carry no binding authority. What the UN or State Dept. would like has no bearing. One would think that the State Dept. knew that. More likely, the State Dept. is being Machiavellian in this. The State Dept. always has been biased against Israel. A government agency that serves its biases does not serve its country.

Point here is that the status of Jerusalem is as part of Israel, though the Arabs would like to change that status. The State Dept. should recognize the current status of Jerusalem, not refuse to on the grounds that it prefers a different legal status in the future.

The letter reiterates the State Dept. position that the dispute over Jerusalem's status can be resolved only by negotiations. It means negotiations between the Israelis having a long history and identification with Jerusalem, and the Muslim Arabs, whose jihad precludes their letting non-believers rule. Arab identification with Jerusalem mostly is a tactic in their jihad.

More informed than Pres. Obama and less biased than the State Dept., Fouad Ajami learned from the failure of Oslo that the Palestinian Arabs feel no need to compromise and have no wish to negotiate (Wall St. J., 9/23/11, op-ed). Yes. What good would be negotiations with imperialist fanatics, be they Nazis, Communists, or Islamists? That is the broader point. So, instead of spending decades keeping the issue open, the U.S. should let Israel settle the problem at the expense of the common jihad against civilization.

Here is another example about negotiation. Afghans attempted to negotiate with the Taliban. The Taliban sent a messenger to the head of the High Peace Council, supposedly with an important message. Instead of divulging a Taliban willingness for peace, his message was to blow up the Council chief. The Wall St. Journal concluded that the Taliban do not want peace, they want war (9/22/11, Ed.). How is that different from the lessons that the P.A. keeps teaching any Israelis open to them?

Jordan's King Abdullah II accused Israel of blocking peace with the Palestinian Arabs outside his Palestinian Arab kingdom. The King made some vague criticism, no examples. Israeli officials turned the tables on the King by reminding him that the P.A. rejected many Israeli invitations to negotiate directly and ignored Israeli's temporary housing ban on Jewish construction, offered to induce the P.A. to negotiate, when the P.A. had said it would not negotiate otherwise (Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 9/20/11, A6).

King Abdullah always sides with the Arabs, however much he has to twist reality to do so. Why take him seriously, any more?

Former Justice Dept. officials David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey properly chide the Obama administration for making just a tactical case for the UN not to "recognize" a P.A. state, and not also a legal case.

First, the UN has no legal authority to create states. Second, The P.A. does not qualify for statehood. The "PA has neither a permanent population nor defined territory...Third, "It lacks a government with the capacity to enter relations with states," at least because it does not control all of its claimed territory, such as Gaza and even Judea-Samaria. [This third argument is somewhat catch-22, because if Israel withdrew from a portion of Judea-Samaria to be made into a P.A. state, then the P.A. could negotiate in that area's behalf. Fifth, the P.A. intends war, a violation of the Charter of the UN, the organization which the P.A. asks to recognize sovereignty for it (Wall St. J., 8/20/11, op.-ed).

The fifth argument against P.A. statehood has a moral element as well as a legal one. The problem with those justice official's brief is that they neglect the moral objections to P.A. sovereignty. Why recognize or even negotiate with a clique that broke all its agreements? Why set up a state for a group of people not a separate nationality and whose plan is to use any territory they get as a base for attacking Israel? One also could say that they are not a nationality, so they should not get a state. Their indoctrination in violence and bigotry makes them undeserving.

How can U.S. foreign policy be rational and effective, when policymakers are irrational and ineffective? Why are they that way? Facts are out of fashion. Reason is undeveloped. Honor has fled. Prudence died.

The Arab side makes statements about international law without foundation and without fear of media or State Dept. contradiction. The pro-Arab media and diplomats call Abbas a man who has foresworn violence. They don't explain his 40 years of assisting Arafat in it. Neither do they own up to his honoring terrorists and threatening war if his diplomacy does not give him the opportunity to dismantle Israel from his proposal to flood Israel with Arabs. But he tells Western journalists he opposes terrorism. They take his word for it, a leader who keeps breaking his word. How naïve can one get?

People repeat the phrase, "two-state solution," without ever making a case for it being a solution. People assert without being asked for evidence.

Obama keeps stating the mantra, a deal with "secure boundaries for Israel." But he does not want to let Israel keep the mountains that would make the boundaries secure. Nevertheless his supporters call him a friend of Israel.

It's all make believe.


Vice-President Biden's national security adviser and deputy assistant to President Obama, Arthur J. Blinken, wrote an op-ed-sized letter to the Wall St. Journal: "The Obama Administration is a Good Friend to Israel." He asserts much without evidence. Example: "iron-clad commitment to Israel's security."

As for the case against Obama, he depicts it as "misleading analysis and outright falsehoods," without identifying a single falsehood. Why believe him? It may be just name-calling. He includes nothing of the case against Obama, so readers can see what he means.

The national security adviser presents supposed evidence of Obama's friendship for Israel. The first example is U.S. influence with Egypt to rescue Israelis trapped by a mob in the Embassy. The result was good, but the motive is not clear. It was easy to use influence to make himself look good without changing any of his seriously anti-Israel policies.

So of course PM Netanyahu thanked the U.S.. That does not support the notion of Obama friendship, not from the President who snubbed Netanyahu repeatedly and fabricated contretemps between the U.S. and Israel.

Citing Netanyahu assumes that Netanyahu is pro-Israel. But the Netanyahu regime has reduced Israeli security measures, secretly froze construction only for Jews, arrested rabbis discussing Talmudic measures, offered the Arabs land that would give Israel secure borders, and subsidizes the Palestinian Authority that indoctrinates its people in jihad against Israel. One may call Netanyahu right wing on the Arab-Israel conflict, but that does not mean he is right wing. Mischaracterizing Netanyahu is a way by some to defame him and by others to give his appeasement of the Arabs cover.

The big, joint military exercise by the U.S. and Israel is cited. Again, that does not prove U.S. friendship for Israel.

Another example is the Administration's including Israel in the U.S. military budget. Congress would, anyway. More important is the larger sum the U.S. spends strengthening Israel's Arab enemies, including terrorist ones. As my earlier articles have pointed out, U.S. subsidy of Israel is used to curb the Israeli arms industry. It would be better if the U.S. forgave Israel's debt and stopped subsidizing it and the Arabs. The tens of billions of U.S. dollars that the U.S. provided Egypt has made its military capable of challenging Israel and likely to fall into Islamist hands.

Additional funding was provided for Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense. This system has lesser capability and greater expense, paid out to connected contractors, than did a competing brand.

Another example is the promise to share new radar information with Israel. Meanwhile, Jonathan Pollard rots in jail without clemency for sharing such information with Israel that the U.S. secretly withheld from Israel. Israel cannot rely on new information being shared. Remember when Obama claimed that there was no letter from Pres. Bush acknowledging Israel's right to keep its towns in Judea-Samaria? That letter was public knowledge, but Obama couldn't find it. That was not the first time a U.S. President couldn't find a written promise to Israel. We can expect more of this perfidy until the State Dept. is purged of anti-Zionist officials who put their animus before U.S. interests.

A future existential threat both to the U.S. and to Israel is posed by Iranian missiles. Therefore, the U.S. is "determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." That determination is backed up by sanctions that hamper Iran's economy. Since Iran threatens the U.S., why does U.S. action against Iran's nuclear program count as friendship for Israel?

The sanctions were ratcheted up too slowly. The sanctions may retard Iran's program, but Iran ploughs ahead. The sanctions cover our doing too little.

Omitted from Mr. Blinken's letter is Obama's knowingly false insistence to Israel that Israel must make dangerous concessions to the Arabs before the Arabs would let the U.S. destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The Arabs were pleading for the U.S. and Israel to destroy those facilities. The U.S. refused Israel in a way that had nothing to do with Israel's policies. In addition, the U.S. threatened to fire on Israeli planes raiding Iran's reactors. That shows both a lack of integrity and a lack of friendship. How can one expect friendship from a President whose pastor was a bigot, some of whose friends are pro-terrorist, and, as commentators have shown, whose advisers all are anti-Israel? Remember Obama's snubs of Netanyahu and his fanning phony indignation against Israel? Some friend!

The nastiness toward Israel is not isolated. Obama's ideology resents U.S. initiative. He has apologized to our enemies and insulted or injured our allies. He also has nothing to say about leftist Latin American dictatorships but has injured Colombia, is interfering in Guatemala, and tried to reverse Honduras' democratic removal of a leftist would-be dictator.

Obama's Cairo speech is cited as standing up for Israel's legitimacy. That speech has been condemned for its pro-Muslim, anti-American bias. As for legitimacy, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, keeps condemning Israeli security measures and Israeli construction, and does not state why Israel is legitimate.

Partly balanced against that is U.S. disagreement with the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war. However, the disagreement was stated so tepidly as to fail to discredit the report. Hmm.

Then there are the refusals to endorse the UN Durban conferences, intended to single Israel out. Not so fast, Mr. Blinken. Obama pulled out only at the last minute, under pressure.

The letter also gives Obama credit for opposing the proposed UN recognition of the P.A.. That opposition does not indicate friendship. It reflects the State Dept. policy of getting Israel to sign up for its own conquest. That would leave the State Dept. appearing innocent.

Finally, Mr. Blinken objects to U.S. policy on Israel being subjected to partisan politics. I agree. But then let him show that the Republic criticism of Obama is partisan. I think that the criticism is deserved and would be broadened if the public weren't preoccupied with the economy.

As we have shown, some of the anti-Israel policies of the current Administration did not originate with it, though much of the nastiness did. Likewise, other foolish foreign policies should be laid at the feet of the State Dept.. This same week, the U.S. finally got fed up with Pakistan. We got proof that the Pakistan intelligence agency fostered the raid on the U.S. embassy, in Kabul the prior week. For years, the U.S. pitch-forked greenbacks to Pakistan, which Pakistan turned over to Islamists. Hence much of the trouble for us in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the U.S. imagined that Pakistan is an ally. It takes the U.S. government a long time to shed delusions. Mr. Blinkern argues in favor of some such delusions.


Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo refused to deploy to Afghanistan, where he might have to kill fellow Muslims. Then he plotted a terrorist attack on fellow Americans. Pfc. Abdo was following the Islamic doctrine of "loyalty and enmity." This doctrine requires Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims. Hence he refused to ship out to Afghanistan.

The same doctrine requires Muslims to disassociate themselves from non-Muslims, even to be disloyal to them. As the Koran instructs, they must not be "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies." It doesn't matter who the non-believers are, the rule applies even to relatives.

Before Avbdlo, Major Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, admired by Abdo, considered himself Muslim first and American second. Maj. Hasan could not stand the idea of being deployed to a Muslim country. Sgt. Hasan Akbar killed two GIs and wounded fourteen others in Kuwait, because he felt U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.

Abdo tried to hide his enmity and disloyalty to Americans in accordance with another doctrine. This doctrine permits Muslims to deceive non-believers. Muslims are taught to speak of friendship for non-believers, while retaining hostility toward them. Abdo claimed "conscientious objector" status, claimed that Islam preaches peace, said he wanted to fight (the non-existent) "Islamophobia," but tried to murder Americans.

Like that other Islamist murderer, Major Hasan, Pfc. Abdo made anti-American remarks in class.

Unaware of these Islamic doctrines, Americans tend to project their own beliefs onto Muslims. Since Westerners associate piety with peace, and since these traitors were pious, Westerners were shocked that such religious people committed terrorism. Islamic law includes piety, jihad, and deceit. (Raymond Ibrahimm Pajamas Media 8/3/11, abdo-loyalty-to-muslims).

How simpleminded seems the fallacy of calling Islam a religion of peace! Why doesn't the Pentagon study political Islam sufficiently to realize they are training an enemy within, and that they need to weed out that kind of Muslims before they can assassinate more fellow GIs.

Not only is the Pentagon ignorant and unwilling to be politically incorrect. Our educational system does not prepare Americans for dealing with jihadists.

The doctrine of deception should be made widely known, so Islamic propagandists will lose credibility.

Oddly, Muslims kill more fellow Muslims than do Americans. Muslims object to U.S. forces come to rescue them from fellow Muslims.


Western reports on Islam often state the facts out of context. It takes an informed reader to understand the import of the facts.

Muslim-Christian clashes in the Mideast may be reported factually as "sectarian strife." What they really mean is that a tiny Christian minority is being oppressed by Muslim majorities, as usual.

An Islamist organization, CAIR, objected to immigration officials being trained by a Christian Minister who formerly was a Muslim. CAIR contended that such a person has a bias against Islam and would make U.S. Muslims fear mistreatment. The Minister's supporters find this an un-American insistence on CAIR's kind of Muslim. The U.S. does not hire on the basis of approval by various sectors of the country. Actually, CAIR does not want people well acquainted with Islam to instruct U.S. officials.

A report from Egypt relates objections by the Coptic Church there to the U.S. congress appointing a special envoy for dealing with the Copts. This is more than religious leadership rejecting foreign interference. The continual Islamic persecution of the Copts is documented, hence the need for the envoy. Then why does the Coptic Church object to one? They object under duress. Minorities in Islamic countries had better tell outsiders they are not persecuted, lest they be punished.

The New York Times ran a story about the Islamic beard, connoting piety and even inspiring non-Muslims. Unfortunately, outward signs of piety do not indicate inner integrity. For example, bearded and observant Muslims believe in deceiving non-Muslims. The news report was not clear (Raymond Ibrahim, Jihad Watch, 8/25/11 reading-between-the-lines).

Newspapers are supposed to inform readers, not give them false impressions. When they fail to make the news clear about those matters, one may wonder whether they make the news clear about others, involving jihad.


Somalia is divided into a central government hemmed into the capital, Islamist and tribal forces in most of the rest, and pirate nests along the coast. The Islamists are called "extremists." The question is how different are the Islamists from the government.

One of the Islamist groups is al-Shabaab. The organization has been expunging remnants of Christianity from the country. They do not do so by persuasion. On August 21, it is believed that three members forced Juma Nuradin Kamil, who had converted from Islam to Christianity, into a car. Within a fortnight, Mr. Kamil was found beheaded. Decapitation of Christian converts is a Shabaab practice.

In Uganda, a teenager switched to Christianity. Her father starved and maimed her for it. By the time was rescued half a year later, her weight had fallen to 44 pounds; she was too weak to walk or talk. The father had threatened to stab her to death if she converted. She would have died of hunger and thirst, but her young brother sneaked food and water to her.

The transitional government at war with al-Shabaab calls itself "moderate," but its President Ahmed follows Islamic law that mandates the death penalty for those who abandon Islam. All four Islamic schools of thought do. However, the Hanafi School permits beating and imprisoning females until they recant and return.

What did the government of Uganda do to the father who so abused his daughter for thinking for herself? It soon released him. He was, after all, upholding Islam.

A Christian pastor in Iran is being tortured in prison, preparatory to execution for refusing to recant Christianity. A Muslim convert to Christianity in a Norway was tortured with boiling water and threatened with death if he did not return to Islam. If Norway deported him to Afghanistan, he could be stoned to death by government order. Muslim governments are as harshly Islamic as are individuals.

Brutal repression of converts from Islam is on the rise. What other religion kills defectors? The phenomenon is more like that of criminal gangs preventing people from quitting. Islam forces a billion people to ignore the human conscience (Raymond Ibrahim, Jihad Watch, 9/16/11

Amazing that some Muslims convert, at such risk!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rock Peters, September 23, 2011.


September 23, 2011 "Palestinian Authority" leader Mahmood Abbas seeks U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state.

If the U.N. recognizes Palestinian statehood then I would urge the Munchkins to rally, form a coalition and demand that the U.N. recognize the "Land of OZ" because Palestine and OZ have something in common........ they are both made up.

The reality is: There is no Palestine.

Palestine is a Latin name given to the holy land by the Romans when Pompey conquered Israel in 63 B.C.

Where is Palestinian history? What are the names of Palestine's great kings, presidents, prime ministers or mullahs? What form of government did Palestine have? What contributions to mankind has Palestine made?

The Muslims in Israel that call themselves Palestinians are just Arabs who came flooding into Israel from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq etc. after the British conquered the region in 1917.

Example: PLO leader Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt.

Not even the Muslim Ottoman Turks who ruled in the Holy Land for 400 years before the British mandate called the Jewish homeland "Palestine."

The noun "Palestinian" referring to Arab Muslims living in Israel was never used before 1948 and the rebirth of the Jewish homeland.

There is no two state solution. There is a 21 state solution: "Muslims go back to the 21 Arab countries they came from."

"It is common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history." Princeton's Arab professor of Middle East history Philip Hitti.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity." Syrian dictator Hafez Assaad.

Rock Peters is an author, songwriter, poet and patriot. His multimedia website — — is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both factual and attractive. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, September 23, 2011.

Israeli families are not paid rewards by their government when their relatives are killed.

Israeli soldiers do not use children as shields when they initiate a firefight with terrorists.

Israeli schools and summer camps don't brainwash pupils to undertake violence against civilians.

Israeli religious figures do not laud children who engage in terror operations.

So what cause, no matter how deeply held, can motivate the current Palestinian society to sacrifice its generations, its future, to the most horrible form of childhood molestation and child sacrifice? The way in which the Palestinian Authority educates children and society is a key indicator of its true intentions.

Convincing ordinary individuals to sacrifice themselves to kill the Jews is not easy, it requires subhuman ideas and institutions. The logo of the "Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations" — on their website and on top of their official statements at the U.N. — shows the Palestinian Authority's claim to a Palestine that stretches throughout the entire historical entity of the former Palestine mandate, which had nothing to do with those who call themselves Palestinians today and everything to do with a national homeland for the Jewish people..

Palestinian Media Watch also revealed that Mahmoud Abbas chose an icon of genocidal anti-Semitism, the mother of four terrorists, one of whom killed seven Israeli civilians and attempted to killed twelve others, as the person to launch the statehood campaign with the United Nations.

In a widely publicized event, Abbas had Latifa Abu Hmeid lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon. It is a measure of how deeply the ethos of martyrdom has penetrated Abbas' policy, hailed for its "moderation".

For as long as the PA continues to foment violence and promote hatred, the number of youngsters willing to blow themselves up or to slit Israeli throats will unfortunately continue to mount. The Palestinian Authority is still a font of incitement, spewing forth a stream of Holocaust denial, racial slurs, anti-Jewish epithets and glorification of terrorists.

Palestinian leadership now seeks self-determination at the United Nations, but its daily policy shouts to the world that even after statehood, the fight must continue against the Jews.

The proof is the series of dormitories, schools, streets, sports arenas and events named after about 50 different Palestinian mass murderers. There is no precedent in the history of humanity for this god of martyrdom.

Palestinian apologists and their supporters over the past decade always dismissed the importance of incitement. But Palestinian glorification of terrorism bears no resemblance to other forms of terror violence because it praise both the dismemberment of individual Jews and the total annihilation of the Jewish State.

Today the act of murdering Jews is glorified as the very highest form of political engagement. The root of this dark sentiment lies in the Arab all-consuming hatred of "the Jews".

Unlike terrorists in other parts of the world, the Palestinian movement aspires to immortality and their violence is always "sacred". Last year the Palestinian Authority named a town square near Ramallah for Dalal Mughrabi, who in 1978 directed the hijacking of two buses on the coastal road between Haifa and Tel Aviv which led to the murder of 37 Israelis, including 13 children. The terrorists fired indiscriminately at vehicles, killed hostages on board the bus and threw their bodies onto the road.

In 2010, the Palestinian Authority sponsored a youth fencing tournament in Jericho named after Abu Jihad, who masterminded the 1978 massacre.

Mahmoud Abbas then eulogized Abu Dauod, the mastermind of the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

Abbas also handpicked five female recipients for the highest medal of heroism. Among them Amana Mona, who lured 16-year-old Israeli Ofir Rahum via Internet chats to a cruel death. Without telling anyone, Ofir put on his best clothes and took the first bus he could. The girl came to pick him up in Jerusalem. The Israeli boy didn't even realize when the car entered Ramallah. It is difficult to describe what the Palestinians did to him. He was Jewish, poor, naïve and innocent.

A Palestinian Authority government complex was then built on a Ramallah street that is named after arch-terrorist Yahye Ayash, dubbed "The Engineer". Who is this person who is hailed as a moral example by the Palestinians?

One day in October 1994, in Tel Aviv's Dizengoff Street, a bus full of poor devout Jews, Russians or Ethiopians became a smoking wreck dripping with blood, scattering gray matter on the windows of the homes nearby, leaving a hand lodged in the branches of a tree. Pieces of human flesh landed on terraces and in trees.

Two years later another Ayash's suicide bomber blew himself up in a crosswalk outside the Dizengoff Center. On the asphalt were the remains of a baby stroller. The streets were covered with Jewish corpses, some of them on fire. In the air was the acrid odor of burned flesh and hair.

Generations of PA Arabs are taught to see these terrorist operations as a way to "open the door to Paradise" for themselves and their families. It's the highest level of paradise, the one reserved for prophets and saints.

Signs on the walls of Palestinian kindergartens currently proclaim their students as "the shaheeds (martyrs) of tomorrow". Elementary school principals commend their students for wanting to "tear their (Zionists') bodies into little pieces and cause them more pain than they will ever know".

Terrorism is sanctified throughout all the PA areas. The streets are plastered with posters glorifying the suicide bombers. Children trade "martyr cards" instead of Pokemon cards. Necklaces with pictures of terrorists are very popular.

A compelling reason that PA Arab parents encourage their children to get involved and killed is the financial incentive offered to families of martyrs. The PA furnishes a cash payment — $2,000 per child killed and $300 per child wounded.

Issa Karake, the Palestinian Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, last April visited the family of Hamas suicide-bomb mastermind Abbas Al-Sayed, awarding them an official, festive plaque, in celebration of the Passover massacre in Netanya. A soccer tournament has also been named after this suicide bomber. In the Park Hotel there was an enormous pool of blood. The blood of 30 innocent Jews who had wanted to celebrate Passover together that night.

PA leaders are still fighting to expunge an entire people — the Jews — from the face of the Middle East. Call it Palestinian Apocalypse.

The writer, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror vicitms, published by Encounter. He lives in Italy. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage, YNet, Makor Rishon and Commentary.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, September 23, 2011.

This is an editorial from the Augusta Chronicle 2011-09-19/histori(cal-folly?v=1316471354).


Israel, an oasis of democracy in a desert of despotism and religious intolerance and hatred, encompasses about one-tenth of 1 percent of the Middle East — leaving the remaining 99.9 percent to Arabs. And yet, Arabs carry on as if Israel was about to crowd all of them into the Mediterranean.

Meanwhile, when Israel was established in 1948, there was no Palestine per se, and the notion of "Palestinianism" is more than a little fuzzy from here. As Arab Christian writer Joseph Farah once noted, "There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc."

That being the case, we've never understood why other Arab nations have watched for decades as the "Palestinian cause" became a cause célèbre among Western liberals — all while doing virtually nothing for them themselves. Why didn't Arab countries just absorb them and make them citizens?

Or perhaps the Palestinians have been more useful, in all their misery, as a bludgeon, figurative and otherwise, with which to strike at that nasty Israel?

Regardless, now — for no other apparent reason than the perceived acquiescence of the United States' most anti-Israel president in history — it's suddenly an urgent matter for the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian state.

How have the Palestinians gone about setting the stage for that? Mostly by living in a state of perpetual war against their neighbor, and then complaining that when the neighbor responds it is "occupying" an innocent people. How is it that the world, and that little thing called the United Nations, has managed to ignore all the rockets that Palestinians have rained down on Israel's civilian society all these years? Not to mention all the suicide bombers, which made it impossible to have unfettered travel and commerce with them?

Now the reward is to be statehood?

The truth is, there would be a Palestine already today if Palestinians had been more concerned with peaceful coexistence and statehood and their own well-being and less bent on killing Jews and trying to win the PR war.

History and the Arab world seem determined, so it appears there will be a Palestine at some point. But on what basis could it logically be conferred at this juncture? Have they even acknowledged Israel's right to exist — in word, much less in deed?

The still-divided Palestinians — who can't seem to choose between being governed by the murderous, warmongering Hamas or the more civilized Palestinian Authority — hardly make for a promising state. The main coagulant seems to be anti-Semitism.

A United Nations seal of approval wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on, and would only confirm what many of us think of that body.

Moreover, given history — in which no Israeli concession was ever enough — would a "Palestine" be content with its current borders? Or would the next push be to "liberate" the "rest" of it — i.e., Israel?

Without ironclad guarantees of its peaceful intentions, it would be historical folly to recognize a Palestinian state, and the United States should veto such a resolution before the ink is dry. Nor should the United States continue to be the Palestinians' chief sugar daddy.

You think maybe the Arab nations should pick up that tab?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Fisher, September 23, 2011.

This is straight forward country thinking...

Jeff Foxworthy on Muslims:

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor. You may be a Muslim

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes. You may be a Muslim

3. You have more wives than teeth. You may be a Muslim

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon unclean. You may be a Muslim

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide. You may be a Muslim

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against. You may be a Muslim

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing. You may be a Muslim

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs. You may be a Muslim

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four. You may be a Muslim

10. You find this offensive or racist and don't forward it. You may be a Muslim

Yoram Fisher lives on Kibbutz Kfar Blum Doar Na Galil Elyon. Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, September 22, 2011.

It is a mistake to attribute Erdogan's behavior to uncontrollable emotions; it is erroneous to think that he has gone temporarily insane and that soon he will return to the solid ground of reality. Erdogan's actions are the product of cold, strategic calculation. Not only are they very logical, but we can almost say that Israel has left him almost no choice but to follow the course that he has taken.

From the beginning of the Israeli media swoon over the glorious "Arab spring" in Egypt, we explained that what we are really witnessing is the disintegration of the modern Arab nation-states that were forced on the Arab tribes after World War I. These nation-states were actually an arbitrary division of the Arab nation into pseudo-states that, besides building huge armies relative to their size — did nothing else to justify their status as states.

The strategic Middle East is now in a process of "restart." The question is, who will be the dominant factor in this expanse? A vacuum is impossible — certainly in the Middle East. Will we see a return to the old days of colonialism? The West's troubled economy and culture mean that the imperialism of the past is not an option.

And so, Erdogan sits in his presidential suite with a huge state and the second largest army in NATO, armed with the finest of modern weapons and weapons instructors from the US and — thanks to our shortsightedness — from Israel, as well. He sits and he thinks.

"Hmmm. They didn't want to accept me into the European Union; I am big and strong, but the Europeans won't look at me twice. On the other hand, the Middle East is looking for a leader. There are only three states in the Middle East that can fit the bill: Iran, Turkey and Israel. After years of mutual tourism and military cooperation with the Israelis, I know that what is important to them is the good life. They do not see themselves as a regional power. Even though they are the strongest state in the Middle-East, they have removed themselves from the game.

That leaves Iran. Ahmadinijad is certainly interested in becoming the regional sultan. He is already doing everything that he can to achieve that status. If I do not hurry up and make my moves before he does, he will find the right moment to make his appearance with his atomic weapons, will sweep the entire Islamic world after him — and I will find myself part of his Pax Irana.

On the other hand, I still have a great advantage over that cursed Shiite: The doors of the world are open to me. I am a legitimate player and I can beat on Israel with no fear. My belligerence against Israel is really a zero sum game for me. I control the height of the flames. This is the way to pull Egypt and its huge army (and its American weapons, thanks to Uncle Sam and Menachem Begin) into my influence. Together, our military might will convince Iran that it is better to join us than to fight us. Even Stalin understood this principle and went ahead with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. If he signed, Ahmadinijad will also sign. Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will then fall into my net like ripe fruit. The oil emirates will acquiesce and in just a short time, I will be the new sultan of the Middle East: the Salah-a-Din who humiliates and drives out the Zionist Crusaders. Oh yes, and of course controls the gas and oil futures. The entire Western world will fall at my feet. We'll see them not accept me into NATO, then.

What about Israel? Well, what I like about Israel is that you can never lose with them. In all their wars, they never really won. In other words, they never really went the entire distance and toppled the regime of the country that attacked them. Ahmadinijad announces that he is going to destroy them and prepares to do just that, provoking them from their border fence with Lebanon — and they don't even lift a finger. The Egyptians burn their embassy — and the Israelis thank them for leaving the security guards alive. I humiliate their tourists to Turkey — and their prime minister promises that our relations will improve. I can safely gather the entire Arab world around me — on Israel's back — completely secure that I will always control the level of belligerence and that Israel will never exact a price from me. Other than running to cry to Obama, of course. They do not see themselves as a regional power. All that I have to do is to smile at them sometime — and they will thank me.

Really, the Israelis leave me with no choice. Either I will rule the Middle East or the Iranians will (also at Israel's expense) and I do not want to be ruled by the Iranians."

Those are Erdogan's thoughts. And now for some of mine:

Why can't Israel see itself as a regional power? Why can't it take advantage of its military and technological edge and encourage countries like Turkey to join it?

The answer is in our consciousness. Israelis feel like visitors in their own home. A guest does not complain about the neighbors. He lets the owner of the house deal with the problem. A direct line leads from the fact that in Israel, it is perfectly acceptable to drive a Jew out of his house while it is unthinkable to do the same to an Arab and from there to Israel's foreign policy, which encourages the world to relate to Israel in exactly the same way. Our "just passing through" mentality has begun to fulfill itself by the forces that surround us. The time that we have left to once again connect to our roots in this Land — is running out.

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 To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Gold, September 22, 2011.

Or, What's the Matter with the Jews?

Last year, in "How Many Jewish Leaders Actually Read The Prayer Book?," I noted the absurdity of the situation where so-called Jewish leaders inveighed against Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's comments that were entirely consistent with traditional Jewish prayers.

Unfortunately, though, the problem is broader than simply Rabbi Ovadia's comments and his critics. In fact, when it comes to Israel (as well as other matters), the dominant attitudes of the non-orthodox American Jewish community are stark variance with the Jewish liturgy.

The Siddur Sim Shalom includes the language in the Birkat HaMazon, "Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, soon, in our day." It does not say "Rebuild West Jerusalem," a limitation which many American Jews embrace.

In the Musaf Amidah we pray, "May it be your will... to lead us in joy to our land and to settle us within our borders." I have also seen the language "Restore us to our homeland." None of the liturgy says or even suggests "settle us within the 1949 armistice lines" or within the non-existent "1967 borders," as all too many among us are all too willing to accept.

I do not know which is more rote, the recital of these traditional prayers that the mendicants actually hope will not be fulfilled, or their votes come election day for whatever names are next to the Democrat levers. (I grant, of course, that many of these "liberal paragons of Jewish values" never set foot in a shul and invoke the prayers.)

Several years ago, the book What's the matter with Kansas? received wide note for asking why Kansans seemed to act against their interests by voting Republican. The answer was that the Kansans really were voting in line with their interests. (If that was not obvious when the book was published, it certainly should be now!)

The analogous yet more trenchant question is "what's the matter with the Jews?" Large majority of American Jews continue to vote Democrat in the face of the continuing and overwhelming evidence that the Democrats are in step with the Islamo-leftist axis, constantly working against the interests of American Jews and Israel. (That axis is also working against the interests of America as a whole and the broader western world; however, that is a different but related issue.)

Two additional recent datums illustrating this point are that every Democrat in the Congress opposed the recent UN Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act bill to restrict UN funding of anti-American, anti-Israel or anti-semitic activities. The Obama/Hillary Clinton administration also opposed another recent bill that would stop it from giving funds to the Palestinian Authority/Hamas government that could be used for terrorism — Clinton said that would restrict her from being able to do her job.

In sum, when liberal or leftist Jews berate Jewish conservatives or the Israeli government as betraying Jewish values, they are simply displaying their own confusion between Jewish values, which their nemeses are likely upholding, but which they themselves do not share, and their own, very different, leftist ideology.

In fact, it is erroneous and an arrogant display of chutzpah to assume that Jewish values are represented by American liberals or the Democrat party. The primary area in which these people display liberalism is in their acceptance of the hatred displayed by their fellow liberals, leftists and Islamists towards Israel, Jews, and Republicans and conservatives.

Contact Mark Gold by email at This article originally appeared at jews-hope-their-prayers-won%e2%80% 99t-be-answered/

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 22, 2011.

Well, I still cannot tell you exactly what's going to happen tomorrow, after Netanyahu and Abbas address the UN. But the focus has sharpened considerably. And I can certainly look at what's happened so far.


Yesterday, President Obama did two things of significance with regard to this whole drama.

First, he met with Abbas, and told him that he indeed will veto the PA bid in the Security Council, if it comes to that.

I cannot tell you what Abbas said privately to Obama. But publicly the stance of the PA was defiant. They will go on, its representatives declared, and submit the request for full membership for a Palestinian state to the Security Council.

Nabil Sha'ath, however, indicated that tomorrow Abbas would submit his letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon but that it might then be held before it is passed on to the Security Council.

And so here we have one possibility for what may transpire tomorrow. It's a solid possibility — a stalling tactic. Another stalling tactic would involve giving the request to the Security Council, which would decide it needed to deliberate — maybe for months, maybe for a year.

The idea, quite obviously, is to buy time, in the hope that the situation will somehow change. Hope does spring eternal, does it not?


It seems to be the case, as I write, that a sufficient number of nations who are on the SC have come on board with regard to the effort to block the Palestinian bid via abstentions so that Obama may not have to give that order to veto. Remember that nine nations must vote for it, or it does not pass.

I will add here that apparently behind-the-scenes work — effective lobbying — by Israel is as responsible for this achievement as anything the US has done.


In his address to the UN yesterday, French President Nicholas Sarkozy (whom I believe will abstain) put forth a most unacceptable proposition:

One month to resume negotiations, six months to reach an agreement on borders and security, and one year to reach a definitive agreement. In the interim the Palestinians would have observer state status.

This is a dangerous proposal without viability. Aside from anything else, timetables like this are disastrous. Not to mention that the PA would parlay observer state status into a tool for legal leveraging against Israel.

Of course, part of what Sarkozy is advancing is an opportunity for France to get involved: "Who still believes that the peace process can succeed without Europe?"

I, for one. Europe is finished, with regard to moral authority or competent leadership. The nations of Europe are on the edge of economic and political bankruptcy.

Explained Sarkozy, "A democratic, viable and peaceful Palestinian state would, for Israel, be its best guarantee of its security."

Does he/can he possibly believe that a Palestinian state would be as he describes? A dangerous proposal, but also a dangerous man.


In the PA areas of Judea and Samaria, people gathered yesterday in preparation for celebration of the founding of a state. A bit prematurely, I would say. And in smaller numbers than had been anticipated.

The crowd grew angry when they learned of Obama's intention to veto as necessary. There was condemnation of the US voiced from within the crowds, burning of US flags, and throwing of stones. Today this mood has heightened, as Obama is being called a hypocrite, and photos of him are being torched in Ramallah.

With Abbas scheduled to address the UN tomorrow, and then submit his letter, Israeli security forces — IDF, Border Police, etc. — are gearing up for the possibility of violence. A number of non-lethal techniques for dispersing crowds are in place. In due course I may write further about this.


The second thing Obama did yesterday was address the UN General Assembly.

You can find his full remarks here: 2011/09/21/remarks-president-obama-address- united-nations-general-assembly

He had come, he told those gathered, to speak of peace:

", we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. The United Nations' Founding Charter calls upon us, 'to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.' And Article 1 of this General Assembly's Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that, 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.' Those bedrock beliefs — in the responsibility of states, and the rights of men and women — must be our guide."

How sincere can it be, to cite the UN — that most corrupt of institutions — with regard to human dignity? This is unserious sucking-up.


But the president continued... "And in that effort, we have reason to hope. This year has been a time of extraordinary transformation..."

Hope? Extraordinary transformation? To make his point he recounted situations in a variety of hotspots in the Middle East and Arab world. Altogether too starry-eyed an account, plastered with political platitudes. He has ignored the hard frost that has settled over the "Arab Spring." For example:

"One year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly 30 years. But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued to Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life — men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian — demanded their universal rights. We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from Selma to South Africa — and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab world."

But it was from Tahrir Square that violent protesters had come just days ago to threaten the ambassador of Israel! He had placed a phone call to Cairo in this regard. And it is in Egypt that we may yet see the rise of Islamists to power.


And then, to the heart of the matter:

"...for many in this hall, there's one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

"One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences...

"...I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn't the goal that we seek — the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us — who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.


"...We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There's no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

"But understand this as well: America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.

"Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel's children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

"The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

"That is the truth — each side has legitimate aspirations — and that's part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes; each side can see the world through the other's eyes. That's what we should be encouraging..."


Well, there is much to challenge, but undoubtedly it could have been worse. No more talk of settlements as the cause of the stalemate. There's been a shift.

I would interpret that shift as, in significant measure, a self-serving political one. An election is coming down the road. Not only does Obama need American Jewish support (which is diminishing) and American Jewish dollars (which diminish along with the support), he is facing staunchly pro-Israel Republican opponents. No, clearly his anti-Israel stance didn't play well and something else was called for.

But let me state clearly that his anti-Israel stance has been too consistent, and too blatant, for me to be convinced for a moment that Obama is truly a friend of Israel.

I'll take what I can get here, happily, but warily. Yet I shudder to think that pro-Obama Democrats might sell people on the notion that Obama deserves their vote if they care about Israel. And after the election?


This speech essentially laid the ground for his already-declared readiness to veto a PA move to establish a state unilaterally. He is promoting the need for face-to-face negotiations. That is his political position. NOT for Israel's sake, but because this is how he has opted to play it. He knows that the unilateral path spells disaster. OK, then.

I hold no brief for negotiations. Don't believe they can bring us to anything remotely resembling peace (although some very credible Israelis argue that talking is good, and can bring cooperation in some peripheral spheres).

But good indeed that there should not be a Palestinian state, acknowledged by the international community, sitting as a full member of the UN.


That Netanyahu and his team should see this state of affairs as good is entirely understandable. That he should be relieved that there was no mention of settlements as the cause of the stalemate, and pleased that there was acknowledgement of Israel's security needs, is to be expected. That he should feel a measure of delight, some sense of victory, that Abbas was foiled at some level is appropriate.

But Netanyahu's response moved beyond all of this in an expression of jubilation and words of enormous and effusive appreciation to Obama. I could have done with something more low key, myself.

What does it say, that our prime minister believes he needs to so very energetically express appreciation to Obama for doing only what he should be doing anyway? This is a tip-off to the fact that Netanyahu, no matter his words, trusts Obama as a friend of Israel no more than I.


Let us look then, at some other comments regarding the Obama speech.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a press release, indicated disappointment in the talk:

"...Today's address was an opportunity for the President to clearly support our ally Israel and stop the PLO's scheme in its tracks, but it fell short.

"The President drew moral equivalence between our ally Israel and the Palestinians and unfairly blamed both for the lack of peace."


And then there was a Townhall column by Kate Hicks, "Obama and the Myth of Moral Equivalency."

"In a grandiose display of the very ignorance he therein denounced, President Obama gave an address to the United Nations General Assembly this morning. I don't even know where to begin when deconstructing his remarks, which total nine single spaced typed pages and skip to and fro among an impressive collection of liberal talking points. My favorite moment came when he announced, 'We have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to our country,' with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in the room. Indeed, close examination of his platitudes reveals the president's inconsistent message and his tenuous grip on reality.

"'...the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other's shoes.'

"Sure, Mr. President. Why don't we ask a terrorist organization to take a walk in the shoes of the people they have sworn to kill. Hey, since you're so fond of quoting charters, how about we quote that of Hamas, the governing power in Palestine...This is why they cannot achieve that 'lasting peace' you mentioned four or five times today — because Hamas doesn't want it. Unless peace involves the eradication of the Jewish people. Then they're willing to give it a try.

"He made constant reference to the necessity for compromise, and the legitimacy of both sides' aspirations (one would hope the elimination of the Jews does not fall into this category). But Obama wastes his words on pipedreams of shared perspectives...

"...He didn't draw a hard line anywhere in his speech. He didn't say anything that the UN would find repugnant or controversial. He betrayed the US's interests and allies with a cotton candy speech designed to fill quote books of clichés ('Peace is hard?' Right.), and win the international popularity contest.

"...He sees the world through Rockwellian glasses, in which 'freedom from want' is a legitimate human right, and we don't ever have to put our foot down and tell Palestine that it cannot negotiate for itself someone else's land.

"Sure, Mr. President. Peace is hard. But moral relativism comes way too easily to you." townhallcomstaff/2011/09/21/obama_ and_the_myth_of_moral_equivalency


This is where I will end today's posting, which would, if I wrote about all that is happening, go on indefinitely. Ultimately I hope to explore issues of the triangulation of Congress/Netanyahu/Obama, and of questions of withholding of funds to the PA (something Ros-Lehtinen is concerned with). I am not there yet.


Today is Durban III at the UN. There is something to say about that. And, more importantly, about the counter-conference being held across the street from the UN: "The Perils of Global Intolerance: The United Nations and Durban III." Sponsored by Touro College and The Hudson Institute, organized by Eye on the UN's Anne Bayefsky, who is associated with these institutions.

Via Internet I have been listening to an array of speakers who are magnificent: Elie Wiesel, Dore Gold, Dan Diker, Ron Lauder, John Bolton, Ruth Wisse, Alan Dershowitz, Wafa Sultan, Khaled Abu Toameh, Shelby Steele, and more. They are exploring anti-Semitism, UN corruption, rights of Israel, and more.

As time allows tomorrow I will try to review some of these talks. My hope is that videos of the talks will be put up on the Internet. This program represents a stunning collection of brilliant minds, thinking morally and incisively.

This gathering is cause for hope.


I do not anticipate that the talks by Netanyahu and Abbas tomorrow at the UN will take place early enough in the day in NY for me to write about them before Shabbat begins here in Jerusalem. I am aiming for — but will not promise — a post on this at the end of Shabbat.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by EIN Presswire, September 22, 2011.

September 21, 2011 /EIN Presswire/ — The United Nations refugee policy funds the teaching of terrorist ideals and practices within refugee camp schools. This claim is one of many veteran news reporter and commentator David Bedein, Director of the Israel Resource News Agency & The Center for Near East Policy Research, examines in his eye-opening new book, Where Has All The Flour Gone: Whims And Waste Of Un Palestinian Refugee Policy.

"Refugee" is generally thought to be the temporary status of a displaced person. However, many Palestinians are now permanently nationless, living in UN funded camps throughout the Middle East. Unlike all other refugees around the world, Palestinian refugees of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 continue to live in UN camps for generations, where children are taught anti-Israeli beliefs in the schools and the killing of Jews is an honorable service to their community.

The camps are funded entirely by foreign government, mainly the United States and the European Union, raising one billion dollars annually. Considering these camps are run by many members of the UN who identify themselves as either refugees or as Hamas sympathizers, perpetuates the problem and leaves many to wonder whether real change is possible within this system. "When I first read the proposal, I knew this story needed to be told," says Meghan Kilduff of Paperless Publishing.

Bedein is currently helping to prepare legislation to reform these policies in the US Congress, the Canadian Parliament, the European Parliament, and the Israeli Knesset Parliament, and will be addressing the UN on Friday, September 16, 2011. The book is currently on the Kindle and the Nook as well as other mobile device.

For interview requests, please contact

Media Contact:
Contact: Meghan Kilduff
Phone: (212)431-5454

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 22, 2011.

In the past decade, the position of Jews at American universities has deteriorated. The problem seems to have started when the late Prof. Edward Said, in his Orientalism, ignored most contrary evidence and blamed all the Middle East problems on the West. He characterized the West as imperialist, racist, and Zionist. He accused academics who supported U.S. foreign policy of being like earlier European intellectuals whom he accused of supporting colonial empires. He made it seem unethical for a scholar to serve his country. (For more on Said's influence on Middle East studies, see Martin Kramer's Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America.)

According to Congressional testimony by social commentator Stanley Kurtz, international studies programs funded under Title VI of the Higher Education Act, are full of bias. Scholars Kramer and Daniel Pipes find likewise.

Title VI prohibits discrimination by race and national origin, on pain of losing federal funding. Discrimination by religion was not stated. [Being Jewish is a combination of religion and nationality, as contrasted with citizenship, which can be different from nationality.] Pro-Arab groups have been harassing Jewish students and pro-Israel students on U.S. campuses. It has reached the level of antisemitism. The supposed distinction between being against Jews and being against Israel is a rationalization, a cover for bigotry in being against the Jewish state. [They claim to oppose "some policies of Israel," but the policies they oppose are self-defense from jihad, and they fail to oppose jihad.]

Mearsheimer and Walt deny justification for the U.S. to support Israel, they call Israel a strategic burden, and they claim that the Israel lobby dictates U.S. policy, to the point of getting us into a war with Iraq. [These claims have been disproved. Actually, Israel urged the U.S. not to attack Iraq but to consider Iran the ore dangerous enemy. But the point is that so paranoid a claim is just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion false claim that the Jews conspire to control the world. It is antisemitic.]

This new form of antisemitism, called anti-Israeliism, refers to Israel in Holocaust rhetoric. It falsely equates the problems of Palestinian Arabs with the Holocaust. It claims that Israel is doing to Palestinian Arabs what was done to Jews during the Holocaust. They claim that the security barrier turns the Arabs into a ghetto. The Media keeps taking up Arab claims, so those canards do not get debunked (Asaf Romirowsky, Jewish Political Studies Review, Spring 2011 rights-in-america, reviewing Jewish Identity & Civil Rights in America, by Kenneth L. Marcus).

Actually, Palestinian Arabs, like some Arab states, attacked the Jewish state in a genocidal attempt at jihad. In other words, the Arabs tried to complete the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. As for the security barrier, if there were no terrorism, it would not have been erected. The Arabs have themselves to blame for their problems.

Western antisemites these days try not to admit their enmity. Some of them pose as friends of Israel, criticizing it for its own good. But what they want changed is what enables the Jewish state to survive.

The Zionist Organization of America has prevailed upon federal officials to redefine what Title VI covers so as to include antisemitism. The government is moving to protect Jews on campus.

Journalists often criticize Israel on moral grounds, however misguided they are. When affirming their humanitarianism, they seem to have no room for criticizing the Arabs and leftists who harass Jews on U.S. campuses. Apparently they merely pose as humanitarians, while taking up the cause of those who are among the most inhumane — jihadists.

Prof. Said was distorting Oriental studies as a form of jihad. Interesting that he was able to cow almost the whole field.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Greenfield, September 22, 2011.

In late February, the Israeli Knesset passed the NGO Funding Transparency Bill by 40 to 34. It had been a long journey for the bill, which despite, its neutered, state was still a declaration of war by the conservative Likud Party against the shadow NGO empire that was the Soros way.

While the bill was no longer able to empower the lifting of tax exempt status for foreign funded NGOs and it only addressed foreign funding of NGOs by government entities, it was a major step for foreign funding transparency. The Soros empire had been built on non-transparency, on hidden donor lists and front groups funded by think tanks with money pipelined in grants through a dozen different organizations.

NGO transparency threatened the entire Soros empire and the passage of even a neutered bill meant that Israel might finally be ready to begin rolling back the peel on the rotten fruits of the Open Society Institute. First governments, then foreign funders, parliamentary inquiries into foreign funding, and then the loss of tax exempt status for left-wing NGOs waging a civil war.

The response came quickly. Less than two months later, Stanley Greenberg, whose firm had done work for OSI, presented a plan to use social protests to create a new majority against the government. Some of the funding for the protests came from fellow Shadow Party billionaire, S. Daniel Abraham.

Abraham was a former board member of Soros' International Crisis Group and had provided the manpower for J Street, while the Soros money stayed hidden in the paperwork that no one was supposed to see. The president of Abraham's eponymous organization is Robert Wexler, the former congressman from J Street and an adviser on the Middle East to the Obama campaign.

Netanyahu's sharp exchange with Obama in May motivated even Democrats who weren't in Soros' vest pocket to find a way to force him out of office. It was no longer just fear of losing the Israeli left as their hand puppet — the American Jewish vote was in play. Replacing Netanyahu with a lefty eager to appease the terrorists would heal the split with Obama and Jewish voters.

The American and European left could provide the money and the strategy, but the Israeli left would have to do the heavy lifting to save the millions of dollars flowing their way from their foreign backers. On the Israeli side were left-wing veterans of Clinton's successful effort to topple Netanyahu. Greenberg had been on that campaign and the plan was to do it all over again.

Two months after Greenberg's presentation, the ball was rolling. Eldad Yaniv, who had been there when the master plan to take over the country was unveiled, was soliciting volunteers for a campaign against housing prices. And not long after that, Daphni Leef, a radical left-wing activist, set up an encampment and a Facebook page protesting against high real estate prices. Who was Leef? She was a video editor for the New Israel Fund.

The New Israel Fund is the mothership of Israeli left-wing NGOs and it is the most threatened by donor transparency. The NIF's 25-million-dollar annual budget is used to fund even more radical groups, some of which call for boycotting or outright destroying the State of Israel. A recent WikiLeaks report quoted the local head of NIF, Hedva Radovanitz, as saying that she expected the country to disappear and be replaced by a more "democratic" Arab state.

Soros had used his Open Society Institute to feed money to the NIF, one of its employees had become the point woman for the protests — and the NIF was also funding the protests.

Shatil, the NIF's "empowerment and training," arm mobilized tent protesters, wrote up a guide for them and brought out the money. Also helping out was Rabbis for Human Rights, recipients of sizable grants from the Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation. Rabbis for Human Rights had even given awards in one evening to both the presidents of the NIF and the OSI.

The Greenberg plan, in typical Sorosian fashion, aimed at dispersing the organization to as many groups as possible to make it seem as if there was a plurality of voices in a grassroots populist movement, rather than a well-orchestrated plan by the left's international backers to topple a government that had become a threat to them.

Netanyahu's sound fiscal management had brought Israel through the global economic turmoil in fairly good shape, but the country was not immune to the rising prices that had stirred up the revolts of the Arab Spring. The social protests followed a similar template with a similar intent.

Israel is a parliamentary democracy and its elected officials can be forced out by no-confidence votes. In 1999, a no-confidence vote had ended Netanyahu's first term in office. Protests, trumped up charges and Clinton's meddling allowed a cabal of leftist tycoons and NGOs to oust Netanyahu and replace him with Barak. Now, the left is partying in Tel Aviv like it's 1999 all over again.

The left is utilizing a tactical blueprint, tested around the world by Soros front groups or grantees. Hijacking protests over the price of bread allowed him to topple Mubarak. Now it's Israel's turn.

The campaign for Israeli NGO transparency threatens Soros' long-term influence in Israel, and the defection of Jewish voters threatens his influence in America. His Israeli puppets have big money at stake. Soros, the Shadow Party billionaires and the EU have spent fortunes to buy up the left. Israeli left-wing university grads with no talent for tech have a lucrative alternative to dot coms in the NGO, and if their NGO mafia were to collapse, it would give the leaders of the housing protests some real economic problems to cry about.

Meanwhile, a guillotine was set up at the center of Tel Aviv's housing protest tent city. It's a message for Netanyahu from the man who has toppled governments and currencies that his days are numbered.

Daniel Greenfield blogs on the Sultan Knish website. This article appeared today in Front Page Magazine and is archived at the-soros-plot-to-topple-netanyahu/

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 21, 2011.

This was written by Jeremy Jones, director of international and of community affairs for the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. He has been researching and writing on racism in Australia since the 1980s. It is archived at editorial/general/appalling-way-of-bigotry-and- hatred-on-antisemitic-path/2300395.aspx


Such blatant acts of racism and intimidation should never be tolerated in a civil society.

On a dry, hot day in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, Australians attending the United Nations' World Conference Against Racism started planting a ''sea of hands'' to stimulate discussion on the many challenges facing indigenous Australians.

I was one of the people delegated to give ''hands'' to passers-by and encourage them to help build the display, with an overwhelmingly positive response from people from many nationalities who enjoyed the break from the intense and often nasty politicking taking place in the sessions. However, a group of about 10 men and women, with badges identifying them as predominantly coming from ''Palestine'', made audible, contemptuous comments at the fact a ''Jew'' (me) was part of the project and went to advise anyone who would listen to dissociate from the event.

An hour or so earlier, a media conference called by the Jewish caucus to the non-government forum, in response to a series of blatant acts of anti-Jewish racism and intimidation, was disrupted by a gang of thugs who had media badges from Syria, Iran and other paragons of freedom. Some of the incidents I had witnessed personally included the distribution by an Egyptian non-governmental organisation of a book of ''cartoons'' depicting Jews with long hooked noses, vampirish teeth and claws dripping blood; an elderly Swiss lawyer asking a procedural question being drowned out by a chorus of ''Jew! Jew! Jew''; the session on anti-Semitism being interrupted by a large aggressive mob, with the actions of one brave African National Congress official probably averting more than verbal violence; and a session on Holocaust denial and legal responses to it, in which I was scheduled to speak, being cancelled on the basis of the advice that conference security couldn't guarantee the safety of participants.

Each evening, when delegates met to recap the day's events, I heard of incidents of abuse, assault and harassment, primarily directed at the youth and women delegates by gangs of cowardly thugs. The conference abandoned any semblance of honesty, decency or adherence to pre-agreed procedure to produce an outcome document which in itself is a damning indictment of the so-called anti-racist groups in ''civil society''.

Earlier that year, in the midst of a freezing Stockholm winter, I was also honoured to be a speaker and part of an Australian government delegation at the forum on ''Combating Intolerance'', where many of the European delegations spoke of the resurgence of far-right racism, replete with anti-Semitism, in the years after the end of the Cold War.

The resilience of the ludicrous conspiratorial world view, which infused Nazism, was a concern in and of itself, but more so due to cross-fertilisation with strains of anti-Jewish bigotry current in Iran, the Arab world and beyond. Very often, unapologetic anti-Jewish hatemongers were using the terms Jew and Zionist interchangeably.

Despite the glib proposition heard in some quarters, all serious studies showed that the alleged or actual behaviour of Jews (or Israel) was never the cause of anti-Semitism, but was often used as a pretext by anti-Semites as they acted to progress their bigotry and hatred.

In Australia, as elsewhere, acts of harassment, assault and vandalism have been committed by far-right anti-Jewish extremists, self-identified extreme leftists, individuals motivated by interpretations of Islam and, less often, anti-Jewish Christianity, and within each subgroup many variables in beliefs and intensity of feeling. Common factors, in recent years, have been the misuse of ''Zionist'' as a direct substitute for the word ''Jew'' and insistence by all bar a few of those caught red-handed in acts of anti-Jewish racism that they are wrongly labelled as anti-Semites.

In the context of attempts to understand the way anti-Jewish prejudice and hatred is manifested, a number of guidelines have been developed to help assess internal variants and also when advocacy of strongly held political views crosses the line and can fairly be assessed as racist rhetoric. The European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia released a comprehensive study of anti-Semitism in the EU in 2004 and produced a comprehensive ''working definition'' which has assisted many policymakers and others consider appropriate actions designed to strengthen society's defences against hatred.

In my experience of ''road-testing'' that definition in Australia, I have found people of goodwill who genuinely want to understand the phenomena which comprise anti-Semitism (as opposed to those who put barracking for a side in the Arab-Israel conflict ahead of any principles of anti-racism or are simply self-justifying bigots) are well-disposed towards it. The most debated part of that definition is the section arguing that the use of double standards to assail Israel and the employment of mendacious, stereotypical charges to dehumanise Jews as a collective, could be anti-Semitic. Some examples are myths of immense Jewish power, including control of governments, media, the economy, etc, and the historically, morally and intellectually offensive comparison of Nazism and the actions of Israel.

Logically, there are precisely three possibilities as to the ''anti-Semitic'' nature of these type of allegations against Jews. One is that they are invariably anti-Semitic. Another is that they are never anti-Semitic. The third option is that all of them sometimes will be anti-Semitic and sometimes they will not be, depending on context. That this position should be contentious says far more about those who challenge it than it does about the nature of anti-Semitism!

Anti-Semitism is too significant to be used as a cheap insult or as a political football. For anyone to contend that anti-Semitism does not play a part in anti-Israel activities, as much in Australia as elsewhere, is not merely dishonest but morally reprehensible. Further, anyone who advances the argument that racism is caused by the characteristics the racists themselves attribute to their targets shows an appalling lack of decency and intellectual integrity.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, September 21, 2011.

There are some things I am confident I know. Some may be hidden beneath the surface, others true for some. In totality, they are a source of my comfort in the future. Despite all the challenges, Israel and the Jewish people will survive and overcome modern-day hardships. These are the ingredients to my optimism.

First, there are entities that evaluate various scenarios and whose job is to protect Israel. These are "think tanks" of sorts embedded within the central nervous system of Israel. Their work is translated into operational "drawer"-plans to be executed as required. For these it is said, "Will not slumber and will not sleep the Guard of Israel."

Second, anti-Semitism is once again boiling over at the surface. In the 1930s there was no Israel; today there is. Israel and Jews around the world find themselves in a most precarious position. However, the very existence of modern Israel provides shelter and an escape for Jews everywhere and the greatest reason for Israelis to protect their country. Once a person "owns" something, he is unlikely to give it away easily. Israelis will fight to the very last drop of blood and their very last breath to ensure Israel does not fall.

Third, Israel is now fighting the final battle for its survival. The Jewish State has spent the last two decades exhausting every imaginable and unforeseeable course of action. Israelis crave peace like no other nation in the world. They are tired of wars and have continued to bear the loss of lives and nurture the injured. But this exhaustion must not be confused with weakness or an unwillingness to fight. Quite the contrary, although the price paid is unbearable, still the determination is unbreakable.

Fourth, Israel is a beacon of light and life. Venture into any kindergarten, elementary or secondary school, unannounced and unexpected, and you will find a celebration of life. In fact, walk any street throughout Israel, or board the train or a bus, and you will see Israel impregnated with life. Israel constantly reproduces, celebrating a spring of flowers and hope. Much as in the plant or animal kingdoms, when a female is pregnant, she glows. All systems are focused on protecting the mother and nurturing the future generation, providing the optimal caring environment for the yet-to-be-born.

Nature has am amazing way to ensure survival, and Israel, in its 64th year is, whether she wants it or not, under protections afforded to her beyond the comprehension of us mere humans.

Fifth, Israelis understand internally how to get along with one another. We seem unruly, opinionated, loud, lacking manners, pushy and otherwise restless. We are indeed thorny, but this is an outer protective layer. People mistake the plurality and diversity of opinions (what some would call the essence of a democratic society) and use that against us. They read op-eds written by Israelis or watch movies made in Israel and use them as weapons. They take things out of context and dress them up to serve their agenda. However, it is exactly those discussions and internal debates that strengthen Israeli society.

Israelis debated the value of a presence in Lebanon; an experience that cost too many lives. Israelis debate the value of land vs. peace. Israelis do not leave any stone unturned in their futile search for peace, carried out by no one else with such intensity of intention.

Israelis are concerned with human lives, even those of their enemies. Israelis can be called "stupid," but they are not. They constitute an open society the likes of which the world craves to have and replicate. And this openness is one of Israel's greatest strengths.

Do not mistake our discourse as serving the goal of Israel's enemies to see her destroyed. When push comes to shove and Israel is against a wall, gun pointed and acid aimed at her beautiful face and body, Israelis will put their differences aside and fight to protect, preserve and survive. They simply do not realize this scenario is the current reflection in their mirror.

Sixth, there is inherent goodness inside each and every Israeli. Although not always displayed over the noise and havoc so characteristic of daily life in Israel, it is as common as the redness of the blood flowing in our veins. When a million people in the north fled their homes and hometowns, as Hezbollah replaced rains of blessings with missiles, Israelis in more protected areas beyond the missiles' reach opened their homes to complete strangers.

In troubled times, Israelis are there for one another. No questions asked, no discussion. A friend, life teaches us, is measured at a time of need, and Israelis are true friends, occasional appearances notwithstanding.

Seventh, history teaches us that haters have stood and threatened to destroy the Jewish people. Too many almost succeeded. The First and Second Temples were destroyed, and the Jews were exiled from their homeland. The Spanish Inquisition continued the effort and Hitler dreamed of the "final solution." None succeeded, and now they are gone.

But the Jewish people are still here, a beacon of light, and still bestow goodness on earth. From medical advances to scientific and technological miracles, from exporting agricultural know-how to homeland security expertise, Israelis are at the forefronts of research and development, fighting for the world's survival on each and every frontier.

Clearly, their contributions are unprecedented, but they are also under-appreciated and taken for granted. There is a reason in the greater scheme of things, for the Jewish people to exist. Simply put, Israelis have a role to play, and the Designer who chose them is too fond of them and their work on His behalf to allow their destruction.

Eighth, decent people everywhere know how to differentiate between good and evil, light and darkness. A blind or deaf person has other senses heightened, compensating in part for that which he lacks. Deep inside, we are all created in the same image, man and woman, irrespective of one's abilities, skin color, culture or ethnicity. The same laws of nature apply to all. This we know, whether we admit it or not, and even when we use all our faculties to oppress the very idea from surfacing, and everyone knows, Israel is a force for good in our world.

Israel's enemies consider falling into the hands of an Arab or a Muslim a nightmare, yet being taken prisoner of war by the "evil Zionists" is a secure and comfortable outcome. They will not be tortured, raped or mutilated, but treated with dignity.

Arabs often describe the behavior of other Arabs in the following manner: "Even Israel would (or does) not do that!" they say, knowing that Israelis can be trusted to behave like human beings, not animals, even against their worst enemies, despite facing the worst atrocities humankind has witnessed.

Ninth, Israel's very being goes back three millennia. It did not come into being out of a void or chaos in 1948. Jews are an ancient civilization intrinsically tied with the Land of Israel. Despite all modern-day attempts to rewrite history, destroy archeological findings and ignore what the eyes can see and share, the indisputable truth will prevail. Eventually it always surfaces as with Communism and the Soviet Union, and this is what will transpire in the Jewish State.

Hold the Hebrew Bible in your hand and feel its strength. The battle against the Jewish people is a war against their God and in religious wars God has never, and can never be destroyed. History teaches not to dare Him, a proposition so many ignore so quickly and so often. The enemy pays a high price, and humanity would be better served remembering fighting the Jews has resulted in fighting the Almighty. Warning: DO NOT ATTEMPT, it will not end well for you.

Tenth, nature has to run its course. Water flows from a high point to a low one. Gases expand, and lava devours everything in its wake. There are cycles in life and in nature as one plus one still equals two. The Jewish people may suffer greatly, but they will survive. The world will try to destroy their spirit and exterminate even the few still in existence, but it will be unable to do so. Each of the 14 million or so Jews around the world is a candle. One tiny light that existed before birth and continues even after departure from this earth.

Thus, as history has shown, armies of goodness will be called upon when Israel and the Jewish People seem on the brink of extinction. These warriors may be unseen, invisible and untouchable, but they are there, protective and powerful against all threats of annihilation.

On that day, when the future seems impossible, these soldiers will surface to do battle for humanity to save itself. They will defend the Jewish people, fighting against the most evil, cunning and capable enemy, Satan. It is a war that has been long in the making, war against the Almighty, Lord of Hosts. Only a fool might doubt Israel and the Jewish people will survive, for it is a guarantee as ancient as water, wind, fire or sand.

Mistake not Israel's appearance of weakness and the impression of the strength of her enemies. This is mere illusion, a mirage meant to confuse and weaken us.

Remember history, know who is fighting and why, and the picture will become clear and the fog will disappear. Then with clarity and understanding you will know where you must stand, and everything that must be done.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Grobman, September 21, 2011.

License to Murder:
The Enduring Threat of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
by Alex Grobman
Balfour Books and American Israeli Friendship League (2011)
ISBN-10: 1933267240
ISBN-13: 978-1933267241

It is always important when an historian chooses to tackle an issue rooted in the past but whose impact continues to make waves of tsunami proportion in the present. Few documents better fit that description than the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

In a new book, License to Murder: The Enduring Threat of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, (Balfour Books and the America-Israel Friendship League), Dr. Alex Grobman examines the "Protocols" and tracks the 100 years of its sordid influence. A prolific author of works ranging from Holocaust studies to advocacy for the State of Israel, Dr. Grobman, whose doctorate is in Contemporary Jewish History from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is in a unique position to confront the enigma and the impact of the Protocols. A member of the academic board of the David S Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, he established and directed the first Holocaust center in the United States under the auspices of a Jewish Federation in St Louis, Missouri and also served as director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, where he was the founding editor-in-chief of the Simon Wiesenthal Annual, the first serial publication in the US focusing on the scholarly study of the Holocaust.

Dr. Grobman now serves as Executive Director of the America-Israel Friendship League.

In License to Murder, he discusses how and why a recognized falsehood is still used to justify not only raw Jew-hatred but also its latest incarnation: the unjustified, single-minded condemnation and promotion of annihilation of the State of Israel by the Muslim world and, incongruously, much of the political left in Western Europe.

"Too many people, even in the 21st century, embrace and transmit negative perceptions about the Jewish people and the Jewish state. In this new book, Dr. Alex Grobman seeks to explore how and why a vicious lie, a warrant for genocide, first written in the early 1900s aided endemic antisemitism and then morphed into anti-Zionism," says Kenneth Bialkin, Chairman of the America-Israel Friendship League, the book's co-publisher.

In his introduction to the book, Wall Street Journal editor Bret Stephens, suggests reasons for this hatred of Jews ranging from the "politics of envy" ("There has always been a political utility in stirring populist hatred any minority, particularly those that are economically successful but politically powerless") to frustration stemming from the Jewish people's position as "the living witness for the absence of redemption."

Dr. Grobman's new book is important, he says, because "it is a potent reminder that no libel against the Jews, however preposterous, can be safely ignored."

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 21, 2011.

A quick housekeeping update: After my last post, my gmail address went out again briefly, and then was again reinstated by GMail. Hope it won't happen again, but keep utilizing when writing to me. As I expect to post frequently in the next few days, keep in mind that if you fail to receive my material it might pay to check my website: current-postings/


The various projected doings at the UN are, perhaps, almost upon us. But here I want to provide some significant background regarding the issues surrounding a Palestinian Arab state.

Earlier this week, I attended a conference sponsored by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the World Jewish Congress on the subject of "The Rights of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People in International Diplomacy."

Participants (in no particular order) included:

  • Ambassador Dore Gold, who heads the JCPA
  • Minister for Security Affairs Moshe Ya'alon
  • Dan Diker, Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress
  • Professor Ruth Lapidoth, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Hebrew University
  • Ambassador Alan Baker, former legal adviser to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Advocate Irit Kohn, President of the International Association of Jewish lawyers and Jurists
  • Professor Nicholas Rostow, Distinguished Research Professor, US National Defense University

There was overlap in the various presentations, certainly — as well as consideration of topics I've touched on many times here. I will summarize by subject matter, noting sources as relevant, and limiting myself to the more significant facts and insights. There is considerable value to the material offered here.


Dore Gold opened by sharing the fact that in private communication with a Palestinian Arab involved in current proceedings, he was told that the PA goal is to change perceptions, more than it is to change the law: There is an attempt to do away with ideas about Jewish rights. The PA wants the world to see Judea and Samaria as automatically Palestinian land, rather than disputed territory to which Israel has the most solid claim. Etc.

Thus, nothing is more important than our emphasizing both our historical and legal rights.

To that end, the JCPA and World Jewish Congress have collaborated in producing a book that is an authoritative exposition of "The Rights of Israel," as explored by several key experts. You can see it here:

And you will be able to order it, hard copy. For anyone wishing to be solidly informed in order to defend Israel, this is an invaluable resource.


Moshe Ya'alon says that with regard to our dispute with the PA, we have the claim to moral, legal, historical, and security justice. The problem is that so many are oblivious to this. When he talks about how pervasive PA influence has been internationally — so that even some Jews have bought the Palestinian Arab line — he hits upon a very important issue:

THE BEGINNING IS OUR BELIEVING IN OURSELVES. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that right in our conflict is determined by an international poll. And so, for example, just because a great many people — and the influential NY Times — firmly believe that we are "occupiers" in Judea and Samaria, does not make it so. We are not.

Among the PA lies that Ya'alon discussed are:

  • That the conflict is territorial, when in fact it is existential.
  • That Israel in intransigent, when in fact it is the PA.
  • That Israel exaggerates her security requirements — which can be resolved via a third party, when in fact we have experienced 1,000 deaths by terror in return for concessions we've already made, and have had only bitter experience with third party forces who don't protect Israel.
  • That Israel should be more "flexible," when in fact what is demanded of Israel disregards legitimate security requirements.
  • That settlements are illegal and illegitimate, when in fact Israel is not an occupier and has built legally on disputed land (more on this below).
  • That the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict is the reason for unrest in the ME and Arab hostility to the West, when in fact historically there are multiple conflicts in the area — Sunni/Shia, attacks against the Alawites and the Kurds, etc.


Ya'alon pointed out that Netanyahu is the first prime minister who has specifically demanded that the PA recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In light of the PA position, this is actually critically important. As Ruth Lapidoth observed, this would run counter to a theme that is central to the Palestinian Arab narrative.


As the entire issue of claims to Judea and Samaria, legality of settlements, etc. is so critical, I want to look at that more closely:

As outlined by Nicholas Rostow: After WWI, a new regime of law, global in its reach, was established via the mandate system established within the Covenant of the League of Nations. Colonial empires were granted trusteeships for indigenous populations. Where the Mandate for Palestine granted to Great Britain was concerned, the focus was on vindicating the promise of the Balfour Declaration.

The international community, via the League of Nations, acknowledged in law the historical claim of the Jewish people to what was then called Palestine, and the right of Jews to re-establish a homeland there.

In 1945, when the UN was established, article 80 of its charter provided for a continuation of the mandate system.

In 1949, Israel was admitted as a member to the UN, with the legal boundary to the east still not set.


Ruth Lapidoth on Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967: It was adopted unanimously on the application of Egypt, is highly quoted, and considered central to the issue of Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria. There are, however, problems with interpretation, with some clauses controversial.

The resolution says that you cannot acquire territory only by war — that after war negotiations must follow. As is famously noted, it says the IDF will withdraw from "territories." There is no definite article (the) utilized. The meaning is that the IDF will withdraw to borders that have been agreed upon, not that the IDF will withdraw from all the territory of Judea and Samaria.

The Arabs prefer to rely upon a French translation of this resolution, which — because of the nature of French grammar — is equivocal as to whether the definite article is intended. The Arabs claim it is.

However, the resolution was formulated in English; it is the English version which is clear, and which should be utilized. The very fact that there is talk about secure borders for Israel implies that borders will be negotiated.


Says Lapidoth, when Resolution 242 — which is a Security Council document — mentions refugees, it speaks of "just settlement of the refugee problem." There is NO mention of "return," and NO mention of resolution 194, the General Assembly document that is at the core of Palestinian Arab claims to a "right of return."

As to Resolution 194, as I have long written here, Lapidoth confirms that it does NOT confer such a right.

Return in this document is only a recommendation — it uses the term "should," while it is "shall" that imparts legal obligation. And it is conditional — "if" the refugees will live in peace, "as possible."


Alan Baker advanced yet another argument for why Israel legally has a right to a presence in Judea and Samaria. This one is not routinely noted but seems to me not only cogent but effective in terms of making Israel's case to persons lacking historical background on the issue:

With the 1995 Interim Agreement of the Oslo Accords, three administrative divisions of Judea and Samaria were created. In Area C, Israel has full civil and military control. There is to be no change in this assignment of control until such time as there is a final status agreement.

The Accords were fully supported by the EU and the UN. How then, can they now claim that it is illegal or illegitimate for Israel to be in that area (which is where all settlements are established)?


Irit Kohn expressed the opinion that there has been far too much hysterics about a Palestinian state. She believes the PA is far from becoming a state.

The Montevideo Convention provides a legal definition of a state. (That is, it sets into customary international law the principle that states may be declared if they conform to certain defined criteria.) The criteria: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. At a bare minimum, the PA does not control the territory it is claiming as part of its state.

After Cast Lead (the Israeli operation in Gaza in early 2009), The PA went to the International Criminal Court to press charges of 'war crimes' against Israel. However, the ICC Convention requires that complainants be states. Israel sought the legal opinion of Professor Malcolm Shaw, an expert in international law at Cambridge University. His professional opinion — which was submitted both to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and to the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists — was that Palestine was not a state under "public international law," and, what-is-more, could not have conferred upon it the status of state for purposes of the Court.

While the ICC has still not made a decision on this, Kohn believes that Shaw's opinion is relevant now.


She also points out, with regard to the PA's chances of becoming a member of the UN, that the UN Charter, chapter 2, article 4, reads:

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations."


Lastly with regard to legal issues, I offer this:

The charge is sometimes made that Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, but a careful reading of article 49.6 makes it clear that it does not refer to the settlements, but rather to 'forcible transfers' as well as 'deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power.' None of this has anything remotely to do with the Jews living in Judea and Samaria of their own volition.


Dan Diker believes that the right of Jews to sovereignty within secure and defensible borders is at stake.

Some 18 months ago, Diker traveled with Arabic-speaking Israeli journalist Pinchas Inbari to Ramallah, to learn more about the PA position on negations. What they discovered has enormous significance:

The PA had decided to pursue the "Kosovo Strategy." This means they had made a strategic decision to go unilateral.

Realizing that they had already received the best offer they were going to get, PA President Abbas and PA Prime Minister Fayyad made this decision in mid-2008. Kosovo had gone unilateral, breaking from Serbia. Legally this was a very different case from that of the PA, but they decided to sidestep the legal framework and draw on imagery and public perception.

Fayyad the put together a very sophisticated, bottom-up economic plan. It was a strategic move, to give the impression that the institutions of state were being seriously built, with a goal of completing this within two years. Today, the PA is no where near ready to be a state and still lacks essential institutions.

Diker is convinced that no concession Israel could have made would have moved Fayyad and Abbas from their unilateral path. (NOT that he says Israel should have tried further concessions.) The decision was an internal one.


With all of this, the tone I sensed in the Conference was one of cautious optimism. As Dore Gold said, Israel's counter-attack has begun and is scoring some successes. I will return to this theme.


Very briefly here (given the weight of material I've already provided), I want to look at what we might expect in the next two days and beyond.

The answer is that even now we don't know. If all goes well, and I post again tomorrow, I may be able to say more. I have felt all along that there is a chance that the PA will either fail to make it to the UN, or fail in the UN.

The US, which is committed to a veto in the SC but loathe to cast it, is working furiously to make it unnecessary.


One the one hand, there is an attempt to get Israel to make concessions that will bring the PA to the table.

It seems to me — especially in light of what Diker has said about the internal PA decision on going unilateral — that nothing Netanyahu is either willing or able to concede would make the difference. But this does not mean there is no unease. There is plenty.

And there are rumors aplenty about what the Israeli prime minister may have agreed to. They include one story with regard to an "interim" state within current lines that Israel may have offered the PA, and another in which the US would hope for another settlement freeze. But I'm not going to address these various possibilities now.


On the other hand, the US is working to stymie the PA inside the SC. There are 15 members in the Security Council. If one of the five permanent members — the US, the UK, France, Russia or China — vetoes, then the motion before the Council is defeated. But in order for a motion to pass, at least nine members of the Council must vote in favor. Thus, if seven members simply abstain — they don't have to vote against — the motion also fails.

Right now, as I write, the PA does not have the numbers necessary to pass their bid. The temporary members of the Council at present are Bosnia & Herzegovina, Germany, Nigeria, Lebanon, India, Gabon, Columbia, Portugal, and South Africa.

It is being said that Germany and Colombia are with the US in opposing the state, but it is not clear if they would vote against or abstain. France, Serbia, Nigeria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Gabon are still undecided — as it seems is Portugal. China, India, Lebanon, Russia, and South Africa will support the state. Have no information on the UK.


And we still need to look at possible punitive actions by Congress in response to what's going on, and what may be the Israeli role here.


Some articles on this subject worth reading:

Jeff Jacoby, "A Palestinian state? Don't count on it." /10377/a-palestinian-state-dont-count-on-it


The Wall Street Journal Editorial, "The Palestinian Statehood Gambit."

"Are Palestinians entitled to a state? Before certain readers erupt at the mere suggestion that Palestinians may not be so entitled, we'd note that the Kurds — one of the oldest ethnic groups in the world — don't have a state. Neither do the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Uighurs and Tibetans of China, the Basques of Spain, the Chechens of Russia or the Flemish of Belgium. The list of peoples with plausible claims to statehood is as long as the current number of U.N. member states, if not longer...

...The Obama Administration, which has wasted six months begging the Palestinians to change course, might instead announce that a declaration of Palestinian statehood in New York would lead to the closure of the Palestinian representative's office in Washington. Congress could also enact Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's bill to cut funding to the U.N. if it endorses a Palestinian state. This worked wonders the last time the Palestinians sought to have the U.N. declare their state during the George H.W. Bush Administration.

"Perhaps it's also time to rethink the fundamental desirability of a Palestinian state so long as the Palestinians remain more interested in tearing down their neighbor than in building a decent political culture of their own." SB100014240531119042655045765 68842038912296.html?mod= googlenews_wsj


Robin Shepherd, "Reckless Palestinian bid for unilateral statehood at the UN."

"...there is one party that most emphatically does not support a Palestinian state, if that means long-term acceptance of the State of Israel: the Palestinians themselves. Opinion polls have consistently shown that the Palestinians only support the idea of a Palestinian state sitting side-by-side with Israel as a stepping stone to a future one-state solution in which they rule over the Jews.

"In other words, the Israelis have always been in the near impossible situation of being asked to negotiate with people who plainly don't want any long-term peace involving the acceptance of Israel as a legitimate state with a secure future, whatever their leaders say about recognizing Israel to gullible Western media."

Contact Arlene Kushner at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. History, September 21, 2011.

This was written by David Solway and it appeared in Dailer obama-incompetent-or-malevolent/


The phrase "politics as usual" has gained a certain currency in our time. Regrettably, it is no longer relevant. What we are presently witnessing cannot be described as politics as usual. Consider the concatenation of events and factors that now confront us: the upsurge of terrorism and the growing strength of Islamic radicalism, a United Nations that has violated its Charter and is now home to totalitarian regimes and rogue nations, the international ostracism of Israel and an impending war in the Middle East, the American betrayal of its allies and a foreign policy that supports the Muslim Brotherhood and faux Arab revolutions, the corrupting influence of the left in the mainstream media and the universities, the potential economic implosion of Europe and possibly of the United States as well, and perhaps most distressingly at so critical a historical juncture, the election of Barack Obama, a man with neither business, military nor executive experience, to the most powerful office in the world.

What we are observing is, in fact, the politics of the unusual, a perfect storm of forces and influences that threaten the democratic polity of the West and augur a coming epoch of peril and convulsion. And the one bulwark that might have resisted the towering wave of oncoming misfortune appears to be crumbling before our eyes. I am referring, of course, to the United States of America.

What happened to New Orleans when Katrina struck is only a microcosm of the devastation that is now brewing. People rushed to blame President Bush for the disaster that devastated the city, but they were dementedly wrong or simply seeking to extract political profit from a natural catastrophe exacerbated by civic ineptitude. There can be no doubt, however, that President Obama is at the center of the approaching tsunami. I have long argued that the most dangerous man in the world is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il or Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, but Barack Hussein Obama. This, I believe, is no exaggeration.

In a troubling article for American Thinker, Stella Paul contends that in electing Obama to the presidency, Americans "tried to create a god to defend our freedom, because it was easier than the hard work needed to defend it ourselves." The result proves that outsourcing courage or delegating integrity, especially to an unknown quantity, always backfires. To cite the title of the famous 1949 book charting the defection of former communists, Obama, like communism itself, ineluctably became "the god that failed." Paul goes so far as to claim that "the destruction that Obama wrought may ultimately dwarf the wreckage of 9/11."

Judging by the poll data, a majority of Americans — a considerable number prone to buyer's remorse — have come round to sharing this view of Obama's dreadful stewardship of the nation and the destabilizing effect he has had on world affairs. His conduct in office has sapped the economic strength of the U.S. and impaired the rule of law (e.g., his bypassing congress in the Libyan adventure), sowed fear and confusion among our allies, prepared the scene for the rise of inimical movements and states, and materially weakened the democratic West. But the jury is still out on whether he is "only" a bungling amateur or is motivated by a spirit of ingrained hostility toward his own country.

The debate is gaining momentum as both the foreign and domestic situations plummet from bad to worse. Is Obama merely incompetent, a man completely out of his depth who has no understanding of real-world economics or realpolitik, who cannot deliver a coherent speech without the aid of a teleprompter, who is compelled to rely on the advice of sharpers and operators, and who has absolutely no prior, genuine accomplishments to his credit outside of a capacity for political maneuvering, polished mendacity and, as David Remnick gushed in The Bridge, the ability to wear perfectly creased trousers? A community organizer as president? A feckless nonentity as Commander-in-Chief?

Or is Obama by no means incompetent but, on the contrary, a brilliant neo-Marxist tactician, a man with a hard-left Alinskyite agenda for the subversion of the United States as a liberal, free-market democracy and its transformation into a socialist oligarchy? A man who deeply resents the primacy and exceptionalism of the country he governs and wishes for nothing more — or less — than to see its status in the world diminish in payback for its perceived transgressions as a pre-eminent power? Are his methods the fruit of deep-dyed education and meticulous reflection? We may be inclined to think so when we assess the evidence: the appointment of unaccountable "czars" to control the life of the nation, the blizzard of bureaucratic regulations that stifle entrepreneurship, the effective nationalization of much of the economy, the partnership with thugocratic unions, the amnesty for illegal immigrants to secure a reliable voting base, the alienation of democratic allies and the coddling of various despotic regimes, including the nascent tyrannies emerging from the so-called "Arab Spring."

Which is it? Is America governed by a grown-up toddler who has turned the White House into a rumpus room where he can build, dismantle and rebuild Lego-like structures at whimsy or play his video games which he mistakes for reality? Or does he resemble a Mafia-like don surrounded by a gang of tax cheats, perverters of justice, arm-twisters, enforcers of union violence, thieves who call their method of extortion "redistribution," vote-pilferers and cartel gun-runners?

I suspect that the answer is: both. On the one hand, Obama is demonstrably incompetent, overly dependent on his advisors and backers, far more preoccupied with the high life than with the life of ordinary Americans (e.g., his $50,000 a week vacation rental on Martha's Vineyard) egregiously miseducated and with little grasp of world history (e.g., the Cairo speech where he managed to get his centuries wrong) or even of the standard usages of the English language (what, pray tell, is a "corpse-man"?), and prone to innumerable gaffes equalled only, perhaps, by those of his vice-president.

At the same time, he is clearly a dedicated socialist, known for his far-left proclivities as a junior senator, his revolutionary friends (Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi), his sinistral mentors from Frank Marshall Davis to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and his domestic and foreign policies that plainly demonstrate his sympathies and commitments in favor of syndicalist ideas and the left side of the political spectrum in general. In their must-read pamphlet Breaking the System, David Horowitz and Liz Blaine compellingly argue that Obama is implementing the notorious Cloward-Piven strategy, enfeebling America by attacking its economic foundations. Obama and his leftist administration are determined to bankrupt the nation as "a way to bind future generations to government dependency and to weaken 'imperial' America in the world at large." Obama's declared intention to pursue a program of "fundamentally transforming" a country that has no need of such an ideological mutation and his penchant for quite ruthlessly demonising his opponents reveals a peculiar streak of malevolence that few had initially suspected. And it must be admitted that he is proceeding to realize his project rather competently.

As they say, whatever. It's a fascinating speculation that continues to engage the attention of president-watchers, including this writer. Nevertheless, when we take stock of the current situation, the question of whether Obama is incompetent or malevolent, or even a mixture of both, remains entirely theoretical and, in the last analysis, no doubt undecidable. Irrespective of the president's nature, capacities or purposes, the real issue is not origins but conclusions, not sources but sequels. For whether incompetent or malevolent or both, the most unfit president in the history of the Republic, bar none, will not rest content until he has brought every American asset and advantage and ally crashing to the ground

Contact Dr. History by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 21, 2011.


At a press conference, the State Dept., represented by James B. Foley, acknowledged that Sec. of State Clinton is correct — Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria is legal. Nothing in the Oslo Accords states otherwise.

The question of legality is separate from the State Dept. policy finding such building undesirable (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, 9/21/11,

The U.S. was a party to the Oslo Accords, making the legality of Jewish construction even more acceptable. Accusations that the construction and the Jewish communities are illegal are mistaken. Calling the Israeli presence illegal also is incorrect. So is calling that presence an occupation.

As I have indicated in many articles reviewing the history of Zionism and State Dept. anti-Zionism, State Dept. policies are based on antipathy toward Jewish sovereignty. The State Dept. has opposed the formation of the Jewish State; proposed its dissolution; withheld promised information about Arab military moves from Israel; kept it from ending wars of self-defense against Arab aggression in ways more favorable to it; opposed Israel acquiring land in self-defense, although that is permitted under international law; does not object to Arab building in the Territories and usurpation of land that Arabs do not own; opposed many means of Israeli self-defense or anti-terrorism; armed and subsidizes some of Israel's enemies; criticized Israel for collateral killing of civilians though the U.S. does likewise; and failed to criticize Palestinian Arab terrorism and wholesale violation of the Oslo Accords, that the U.S. endorsed.

The State Dept. bases its opposition to Jewish construction in the Territories on assertions that such construction hampers peace. Poor excuse! No evidence for it. The fact that the Palestinian Authority contends it hampers peace is just part of its bargaining. Logically, Israeli construction and annexation would pressure the Arabs to make a deal while they can.

Going further, there is no evidence that the Arabs want peace and overwhelming evidence that they want to conquer Israel by a combination of diplomatic, economic, social, and military means. (See my other articles for this evidence.)

One problem with the State Dept. is that it retains policies for decades, despite their proven failure. A second problem is that its policies support enemies of the U.S., such as certain anti-Western Arabs and even jihadists such as the Palestinian Authority. A third problem is that the U.S. still sides with dictatorships that persecute minorities or encourage war and terrorism.


The Palestinian Authority (P.A., by a spokesman for the President) said that it would negotiate with Israel if Israel agreed to cease building in Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem and agreed with withdraw from all of those areas. It calls such building illegal (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis,, 9/21/11).

The number of Israelis living in those areas is about 500,000. All would have to be uprooted and


The Bedouin nomad wandered throughout the region, not owning land in any part of it. But now Bedouin are claiming legal title to most of the Negev. The radical anti-Zionist Left is Israel supports this. The result of what they want would be a mini-state that bars Jews.

The problem began in the 1970s. The government sought good relations with the Bedouin and to settle all legal land claims. Actually, the Bedouin did not have legal title to land. The government hoped to settle them on some land and end their illegal squatting. The government considered Bedouin patriotic Israelis; they often served in the armed forces.

So, the government offered to let Bedouin file a claim that his ancestors had lived on certain fields, and the government would consider that claim plus conflicting legal evidence. Then it would negotiate a solution. The Bedouin were not asked to document their claim.

Israel did not put much credence in the prospective claims, but considered them a stating point for negotiations. Then the Bedouin would have real houses and get real jobs.

The initial Bedouin claims were for 200,000 acres, including the sites of Jewish farms and towns. Meanwhile, land values rose.

The government offered 20% of the Bedouin imaginary claims, in return for relinquishing the rest. The Bedouin demanded 100%. Finding its reasonableness rebuffed, the government then redoubled its appeasement, now considering 50% of the fictional claims.

Meanwhile, Bedouin have been turning anti-Israel and radical. They fly PLO flags, some join espionage and terrorist organizations, two of their Knesset representatives favor jihad, and their mayor of Rahat refuses to employ Jews.

What does the Left say about all this? They contend that Israel is trying to "steal Bedouin lands" and deny the Bedouin their "rights." They demand granting the Bedouin 100% of their phony claims.
(Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/18/11).

The Far Left distorts the truth in behalf of an unpatriotic ideology. This bespeaks psychosis. Nor is the European Left much better.

Israel is not trying to steal Bedouin land nor deny them rights. To the contrary, Israel was offering them land, and the Bedouin are trying to steal Jews' land and deny them rights. If the Negev were detached from tiny Israel, the Arabs would have achieved a major part of their goal of driving the Jews out. The government of the Jewish state should not be complicit with that Arab goal.

ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM Christian missionaries and Lebanese Christians introduced to Muslims the canard that Jews bake Christian children's blood into their matzos.

Islamic antisemitism asserts that to Islam and its revelations, the Jews are the most hostile. This Islamic belief contends that Jews tend to be treacherous with non-Jews, murder prophets, are arrogant and self-righteous, and are evil in other ways.

Although the Koran seems in this to be referring to historical conflicts with Jews and pagans in Arabia, the orthodox Islamic interpretation considers the Koran applicable to all times and places. They take the hatred in their sacred writings as applicable to Jews now.

Islam had religious laws requiring humiliation of Jews. Until the 13th century, those regulations were not much enforced against Jews in Muslim areas. Jews integrated better than did Christians. The Muslim and Christian populations there resented this.

Thereafter, the Muslim world shut itself off from foreign influence and enforced Islamic law more strictly. Rural Yemenite Jews became slaves. Pogroms flared up in Morocco, Libya, and Persia. The Palestinian Authority still depicts the Jews as evil by nature and plotting against gentile nations. This has been a theme of Islam for centuries.

No wonder that the Islamic world has been receptive to the blood libel and to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which accuses "the Jews" of plotting world domination!

Muslim and no-Muslim apologists deny the anti-Jewish sentiment past and present, although the Hamas Charter and the sermons still being uttered prove otherwise (Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, 8/15/11, islamic-anti-semitism with documentation).

The denial either is deliberately deceitful or psychologically self-deceiving.

Note that calling all Jews everywhere and of all time to be evil by nature, is a racist view of Jewry.

How ironic that Muslims, whose religion aspires to take over the world, and whose Islamists plot global domination, accuse Judaism, which does not even proselytize, of seeking global domination. Fantasy within paranoia.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, September 21, 2011.

They're coming with their murder.
They're coming with their hate.
They're coming with their lies,
that win the great debate.

The world has lost its reason.
The world has lost its soul.
The world has caved to treason
against one that was its own.

Once courage was a virtue,
Now is lost and gone.
Now appeasement is the purview
and honesty's day is done.

They talk of human rights
when people are around.
But human wrongs are hidden
when hypocrisy abounds.

Let's shine the light on those that point
yet hide the guilt of sinners.
Let truth protect the moral ones
and expose the false deceivers.

Let the curses of the cursed ones
fall short of true believers.

For facts and rights belong in truth
with those brave souls with God.
While wicked lies and evil plots
rot in hearts that God forgot.

So worship life, be strong and brave,
for truth, in the end, will out.
And evil ones who make the noise
will, one day, have no clout.

Barry Shaw is the author of Israel — Reclaiming The Narrative. His website is at

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, September 21, 2011.

Watch the video on the rock throwing youngsters here.

The long awaited 'September' is upon us. The so-called war for 'palestinian statehood' is being fought by teenagers, (and younger) throwing rocks (as seen in the video and photos below) in Hebron. These pictures and video (all filmed by myself) were taken behind Beit Hadassah, where I live, from one of our bedroom windows, looking north.

These scenes are not new or necessarily unusual. They are quite redundant, occuring any time the Arab leadership decides that the kids need a day off from school with something constructive to keep them busy and, no, not keeping them off the streets, rather, keeping them on the streets, out of their homes. Nakba Day and other such occasions are great excuses to allow Arab kids to get their arms in shape.

A week or so ago, rocks hurled from the same area, via slingshots, hit outside my daughter's window, on the top floor of the building. During the '2nd intifada' aka the Oslo War, we were shot at from these areas, with bullets actually hitting inside the apartment.

From nearby rooftops, Israeli soldiers watch the action, occasionally shooting stun grenades or teargas at the attackers, chasing them away for a few minutes. And as can be seen in the first photo, the so-called 'palestinian police' are stationed nearby, standing around, watching the fun, probably wishing they too could participate. Unfortunately, experience has taught that all too often they do participate, but not with rocks. Bullets are much more effective.

This is democracy in action, a 'piece process' in motion, education at its highest levels, helping and assisting Abu Mazen create 'palestine' in the UN.

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: or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, September 20, 2011.

This is taken from Tundra Tabloids
( palestinians-throw-rocks-at-20-month-old- jewish-toddler.html). It was posted by KGS.


Arabs threw rocks Wednesday at an Israeli car between Migdalim and Tapuach Junction in Samaria. A 20 month old girl was injured in the face.

The baby girl received treatment from Samaria Regional Authority medics and evacuated to a hospital. The Authority Head Gershon Mesika said: "The 'men of peace' of the Palestinian murder authority provide yet more proof, to those who still need it, as to just whom we are facing. We face low life terrorists who try to murder babies."

"They hold an olive twig in their mouths and murder weapons in their hands. To these barbarian terrorists they want to give a state. The Nation of Israel is strong, the government needs to learn from it and be strengthened by its spirit — no to folding and surrendering, yes to construction and stamping out terrorism."

View the video here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, September 20, 2011.

Hundreds of thousands are now waking up to the truth that the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland in the region known as Palestine were established last century, during the Twenties, via the San Remo Resolution that was thereafter ratified by still-binding treaties as well as reflected in the League of Nations mandate that reaffirmed the boundaries (of the Jewish Homeland) after WW I. Until the spread of the propaganda blitz promoted by the Egyptian-born terrorist Yasser Arafat and funded by the nouveau riche Saudis---which anti-israel jihad was later taken up by the one-term X-POTUS, Jimmy Carter, whose "peace orgs" were handsomely rewarded by the newly established arab oil states---the region known as Palestine was invariably associated with the Jews, not the Muslims.

The boundaries established for the Jewish Homeland encompassed the entire region of Palestine and certainly all of Jerusalem as well as the currently contested areas known as Judea and Samaria as well as most of the Golan Heights and the entire region now known as "Gaza". The new state of Saudi Arabia was established in 1932 and its would-be first monarch, Abdullah, demanded that the new state of Saudi Arabia be recognized by the British as an Islamic monarchy because and as reasoned by Abdullah-the-First, the British had earlier recognized Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

Most of the lands of the Jewish Homeland were unlawfully seized by the "Britz" after WW II and wrongfully gifted by them to the Hashemite tribes for to create the new nation of Jordan ca. 1948. The new state of Jordan was settled by the arabs who now want to be known as "palestinian" even though the arabs never settled or owned any part of the Jewish Homeland. The immoral ppst-WWII British government kicked the Jews when they were down-and-dying and the Britz did this dirty deed for to ingratiate themselves with the newly established oil-endowed arab states. In short, the post WW II British occupiers, who had nothing more than a temporary mandate over the region then known as Palestine (aka: the Jewish Homeland) unlawfully shredded the Jewish Homeland and parceled-out most of it to the arab invaders who swarmed into the region that actually belonged to the new state of Israel. And that is when, why, and how the great division between Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Arabs, occurred. Further piecing-away of the lands of Israel is a continuing violation of International law and this is so regardless of the weakminded or ignorant leadership of certain ill-informed rabbis and New York Jews. Remember this: The fascist remnants in the British Foreign Office had no reservations at all when it came to kicking the Jews when they saw that the Jews were down and dying after WW II.

Israel has had some unfortunate leaders whose spines were broken by air-kisses and false promises and these leaders allowed the incurable Euroids to badger Israel into relinquishing its sovereignty over Israel's lands, and so. with no little help from the US State Dept. they together bullied Israel's weak leadership into bestowing undeserved opportunities upon the arab invaders who were allowed to swarm into Jewish Palestine and drop their anchors on Israel's soil. Much like what is happening here in the US right under our noses. LIke Israel, the US now has regions housing both legal and illegal immigrants who do not want to assimilate and who scorn the idea of the US as a "melting pot."

Honest people who want to throw off the cloak of ignorance dropped on their shoulders by the MSM can indeed learn about international law and how it is being systematically trampled by the arab league functioning within the UN (and who are invariably enabled by the guilty British.) Fair-minded people should pick up a copy of Prof. Howard Grief's easy-to-read treatise on international law: "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law." We found his book on

SC4Z (Secular Christians for Zion) Not Left. Not Right. Just 4 Justice 4 Israel! Viva to the Patriots of Israel!

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, September 20, 2011.

This is by Herbert London and it is archived at

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America's Secular Challenge.


With a vote at the UN this week on Palestinian statehood it is appropriate to ask if the United States will save Israel or will Israel save the United States.

After ten days visiting defense installations in Israel and talking to members of the general staff, my confidence about Israel's ability to defend itself has soared. This tiny nation of seven million is a miracle of technical marvels and remarkable spirit. Every weapon system this nation buys is Israelized. The Israeli drone is a composite of parts from several nations and Israeli avionics. The F-15 is an American plane adapted for the conditions in the Middle East neighborhood.

While some native Israelis lament the decrease in national spirit, the IDF education program instills in every draftee a sense of national history and purpose. It is inspiring to meet teenagers of eighteen and nineteen who are prepared to make battlefield decisions. One twenty-one-year old brigade commander in an elite unit is an articulate warrior, and at least as sophisticated as most officers ten years his senior in the United States.

In their book Start-Up Nation, Dan Senor and Saul Singer point out that these soldiers who are given great responsibility become desirable candidates for corporate recruiters. A highly decorated communications unit had three times the number of applicants as available billets. As one officer pointed out, these youngsters can secure some of the nation's most desirable jobs once the tour of duty is over.

As Israel is not saddled with a hydra-headed bureaucracy expanding to meet regulations and oversight committees, Israel's military force is lean, adaptable and alert. Incompetence at any point in the chain of command could be deadly.

The larger U.S. force structure and international missions militate against the adoption of an Israeli system. Nonetheless, there is much to be learned: the hair-trigger response to attacks of any kind; the ability to move ground troops quickly, and the surveillance tools are unquestionably a source of security strength. Israel, despite residing in a turbulent area with 250 million hostile Arabs, is a unique illustration of military preparedness.

There are those in the United States who believe Israel is a strategic liability. As long as we are committed to its survival, they say, American forces will be obliged to be in harm's way. Of course, what these detractors overlook is that Israel is the eyes and ears for the U.S., in a region fraught with extremists. In a real sense, Israel is the first line of defense in the war against radical Islam, a war that promises to be long and bloody. Israel is not merely an ally, it is a democratic nation in a despotic wasteland.

This war is not only likely to be long; it is a civilizational battle in which liberalism with its attendant values of individual rights, free markets, private property and the rule of law is pitted against an eighth century adherence to conformity and an opposition to personal liberty. Israel assumes the vanguard in this struggle, in part because of its location and, in part, because its very survival is dependent on prevailing against its adversaries.

To return to the question of whether the U.S. can save Israel or whether Israel can save the U.S., is to realize that the relationship is symbiotic. The U.S. needs Israel as a first line of defense, a barrier against the expansion of radical Islam; Israel needs the U.S. for technical advances and the assertion of international power. If the day comes when the U.S. believes Israel can be set adrift, international equilibrium will be permanently disrupted. Israel is for the U.S. a listening post in a world where intelligence is critical for security. As political currents are roiled by expressions of regional dismay and religious orthodoxy, U.S. interests are uncertain. This condition, perhaps more than any other, explains why the U.S. needs this extraordinary ally in the Kingdom of David.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, September 20, 2011.

Though perhaps we don't agree with all that is written in these declarations, myself included as explained below, there is good reason to address this declaration seriously and really extend our imagination and envision, as the co signers have, the actualization of our dream of 2000 years of Am Yisroel having Jewish Sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel that is governed by Torah and not by secular law. Let us welcome the courageous stand of Neemanei Eretz Yisroel and rather than condemn it, brainstorm and be part of a new dawn, a new age that really demonstrates our Emunah Peshuta, our simple belief in G-d and our belief in our Holy Torah with concrete action and not merely lip service.

While the majority of the people of Israel are not quite ready for such a revolutionary suggestion of a government based on Torah, the communities in Judea and Samaria are open to it. Now when Israel faces the prospect of a hostile Palestinian State governed by Sharia Law glorifying shahidism side by side the State of Israel, the prospect of a sister Jewish Authority side by side the State of Israel governed by the Written and Oral Laws of Torah and a Sanhedrin, does not seem quite as threatening.

It does not seem likely that Netanyahu's government would have what it takes to annex Judea and Samaria. Let us take advantage of this window of opportunity and explore the possibility of a government that is based on the Torah and Hebraic Law as a prototype in Judea and Samaria. Even if Judea and Samaria was annexed, G-d willing, establishing a prototype gov't based on Torah in Judea and Samaria is a revolutionary idea and should be done small scale. I suspect that the majority of Israeli's will be afraid of religious coercion. One can not simultaneously govern according to secular law and religious law. That is why there needs to be a distinction in the way these Torah Authorities are governed along with collaboration and cooperation with the Secular State of Israel.

Let me incorporate some of the ideas presented by Prof. Eldad at the Jabotinsky Memorial.

To paraphrase Prof. Eldad. What has been obvious for generations is no longer obvious and the people are very confused.

Those that cosigned this declaration of Neemanei Eretz Yisroel clearly understand that Eretz Yisroel has intrinsic value of its own and is not merely a tool. Eretz Yisroel is the aspiration of the Jewish People for thousands of years as MK Eldad eloquently pointed out at the Jabotinsky Memorial hosted by AFSI in Manhatten this past Thursday, and not merely a place of refuge for the Jewish People. Let us free ourselves of the shelter mentality and proclaim that Eretz Yisroel is our homeland. It is a Holy Land which acquires it's sanctity to its fullest when the Nation of Israel, G-d's Chosen People, adhere to the Commandments on the Land. Eretz Yisroel can not be traded for "peace". It is not negotiable by "leaders". Pieces of Land can not be swapped. Drawing lines while negotiating territorial compromises do not lead to peace but lead to war. The shelter mentality according to Dr. Eldad is the source of our weakness.

Where is our yearning to keep the commandments and bring forth the sanctity of the Land prescribed by the Torah? Will the Palestinians keep Shemittah?

The extended borders of Eretz YIsroel are the borders promised by G-d to Abraham. In Parshat Masei, those borders were reduced and instead of being commanded to conquer 10 Canaanite Nations, Joshua was commanded to conquer 7 Canaanite Nations. Perhaps this was as a result of the Sin of the Spies. Yet the Jewish People still dream for the Messianic era when the borders will extend till the Euphrates as promised to our forefather Abraham. Personally, I do not believe that this time has come because the Sin of the Spies has not been rectified. In my opinion, the sin of the Spies will be rectified when all the Rabbis unite and reestablish a Jewish Court by Temple Mount also known as the Sanhedrin.

I am unaware of any Rabbinic commentary who suggests however that the expanded boundaries of Eretz Yisroel is nullified and void and replaced by the reduced boundaries in Parshat Masei. It is understood that the expanded boundaries will be the accepted boundaries for the Messianic times,

It is for this reason I would not support the campaign which states that Jordan is Palestine as promoted by MK Eldad. MK Eldad is proposing a solution that is not based on reality but on what he believes will be a palatable solution that Nations of the World will find acceptable. This temporary solution is deceptive since, eventually there will be a Sanhedrin and G-d willing one day, G-d's Covenant with Abraham will be fulfilled and the borders of Israel will be extended to the Euphrates.

It is my understanding that MK Eldad says that 80 percent of Jordan is anyway Palestine, and anyway the Arab Spring will affect Jordan as it did Egypt and it's inevitable that the Palestinians will take Jordan so why not make the most of it.

I see problems with this argument.

  • Why promote Nazi sympathizers next door.

  • Jordan is not the homeland of the Palestinians. Palestinians actually come from all over and they are from many different Arab countries. Let them all return from where they came from. The further the better. Mike Huckabee suggested Saudi Arabia and not Jordan because as he said it's too close for comfort.

  • The Hashemites Kingdom, (King Abdullah) are Noahites. At least that is my impression Surely they do not promote the destruction of Israel as do the Palestinian Authority. The emblem of the Palestinian Authority is proof of the Palestinian agenda.

I do not suggest the deportation of any Palestinians. According to Prof. Eldad, forced transfer is against the law and Rabbi Kahana was marginalized because he advocated something that is against the law. Rather let us take our cue from Joshua who gave the residents of Canaan 3 choices.

  1. Accept Jewish Sovereignty and the 7 Noahide laws Their status is then of Ger Toshav with many rights and the Jewish State will look after their welfare.

  2. Leave to wherever they choose, the door is open for them to leave. Surely there are plenty of Muslim countries or non Muslim countries that they will find much comfortable than a Jewish country.

  3. Stay and fight the Jews and accept the consequences of War.

In conclusion, let us conduct an open debate regarding how Jews can once again establish a government true to the Torah.

fyi, What follows is some of the Neemanei Eretz Yisroel declarations. For the rest, visit Neemanei Eretz Yisroel at


The Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel
12 Elul 5771
September 11, 2011
The Secretary-General of the United Nations
The President of the Security Council
The President of the General Assembly


It is with great pleasure that we bring to your attention that on September 8,2011 the Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel was proclaimed as a political and legal entity at an assembly of the residents of the Land of Israel convened in Nofim,in the Shomron (Samaria).

The Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel derives its legal existence from the title of sovereignty of the Jewish People over the regions of Yehuda (Judah) and Shomron (Samaria) granted by the Almighty to their ancestors and subsequently recognized by the Principal Allied Powers in April 1920 at the Peace Conference convened in San Remo, Italy; confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922; and preserved by Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations adopted in 1946 — though as yet not implemented by the State of Israel.

The confirmed existing sovereignty of the Jewish People over the regions of Yehuda and Shomron precludes any legal possibility of recognizing any foreign political entity that may claim sovereignty over this area, and any decision in favor of such recognition is patently illegal and as such — is null and void.

The Provisional Executive Committee of the Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel will hold within one year free democratic elections in which registered residentsof Judah and Samaria will be eligible to choose their own leadership.

Very sincerely,

Rabbi Shalom Ber Wolpo, Beitar Illit
Professor Hillel Weiss, Elkana
Mrs. Anat Livni, Nofim
Mrs. Ruth Eisilowitz, Hod Hasharon
Att. Boaz Shapira, Tel-Aviv
Yonatan-ben-Eliezer:Amarcol, Jerusalem
Mr. Yoel Lerner, Jerusalem

The Jewish Authority established in Yehuda and Shomron, with its Capital at Jerusalem, is the sole autonomous representative of the Jewish People in accordance with recognized Law.

The Authority completely and firmly rejects Netanyahu's plan calling for the creation of "Two States for Two Nations".

No "leader" is invested with such authority, nor can any leader be invested with such authority.

The Authority will see the UN as an aggressor as long as the UN obstructs the free and legal exercise of the Sovereignty of the Jewish Nation throughout the Land of Israel.

The Jewish Authority calls upon all of the Peoples of the World to join together with us, individuals and families, Christians and Moslems that accept the Torah of Moses, the Prophets and the Holy Writings, to create a World Forum as an alternative to the UN, to support the Jewish People and to join in a World Pilgrimage to the Temple Mount.

The Jewish Authority will hold free elections in accordance with the Torah throughout Yehuda andShomron, as well as in the Capital, Jerusalem in order to properly appoint a leadership that truly represents the fundamental principles of the Jewish Nation and will safeguard the People's Rights and the People's Security.

The Jewish Authority calls upon the State of Israel, as well as to all of its agencies and its institutions, to adopt the Fundamental Principles of the Jewish Authority in a formal Resolution.

The Jewish Authority rejects and negates any "decision" by the Supreme Court and/or any other court the ffect of which is the impediment of Jewish Rights, including the Right of Self-Determination of the Sovereign Jewish People, and certainly any "decision" which contravenes the Torah of Israel.

The Jewish Authority will establish and maintain a system of Justice in accordance with the legal principlesof the Torah throughout Yehuda and Shomron, including in the Capital, Jerusalem, insofar as the Jewish population understands its vital importance.The Jewish Authority will support the raising of funds for building, security and agriculture as well as local cottage industries throughout Yehuda and Shomron.

The Jewish Authority supports all activities that promote an increased Jewish Presence on the Temple Mount.

We also call upon the Moslem Arabs that live in the Old City of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, as well as throughout Yehuda, Shomron and Binyamin to participate in the elections upon acceptance of certain documented conditions as follows:

A signed declaration of acceptance of the Koran in its entirety, and therefore acceptance of the fact that the entire Land of Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile, is the Land of the Children of Israel, the Jewish People of today as the direct descendants of our Fathers that stood at Mount Sinai with Moshe the Prophet, Master of all Prophets, who has never been equaled.

A signed declaration of request for status as a Resident of the Land in consequence of an oath to observe and uphold the Seven Commandments of the Children of Noah according to the Torah of Israel and to be faithful to the Principles of the Jewish Authority, specifically that theJewish Authority has the exclusive Right to operate throughout the Land of Israel.

In lieu of paragraph 2. (above), one may elect to convert with the intention of accepting and fulfilling the Commandments according to the Torah of Moshe and Israel.The above is predicated upon an oath of Allegiance to the Jewish Authority.

One who abrogates these conditions is considered an enemy and will be deported at the earliest opportunity. We are confident that this approach and the world-view that is presented here are the key to peace among all of the Nations of the world, the Jewish People and the Creator.

We pray together with all of God's loyal peoples:

"May it be His Will that God's Presence pervade the World that He created inkindness and mercy, and that He bring the Redeemer of Israel, the anointed scion of David, to his Holy City as is right and proper for all times. Upon his throne nostranger shall sit, and no others may inherit this honor! Blessed are You, our God, the Lord of Redemption!"


To read the declaration, goto P102.jsp?arc=200357&kw=

To Go To Top

Posted by Veronique Chemla, September 19, 2011.

This Sunday, September 18, 2011, around 13 pm-14 pm, boarding at the counter of the Israeli airline El Al at the airport of Roissy (near Paris), the pro-Palestinian activists have prevented the registration of passengers and their luggage bound for Israel. This has disrupted air traffic.

Activists shouted "Death to Jews!" "Death to Israel!"

"According to witnesses and victims on site" a horde of wild terrorized, threatened, intimidated and passengers, "says BNVCA (National Office of Vigilance against anti-Semitism)."

The police remained passive.

It took the indignant reactions of BNVCA and Dominique Lunel, lobbyist and "agent of many Jewish organizations" to the prefect of Seine-Saint-Denis department where is located this important airport Paris region, and the police (PAF, Police border) brought calm. Five individuals were arrested, four of which placed in custody for non-declaration of protest. The fifth was charged with insulting agent.

The BNVCA wishes that "those responsible are arrested and brought to trial for disturbing public order and incitement to hatred. The BNVCA "stresses that" Palestine "is the primary source of anti-Semitism in our country."

"We must remain vigilant to the approach of the return of Palestine to the United Nations, to enforce the law in France, and not let extremists take action of this kind. The authorities must be particularly tough on those who import the conflict in the Middle East and ideologies that have no place in France, "said Dominique Lunel.

These activists have shown the futility of distinguishing their antiisraélisme anti-Semitism. Their hatred of Jews, whatever their nationality, they shouted it with impunity. As acted with impunity those who have advocated the boycott of products of the Jewish state in supermarkets vandalizing loudly whole rays of articles. Those actions were filmed and shown on the Internet.

It is surprising and distressing that police remained inactive in the face of these disturbances of public order and did not react on hearing the death threats against Jews. Ignorance of the distinction between a crime and freedom of expression? Lack of training? Tolerance or understanding? These agents would they have been slow to intervene if the violence occurred, for example before the Air France desk?

We interviewed the Aéroports de Paris Group on the inactivity of the police. We will forward their response upon receipt.

September 19, 2011, Melanie Coviaux, Paris-Charles de Gaulle's Press service, advised me to speak "directly to the police to get an answer."

We asked the prefecture in Bobigny.

A claimed "protest"

The website EuroPalestine issued a statement on the "protest" that lasted "more than half past one in the whole terminal 2 without incident" to "protest against the military campaign announced by the JDL [Defence League Jewish NDA] against the Palestinians." Among the slogans: "JDL fascist Sarkozy accomplice!","Sarko, Guéant, you participate in the massacre of children"! unjustifiable verbal abuse and a "protest".

These activists would therefore have occurred on September 18, 2011 because the JDL (Jewish Defense League) announced on September 3, 2011 a "journey of solidarity" of the "September 19 to 25" in "solidarity with our Israeli brothers living in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria". A convincing argument? No, because the departure dates do not coincide.

An excuse for pro-Palestinian activists eager to raise tension in France as we approach the UN vote on "Palestine"? Likely.

In any case, unnecessary tension which have borne the brunt of passengers, especially children and the elderly.

This is archived at slogans-antijuifs-laeroport-de-roissy.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. History, September 19, 2011.

The behind the scenes moves of President Obama, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice against Israel, while mouthing soothing platitudes to the Israelis and his American Jewish voter base. Read the article and PASS IT ON.

This appeared today in Huffington Post.


...Over the last few years, the Obama Administration has encouraged the Palestinians to make bold moves. While shifting U.S. policy away from Israel, President Obama clearly and definitively told the Palestinians to...plan for statehood. Within five months of taking office, Obama spoke in Cairo to a massive Muslim audience in what the White House billed as the President's first major address on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Arab leaders were hopeful and sat waiting to see if the new President of the United States with a Muslim father would change the status quo. And Obama didn't disappoint. In his speech, Obama made clear: "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." The President went on to celebrate the Muslim faith like no other U.S. leader had. Arab leaders believed their time for equality had come — and Obama was on their side.

In that June 2009 speech, Obama apologized for American military might, Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq war, colonialism and even what he called our "self-interested empire...." After rebuking anti-Semitism and the tragedies of the Holocaust, Obama made an unusual comparison: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people...have suffered in pursuit of a homeland...." He went on to say, "The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own." It was the early sign Arab leaders were looking for from the new President. They saw the President's comparison between the Holocaust and the plight of the Palestinians as an indication that statehood and international acceptance would come....

After the Cairo speech, the Obama team tried to assure the Israeli government that the President would not take sides. But soon thereafter, Administration officials did. Despite long-standing U.S. policy to encourage the parties to confront their issues at the bargaining table and to adamantly reject any outside influence making unilateral decisions, Obama himself called for an end to settlements and to start negotiations using the pre-1967 borders.... Obama's Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, also consistently skipped Security Council meetings when Israel needed defending and even failed to show up for the emergency session on the Gaza Flotilla incident. The Israelis felt abandoned and the Palestinians were optimistic that the U.S. was not going to protect Israel....

But in perhaps the boldest U.S. move, Rice secretly negotiated with the Arabs on acceptable language for a possible UN resolution to condemn Israel's settlement activity.... When the Israelis got wind of the scheme, they cried foul. Conservative lawmakers quickly joined forces with the Israeli government to force Obama to change his position. In February of 2011, the U.S. vetoed a UN resolution on Israeli settlements that Susan Rice had started negotiations on with the Arabs. The Palestinians were furious and rightly so. After all, they had just spent weeks with Rice going back and forth on acceptable language to make Israeli settlement activity a violation of international law. Rice's rejection of the long-standing U.S. position of only encouraging direct negotiations led the Arabs to believe they were on a different path. Previous U.S. Administrations had bluntly threatened vetos on resolutions that made unilateral declarations but Obama's team was clearly open to the idea.

Arab diplomats also point to Obama's 2010 statement that he wanted to see Palestine a member of the UN by September 2011 as proof that he wants them to make bold moves. While Obama has sent the same lower level diplomats multiple times to the region to encourage direct negotiations, he hasn't sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It's no wonder the two sides haven't spoken formally since September 2010. Instead, the Obama strategy has been to push the Israelis to accept Palestinian demands even though their unity government includes Hamas, a group the U.S. government classifies as a terrorist organization....

Before the beginning of the Obama Administration in January 2009, candidate Obama spoke of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict in simple terms. His belief that he could bring the opposing sides together to find a solution was based on the premise that he is a likeable guy and if he could just get the two sides to sit down together their issues would be secondary. The Arabs saw Obama's characterization of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his willingness to directly negotiate with Hugo Chavez his first year in office as promising....

So it's no wonder Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas exclaimed Friday, "We are going to the Security Council." Despite some media reports that the U.S. has been working hard to convince the Palestinians to drop their bid for statehood at the UN, the Administration's late discussions with lower level diplomats signals something different. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice spent this past week in what seemed anything but frantic. She hosted a documentary film screening, tweeted about the International Day of Democracy and Friday spent the afternoon at a local New York City high school with Congressman Joe Crowley at what was billed as a "Back-to-School" event. She didn't even mention Israel or Palestine.

With all the signals the Obama administration has given the Arabs, no one should blame the Palestinians for seeking a reliably welcoming audience.... The Palestinians...[will now] appeal to [the] consistently friendlier, anti-Israel...UN. They can't trust the Obama team — and neither can the Israelis.

Contact Dr. History by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 19, 2011.

This was written by Natasha Mozgovaya. It appeared in Haaretz, and is archived at u-s-republicans-submit-resolution-supporting-israel-s- right-to-annex-west-bank-1.385394

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) introduces House resolution that supports annexation if the Palestinian Authority continues to push for UN vote.


U.S. Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL), introduced on Monday a resolution (with 30 co-sponsors) to support Israel's right to annex the West Bank in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to push for vote at the United Nations.

"We've got what I consider to be a potential slap in the face coming up with the vote in the UN, which is absolutely outrageous," Walsh told Politico website last July.

He was quoted as saying that "it's clear that the United States needs to make a very strong statement. I would argue that the president should make this statement, but he's not capable of making it. So, the House needs to make this statement, if the [Palestinian Authority] continues down this road of trying to get recognition of statehood, the U.S. will not stand for it. And we will respect Israel's right to annex Judea and Samaria."

Meanwhile on Sunday, Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) delivered the keynote address at the Jewish National Fund's 2011 National Convention in Cincinnati, Ohio. Boehner said that it is the U.S.'s duty to stand by Israel "not just as a broker or observer — but as a strong partner and reliable ally."

Referring to the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, Boehner said that "Israel has demonstrated time and again it seeks nothing more than peace ... a peace agreed to by the two states and only the two states. Like every prime minister before him, Prime Minister Netanyahu knows peace will require compromise — and he accepts that. He welcomes that."

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (

To Go To Top

Posted by Zubrin, September 19, 2011.

Here is an article that is a terrific satire on the Palestinian state.

This was written by a scientist who uses the pen name Jonathan Swift. It appeared in Pajamas Media and is archived at for-the-reestablishment-of-the-prussian-state/


It is melancholy to contemplate the homeless condition of the Prussians, an ingenious people whose remarkable antics in prior ages did so much to enliven the politics of Europe. Indeed, now that world opinion has grasped the necessity of returning the descendants of the Arabs of Palestine to their ancestral residences, it must certainly be the hour for a similar service to be rendered on behalf of those belonging to the tribe of the great Frederick.

For while it has been some time since that glorious state known as Prussia graced the map of our fair continent, still the lands of the Prussians were theirs and theirs alone, until that fateful day not yet seven decades past, when the awful Poles, seeking to reestablish a country for which the world had no apparent need, rudely cast them out.

Thus exiled, at barely the same moment as their Arabesque counterparts, the poor Prussians have ever since been forced to endure life stateless, wandering amongst such diverse foreign peoples as Saxons, Westphalians, Rhinelanders, Bavarians, and, even in some cases, Americans, people with whom they have nothing whatsoever in common, and whose company they must certainly find nearly beyond endurance as they continue to pine away, yearning in eternal agony for their lost homeland.

Oh, the pity of it all! Does not Justice herself cry out in anguish, denouncing the continuance of such hideous circumstance? Surely all men of reason and good will must give their whole-hearted assent to the proposition calling for the rightful return of the Prussians and their reestablishment upon their native land in their natural state. But how can such a noble and necessary project be accomplished?

Here is my plan. Let the nations of the world send out their constables to seek out and gather up the Prussians, their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, wherever they may be, so that they may be returned to their true country. To this, the Poles may object, but no matter, as land can certainly be found bordering upon the area of Polish occupation, upon which camps of many tents may be erected, capable of housing the Prussians in all their myriads, until the day of their deliverance arrives.

It may be that some few of the Prussians themselves might find relocation to such accommodations objectionable, but this need not concern us, as our interest must perforce be to provide for the Prussians that which our more elevated point of view allows us to discern as comprising their proper and higher needs, rather than the simple comforts that they, with their more limited viewpoint, merely want.

Such refugee camps having been established and made suitably miserable, scribblers from the principle rags of all the major capitals could be invited to attend upon the scene, and by bearing witness, shock the conscience of the world as to the cruelty of the evil Poles, whose wanton theft did so mercilessly deprive the pitiful Prussians of their homes, their lands, and all hope for a life worth living.

Should these tales of woe prove insufficient, greater horror could be created as required, for example by distributing Lugers, potato mashers, Schmeissers, panzerfausts, flammenwerfers, and other traditional Prussian paraphernalia to their little boys, so as to excite them to engage in futile attacks upon the Polish soldiery. The babes, thus remade into bloody or burnt mangles, could then be readily displayed with artistry sufficient to move even the most heartless of politicians to demand redress.

This done, a conference could be called of all the principle powers of the planet to agree upon new boundaries for the two states, Prussia and Poland, so as to enable them to live together amicably in accord with the principles of eternal Justice, in precisely the same wise manner as is now contemplated for Israel and Palestine. As a starting point for such apportionment, the borderline should first be chosen to be that which pertained in 1942, before the rude Polish annexations made during a particular moment of Prussian disadvantage distorted the previously established arrangements. These boundaries, however, could then be adjusted by such further trading of territories as might be mutually agreed between all the parties in attendance.

In this way, the Prussians might be restored to their land, their state restored to its ancient grandeur, and Europe restored to peace, just as it was in that golden age before the fanatic Poles saw fit to wreak havoc and misery upon all the world.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 19, 2011.


NATO forces neither bombed nor secured the missiles and other arms that Ghadaffi had stockpiled. As a result of that oversight, some of his arms depots have been found looted. Who has those arms, now?

The likelihood is that smugglers have seized and distributed those arms to a swath of tribes and terrorist organizations throughout Africa. They will be in a position to wreak more havoc and domination in black African areas. They may turn North Africa into a no-fly zone. Therefore, although NATO countries have spent billions on containing al-Qaida in Afghanistan, they may have given a major boost to al-Qaida and its allies in Africa (Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, The American Spectator, 9/19/11 north-africa-instability).

What a tragic blunder!

President Bush was criticized for starting wars without figuring out how to end them and how to leave the country in safe and recoverable hands. One of his critics was Barack Obama. Now President, Obama appears to be making all the same mistakes and contributing his own mistakes.

Hindered by lack of a workable concept of, or name for, the enemy, Obama refuses to call the enemy "Islamist." He deprives our country of a comprehensive view and policy on global jihad.


The Israeli judiciary commissioned a study comparing the sentences of Jewish and Arab convicts. The study found that Arab convicts average longer sentences than do Jewish convicts. The survey did not conclude there was discrimination.

The notion that Israeli courts discriminate against Arabs is foolish, because the judiciary is dominated by leftists sympathetic to Arabs. The far leftist Supreme Court reviews and reverses lower court decisions.

Nevertheless, without any evidence for a conclusion, Haaretz, a far leftist daily that sympathizes with the Arab cause drew one. It concluded that sentencing that works out differently for the two nationalities indicates discrimination, "No Doubt About It."

The flaw in the daily's rationale is to assume that two population groups have the same circumstances coming into court. However, sentencing depends on the severity of the crimes. Arabs tend to commit more severe crimes in Israel.

The same thing occurs in the U.S., as between blacks and whites. Death penalties usually are applied for more severe crimes or under certain circumstances. Murder of police and slaying during armed robbery are some of those crimes and circumstances. Blacks tend to commit a higher proportion of those crimes, relative to their population, than do whites.

Taking those factors into account, convicted whites are disproportionately sentenced to death (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/4/11).

Prof. Plaut has described the anti-Zionist tirade of an Arab judge in Israel.

In many articles, I have shown that the Israeli judicial system picks on religious and right-wing Jews, especially protestors.



Attacks on Christian Institutions:

  • Egypt: Muslims angered by the installation of a church bell — under Sharia, churches must not offend Muslims by ringing bells — went on a violent spree, attacking among others a 5-month pregnant Christian woman and others who were "beaten with iron rods and pipes."
  • Indonesia: Christians were forced out of a church building and hounded even as they tried to worship at the side of the road.
  • Nigeria: Two churches were bombed simultaneously; at least three Christians died, several were injured.
  • Pakistan: Under accusations of "blasphemy," and with the help of a local politician, Muslims attempted to annex a Christian hospital established in 1922 by missionaries.
  • Tanzania: Muslims burned down two churches to cries of "away with the church — we do not want infidels to spoil our community," and vows not to befriend "infidels."

Sexual Abuse of Christian Women and Misogyny:

  • Egypt: Muslims "severely sexually harassed" a Christian woman in front of her husband at a bus terminal; when her husband tried to defend her honor, he was violently beaten. Soon afterwards, thousands of Muslims in the region began looting and torching Christian property, screaming "Allahu Akbar!" and "cursing the cross." Also, a Muslim ring using sexual coercion to convert Christian girls was exposed.
  • Pakistan: Newlyweds run for their lives, because the man is Christian, the woman Muslim. Under Sharia, the leader of the household, the man, must be Muslim. Says a Pakistani Muslim scholar: "I condemn this marriage, I call it illegal, these two could be killed for what they did."

Apostasy and Proselytizing

  • In Pakistan now, only 2% of the population is Christian. Nevertheless, when a man refused to convert to Islam, Muslims raped his 2-year-old daughter. She had five operations, and still is not restored to normalcy. Her family lives in fear and hiding. The news came out this year, but the crime occurred four years earlier. The story was repressed until now.
  • Iran: A Christian pastor faces the death penalty for "convert(ing) to Christianity" and "encourag(ing) other Muslims to convert to Christianity." Even if he is found innocent of apostasy, the charge of evangelizing Muslims will still carry a severe penalty.
  • Saudi Arabia: A captured Christian pastor is set to be deported to Muslim Eritrea, where he faces the death penalty.

General Killing of Christians

  • Ivory Coast: Muslims crucify two Christian brothers on "the example of Christ" and in accordance to Koran 5:33: "The pair were badly beaten and tortured before being crudely nailed to cross-shaped planks by their hands and feet with steel spikes."


The Islamic world has persecuted Christians for centuries, but it has become an epidemic. The same kinds of persecution permeate different areas, ethnicities, and language groups. Therefore, this persecution is not random but systematic and interrelated by its common root of Islamic law and teaching of Muslim supremacy.

Note the different types of persecution: hatred for churches and other Christian symbols, sexual abuse of Christian females and misogyny, laws against apostasy and blasphemy (which may be the most minor of disagreement), plunder in the name of the Islamic tax on non-believers, and expectation that Christians act humiliated (Raymond Ibrahim,, 8/12/11 muslim-persecution-of-christians-july

Most of the examples are verbatim from the source). Note the savagery with which Muslim mobs administer punishment on helpless minorities! Note also that the Muslim governments condone such mob persecution when they aren't complicit in it.

Pakistan had a much larger percentage of Hindus, as did Bangladesh. Persecution brought the percentage way down. And now Muslims focus on India, among other places. Christians recently were bombed in Iraq. The so-called Arab Spring is spreading the persecution like a plague.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Alexander Dymshits, September 19, 2011.

Dear friends,

Recently in Aug 2011, two groups of US congressmen visited Israel. They had meetings with Israeli officials and in the same time they had communications with activists who fight for immediate Jonathan Pollard's release, among them Eleonora Shifrin — member of the Committee for Pollard's freedom in Jerusalem and his official representative in Russian media. Today many congressmen are ready to rise their voices for Pollard's release. Congressman Grimm started to collect signatures of republican congressmen under Appeal to the president Obama to release J. Pollard. Congressmen discussed this problem with PM Benjamin Nataniyahu and Israeli Ambassador in the US Michael Oren.

Eleonora Shifrin has talked recently with Esther — wife of Jonathan Pollard who asked Eleonora to write sample letter for people who wants to write letters to their congressmen and senators with request to free Pollard immediately.

Sample Letter to US Congressmen (Senators)

Congressman (congresswoman, senator)....(name)


Washington, D.C.

(Date), 2011

Dear Congressman (congresswoman, senator)...... (name):

As a concerned constituent, I would like to call your attention to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who is serving his 26th year of a life sentence in an American prison for a crime that has a median sentence of 2 to 4 years. Pollard is the only person in the American history who has ever received a life sentence for spying for an ally.

Among the prominent American leaders who have recently appealed to President Obama for Pollard's release are: US Vice President* Dan Quayle, CIA Director* R. James Woolsey; White House Legal Counsel* Bernard Nussbaum; Secretaries of State* George Shultz and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger; Head of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence*, Senator Dennis Deconcini; Deputy Secretary of Defense* Lawrence Korb; Attorney General* Michael Mukasey; Deputy Attorney General* Phillip Heymann; Solicitor General* Theodore Olsen; Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree; member of Homeland Security Advisory Council (Congressman*) Lee Hamilton; Associate Attorney General* (Mayor*) Rudolph Giuliani; and many others, incumbent congressmen among them. [*Former]

A common theme in their appeals concerns the severely disproportionate nature of Pollard's sentence. I defer to the expert opinions which state that while Pollard deserved to be convicted, his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed, and he has served far more time than others convicted of similar offenses.

Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. He entered into a plea agreement, which spared the U.S. government a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial. Mr. Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution, whereas our government abrogated the plea, breaking every commitment it made.

Both Pollard and the Government of Israel have expressed remorse for the operation that Pollard was involved in, and the Government of Israel has extended its assurances that such actions will never be repeated. Both the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Israel have made urgent official appeals to President Obama for Pollard's release.

After more than quarter of a century in the harshest of prison conditions, Jonathan Pollard is ill and his health is rapidly deteriorating.

All legal remedies have been exhausted. The only remaining hope of redressing this grave injustice is executive clemency. Knowing how committed you are to fighting for truth and justice, I urge you to add your voice to those of a wide cross section of ranking American officials who have appealed to President Obama for Jonathan Pollard's release as both a matter of compassion and of justice.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this urgent matter.

Yours truly,



City, State or Country, Zip/Postal Code

This sample letter is available in English and Russian at Jonathan_Pollard/Letters_to_congressmen.html

Please write this letter to your congressmen and senators without delay, because Jonathan Pollard's health is rapidly deteriorating. More congressmen and senators will rise their voices in favor of Pollard, more hope that Pollard will be free soon! Congressmen and senators can help to create good atmosphere for Pollard's clemency. You can find your congressmen and senators here: (bottom of the page).

Redemption of captives (pidyon shvuyim) is a greatest mitzvah. Thank you very much for your help and G-d bless you!

Editor of ""
Alexander Dymshits

Contact Alexander Dymshits by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by John R. Cohn, September 19, 2011.

To the Editor, Ottawa Citizen

In a recent column, Peter Larson contends as fact, "In 1948, it was Palestine that was 'wiped off the map', by the creation of the new State of Israel." Wrong.

Following the Ottoman defeat in the First World War, British troops occupied "Palestine" under a League of Nations mandate, which included establishing there a "national home for the Jewish people". In 1922, the Brits split off the 80 percent of Palestine east of the Jordan River, creating Jordan. In 1948, the UN General Assembly partitioned what was left of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Jews agreed, the Arabs refused, and five Arab armies invaded. Arab "Palestine", which never existed as an independent state, was wiped off the map, not by Israel, but by invading Arab armies. Arabs occupied the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, but made no effort to create a Palestinian state in those territories. Then, as now, their goal was not an Arab Palestine living peacefully alongside Israel but supplanting the Jewish state.

Contact John Cohn at

To Go To Top

Posted by Stella Paul, September 19, 2011.

America is roaring back — with laughter. A fed-up nation with itchy Twitter fingers is bringing down what's left of an insufferably pompous presidency. How? By unleashing the most American weapon of all: the wisecrack.

A hilarious barrage of catcalls and insults has greeted Obama's latest debacle, a Soviet-style website called Attack Watch. With its terrifying design of red and black cellblocks, and scary photos of Obama's critics looking like Mafia hoodlums, Attack Watch openly solicits Americans to turn in their friends and neighbors for thoughtcrimes against the president.

Before we revel in our countrymen's deliciously rude response, let me show you the section of Attack Watch that truly creeps me out. Do the Stasi wannabes that write Obama's copy really think this invitation will win us over? "Join Attack Wire
( o2012-join-attack-wire) - and help stop the attacks on the President before they start."

Before they start! Hey, comrades, is your wife muttering Rick Perry's name in her sleep? Does Grandma secretly watch Glenn Beck? Report your loved ones' pre-crimes to federal authorities now! A few friendly adjustments with a fist, and we guarantee we'll stop those deviant, anti-Obama attacks, "before they start." Help us, comrades!

Within nanoseconds of Attack Watch's debut, a parody video by Ezra Dulis and Misfit Politics
( embedded&v=-XYKRokgX00) had blasted through the web. Then came the howls of Hurricane Twitter, a Category 5 of one-liners, as Americans competed to turn themselves in and report anti-Obama crimes.

"Hey, #attackwatch, I saw 6 ATMs in an alley killing a job. It looked like a hate crime!"

"#Attackwatch, there's a new Twitter account making President Obama look like a creepy, authoritarian nutjob."

"I'd like to report my neighbor — Bob, for surreptitiously scraping the Obama sticker off the bumper of his Prius."

"My neighbor won't give me all her money even though she makes more than me. Look into this please."

"I just found out that Janet Napolitano is my baby's father. Can you let him know? Thanks."

"Obama's ego is blocking my view of the sky."

"If I tell you my boss said something bad about Obama, can I get his job?"

"Hey #attackwatch, I found a website lying about Obama, it's called"

"My neighbor seems to be a bit of a freethinker. Should I take him out quietly tonight or wait for backup?"

"I just parked my private jet in a handicap space, left it running & bought lemonade from little girls in yard w/o a permit!"

"Dear #attackwatch, I was told in my Econ class that supply & demand drives the economy, not government. True or false?"

"#Attackwatch, when should I go to my hidden attic room, and start writing my diary?"

"Can you follow the #attackwatch timeline in the original German...?"

"I'm reporting my mom. She said Obama needs a good spanking and a grounding with no ice cream."

"Dear attackwatch — the federal family showed up a week ago — and they won't leave."

"If I report ten times do I get a real watch? With secret decoder features? Please advise."

Now that's the America we know and love! We came to this country to get away from the imperial blowhards that ruined every other patch of earth. We roast and skewer potentates here; we don't tremble and bow down before them.

America gave the world the raspberry, the Bronx cheer, and the full frontal, knock 'em, sock 'em wisecrack. And just to amuse ourselves, our popular entertainments have always put those putdowns in the mouths of the lowliest street tramps and shop girls, so they can belittle the bigshots.

It's democracy; get it? Groucho Marx is honored on an American stamp, not Karl. The Marx Brothers grew up on the hardscrabble streets of New York, the sons of Jewish immigrants, and their vaudevillian antics lampooned the self-important, mirthless high hats of high society. They'd know what to do with Barack Obama!

For, increasingly, Obama has come to resemble one of those haughty buffoons in the classic Marx Brothers movies, who's just begging for a pie in the face or banana peel under the shoe. He's the nasty impresario in Night at the Opera or preening admiral in Duck Soup, who demands meek submission, while Harpo secretly cuts off his coattails and Chico steals his wallet. Meanwhile, Groucho gleefully insults him to his face, with a line like "Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out?" or "I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception." Cigar rakishly askew, Groucho then turns to the audience and confides, "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."

Obama's imperial pretensions are not just idiotic; they're also noxiously un-American. At the turn of the twentieth century, a new Jewish immigrant penned a letter that was published in a Yiddish newspaper. "In America, the president is mister, and I am also mister," he wrote with awestruck amazement. That uniquely American earthiness derives from George Washington, who rejected the proposed title of "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and the Protector of their Liberties" for the simple "Mr. President." Why do I think Obama would like that title back?

The more America laughs at Obama, the more we recover our natural spirit. So go ahead. Release your inner Groucho. Add your comic creations to the Twitter-ectomy of Obama's remaining shreds of dignity. It's not that hard. As Will Rogers, another great American comic, once said, "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you."

This is archived at groucho_marx_saves_america.html Contact Stella Paul by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, September 19, 2011.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, September 18, 2011.

Whose Fake State is it? by Chana Ya'ar

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas submitted the entity's formal request for assistance in achieving "the Palestinian people's just demands" in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. However, within hours after the news hit the media, the umbrella Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rushed to deny the letter constituted an official launch of the PA's statehood bid at the international body. PLO spokesman Xavier Abu Eid said the letter from the Ramallah-based PA government headquarters was not "official." Only the PLO, he said, was authorised to submit the final, official request for recognition as a new Arab country, and ask for membership within the ranks of the UN. "The PA does not have any international relations mandate," Abu Eid told the DPA German press agency. "The only one that can negotiate or sign agreements is the PLO, so the PLO is going to submit the official request."

At the end of the day, however, it may not matter much. The PLO was founded at the 1964 Arab League Summit in Cairo. The PLO was designated upon its inception as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" by some 100 Arab nations — although Hamas is not represented, nor is the Islamic Jihad or any numerous Islamic terrorist organizations.

To this day, its charter continues to call for the destruction of "The Zionist Entity" despite numerous unfulfilled promises by Arafat to international leaders to remove the call for the destruction of Israel and the Jews.

Due to the fact that at the time of its inception, Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the PLO charter also states its agreement to the fact that there is actually no justification for an independent Palestinian country in those areas: "This Organisation does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria -ed.), the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area (part of Jerusalem)." (Article 24) (The intention has always been to destroy Israel and deprive Jews of their right to Jewish ancestral land!)

Till Death of Israel Do Us Part!

Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state. While citing the 1967 borders for a future Palestinian state in reference to his UN application, Abbas stressed that the real Palestinian borders were laid down by the UN in 1947. (This is next step in the plan of destruction of Israel!)

They Oppose Statehood Bid, because It Recognises Israel

Palestinian Authority unity is further away then ever as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist groups unite to denounce PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for his "unilateral moves." Statements by the two terrorist groups highlight the split in the Palestinian Authority and find Hamas and Islamic Jihad in rare agreement with Israel and the United States, although for contradictory reasons.

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

It was disgusting to watch how TV news broadcasters were trying to justify the action of the Islamic mob, upon reporting the attack on Israels embassy in Cairo. Predictably, international anti-Semitic hypocrites have not demanded an apology nor compensation from Egypt for ransacking of the embassy.

Statehood Bid is Just a Propaganda and Blackmail Ploy

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas went back on his assurance 24 hours earlier to Saudi, European and Egyptian officials and decided to go through with his application to the UN Security Council on Sept. 23 for the admission of a Palestinian state to the world body. This was a pointed rebuff to the Obama administration whose envoys offered to renew US ties with the Palestinians if they refrained from applying to the Security Council.

PA Apartheid State, where Only Muslims are Welcome!

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has instructed Israeli embassies in Europe and the U.S. to file strong protests with the governments of their host countries against comments by the PA official, Maen Areikat, who said that Jews would not be welcome to live in the PA state. The implication, said Lieberman, was that more than 350,000 Jews who live in areas the PA claims for its state would have to leave their homes. The Palestinian Authority and the PLO are not on the same page regardling whether their hoped-for new state will welcome people of all faiths. (If the PA feels that it can ignore the Geneva Convention and transfer Jews from Judea and Samaria with support of international anti-Semites, that gives Israel a green light to implement the Sinai Option and free Jewish land from Arab occupation!)

Arab MK does not Defend Israel's Honour

An Arab MK, Ibrahim Sarsur of the Ra'am-Ta'al party, said that Israel in effect will cease to exist if it does not see the break-in at the embassy in Cairo and sanctions by Turkey as "only the beginning" of a reaction to its "crimes." He charged that Israels reactions to the break-in at the Cairo embassy and Turkey's recent sanctions against Israel "are a death blow to peaceful relations." The Israeli legislator from the Israeli Arab community accused Israel of behavior that "damages the Arab people and their national honour" (It is clear that Arab members of Knesset do not represent Israel. They are enemies within! Turkey sponsored the terrorist flotilla, Egypt allowed an escalation of the attacks on the Israeli embassy, but he blames Israel for damaging Arab honour?)

Learning from Israel about Healthcare

Israel provides better healthcare than the US and at half the cost. With President Barack Obama's health care bill finally passed in the US, top US medical groups are looking to the Israel healthcare model to learn about the country's success in ensuring that all its citizens receive quality primary medical care.

Attack on Israeli Embassy in Egypt

Egyptian government declares state of alert early Saturday, Sept. 10, after thousands of demonstrators using sledgehammers smashed through the wall outside the Israeli embassy, broke into the building, hauled down the flag and dumped hundreds of documents through the windows before setting it on fire.

Islamic Intimidation of the Press

CNN journalists described mob that attacked them during the riot at the Israeli embassy as "animals." One other journalist was called a spy and was almost raped. The worldwide news site reported a scene that brought back ugly memories of the gang rape of CBS reporter Lara Logan earlier this year during the Arab spring uprising against the Mubarak regime.

Quote of the Week:

"After endless campaigns of delegitimisation against Israel, and attempts to brand it as an apartheid state, it turns out that the Palestinians are the ones interested in apartheid." — Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein, referring to statements made by Maen Areikat (or Erikat), the PLO's ambassador to the United States that Jews would not be allowed to live in the future state of Palestine — And no international outrage!

Duplicity of Occupied Lands. by Steven Shamrak.

There are many lands around the world that have been occupied not so long ago by other countries. Many of them are still subjugated to the rule of an occupying power. They were conquered during offensive or defensive wars, throughout the process of establishment of statehood or as a part of colonial and imperial policy. The following is a far from complete list of the currently occupied lands:

Great Britain still occupies 17 provinces of Ireland, Gibraltar and is holding on to the many residual symbols of her former colonial glory around the world.

France is still holding on to many overseas territories like New Caledonia and French Guinea. France and Spain divided and have no intention to give independence to the Basque people, the oldest indigenous living group known in Europe.

Belgium is an artificially forged country, which was created in order to protect the Netherlands from continuous attacks by France. There is still "no love lost" between the French and Flemish speaking populations of the country.

China — The international community has done nothing to stop occupation of Tibet by China. Eastern, predominantly Muslim, provinces of China are still under "imperial" communist rule.

Chile — From the 1840s, heavy Anglo-Chilean investments were made in nitrate mining on the Bolivian coast. Bolivia lost its coastal region after the war of 1879-1884. Since then, Bolivia has been economically stifled by Chile with limited access to the sea ports.

Indonesia — It was 'painful' for Indonesia to allow freedom to East Timor. International pressure was applied only because of the huge oil reserves off the coast of East Timor were found. But there is no pressure in relation to the continuous occupation of Bali, West Papua and numerous islands that would love to obtain independence from the Muslim tyranny of Jakarta.

Panama proclaimed its independence after the US expressed interest in obtaining the rights to the canal, which Colombia refused. US marines landed in Panama the same day when independence was declared.

Russia has no plans to return the Eastern part of Poland it has occupied since before WW2 and end occupation of eastern Prussia, the Kuril Islands and Southern Sakhalin. Russia still retains its status as an imperial power by holding on to Chechnya, Dagistan, North Ossetia, Tatarstan and many other national enclaves which were occupied by Tsar.

USA — The biggest and leading democracy of the world is one of the biggest occupiers as well. There is no intention of even talking about compensation for, never mind returning, the occupied land which used to be, not long ago, a part of Mexico. What about Puerto Rico, Hawaii and other "strategic interests"?

The United Nations maintains a list of territories that do not govern themselves. The list was initially prepared in 1946 and adopted in 1986. It has officially endorsed control of these lands by their former colonial powers!

It should be remembered that most countries around the world (including USA, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia) were forged and established their current borders during the last 300 years. Their creation was accompanied by dramatic conquests and destruction of unique and independent cultures. In a Russian play one character asked the audience: "Look, who are the judges?" Yes, who are they to tell Jews what is their land and to force Israel to give away Jewish land to Arab scoundrels?

Israel is the only country that can claim its statehood and ownership of the land. Jewish people have over 3,000 years of spiritual and historical connection with the land. Israel is the only state which withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula after it was conquered during a defensive war. In exchange, Israel received the worthless piece of paper, which is called the Peace Agreement with Egypt. And yet, Israel is the only country under international pressure to surrender her own land to the enemy, a recently forged people — called Palestinians, whose only goal, they are not even hiding it, is to destroy the Jewish state.

There are three reasons why Israel is under such international onslaught — Traditional international anti-Semitism, a desire to sell out Israel in exchange for a steady supply of oil, and an appeasement of Islamic terrorists in order to defer attacks on the West!

Does it make sense? What definitely takes place and make sense is that the worlds economic and political powers ("Puppet Masters") apply pressure on Israel and use any means at their disposal, including manipulation of international law. An example of this is how it was done after Israel won the War of Independence. Immediately the Fourth Geneva convention ruled out population transfer as a legitimate way of resolving conflicts — but only when it suits their economic and political interests, with complete disregard to historical, spiritual and even legal rights of any people, not just Jews (remember ongoing dismantling of Yugoslavia and non-existence of Kurdistan — the homeland of 35 million Kurds, divided and occupied by five countries). The multitude of international organizations — including the UN, IRC, Amnesty International etc — are at full disposal of the international "Puppet Masters" and only too eager to assist by generating and manipulating public opinion — creating the illusion of propriety. The bottom line: it is all about power, control and beyond doubt, it is about money!

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Louis René Beres, September 18, 2011.

The following article appears exactly as it was written by Professor Louis René Beres more than 22 years ago. It is important to reconsider at this particular moment, in late September 2011, when the Palestinian Authority leadership, in a diplomatic end-run around still-binding international legal obligations to Israel, seeks formal U.N. recognition for Palestinian statehood.


February 1989

A pair of prominent Israeli commentators has recently pointed out that continued control of the territories would have grave consequences for Israel's security. In this connection, Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former chief of military intelligence (AMAN), argues, in his newest book, Israel's Fateful Hour, that a refusal to end "occupation" of West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza will produce escalating terrorism and further incentives for war by neighboring Arab states. Abba Eban, Foreign Minister of Israel from 1966 to 1974, insists in a January 2, 1989 editorial in The New York Times ("Israel, Hardly the Monaco of the Middle East"), that Israel would have nothing to fear from an independent "Palestine." Such a state, he claimed, "would be the weakest military entity on earth."

In these assessments, Harkabi is certainly correct, but nowhere does he compare the risks to Israel of an ongoing "occupation" with those of a Palestinian state. If he had offered such a comparison, perhaps he would have understood that continuing Israeli administrative control of Judea/Samaria/Gaza would certainly have its risks, but that a bordering state of Palestine would be far worse. As for Mr. Eban, he is wrong altogether.

If there were to be an Arab-ruled state in Judea/Samaria/Gaza, its danger to Israel would surely lie less in its own army than in the several other Arab armies and assorted insurgents that would soon burrow themselves into a new and authentic form of occupation. To suggest that the risks to Israel can be ascertained by simply comparing the Israeli army to the far more modest forces of a prospective Palestine, is to assume a totally static condition in the new state, one that naively offers only the "best case" scenario for Israel.

These assessments, therefore, are hardly in Jerusalem's best interests. Israel is not "the Monaco of the Middle East," but neither would Palestine be as benign a mini-state as Abba Eban suggests. Before Israel can reasonably conclude that the so-called "occupation" is intolerable, its leaders will first have to determine whether it is actually less tolerable than Palestinian statehood. If it isn't less tolerable, then rationality would require continuing administrative control, however painful, costly and unfortunate. And such rationality would not even take into account the overwhelmingly all-important fact that Judea and Samaria are arguably inherent parts of the Jewish State under binding international law.

What, exactly, are the major strategic risks to Israel posed by an independent Palestine? To answer this question, one must first understand that several of the Arab states are still preparing for war with Israel, and that a new Arab state in Judea/Samaria/Gaza would open another hot border for the Jewish state. As a result, the Arab-Israeli balance of forces could change decisively, possibly even providing the needed incentive for certain Arab first-strikes.

Ballistic missiles that could carry chemical warheads now exist in Syria, Iraq, non-Arab Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Significantly, Syria, which is now, together with Iraq, the most serious country threat to Israel, has also been receiving massive stocks of new conventional weapons, including main battle tanks, combat aircraft, anti-aircraft systems and tactical missiles. Still anxious to recover the Golan which it lost in 1967, the regime of Hafez al-Assad has already deployed 4,200 tanks on its border with Israel.

I know. I visited Israel's northern borders, with the IDF, during the first week of this year.

Ultimately, enemy ballistic missiles could carry nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia recently purchased CSS2-class surface-to-surface missiles from China that could reach any part of the Middle East from Riyadh. Iraq, even after Israel's highly-successful 1981 air attack against the French-built Osiraq nuclear reactor, still possesses about 12.5 kilograms (27.5 pounds) of French-supplied highly-enriched uranium, enough for at least one nuclear weapon. During its recent "War of Cities" with Iran, the Baghdad regime consistently violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibitions against chemical weapons.

What about delivery systems? Iraq has several types of aircraft that would be capable of meeting these needs, including the Soviet-supplied TU-22, TU-16, and MiG-23, and the French-supplied Mirage F-1. Iraq has also acquired the SCUD B from the Soviet Union, a 300-km ballistic missile with inertial guidance, and, also from the Soviets, the FROG-7, an unguided free rocket over ground with a 60 to 70-km range. It has also been reported that the Soviets have exported an unknown number of SS-21s to Iraq, a replacement for the FROG with improved guidance capability. For now, the principal impediment to Iraqi nuclear weapons is the temporary incapacity to manufacture or acquire nuclear missile warheads.

Let us turn to Iran, certain to become a major strategic threat to Israel. Until the revolution in January 1979, Iran's nuclear program was the most ambitious in the entire Middle East. In addition to open, commercial activities, the Shah most likely initiated a full-scale nuclear weapons research program. This program included work on two technologies for producing weapons-grade nuclear materials, enrichment and reprocessing, and on the actual design of nuclear weapons.

Because of Washington's unwillingness to undermine the Shah in the days preceding the final overthrow, Khomeini inherited substantial nuclear assets. The precise configuration of this nuclear infrastructure, including weapons-relevant technology and equipment, is still known only to selected persons within the Messianic Khomeini regime. What is known is that this regime is diligently reactivating the nation's nuclear program. Where will this reactivation end?

From Iran's point of view, nuclear weapons must appear as an essential counterweight to Iraq's superiority in conventional armaments. Moreover, nuclear weapons would seem to have special value in enhancing the Khomeini regime's status in the region, and its associated capacity to advance the objectives of militant Islamic fundamentalism. It should not be surprising, therefore, that Iran, in 1984, opened a new research center at Isfahan.

What delivery systems are available to Iran? At the moment, the Tehran regime has two lines of advanced combat aircraft that can deliver a nuclear bomb: the F-4D/E Phantom II, and the F-5E/F Tiger II. It also has a ballistic missile force that could deliver nuclear warheads. Although there is no available information that Iran is making substantial progress in the manufacture of such warheads, that country has maintained and expanded its very costly nuclear research program at a time of increasing economic dislocation and hardship. Iran remains a potential nuclear power that should not be dismissed out of hand.

What about Syria? Recognizing that it cannot rely entirely on the air force to penetrate Israeli air space, Syria knows that its Soviet-designed Scud-B missile could, if fired from Syria, reach all of Israel, except the southern Negev, in six minutes. A direct descendant of the German V-2, the Scud is a weapon that could do enormous damage to Israeli civilian populations. In this connection, it could carry, if Syria should ever acquire nuclear warheads, the implements of atomic war. At some point, Syria will very likely attempt, in great secrecy, to acquire some nuclear weapons capability.

If Palestine should provide the essential incentive for an Arab/Islamic war against Israel, a war that would end with the actual use of nuclear weapons, it could wind up as "Armageddon." But even if there would be no escalation to nuclear war-fighting, Palestine could still become another Lebanon. Here, many different Palestinian factions, both within and outside the P.L.O. umbrella, would contend for control over the new Arab state. Various insurgents that do not threaten Israel's very survival in the intifadah would now be able to inflict great harm on their neighbor to the west.

Let me be more precise. Should an independent Palestine be created from Judea/Samaria/Gaza, its president would almost certainly be Yasser Arafat, and its principal leaders would be drawn from the P.L.O. chairman's faction, al-Fatah. Probably within hours of the new state's effective beginnings, its government and its ruling elite would be targeted by P.L.O. radicals, and by various Palestinian parties opposed to P.L.O. Among the radicals, some (e.g., Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine) might represent Syrian interests, and others (e.g., Arab Liberation Front and Palestine Liberation Front) might front for Iraq.

Among the anti-P.L.O. parties, most (e.g., Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command; Popular Struggle Front; the Abu Musa organization and Saiqa) are tied intimately to Syria, and one (Fatah Revolutionary Council) — known popularly as the Abu Nidal group — is linked to Libya. Samir Gosheh's Popular Struggle Front currently displays more independence from Syria than Ahmed Jebril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command, and Saiqa is essentially an integral Syrian force with only a nominal Palestinian identity.

Even the mainstream Fatah organization could spawn anti-Arafat cells. Saleh Khalef, Fatah's second-in-command (nom de guerre: Abu Lyad) was closely associated with Black September, and is far more radical than Arafat. Farouk Kaddoumi (nom de guerre: Abu Lutf) has close ties to the Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries, and Khaled al-Hassan frequently challenges Arafat in search of more collective leadership.

We see that many factions, including some newly developing Islamic fundamentalists spun off from Egypt's Moslem Brotherhood, would contend for control over any new state of Palestine, and that all of these factions could resort unhesitatingly to high levels of violence. Before long, the resident Palestinian population would suffer far more than it had under Israeli rule, and anarchy would pose a real threat to Jordan. Over time, it is likely that Jordan could be undermined altogether, and even become part of a "greater Palestine." Of course, Iraq, too, could gain a controlling position in Palestine, but this would depend upon the power of its Palestinian surrogates vis-à-vis those in other places. Ironically, the result of these events — of another Lebanon — would be enormously tragic for both Palestinians who seek a homeland, and for Israelis who seek secure frontiers.

It follows from all of this that Palestine would pose a very serious security risk to Israel, and that this risk could become far greater than that of maintaining Israeli control of "the territories." This does not mean that Israel and the Palestinians should steer clear of meaningful negotiations, or that Israel should avoid concerning itself with protecting the essential human rights of the Arab populations under its control. But it does mean that any reasonable assessments of Israel's security must always compare the expected costs of both principal options for Judea/Samaria/Gaza: IDF military administration versus independence. In the absence of such an essential comparison, Israel could go from bad to worse, from a situation that is debilitating and demoralizing, to one that is intolerable.

Louis René Beres is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is also Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press in New York City. In Israel, he was Chair of Project Daniel. Professor Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland, on August 31, 1945, and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and strategic studies. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by John R. Cohn, September 18, 2011.

Watching Palestinian maneuvering at the United Nations, the sacking of Israel's Cairo embassy, and Turkey's announced intent to force open Israel's weapons embargo of Gaza, a blockade ruled lawful by a customarily hostile United Nations, the question is, "Why now?"

Israel's enemies may see this as their best opportunity to destroy the Jewish state. Europeans barely want to defend themselves. America's president has shown he is not afraid to act, but his rhetoric has enfeebled his actions. Concrete measures supporting Israel are matched by widely broadcast reluctance, demands for apologies, and manufactured disputes with Israel's elected government. And polls suggest our president, despite attempted outreach to Muslims, is less popular in the Arab world than when he took office.

If the Palestinians wanted a state, they would have one. But it is not about Palestinian Arab autonomy, Jerusalem, the location of Jewish homes, or the so-called refugees. It is about the existence of a liberal democracy in a sea of intolerance, and unswerving Arab rejection of a Jewish majority state. America's diplomats should not be expressing express regret for supporting Israel. It persuades no one while controverting their efforts and confusing their message.

And, throwing blood in the water just excites sharks more.

Contact John Cohn at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 18, 2011.

As I begin with housekeeping issues, I thank you for your patience:

Because of difficulties I've been having with posting transmission via gmail, some of you failed to receive my last posting, "Predictable." You can find it on my website, here: current-postings/2011/9/15/september-15-2011- predictable.html

Whether you received it or not, I ask, please, that you bookmark my website: current-postings/

All postings go up on that site now ("current postings"). If a lengthy period goes by in which you don't hear from me, you might want to access this site to be certain you have not missed anything.

Gmail tells me the problem has been corrected and that there should be no further trouble. Call me a realist: I'll know this is the case only after I've used my address for some days. I won't know if this posting will go out properly until it's been sent.

Please, until it is certain that all is well, when writing to me, utilize and not my gmail address.

I expect to post next in the middle of this week.


There are always tensions here. But this seems a time in which we're facing several troublesome issues at once.

Right now, the date on which PA President Mahmoud Abbas says he will submit a request to the UN is this Friday, September 23. Originally it had been anticipated that he would do so earlier.

His latest projection — which, quite obviously, is subject to change without notice — has him delivering a speech to the General Assembly and then submitting a letter requesting full membership in the UN to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, which would be turned over to the president of the Security Council.


Keep in mind that:

1) If this path is followed it will take days of processing and there will be no immediate results on outcome.

2) The US has committed to vetoing this request.

Abbas is currently making noises directed at the US regarding how bad it would be to veto. In a speech in Ramallah yesterday, he said that a veto would "destroy" the two-state solution. This man is a world-class master with regard to shifting responsibility for his actions on to other (usually Israeli) shoulders.

3) The Security Council does not create states, but only considers applications of states that already exist. This whole PA gambit is thus more than a bit amorphous with regard to diplomatic legalities. I may have more to say about this when next I write. Or we may not know how this will play out until it plays out.

3) The PA/PLO has made it clear repeatedly that if a state is recognized by the UN, it will not affect "right of return."

That is, "refugees" in PA areas would still be considered just that — they would not become citizens within the Palestinian state, and would not be issued passports, but would still be awaiting "return" to Israel. Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be- citizens-of-new-state.ashx#axzz1YIrv8ypo

(With thanks to Dave A. and ElderofZiyon)

The PA is saying that the "right" (which actually does not exist) pertains to GA resolution 194, while the founding of a state pertains to SC resolution 242 (which in actuality called for negotiations and never required Israel to pull back to the Green Line).

This stated intention of continuing to promote "return," it seems to me, remains the single biggest tip-off to real Palestinian Arab intentions.


There have been some very credible reports about Abbas's desire to climb down from the tree he's in — if only he would be able to do so without losing face. He is more than a little nervous about whether this is a smart move.

There are still frantic diplomatic efforts being expended by the US and EU to find a formula that would enable Abbas to say he walked away with a gain. One creative suggestion proposed last week by Quartet Envoy Tony Blair, for example, was that Abbas submit a letter to Ban Ki-Moon this week, but that the Secretary-General hold it until the end of the UN session, in case negotiations were able to start again before that.


However, an article in the JPost today by Khaled Abu Toameh sheds light on these frantic diplomatic efforts:

"PLO official Nabil Sha'ath said on Saturday that the catalyst for Abbas's final decision to seek full membership at the Security Council was a meeting with the US Mideast envoys two days earlier.

"Speaking at a press conference in Ramallah, Sha'ath said that Denis Ross and David Hale presented Abbas with a document that was worded worse than one rejected by the Quartet over a month ago, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported.

"Sha'ath added that the document indicated that the White House accepted West Bank settlements as de facto policy." (Emphasis added)

Abu Toameh is a reliable journalist. But he is reporting on the words of Sha'ath, as carried by WAFA. Can we — dare we — accept this as accurate? It implies a couple of important things. First, that Netanyahu has not caved. And then, that the US may have softened its stand on "settlements." And, if this is so, I would read into it, between the lines, a weariness with PA demands.


Another way to read this, however, is to say that Abbas is playing "hardball." He sees the eagerness of the Western world to keep him from his UN bid, and thus is holding out for the maximum he can get before he finally backs down. (And a little voice inside of me says he indeed may back down.)


On the very same day that Abbas is going to the UN, Prime Minister Netanyahu, after considerable deliberation, has decided he will address the UN General Assembly as well. What was put out was that he decided to do it in the hopes that it will have an impact that is meaningful: the world never hears the Israeli side, he says, and he intends to tell it.

Just today I've have received some reliable, if unofficial, information regarding the fact that we may, indeed, hear a speech from Netanyahu to be proud of. He told the Cabinet this morning that he wants to "present our truth: the fact that we are not strangers in our land and have rights in this country that go back 'only 4,000 years', and that we have right to preserve our security."

The prime minister is slated to leave on Tuesday for the States, I believe, and will be meeting with Obama, I believe on Wednesday. There are no reports of plans for Obama to meet with Abbas. This also presumably tells us something. How awfully sick the president must be of this overweening petty dictator (I mean president, whose term has expired) who demands it all.


Many factors must be watched as this drama unfolds. There is the question of Arab demonstrations that become riots. And there is the issue of how Israel will respond if the PA does proceed at the UN. We need to have a great deal of courage to stand for ourselves in that event.

To make matters even more complicated, the travesty known as Durban III is scheduled at the UN for September 22.

Contact Arlene Kushner at

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, September 18, 2011.

A Jewish shepherd escaped with his life on the Sabbath after Palestinian Authority Arabs stoned him and tried to steal his herd of sheep.

Police prevented him from identifying the attackers, who live in a small outpost several hundred feet from an IDF checkpoint on the southern edge of the southern Hevron Hills, between Arad and Kiryat Arba-Hevron.

The shepherd who came under attack on the Sabbath told Arutz Sheva he was herding the sheep when Arab shepherds came near on the pretense that their herd of goats had run away. The Jewish shepherd saw that the goats were simply grazing and asked the Arab shepherd to take them away. At that point, approximately seven other Arabs approached and began to hurl rocks at the Jewish shepherd.

Unarmed and realizing his life was in danger, with no chance of defending himself, he fled and left the sheep behind until he reached his community of Susia and notified security officers.

The IDF, which has a base only five minutes away in addition to the nearby checkpoint, took more than 30 minutes before reaching the scene. Despite the late arrival, the thieves were not able to escape with the sheep in such a short time, and the herd was restored the shepherd, who returned to the scene with the army.

He said that when he asked to file a complaint, the police and army refused to let him accompany them to the Arabs' tent to identify the attackers and file a complaint of attempted theft and murder. The Arab outpost has expanded in the last year with help from European-funded groups.

The sheep belong to Dalia Har Sinai, whose husband Yair was murdered several years ago by nearby Palestinian Authority villagers while he was unarmed and tending his herd at his farm.

She has continued to maintain her farm with the help of youth. Arabs from a nearby village stole her herd during a savage wind and rainstorm last winter, and contributions allowed her to start over again.

Saturday's rock attack was an attempt to steal the herd again.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, September 18, 2011.

1. Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University is generally regarded as Israel's leading Holocaust scholar. Bauer however is also a radical leftist. He is involved in all the usual leftist causes, even this one, involving suppression of freedom of speech: News.aspx/142314 and

And Professor Bauer, the Holocaust scholar, has a new cause. It is the promotion of one of the world's worst Holocaust Deniers.


Bauer is naturally a great advocate of Palestinian statehood, and he is a toady coddler of Abu Mazen, the head of the Palestinian Authority. As you no doubt recall, Abu Mazen did a "doctorate" in the Soviet Union, writing his PhD thesis on how the Holocaust never took place and is all a Zionist hoax. (See mideastdispatches/archives/000032.html) Abu Mazen never retracted the "thesis," and it is taught these days in Palestinian schools.

Two weeks ago Bauer accompanied a group of Israeli pseudo-intellectuals to Ramallah to make hajj to Abu Mazen. One of the team, the far-leftist Bash-Orthodox bigot Sefi Rachlevski, then published his own report of the pow-wow. The leftists were naturally there to endorse the PLO and naturally never got around to demanding that the Palestinian Authority do something to stop terror. As it turns out, the Holocaust and Holocaust denial actual came up briefly at the meeting.

One of Bauer's friends, another Hebrew University prof named Eliyahu Richter, took Bauer to task for his toadying up to the Holocaust Denier. Bauer responded with an even toadier reply to him. Bauer says he explained to Abu Mazen and to his henchman Saeb Erekat why Abu Mazen's dissertation is "unacceptable." Abu Mazen simply ignored the comment. Bauer then responded to Abu Mazen's non-response by repeating how devoted Bauer really is to Palestinian statehood. And if Abu Mazen and his people ever get a state, and if that state then sets up concentration camps for Jews, perhaps Bauer could take up violin lessons so he can perform at the unloading docks.

2. For years Israel's radical Left, led in this by the extremist anti-Zionist cheerleader for terrorism Oren Yiftachel (professor of geography at Ben Gurion "University"), has been attempting to convert most of the entire Negev into a Bedouin mini-state. And if the Israeli far Left has its way, Bedouinstan will yet be a mini-state in which Jews will be prevented from living. Ben Gurion University could be its capital!

The Bedouin of the Negev were migrating transient nomads who passed in and out of borders over centuries, moving into and out of the Negev from the Sinai peninsula, from Saudi Arabia and from Jordan. They traditionally owned no land at all, and land ownership was an alien notion for them.

Today, in the year 2011, Negev Bedouins are claiming legal title to the bulk of land in the Negev, and the radical anti-Zionist Israeli Left is solidly behind them. How did this develop?

Kalman Liebskind, the great columnist in Maariv, devotes much of his weekend column to this matter. The answer is astonishing.

The story begins in the early 1970s, under various Labor Party governments. The regime was interested in maintaining amicable relations with the Negev Bedouin, but also in defining and settling legal claims for lands. In reality the Bedouin legally owned nothing. They just moved their camps and tents around the desert. But the government was willing to strike a deal whereby the Bedouin could be granted actual legal ownership over some land, while ending illegal squatting elsewhere.

In order to conduct the negotiations, the government allowed any Bedouin who wished to do so to file a claim that his family, his ancestors, had lived on a certain parcel of land, and his claim would be considered, together with conflicting legal evidence, once some overall arrangement would be negotiated. To file such a "claim" the Bedouin was required to produce no documentation, simply to fill out a form with an unsubstantiated assertion. These assertions were about as believable as would be my own claim to own all of Manhattan because my ancestors traded beads for it with the locals.

No one took the Bedouin "claims" seriously, but the intention was to use them as a symbolic starting point for negotiations and eventually allow the filers of the phony claims to retain a few percentage points of their "claims." That would provide the Bedouin with adequate lands and they could settle down into real jobs and real houses if they so chose. The initial Bedouin "claims" were for 200,000 acres. Including lands on which kibbutzim, moshavim and other Jewish towns sit.

While no one really considered the Bedouin claims as anything more than fiction, the state sought a modus vivendi with them in which some portion of those claims would be accepted as legit. In exchange Israel thought it could limit the space in which Bedouins would concentrate and sprawl and also halt the widespread illegal squatting by Bedouins on other lands they clearly do not own.

As you can imagine, that was a great plan that could only go wrong. It went super wrong once land values all over Israel shot up into the stratosphere.

The Israeli government offered to accept the 20% of the imaginary Bedouin claims as legit if the Bedouins would relinquish the rest of their fictional claims. The Bedouins of course demanded that Israel grant 100% of the fictional claims. The Israeli government as usual was worn down by salami tactics and by its devotion to appeasement. So at the moment there are "talks" between the government and the Bedouin to grant them 50% of their fictional claims.

Originally the willingness to strike a deal with the Bedouin was in large part thanks to the perception that they were more or less patriotic Israelis who often serve in the security forces. But that perception is decades out of date. Meanwhile the Negev Bedouin have been turning increasingly anti-Israel. PLO flags wave in the Negev Bedouin city of Rahat, and the municipality there refuses to employ any Jews. Some Bedouins have been involved in espionage and terrorism. The two worst anti-Israel pro-jihad Knesset members today are Bedouins.

Meanwhile, Yiftachel and the tenured extremists are running around the world claiming that Israel is trying to "steal Bedouin lands" and to deny the Bedouin their "rights." The only solution, insists Yiftachel, is international sanctions and pressure upon Israel to grant the Bedouins 100% of their fictional claims.

The willingness of the government to appease and coddle anti-Israel radical Bedouins is best illustrated in the amazing story of the bribery of Taleb a-Sana by Yitzhak Rabin, also discussed in Liebskind's column. From one of the small Arab fascist parties, a-Sana should have been jailed years ago for anti-Israel activity. He makes no attempt at disguising his detestation of Israel and Jews. Now it turns out that back when Yitzhak Rabin was still trying to shove his "peace accords" with the barbarians through the Knesset, he needed a-Sana's vote to duck a motion of non-confidence (which would topple the government and force new elections). Rabin's junta struck a dirty deal with a-Sana and his family, turning over 38 acres of prime state-owned land on which a-Sana built a huge mansion and on which he runs a sort of ranch. A photo of the mansion accompanies the Liebskind column. The Ewing family of Dallas lived in a tenement by comparison. In exchange, Rabin got his vote and survived the motion. If I tried to erect a window pane on a porch I would have the government inspectors breathing down my throat and threatening me within 24 hours.

The a-Sana family members were granted an additional 70 plots of land. A-Sana was also paid "compensation" for giving up a series of illegally constructed homes erected on public lands by his family and a freezing of various suits and indictments against a-Sana and his family for illegal construction. The "deal" was brokered by Benjamin "Fuad" Ben Eliezer, a minister in the cabinet, at Rabin's request.

The Oslo "Accords" then produced thousands of dead Israelis.

3. Columnists/Article.aspx?id=238142 Editor's Notes: Delegitimizing the delegitimizers By STEVE LINDE 09/16/2011 17:08

4. I was just told that the Rabbi of the Reform synagogue in Hanover, New Hampshire has announcd that on Yom Kippur, part of the afternoon "service" will consist of a performance by a Shostakovitch trio played in the "shul." Just in case you want to drive on over.

5. Obama's kibitzing in Israeli politics: pageId=344985

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 His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, September 18, 2011.

Were Israel to be attacked she would be on her own — and she would blamed for daring to defend herself. But something is very wrong in the Muslim world that is bigger than Israel.


On September 16, 2011, the New York Times actually used the word "Islamist" in a front page story — not as often or as prominently as the word "militant" but still, there it was — and in an article titled "At White House, Weighing Limits of Terror Fight."

For all those who are invested in the Lie that the infidels (i.e. Western civilization} are not under attack, allow me to point out that the anti-Israel and anti-American Paper of Record had, altogether, three articles on the front page about Afghanistan, Bahrain, and about "Islamist militants in Yemen and Somalia" as well as about "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, and the Somalia-based Shabab;" "Al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan...and in the tribal regions of Pakistan."

In this same issue, the Times also has articles which focus on or mention Jordan, "Palestine," Turkey, Afghanistan, Libya, Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and the Arabian Peninsula.

Even the Times knows that something is up, something has gone wrong, very wrong in terms of the Muslim world, that it is far bigger than Israel, and that it won't get better merely by blaming Israel or America.

In my opinion, were Israel to be attacked she would be on her own — and she would blamed for daring to defend herself. This has already happened many times. While the war against the Jews is very hot, it is almost invisible in the western media.

As we know, (but allow me to remind us), in August of 2011, Israel endured 178 Hamas/"Palestinian" terror attacks which included 145 rockets and 46 heavy mortar shells fired into the south of Israel.

That same month, Israel also endured a heavy "surge" of hostile, apparently civilian Arabs crossing Israel's borders from Syria and attempting to do so from Lebanon, which included the Lebanese Army opening fire on a group of Israeli soldiers.

Also in August, terrorists (Hamas? Al Qaeda? PLO?) crossed into Israel from Egypt, wearing Egyptian military uniforms, and killed seven Israeli civilians, including young children; they wounded at least thirty Israelis. The attacks against Israel in August alone were three times greater than all the attacks against Israel this year.

During this same time, the Turkish Prime Minister demanded that Israel "apologize" for defending herself from a Turkish-launched terrorist attack (the Marvi Marmara incident) and threatened to send Turkish warships into the Mediterranean to accompany a new flotilla to break the Israeli siege of Gaza.

And right around 9/11, Egyptian police forces allowed angry and hate-filled "demonstrators" to overrun the Israeli Embassy in Cairo; Prime Minister Netanyahu made no progress for the safe release of the Israeli security guards trapped in the building; only a phone call, eight to ten hours later, from President Obama presumably persuaded the Egyptians to help the besieged Israelis escape.

Finally, on September 13, 2011, the Turkish Prime Minister blew more smoke, this time in Cairo when he got the crowd to roar its hatred for Israel. He is in a dead heat competition with Iran for leadership of the Caliphate.

During this time, no one really came to Israel's aid on the ground or in the world's media. During this time, the various world-wide demonstrations against Israel, calls for a "Palestinian" state at the UN, and calls for the boycotting of Israel continued unabated. (I have no way of knowing what went on behind the scenes in terms of help offered or refused).

True, Israel may turn out to have some unexpected allies (Cyprus, the Kurds, India, Greece — maybe even Saudi Arabia) and yet, Israel is surrounded by "surging" human forces of hate as well and she is really, truly on her own.

Yesterday, I spoke with Mayor Ron Nachman of the mainly secular city of Ariel in the Shomron (Samaria). He agreed with my assessment — an assessment shared by others — that Israel is essentially on her own. Let me quote him at length.

Israel can't trust anyone, including America. American policy has been mistaken for six decades. America refused to move its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That tells us what we need to know.

Now, the Arab "Palestinians" saw they could not get Israel to agree to commit suicide and so they turned to the United Nations. The solution is really between Israel and Jordan. Jordan is the real 'Palestinian' state. And by the way, when Jordan annexed the West Bank and Samaria from 1948-1967, no journalist called it an "occupation." It is only "occupied" when it is in Jewish hands."

What is this phrase: The 'West Bank?' The West Bank of the moon? The sun? The West Bank of America? We need to use the right language. Is California the "West Bank" of America? And by the way, would Americans agree to allow Mexicans and Canadians to carve out a corridor from San Diego to Vancouver so that both non-American groups can come and go without American oversight? This is what Israel is being asked to do.

And what is the meaning of the '67 lines?' Do people really understand that Israel is only nine miles wide, just as wide as the distance from the south to the north of the borough of Manhattan? Giving up any more land means that Israel is non-defensible.

Words and how they are used and misused continues to create problems.

The Wall.' What is that? Think of it as a gated community. There are walls all over the world that are never singled out. Only Israel's security fence is.

The Arabs simply refuse to accept a Jewish state. A two state solution will not lead to peace. It will lead to more attacks on Israel. They gave Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize but he brought bloodshed, not peace. Everyone shouted 'Land for Peace'. It only led to Arab attacks on Israel again and again."

"Mayor Nachman," said I, "Nu, what is your solution to this intractable dilemma?"

Solution? At this rate, we need a five state solution. Jordan is one, Israel is the second, Judea and Samaria are a third, Gaza is a fourth — and the Israeli Arabs want autonomy as well.

My friend and colleague Israeli Arabist, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, believes in a confederation of cantons, with local governmental autonomy on many issues and a federal government for security and other issues, based on Dr. Kedar's understanding of tribal loyalties and conflicts and the Arab inability to create both large and stable modern nation states.

I ask Mayor Nachman if he believes that Israel can defeat Iran. He says, cryptically:

It is not good to push someone whose back is already against the wall.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassah Levy, September 18, 2011.

On the edge of Route 1 as that thoroughfare runs through eastern Jerusalem lies an Arab neighborhood by the name of Sheikh Jarrah. In one section of the neighborhood, an Israeli flag waves and Jews walk back and forth to the tomb of Simon the Just (Shimon Hatzadik), who served as high priest in the Second Temple. The synagogue surrounding the tomb is filled with men studying Torah and women reciting Psalms. Approximately ten young families live in a building adjacent to the tomb.

Every Friday, protesters gather at the edge of the neighborhood to demonstrate against evictions of Arabs from their homes. The evictions are legal, as the Arabs in question are squatters, having been living rent-free for years in houses that don't belong to them. But the real complaint of the protesters, who comprise both Arabs and Jews, concerns the prospect of Jewish families taking over the houses and thus contributing to the changing character of the neighborhood.

Sheikh Jarrah is not the only Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem undergoing demographic change. On the Mount of Olives, the Beit Orot yeshiva, situated between the Augusta Victoria church and the Mormon outpost of Brigham Young University, is in the process of constructing housing that could ultimately bring a total of 300 Jewish families to the area. This could help to create a continuous Jewish presence from the Mount of Olives cemetery down toward the Temple Mount.

Historically speaking, eastern Jerusalem was where most Jews always lived. In biblical times, the city as a whole was limited geographically to the area surrounding the Temple Mount (known today as the City of David). Even in the modern period, as settlement expanded in the 19th century, it was to the eastern parts of the city that Jews moved. Not until 1929, under the pressure of Arab riots, did officials of the British Mandate undertake to separate the populations and force most Jerusalem Jews to resettle in the west. Those who remained, in the Jewish Quarter and a few other neighborhoods of the Old City, were expelled in 1948 when these areas fell into the hands of the Jordanians.

In 1967, with the return of Jerusalem's eastern sectors to Israel, Jews quickly settled wherever property was available while Arabs remained in all-Arab enclaves like Sheikh Jarrah. Today, the Jewish population in all of eastern Jerusalem numbers about 200,000, of whom about 2,000 reside in Arab neighborhoods.

What now? Israeli politicians and activists who favor agreements with the Palestinians based on the concept of "land for peace" share the view of the British Mandate: peace can be achieved only by separating the Jewish and Arab populations. This was the logic behind the 2005 evacuation of the Jewish settlements in Gaza, and today it is the goal of those who wish to cede land in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. An expanded version of the same idea is the guiding principle of the international community. According to it, all land captured by Israel in 1967 should be ceded to the Arabs, thus returning the Jewish state to the armistice lines as they existed at the end of the 1948-49 war of independence.

In contrast to this, Jewish settlers seek an integration of the two populations. Those politicians and activists who regard land-for-peace as a bankrupt policy similarly see integration as a solution. Their strategy is to settle as many Jews as possible in an as many areas as possible in both the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, thus making the segregation of the two populations a logistical nightmare, if not an impossibility. Many settlers now wish they had pursued this strategy — also known as creating "facts on the ground" — more energetically in the 1980's, when the settlement movement was focused more on homogeneity than on size, with the result that the Jewish population in the West Bank, now at about 330,000, is much lower than it might have been. Such thinking is in part behind the current rush to establish new settlements as well as to expand existing ones, which according to this logic will make it that much harder for any government to undertake a wholesale, Gaza-style evacuation in a future peace agreement.

"Facts on the ground" will undoubtedly influence public policy in Israel. Places with very small Jewish populations or that have been abandoned by Jews are almost always considered negotiable or by definition as belonging to the Arabs. Prime examples are the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem and most of the West Bank itself. By contrast, Jewish cities like Ariel and Maaleh Adumim, thanks to the size of their populations, are usually conceded to the Israelis in most peace proposals.

Past experience suggests that a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians is unlikely to emerge for many more years, and during that time the demographics of eastern Jerusalem could change significantly. Moreover, Israel's last previous experiment with evacuating its citizens is almost universally considered a failure. Not only did the departure of the IDF from Gaza lead to serious security problems, including the still-unceasing rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled territory, but the evacuees themselves have yet to be settled properly in homes and communities. The action also caused large segments of the Israeli citizenry, especially those within the religious-Zionist camp, to lose faith in the willingness of the government to protect their interests.

Will a future Israeli government insist on drawing the country's borders so as to recognize new realities and avoid incurring a much larger trauma than the fiasco of 2005? On Jerusalem, at least, the Netanyahu government has so far declined to be clear, issuing unequivocal declarations against any future division of the city while at the same time permitting very little construction to take place in virtually any part of Jerusalem, east or west. Whether it allows continued settlement of Jews in Sheikh Jarrah and other areas of eastern Jerusalem will perhaps provide one barometer of its longer-term intentions.

Hadassah Levy is Website manager of This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, September 18, 2011.

The Jewish nation must finally unite or bear chilling consequences of the past.


"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell

There is highly destructive, volatile animosity between factions in the Jewish community, and attempts to find solutions is a must.

This division and disagreement is plaguing the Jewish world today.

As a Jew, to me, the sharp division among our own people is an embarrassment.

I am extremely passionate about Israel's existence and I do not care if any nutcase brands me a right-wing extremist because of this wonderful passion that I have and hold at the highest esteem.

There are certain unfortunate realities one must face.

One crucial is that hatred and evil exist, and just wishing them away has never been, nor will it never be effective. In other words, burying the head deep in the sand will not make hatred and evil go away.

From time immemorial the Jewish people have been the number one target of hatred and evil.

To stand up to peril one has to be united, not divided.

Sadly, the Jewish Nation is not united, rather shows several schisms. The Jews are seriously separated along religious and political lines, and this split cannot be rectified or healed, unless King David or Solomon arrive and show them signs of God.

No single Judaism exists. There are numerous components and they can coexist, but never fully aligned.

To the extreme, Jews can even harbor more dislike for one another than any Gentile could ever muster. They can be more judgmental of their own than any stranger could be.

Throughout Jewish history, the self-hating Jews, the unJews, became a stigma. This is an illness and not a minor one. It is cancerous and it destroy the Nation from within.

Then there are those Jews who would put ideology before their own God, people and Homeland; like those who will vote for Obama, over and over again, even though he is trying to dig a grave for the Jewish Homeland, where their people live.

With the world being up-side-down these days and rational is out the window, and if my observations about Judaism is correct, then the question is: where is the hope, the optimism? We all so desperately seek those answers, aren't we? Will reason and logic have a place in the solution?

Is turning to faith be the hope we seek?

To accomplish having hope for a unified Jewish Nation in the world, we must have enormous faith, as, thus far, logic and life experience have not served the Jews well.

Jews are passionate people. They are also stubborn and rather excitable bunch.

Those traits, at times, leave very little room for reason and logic to enter into the discourse and on many occasions they do not.

At times, Jewish people can be irrational toward those they love.

So here is where we are today:

In Israel today, Jews argue;

In Europe, Jews argue;

In the US, Jews argue;

This is irritating and has no reason or room in a nation so small and so beleaguered.

We all need to ask each other, where is the silver line of optimism and hope and where is the uplifting discourse? Here is the elephant in the room. We can find it only if few things change, really change.

We must be consistent, one voice with our message.

We must stop hating ourselves and Jews must stop hating other Jews and embrace a totally loving posture.

We must search for our commonalities and not drift into differences to use against one another.

We must not worry or seek to be loved by appeasement, thus throw our own people under the bus. Many Jews will throw Israel under the bus to look good the eyes of those who will throw them under the bus tomorrow.

We must accept that, as Jews, there are many who hate us and many times there is nothing we can do to prove our worth to those who hate us. And we do not need to prove anything as long as we know our own truth and just. We must also understand that those who hate us do so not because of our fault but of their own. Further, they choose us the scapegoat we have been to the world for centuries.

We must put our own people and our God before all else. Therefore, we need to, once and for all, separate politics from our faith. The decision if our first priority is our God and our own people or if it is a political agenda is profound.

We must also understand that transparent divisive issues only strengthens our enemies.

We must also admit that we have many enemies, ranging from having mild hate to extreme hate for us. They exist and must be addressed without holding back the words.

Irrational hatred of Jewish people is an ancient and incurable disease the world, collectively suffers from. The cure for it will probably be found by a Jew.

That cure will consist of man escaping the constraints of this primitive incarnation and humans embracing a peaceful nature and rise above irrational emotion to pure sense and intellect.

Who knows if and when this cure maybe found but we need to pray that our children and grandchildren live to see it come to pass.

Until then, regrettably, Jews will continue argue, disagree and the world will continue feeding upon our negativity and divisiveness.

We will continue to malign one another, battle amongst ourselves and ignite fire storms of negative energy to keep our enemy jovial so they can continue their ongoing battle against us.

Immediate solution? There is only one.

Only by ending the malice toward each other, looking within at our own faults and correcting them and uniting, we can achieve peace amongst ourselves and then hold to immense national strength, we so desperately need.

And then, by seeking rational answers, based on truth and facts, that do not involve putting our own people in harm's way we can also help Israel.

Can it be achieved? Yes, but only if we truly believe.

Our parents had known hardship; the new generations are spoiled and expect fast reward. If we do not face reality, we can expect regression; is regression an option? I hope not.

Tori Amos, the American pianist, singer-songwriter and composer once sais: Healing takes courage, and we all have courage, even if we have to dig a little to find it."

Jews, stop taking a long walk off a short pier already.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, September 18, 2011.

Last week, we heard for the first time recordings of air-traffic communications during the 9/11 atrocities. The soundtracks include the voice of ringleader Mohammed Atta shortly before he crashed a jet into the World Trade Centre. "We have some planes", Atta says. "Just stay quiet and we'll be OK. We are returning to the airport."

His voice sounds metallic, not human. Indeed, the tape reveals to us more about 9/11 than thousands of books and articles written on the attacks. It's the same voice recorded in a video discovered in 2006 in Afghanistan: Atta is smiling, joking and laughing to the camera.

Hakim Awad, baby killer

Last week, an Israeli court sentenced Hakim Awad to five life sentences for the murder of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar. Ruth Fogel was in the bathroom when Awad killed her husband Udi and their three-month-old daughter Hadas, slitting their throats as they lay in bed. Awad slaughtered Ruth as she came out of the bathroom. Then he moved into a bedroom where Ruth and Udi's sons Yoav (11) and Elad (4) were sleeping. He then slit their throats.

In court, Awad always smiled at the camera, just like Atta did. Awad said he has "no regrets" and flashed the "V" sign for victory while he was leaving the courthouse. "I am a person like you, I have no mental condition, I never had a serious illness," Awad said to the judges. His smile was sincere.

The Fogels' massacre in Itamar, where two Palestinians murdered babies as deliberately and unabashedly as very few other than the Nazis and Khmer Rouge ever had, has not been deciphered by our writers and intellectuals. It's because we have been told that "they hate us" is the language of xenophobes, the illiberal, the intolerant; that genocidal anti-Semitism was buried in the ashes of Auschwitz; that we have to be polite, sanitized and self-critical.

Smiling Nazis

A seductive combination of post-colonial white guilt mixed with liberal condescension has dulled our moral senses and made us blind to Awad's smile; a smirk that conveys unleashed hatred, contempt, physical aggression, the desire to expel, to destroy, and to eliminate the Jews.

Just like the 9/11 tape, Awad's smile tells us about the obscene level of current-day anti-Jewish hatred — comparable to the worst days of the Nazis in the early 1930s — more than all the shelves of books written on the Middle East.

Awad resembles other "smiling assassins." For example, the mastermind of the Bali terrorist attacks, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, who has been called "the laughing bomber." In 2005, a video footage was released of the Beslan school siege, showing the terrorist leader laughing as hundreds of pupils, their families and teachers were herded at gunpoint into the school gym rigged with explosives.

It's also the smile of Klaus Barbie, the Gestapo chief in southeastern France from 1942 to 1944, who laughed all the time when the Jewish victims described the torture at court in 1997. In 2007, a photo album containing 116 rare photographs of senior Nazi officials at the Auschwitz concentration camp was made public by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Josef Mengele, the camp doctor notorious for his medical experiments, is smiling while the gas chambers are operating in Birkenau.

Germany perpetrated the Holocaust not because it had the means to do so, but because its leaders engendered the will to do so. This totalitarian, robotic willingness also lies in Hakim Awad's smile.

Giulio Meotti is a journalist with Il Foglio. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at This article appeared in Ynet News 0,7340,L-4123657,00.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 17, 2011.

Individuals and Grassroots Movements are Leading The Fight Against Anti-Israel Schools

This is by Manfred Gerstenfeld, who has published 20 books. One of these is "Academics against Israel and the Jews" (1997). The second edition of the book is available free of charge here.


Academics have been in the forefront of the international delegitimization campaign against Israel. Its starting point was an open letter in the British daily The Guardian on April 6, 2002. It appealed for a moratorium on all cultural and research links with Israel, at European and national levels.

Within a few days, several hundred academics from various countries — including Israel — had signed it. From there, the campaign morphed in many directions. It was often accompanied by harassment of Jewish students.

Most Israeli universities have failed to properly share the burden of the anti-boycott battle. This has left the fight to individual academics and grassroots organizations. Of these, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East is the most active one internationally.

Increasingly, legal actions are becoming tools in the fight against the delegitimization of Israel. This approach is now being tested in three countries where the problems are greatest — the United States, Canada and the UK.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, who teaches Hebrew at UC Santa Cruz, has been a courageous pioneer in the fight against Israel-haters. Several other campuses of the University of California, including UC Irvine and UC Berkeley, are known as hostile environments for pro-Israeli students.

In June 2009, Rossman-Benjamin added new ammunition to her already remarkable arsenal. She registered a complaint with the US Department of Education that academic departments and residential colleges at UC Santa Cruz sponsor "viciously anti-Israel" lecturers and films using campus funds.

Rossman-Benjamin stated that anti-Semitism on campus is a transgression of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This complaint became a hot potato for the authorities. Finally in October 2010, the Department of Education wrote a policy letter stating that federally funded universities have a legal obligation to eliminate anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation and also prevent it from recurring.

In March 2011, the Department of Education notified UC Santa Cruz that it will be investigated to see whether it had allowed a hostile environment for Jewish students to develop.

In April 2011, the Zionist Organization of America wrote a 15-page letter to the President of Rutgers State University. It cited various reports from students regarding the hostile environment and anti-Semitism on campus, as well as violent threats made against a Jewish student. The letter from the ZOA referred to the policy letter of the Department of Education.

Going to court

This month, the Israel Law Center wrote to 150 American college and university presidents — including those of Ivy League schools — warning them that they may be liable for huge damages if they do not prevent anti-Semitism on their campuses. The letter also mentioned that universities have a legal obligation to avoid the use of university funds for unlawful activities directed against Israel.

When fighting anti-Semitism on campus, complaining to US authorities is an ideal approach. Anyone can identify offenders and bring a complaint. Thereafter the authorities are obligated to investigate. Such a move costs little time and money.

A far more difficult and expensive approach is taking a university to court for anti-Semitic acts on its campus. Such cases can only be initiated by a victim. In March, Jewish student Jessica Felber sued UC Berkeley because a fellow student named Husam Zakharia assaulted her when she participated in a pro-Israel demonstration. The university knew that this leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine belonged to a group that was earlier responsible for violent incidents on campus. Management had done nothing to deal with the situation.

Felber's attorney is Neal Sher, former Director of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations. In the same month, he went international by filing, together with a Canadian lawyer, a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against York University in Toronto. The court case was brought on behalf of Sammy Katz, a Jewish student who alleged that he was hit during a pro-Israel demonstration.

Ronnie Fraser has been the forerunner in the fight against Israel-bashers on British campuses. Two months ago, his lawyer Anthony Julius wrote in a letter to the University and College Union that it had breached the Equality Act of 2010 because it had harassed Fraser due to his Jewish background and created "an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating" and/or "offensive environment for him." This week it was announced that in view of UCU's unsatisfactory answer, Julius has filed a claim with the Employment Tribunal. It states that the UCU exhibits institutionally anti-Semitic behavior toward its Jewish members.

Julius is not only well known as the lawyer of the late Princess Diana, but also for having exposed British Holocaust distorter David Irving who lost his court case against American historian Deborah Lipstadt. If Julius succeeds in dealing similarly with the academic trade union, it would be a huge victory against those who continue to delegitimize Israel.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 17, 2011.

Unlike India's treatment of its religious minorities, Pakistan never enacted a legal basis for Hindus to marry. Severe are the problems this makes for Hindus, of whom a few million still live in Pakistan

Married Hindus have difficult obtaining passports and identity cards, registering married women, transferring property, and even traveling within the country. According to Ramesh Mal, a community leader, the absence of legal protection facilitates the abduction and forced conversion and forced marriage [to Muslims} of many married Hindu women.

"Sapna Devi, said she had been married for 17 years but had no legal evidence of the union. 'God forbid, if he (husband) passes away, I will be unable to claim his property,' she explained."

In protest against deprivation of the basic right to have their wedding acknowledged, a Hindu couple got married without the usual pomp, outside the press club in Hyderabad. They walked around a ceremonial fire seven times.
( hindu-couple-ties-knot-outside.html, July 11).

This is all part of jihad in Pakistan. Jihad squeezes the rights out of religious minorities in Islamic states. The minorities are purged, pushed out, or pressed into Islam. Millions of Christians have been ethnically cleansed from the Mideast. The Palestinian Authority is pressing for the same thing to happen to Jews.

We have reported similar cases of abduction and forced marriage and conversion in Egypt, which most Westerners suppose is a moderate country.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, September 17, 2011.

I have seen about 20 articles today about why the UN bid isn't in the PA's interest and why they should stop. But none of these articles really point out that the opposite is true: the PA has pretty much nothing to lose.

Will the United States cut off all aid? Of course not. Will it make them more unpopular at home? No. If it kills talks with Israel? That's good. They don't need or want them. If it delays the creation of a real state? Since the PA can't and won't negotiate for a compromise agreement it doesn't matter. The PA will get a huge majority in the General Assembly and that will seem a diplomatic victory. If the United States vetos, the PA has an excuse for not succeeding.

If you don't confront the reality of why a country or group act the way it does — and why a weak Western policy makes radical behavior possible — any discussion of the issue is a waste of time.

Here is the problem with "international efforts to avoid the Palestinian UN bid." To say this is not an attempt to avoid giving some constructive advice. Rather, giving constructive advice requires using this as a starting point and explaining why this is true.

First, it's too late. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been talking repeatedly about this gambit for almost a year. Why is it only now, when it is so thoroughly committed to this effort, is the U.S. government staging a campaign against unilateral independence? The failure to start earlier has destroyed any attempt to avoid this disastrous outcome.

Second, the U.S. government did virtually nothing to mobilize other countries to oppose this campaign. What should have happened is that starting in late 2010, the White House should have begun lining up votes. American ambassadors should have been given high-priority instructions to talk with the leaders of the countries to which they were accredited and put together a coalition to avoid the coming crisis. It failed to do so.

Third, the U.S. government has never used real leverage to persuade the PA to relent or to convince other countries to oppose the UN General Assembly backing for a unilateral independence bid. No threats have been made; no benefits offered; no power applied.

Clearly, this is not how international affairs should be conducted. Given neither incentive nor warning, dozens of countries have no compelling reason to vote "no." On the contrary, they know they are getting a free ride. They can vote "yes" or at most abstain knowing they are protected from their irresponsible behavior by a U.S. veto of the proposal in the Security Council. The U.S. government will take the heat while the others can play progressive, humanitarian friends of the Arab world and Muslims.

As for the PA, without some threat of an aid cut-off, an end or sharp reduction in U.S. diplomatic support, or other price, why should it drop a high-publicity, no-cost campaign that — as we will see in a moment — offers so many political benefits.

Equally debilitating is the failure of the counter-campaign to use the most serious and important arguments — that are the only ones that might be effective. The Palestinian strategy breaks every commitment made to Israel and internationally guaranteed since 1993. These are the very commitments on which the Palestinian Authority (PA) itself is based.

The PA simply abandons the principle that any solution will be on the basis of mutual negotiations. It does so after the PA rejected the U.S.-proposed solution of 2000 and it also rejects a negotiated solution following two years of the PA's rejection of negotiations. The U.S. refusal to make this argument parallels the Obama Administration's refusal to criticize or use leverage against the PA, thus guaranteeing its own failure.

Equally, there is no use of the argument about the future implications of this gambit. After all, if the PA has an internationally recognized state it has no incentive to negotiate or compromise in future. Equally, Israel's main asset — the ability to trade territory in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state — is removed with no concomitant gain. What then is Israel's incentive to make more concessions and take more risks?

Thus, the unilateral independence campaign and its at least partial success — certainly from a public relations' perspective — kills the peace process for many years to come. Yet this fact has not energized the campaign, galvanized the U.S. government into strong action, or persuaded other countries to oppose the proposal.

As if all this weren't enough, the prize is being given to the PA at a time when it is in partnership (albeit a very conflictual one) with Hamas, a group that opposes any compromise, peaceful resolution, existence of Israel, U.S. interests, and much more. The U.S government has not even pointed out that the government to be recognized includes a major pro-genocide, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, antisemitic, and bitterly anti-Western component.

Since the PA has nothing to lose internationally, it has no incentive to drop the campaign. Since it can make real gains by putting on this effort, even if the United States ultimately vetoes the demand, once again it has no reason to change course.

Turning to the internal Palestinian situation, the current leadership cannot — due to public opinion, Hamas, and militant elements in the PA plus Fatah hierarchies — make peace or even negotiate seriously.

Equally, the leadership does not want to make peace with Israel because most of them are hardliners or at least relatively so, as in the refusal of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to accept Israel as a Jewish state, end the conflict even in exchange for a Palestinian state, and agree to resettle Palestinian refugees in Palestine. The movement's goal remains to wipe Israel off the map. Getting a state without commitment, concession, or compromise furthers that goal.

Moreover, this initiative coincides perfectly with shorter-term PA leadership goals. It doesn't want to negotiate with Israel, doesn't want to reach a compromise solution, and thus wasting the entire year of 2011 on this bid gives it an ideal strategy to mobilize internal support, blame Israel, and get everything it wants for nothing in return. How can any non-punishing effort to persuade them to change ever possibly succeed?

PS: Negotiation EU style.

Europe's former negotiator Javier Solana is generously given space in the New York Times (funny, they don't seem to have any space for an op-ed opposing Palestinian unilateral independence) which gives ten reasons why Europe should vote for the plan and none why it should vote against. Guess he couldn't find any.

One former EU president has called for supporting unilateral independence because Israel continued to build settlements. This is an example of the ridiculous situation Israel faces because key leaders don't actually pay attention to facts. Israel was allowed to build on existing settlements in the 1993 agreement and the government has dismantled a lot of settlements and built no new ones.

Die Welt in Germany gets it right, though it also has a factual mistake, mentioning Israeli construction in Jerusalem as if it is some new feature rather than something going on for two decades. Moreover, the only way the Palestinians can stop settlement construction or even existence is by making peace with Israel, not refusing to do so.

At any rate, the newspaper explains:

"This crisis has shown which friends one can really count on. As it turns out, there are not many....The Palestinians are taking the easy route in the sympathetic UN General Assembly, rather than making the painful compromises that are necessary for a peaceful solution....It was the Palestinian leadership that in 2000, during the negotiations at Camp David under the direction of Bill Clinton, refused a compromise solution. Shortly thereafter, Yasser Arafat let loose his dogs of hell and destroyed the peace camp in Israel with the intifada. Now the Palestinians are again trying to take a short cut to their own state rather than making necessary compromises. Germany should not support this blatant violation of the Oslo Accords." 0,1518,786684,00.html#ref=rss How rare is this level of understanding.

Meanwhile, the official EU position is that if the Palestinians drop their bid, the EU will support raising them one level at the UN with the prospect of more promotions in future. In exchange the Palestinians do nothing to deserve such a promotion. Moreover, the PA knows that hardly any EU country will vote against them. So what's their incentive? To examine this kind of bargaining is to show how ridiculous it is. 16/us-eu-israel-palestinians- idUSTRE78E2VS20110916

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is "The Truth About Syria" (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at Contact him at The website of the GLORIA Center is at and Rubin's blog, Rubin Reports, is at

This is archived at international-efforts-to-avoid.html?utm_source= feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign= Feed%3A+Rubinreports+%28RubinReports%29 It was published in "Bitter Lemons" and is presented here with a number of updates and additions.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, September 17, 2011.

It is obvious that the Palestinians will not achieve the legal stamp of statehood after they turned up at the United Nations on September 20. They were aware that, despite having the bulk of the votes in the General Assembly, their statehood bid will fail with an American veto in the Security Council. So, why did they go?

They went for two reasons.

What they wanted to achieve from their UN tactics was, firstly, to win the consensus of widely covered international recognition for their cause of a state within 1967 borders and with Jerusalem as their capital. Although the phrase "mutually agreed land swops" is often included in this formula this has no relevance in Palestinian intentions with regard to Jerusalem.

The simple understanding of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders will be the cause of a prolonged public opinion campaign to force Israel into conceding to indefensible borders. Failure to comply with this will make Israel appear to be the ongoing obstacle to peace.

By placing Jerusalem as their Palestinian capital on the public record they will attempt to pull the rug out of Israel's cherished position that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel. Why do they need Jerusalem as their capital? Surely one of their claims is that they have built up their national institutions and infrastructure of statehood, and they did that in Ramallah. That is where their president sits. That is where the Prime Minister's office is. That is where their "national" legislature resides. That is where their founding hero, Yasser Arafat is buried. So, surely, Ramallah should be touted by them as their capital? But no. They want to split apart the Jewish notion that Jerusalem should remain as the undivided capital of Israel.

The majority of those that will vote in favour of this proposal know the radical implications of this resolution. Those who are ignorant of the significance of 1967 lines need to be reminded that this would include Israel being forced to cede to the Palestinians such valuable real estate assets as The Temple Mount, The Wailing Wall, The Hurva Synagogue, The Jewish Quarter of the Old City, The Rockefeller Museum, Hadassah Hospital, the Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Room of the Last Supper, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

This is happening at a time when the Palestinian Ambassador to the United States confirmed his President Abbas's statements that the PLO opposes the presence of Jews and gays in an independent Palestinian state. In other words Judenrein — free of Jews.

But this is not the main thrust of Palestinian representation at the UN. The main item on their agenda is to improve their standing within the fabric of the United Nations. The Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister, Raid Maliki, announced from Ramallah that his President, Mahmoud Abbas, intends to request full U.N. membership. He is not likely to get it, but the Palestinians are seeking to accept increased U.N. status from observer to non-member status.

This would put them on a par with the Vatican, but the Pope has no intention of eliminating Italy, and the Swiss Guard are not suicide bombers and are not armed with rockets. Neither do they subscribe to "the armed struggle." In the important scenario that the Vatican took the violent course of action that Palestinian society has taken against Israel they would immediately lose any preferred status at the United Nations. So why should the Palestinian enjoy parity with the Vatican?

Their increased stature would allow them to lodge claims and complaints with United Nations bodies, top heavy with Palestinian cheerleaders, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, and also to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

In January, 2009, The Palestinians tried to take advantage of an obscure provision in the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the ICC) that allows states that have not joined the ICC to grant the prosecutor authority to investigate crimes on its soil. The provision, Article 12.3, says that a state "which is not a party" to the Rome Stature may lodge a declaration to the ICC registrar accepting the "exercise of jurisdiction by the court with respect to the crime in question." They did so in order to attempt to bring claims of "war crimes" to the Hague.

The ICC's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has mulled over a decision on whether to accept the investigation and is unlikely to do so before the General Assembly acts. A decision by the General Assembly recognizing Palestine, while not legally binding, will increase pressure on Moreno-Ocampo to make up his mind, according to legal experts.

The U.N. General Assembly's "recognition of Palestinian statehood would likely bolster the argument that the Palestinian territory is a state for purposes of Article 12 of the Rome Statute," said James Goldston, a former ICC trial attorney and executive director of the Open Society's Justice Initiative. "Once the statehood legal hurdle is surmounted — by no means a sure thing — the question would arise of how far back jurisdiction attaches."

At that time, the Palestinians asked the prosecutor to exercise jurisdiction over major war crimes dating back to 2002, opening the door to possible investigations of Operation Cast Lead. But legal scholars remained divided over whether the prosecutor can open cases dating back that far. Once the Palestinians achieve higher standing in the United Nations such restrictions may no longer apply. It is clear that if this is the aim of the Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas admitted this in his newspaper article which appeared in the New York Times of May 16, 2011 in which he wrote "Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice".

So, a prime purpose of the United Nations exercise is not to establish a secular Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel. Rather it is one that will begin as a racist Islamic state that excludes Jews as they continue to pursue their delegitimisation campaign against Israel. As Abbas admits, we can expect to see constant resolutions, tribunals, claims, and accusations aimed to diminish the legitimacy of the Jewish state. The Palestinians are already plotting massive riots dressed up as "civil disobedience". They, together with the Israeli far left, are organising huge photo-op demonstrations that will echo scenes being played out in other Arab regimes. They hope to provoke an Israeli response that can be portrayed as similar to unpleasant footage being viewed daily on our TV screens from Arab and Muslim countries. Mohammed Shtayyeh, a ranking member of Fatah, said that all Palestinian medical services will be in a state of emergency next week in anticipation of violence. This, despite the statements of their leaders that demonstrations will be "peaceful".

The warning signs are there. Their aim is to try and equate Israel with the brutal regimes of Assad, Mubarak, and Qaddafi. The big difference, a difference that will be kept from the viewers, is that their angry protesters will be marching into Israel and on to Israeli property, and not marching against their own regime. Should these mass demonstrations get out of hand the Israeli forces will have no choice but to defend Israel and Israelis from a potentially murderous scenario.

If there is any doubt that the ultimate aim of the Palestinian delegitimisation ambitions is not to eventually eliminate Israel one only has to look to statements from leading Palestinian politicians. It was vitally important to Mahmoud Abbas that he goes to the United Nations with a signed agreement with Hamas to show wall to wall Palestinian unity. But the Hamas representative responsible for international relations, Osama Hamdan, said at a conference in Cairo, Egypt on July 24, 2011 that was covered on Al Aqsa TV that "the conflict will never come to an end until Israel comes to an end." He went on, "Regarding what some have demanded of us, to recognize the enemy, that matter is behind us. We then clearly said that we will never recognize Israel, and today I say more than that: Israel completely doesn't exist in our political or intellectual dictionary." Hamdan was quoted on the El-Amal website the following day where he defined the Palestinian state as being "until the liberation of the lands of Palestine from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river."

The United Nations approach was described by Khalil al-Hayeh, a member of Hamas' political bureau, on July 31, 2011, who said at a reception for a Malaysian delegation visiting the Gaza Strip, that the appeal to the UN was "only an illusion."

The Palestinians may try to display unity for the United Nations cameras but the truth is that their delegation does not represent the majority of the Palestinian people. Hamas, despite their signature to a unity agreement, are against the UN move.

Many within the ruling Fatah political group are opposed to this move. Several leading tribal chiefs have told Abbas that they are against his exercise. Even Palestinian Prime Minister, Salim Fayyad, voiced his scepticism in an AP interview on June 28, 2011. He admitted that anything achieved at the UN would only be symbolic and the reality on the ground will only change with Israeli consensus.

As Hamas is, to all intents and purposes, a Palestinian partner to this United Nations bid, it could be construed as recognition in the UN of Hamas as a partner to this statehood bid while Hamas is still recognised as a terrorist organisation. Further, the United Nations would be conferring statehood on a new state in which one of the leading player's objects to Israel's right to exist and calls for its destruction.

The only benign excuse given for Mahmoud Abbas's unilateral act is that he is defining his legacy. He has repeatedly told anyone within earshot that he intends to retire soon. Perhaps his hurry to rush to the UN to claim Palestinian statehood before the international community is his parting shot. If it is, he is likely to set back genuine statehood for his people for decades, as did Arafat when he refused to pick up the pen and sign an agreement at Camp David in 2000.

What this Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence is, in law, is a breach of all signed agreements with Israel, including The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement signed by Yizhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn on September 28, 1995 which clearly states in Article 7 that "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." Further, Article 6 states that "Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP. "

The Palestinians are displaying dangerous bad faith by reneging on their signature. How can Israel possibly trust any future agreement, in which they reduce their security in the hope of a future peace with a party that, years later, defaults on their commitment?

This brings us to a final critical question that must be asked before September 20, and maybe for years following. Several countries signed on to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement not only as witnesses, but also as guarantors of this agreement. They are the United States, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Norway, and the European Union. It will be instructive to see which of these nations vote for, or against, the unilateral Palestinian bid that will make this internationally recognised legal document null and void?

Those who vote for the Palestinian motion will do so knowing that they have dishonoured their responsibilities according to international law. Barry Shaw is the author of Israel — Reclaiming The Narrative. His website is at

Barry Shaw is the author of Israel — Reclaiming The Narrative. His website is at

To Go To Top

Posted by Betty Misheiker, September 17, 2011.

Men tend to put a face
Alongside each triumph or disgrace
And are conditioned unequivocally to choose
And blame all their faults and mishaps on the Jews

If the locusts come this year
And leave our lovely green fields bare
     Blame the Jews,
     Blame the Jews!

If your accounts are over-drawn
And more girls than boys are born
     Blame the Jews,
     Blame the Jews

Families wait patiently with merit
For the day when they'll inherit
From Someone Ninety-seven!
To be safe and sound in Heaven

But hale and hearty, never ill
Since being on that very latest pill
INVENTED of course, by you know who,
Once again some damned 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!"

That's the mischief they get up to
Set stumbling blocks for me and you
Finding cures and new inventions
Pretending its all meant with good intentions

While, 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 TEN COMMANDMENTS for folks to choose
And those who chose became THE JEWS....


Filled the world with stuff and nonsense -
Spread a most uneasy thing called conscience
Which made Laws that all the while
Cramped the lovely Pagan style


Brought Rules that touched us one and all
No longer was life just a Ball,
Those TEN COMMANDMENTS made us lose
Our Pagan freedom, can you blame us if we choose'
     Ever after to blame the Jews?
     Blame the Jews?
     Blame the Jews?


     Each time you hear bad news
Know for sure it's them 'thar' Jews
Every mishap,nasty thing
That time or tide can ever bring
Like global warming
     Blame the Jews
The Bees aren't swarming
     Blame the Jews

     For every Tidal wave
Or Hurricane
     Something Somewhere must be to blame
                        So until they find out what's it's name
Luckily we have someone to blame

     And if you doubt the blame is false
Simply intensify your assaults
No matter whether false or true
It's the conditioned thing to do
Accustomed pattern,
Nothing new

Yet looking back how strange a theme
To have the Jewish Son '
Of the Jewish G-d supreme crucified by order
From Pontius Pilate, Emperor of Rome,
Then spread the news
Abroad and home'

And lay the blame upon the Jews,
Who,in all annals of history,
Well known,
Never crucified anyone —
Least of all — Heaven forbid -
One of their own.

In the vast plains of the Middle East
Israelis celebrate each Festival and Feast
On their tiny, stamp-sized piece of land,

In doubt whether that is so?'
Kindly turn the pages of your Bible,
And you'll know —
Read it twice to understand
How precious to the Jews
Each grain of sand !!

Tell the news — tell it — loud and clear
For all ears and Hearing-aids to hear:-


Betty Misheiker lives in Jerusalem. Contact her by email at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger and Stan Zir, September 16, 2011.

On what side of history are you?

With one voice, one heart and mind, and with one purpose, the American People and the Israeli-Jews People must immediately embark to unveil clarity and stop the charade or we are disaster-prone.

Standing up to Hitler is exactly like standing up, today, to terrorists and bullies!

This can be done by only two Nations: The American People and the Israeli-Jews People, as both their countries' fate are tightly intertwine.


The United States Do-It-Today List:

First they came to kill the Jews — in every nation, in every generation. Then the British Authorities, in British Mandate Palestine, prevented the boats, loaded with Holocaust survivors Jews, from delivering them to the Promised Land. And now that the Jews have their own Homeland, their sovereignty, in which to thrive in peace, they want to take that from them.

For all practical purposes, the pipe of peace that has been passed down from one US President to the next has become nothing but a truncheon, used by the Arab world for Israel's destruction. After more than 20 years of fruitless dialogue with the Arab states and their emissaries, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, the vultures of death are now circling over Israel and she is surrounded by the messengers of the angel of death on all sides.

While Obama is making a final push to establish another terrorist Islamic state with "east" Jerusalem as its capital, incredulously, the USA congress is working tirelessly for Israel to sign away her sovereignty, in exchange for a terrorist-land peace swap one, that would lead to her execution by their "moderate peace partners," the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

What kind of mediator would choose a peace partner for Israel that declares it will never recognize Israel, will never have a Jew on their soil, and would persist in demanding their "refugees" breach the barrier and overtake Israel?

Yet, Congress constituents to embrace the insidious notion that the terror organization, PLO, and Democratic sovereign country, Israel, are equal partners. America, is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they formed this Republic, that future generations would bow down to terrorists?

Congress must declare that Israel has no partner for peace as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that had morphed to the Palestinians Authority (PA), Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas, et al are all genocidal terrorists.

The United States must stop treating the State of Israel like the Dregs of Earth, because it is lacking courage to stand up for truth and with it feel discomfort standing up to the Islamofascists oil co-ops. With one voice, one heart and mind, and with one purpose we must unveil clarity and stop the charade or we are ill fated. *** The State of Israel Do-It-Today List: We, Jews, will not be treated like the drags of earth because the world is lacking courage to stand up for truth and with it feel discomfort standing up for the Islamofascist oil co-ops. One courageous Israeli leader must muster his/her courage, take the lead, stand up and say these four things:

1.There will never be an Arab state on Jewish Land and point out to the Mandate for Palestine: from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

2. We will never negotiate with liars again; we learned that lying is the fascists' way to accomplish their agenda. The Arabs have lied from the day they signed the Oslo Accords, still lie, now more than ever.

3. We will never, again, negotiate with terrorists who want to annihilate us; we allowed ourselves to be fooled for years, because we really wanted peace, all at our unfathomable cost, and the Arabs took advantage of our well meant approach, all to our detriment. While we made extreme moves for possible peace, the Arabs prepared generations of terrorists ready to fight and die to destroy Israel.

4. We made a mistake conceding to the name "Palestinian," a name that was invented to advance Arab cause, all at the account of Israel's existence. Therefore, we now acknowledge that the people who as of late are calling themselves "Palestinians" are Arabs who are welcome to go back to where they came from. On the other hand, we Jews, returned home, to the land of our Forefathers, Israel, and home it is!


With one voice, one heart and mind, and with one purpose, and one purpose we must unveil clarity and stop the charade or we are ill fated.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at Visit her blog: This article is archived at nurg.nb/topstory.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 16, 2011.

People are worried about Turkey's recent threats to sidle into war with Israel. They point out that Turkey has NATO's second largest military, a rapidly growing economy, and the resources to back up its threats. It President is popular among his people (and among the Arabs, although the Arabs are getting nervous about being pushed around by Turkey, the way they are about Iran).

Erdogan's demagoguery about Israel is a contrived diversion from his real problems. Actually, Turkey is near financial collapse. Its currency is sinking. Its stock market fell by 40% in the past half-year. Unemployment is 13%. The touted growth in Turkey's economy stems from financial manipulation. It is not solid.

President Erdogan won his latest election there by borrowing heavily from abroad and distributing the funds to his people in the form of low-interest loans. Those loans fall due, soon. Still rising, they amount to almost as high a proportion of GDP as Greece's debt. Turkey's bubble is about to burst.

A few more months and we should see the outcome. When Turkey's economy collapses, so will Erdogan's popularity. The classes that he repressed — military, journalists, scientists, and the public — will pile onto him. His dream of Turkey dominating the Mideast will follow him into the mist (Guy Bechor,,7340, L-4122972,00.html in IMRA, 9/16/11,

President Obama admires and emulates Europe. We see what is happening to Europe. President Bush was called stupid and was held responsible for letting the U.S. bubble build up. What shall we call Obama and his cohorts for raising the same irresponsible ante, even as he sees the results in Europe and the U.S..?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Raanan Isseroff, September 16, 2011.


"...all of the pressure, concessions and so on, are founded in, and encouraged by certain well-known, (Jewish) influential groups within Israel itself, whose influence on international relations is, at times, absolute. Moreover, they actually invite pressure, either directly or indirectly. An undeniable proof to this — one that I have already pointed out many times and that has even been publicized in the papers — is the fact that immediately after the Six-Day War they sent an official, though inconspicuous delegation, made-up of government representatives (ministers) to Washington with an offer to give back all of the territories that the Jews recaptured, in exchange for so-called "peace".

(From a letter of the Rebbe, Likkutei Sichos p. 561)


In the wars that Israel has fought in recent years, three grave mistakes were made, all of them the results of placing political considerations above security considerations:

1) The most difficult battle of the Six Day War was the one fought over Jerusalem's Old City. Hundreds of Israeli soldiers were killed. Why? Because for political reasons, (such as 'what will the Vatican say?' etc...) a resolution to conquer Jerusalem's Old City was not made. As a result, security officials did not prepare an attack on Jerusalem, and hundreds of Jews were killed and wounded.

2) Today everyone admits that prior to the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, clear information was received concerning the impending attack from Egypt. Security officials calculated that a fully deployed Tzahal could abort the attack, thereby lessening the number of 'sacrifices'. Moreover, when the enemy would hear about the 'full deployment', this alone could deter them from war. Such was the opinion of the military experts. But the politicians thought otherwise: "It does not pay to anger the United States...!" This consideration brought devastating consequences — thousands upon thousands of sacrifices, may G-d avenge their blood, as well as many wounded, many of whom have remained maimed until this very day!

3) The very same mistake was repeated in the Lebanese War (Shalom HaGalil): Military experts demonstrated how a surprise attack against Lebanon would bring unusual success and a swift conclusion to the operation. But the moment the army went ahead to war the politicians began to clamor, and day by day they hindered the armies activities until the matter became problematic. As a result, sacrifices have been falling (r"l) for weeks and months now! Why don't they learn from the past...?!"

(See public addresses of Kislev 1976 and Kislev 19, 1983)

Contact Raanan Isseroff by email at and visit the website: The website contains Videos, Talks, Writings and Letters of the Lubavitcher Rebbe on Eretz Yisrael.

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Tooley, September 16, 2011.

This was written by Alan Wisdom and is archived at


A new confrontation looms in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) over proposals to divest from companies doing business with Israel. A PCUSA committee announced on September 12 its recommendation to the 2012 General Assembly that the denomination divest itself of any holdings in Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions. The divestment would be a protest against the companies' sales, respectively, of construction, computing, and communications equipment to the Israeli military. Israel was the only Middle Eastern nation targeted for potential divestment by the PCUSA Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI).

This latest MRTI recommendation presages another round in a long-running fight that has erupted at every PCUSA assembly since 2004. In that year, anti-Israel activists persuaded the assembly to mandate a process of "phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." That action triggered a volley of negative reactions from Jewish groups and pro-Israel Presbyterians. The 2006 assembly responded by replacing the anti-Israel mandate with a broader instruction that PCUSA funds should "be invested only in peaceful pursuits." This instruction remains the authority under which MRTI is operating.

The 2008 General Assembly added a pledge that "we will not over-identify with the realities of the Israelis or the Palestinians." It warned against "taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality, where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim." The 2010 assembly moved to moderate a harshly anti-Israel report that had been drafted by an activist committee. But it also "strongly denounce[d] Caterpillar's continued profit-making from non-peaceful uses of a number of its products."

MRTI had been badgering Caterpillar and the other two companies for years. It was asking them to cease sales of any equipment that might be used by Israel to maintain its military presence in the West Bank or its border controls to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza. Since equipment is fungible, this request amounted to a call for a total boycott against the Israeli military. MRTI did not ask the companies to cease sales to any other military in the region.

The three companies, when they deigned to respond, noted that their products — bulldozers, biometric identification systems, cell phones, and the like — were not weapons designed to kill. They said they had no control over how Israeli forces might use those products in military operations that might or might not be justified. Pro-Israel Presbyterians asserted that the Jewish state had the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks launched from Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

MRTI was not satisfied with the answers it received in dialogue with the companies. "Today we are sadly reporting that these efforts have not produced any substantive change in company policies or practices, and that there is little reason for hope they will do so in the future," declared MRTI chair Brian Ellison, a pastor from Kansas City, MO. "According to the Assembly's prior directives and the church's ordinary engagement process, we have little choice but to recommend divestment."

Others disagreed. Jewish groups that follow PCUSA developments were quick to voice their displeasure. Rabbi Steve Gutow, president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, objected, "This kind of proposed action promotes the delegitimization of Israel." He called the MRTI divestment proposal "an invitation to more conflict and more division, without the prospect for fostering peace in a region that so desperately needs it." The chair of the Jewish council, Dr. Conrad Giles, contended, "Divestment should be saved for the most intractable and odious regimes, when all other means have failed; not for liberal democracies [such as Israel] committed to an ongoing peace process."

Presbyterians for Middle East Peace (PMEP), a more moderate group in the denomination, lamented that MRTI's divestment recommendation "will surely offend and hurt our brothers and sisters in the Jewish community." PMEP also regretted that "the recommendation will, no doubt, increase the divisions within the PCUSA." It criticized "a small group of activists within the PCUSA that has relentlessly sought to punish Israel. Wanting to find one party at fault in a conflict where all parties have engaged in positive and negative actions, this small group believes that Israel is solely to blame for the current conflict."

PMEP was confident, however, that "there is no reason to believe that the General Assembly of the PCUSA will respond positively to the MRTI recommendation. In the past, the GA has consistently rejected calls for divestment. Polling of Presbyterian lay people and clergy has consistently rejected suggestions for the PCUSA to be an advocate for any one side in this multi-sided situation." The moderate group vowed, "Presbyterians for Middle East Peace will work long and hard to make sure the 2012 General Assembly continues to play a positive rather than inflammatory peacemaking role in the Middle East."

Debates over how to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have surfaced in several oldline Protestant denominations, but none has been so publicly torn as the PCUSA. This disagreement over Middle East issues is sure to add even more tension to the 2012 General Assembly in Pittsburgh — on top of all the rifts that are opening, inside the PCUSA and between the denomination and its overseas partner churches, as a result of this year's decision to drop the "fidelity and chastity" standard for sexual conduct of ordained officers.

Contact Mark Tooley at the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, September 16, 2011.

Michal and I recently attended an eye-opening experience: Ethiopian Jewish actor, Yossi Vassa, performed "It Sounds Better in Amharic." This one-man performance is about the clash of cultures in Israel, as experienced by a young man who walked from his agrarian village in Ethiopia to Sudan, and eventually was flown to live in a makeshift hut in Israel's desert before the family settled in Netanya. The event was sponsored by the Forgotten People Fund (FPF) and the Netanya AACI (Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel).

Yossi was born in 1975 in the village of Uzava, in northern Ethiopia. He told us how, in his village, during the spring the kids would gather flowers to give to others and receive candy in return. At age 7, Yossi was already a "businessman", a shepherd in charge of his family's flock. This responsibility made him practical from childhood. In his village, the world belonged to the elderly, who received respect from all their juniors. The Kessim (rabbis) were like the Supreme Court.

For Yossi's Grandmom, Jerusalem was equivalent to heaven. Unexpectedly, a white man named Vetolovich showed up in the village one day and told them that aliyah (immigration) was possible! Yossi was too young to appreciate what that meant, but he was most impressed by the fact that the emissary was white. All of the villagers were anxious to return home (Jerusalem).

In 1984, Yossi and his family were part of Operation Moses, in which thousands of Ethiopian Jews were resettled in Israel. Ten years old at the time, Yossi and his family journeyed 440 miles to a Sudanese transit camp, taking their most precious belongings. They traveled for three months by foot and by donkey, avoiding soldiers and robbers along the way. Finally, their guides told them the transit camp to Israel was just across the river. They gave all their money to the "helpers" who would transport them to the camp, but when they reached the other side they discovered the transit camp was still far away! Confused and swindled, they slogged on and after a time arrived at the camp. There they remained for nine months in "one big graveyard," where Jerusalem was nowhere in sight and Grandmom and Yossi's two younger siblings died of diseases.

At last they were put on a plane and arrived in Israel. White people were everywhere, a real novelty for Yossi. He went to a special kids' ulpan, where he was given his Israeli name, a stressful metamorphosis. When Yossi began to make friends in Netanya, he was appalled by the lack of respect shown to his friends' parents, and even the grandparents, who were held in especially high regard in Uzava.

Yossi explained some of the problems he had adjusting to his new life, for example, learning arithmetic. Utilizing his experience as a shepherd, Yossi counted sheep to do his arithmetic. It took him quite a while to progress because he only had ten fingers! During this time his older brother became very religious and his mother began to learn how to prepare Israeli food, which was much different than what the family was used to. They stopped eating omelets and started eating schnitzel (cutlets).

While attending a religious boarding school in Petach Tikvah, Yossi began to practice stand-up comedy. He was exposed to theatre for the first time while attending Haifa University, where he entered a competition in the Theatre Arts division with a friend. To their surprise, they won first place. That was the beginning of Yossi's career in entertainment.

While working on his current show "It Sounds Better in Amharic!" Yossi felt it was very important to express his inner feelings regarding the long journey from his village in rural Ethiopia to the town of Netayna, a large city on the Mediterranean. Although there are other Ethiopian Jews in theatre production in Israel, few have ventured to perform at Yossi's level. For Yossi, it was important not only to be creative but also to succeed in his craft.

Yossi says that Israeli culture is full of opposites and contradictions that complement each other. In his career, Yossi has emulated Israeli poet and singer Meir Ariel, whom he admires for Ariel's original writing, which is both local and universal. Yossi also admires the late Jamaican reggae star, Bob Marley, because he was a simple man who lived a very complicated life.

Telling his life story is what makes his art Israeli, according to Yossi. He has done hundreds of performances of "It Sounds Better in Amharic" at festivals, in Jewish communities, at many universities, and in cities such as New York and San Francisco. While Yossi's English is good, he performs in English only a fraction of the time.

By performing all over the world, Yossi has learned many lessons. "If someone does something seriously and with will power and from the heart — they will succeed" he proclaims. "In the end, we in the Ethiopian community must try to succeed. To learn our history and not forget it. To try always to contribute in our own way. And no matter what country we are in we can relate to each other."

Yossi is a performer with a thousand watt smile. His movements and delivery are very expressive. While much of his performance was performed while he was relatively motionless, he only had to lift an eyebrow or move a limb to electrify the audience. In a performance spanning only an hour, Yossi was not able to give us too many facts, but he gave the audience a wealth of impressions.

Though his parents lost their identity and confidence in their new home, Yossi sees some improvement in the community, particularly by events that bring generations together. The government has recognized this and has recognized Ethiopian holidays and put them on the national calendar. Yossi emphasized that the Jews from Ethiopia are fulfilling their dream of Zionism, helping to build a new society in which they can play a role. But he acknowledged that the Ethiopians must do things for themselves and not rely on authorities to do everything for them. Yossi's success is a tribute to his positive attitude.

During a Q&A session after his performance, Yossi informed the audience that the Ethiopian immigrants ("Beta Israel") were and had always been Jewish and they had been persecuted as Jews in Ethiopia. He also informed us that other Beta Israel, who had been forced to convert to Christianity ("Falash Mura"), are Zionists who are immigrating to Israel to help build our country.

One of the organizations which is working to ensure the Ethiopians' successful assimilation is The Forgotten People Fund, a grass-roots nonprofit which works closely with the Ethiopian community in Netanya. FPF helped Yossi's family years ago. Currently, FPF helps those in need by following up on requests from social workers and initiating proactive programs to provide tools for successful integration into Israeli life. See the FPF website ( for more information and to view the monthly newsletter.

We wish everyone a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year! If you would like to help Ethiopians in Israel, the FPF website gives several options for donations.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey ( for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." Contact him at and visit

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, September 16, 2011.

Cases dealing with apostasy in Islam — whereby Muslims who convert to other religions are tortured and executed — are on the rise and need to be acknowledged for what they are: one of Islam's most visible attempts to suppress the human conscience — a phenomenon that has dire implications beyond religious freedom. Consider these two recent stories. First, from Somalia:

A kidnapped Christian convert from Islam was found decapitated on Sept. 2 ... Juma Nuradin Kamil was forced into a car by three suspected Islamic extremists from the al-Shabaab terrorist group on Aug. 21, area sources said. After members of his community thoroughly combed the area looking for him, at 2 p.m. on Sept. 2 one of them found Kamil's body dumped on a street. The kidnapping and subsequent manner of murder suggests that al-Shabaab militants had been monitoring him, Christian leaders said. Muslim extremists from al-Shabaab, a militant group with ties to al Qaeda, have vowed to rid Somalia of Christianity.

According to a leader of the underground church: "It is usual for the al-Shabaab to decapitate those they suspect to have embraced the Christian faith, or sympathizers of western ideals. Our brother accepted the Christian faith three years ago and was determined in his faith in God. We greatly miss him."

Likewise, it was recently revealed that a Muslim father in Uganda trapped, starved, and maimed his teenage daughter, simply because she embraced Christianity — that is, simply because she attempted to follow her conscience. When she was finally rescued six months later, she "was bony, very weak, and not able to talk or walk. Her hair had turned yellow, she had long fingernails and sunken eyes, and she looked very slim, less than 20 kilograms [44 pounds]." Details follow:

Susan and her younger brother, Mbusa Baluku, lived alone with their father after he divorced their mother. In March 2010 an evangelist from Bwera Full Gospel Church spoke at Susan's school, and she decided to trust Christ for her salvation. "I heard the message of Christ's great love of him dying for us to get everlasting peace, and there and then I decided to believe in Christ," she said from her hospital bed. "After a month, news reached my father that I had converted to Christianity, and that was the beginning of my troubles with him. Our father warned us not to attend church or listen to the gospel message. He even threatened us with a sharp knife that he was ready to kill us in broad daylight in case we converted to Christianity."

When she refused to recant, "he locked her up in a room of the semi-permanent house for six months without seeing sunlight. The younger brother was warned not to tell anyone that Susan was locked up in a room and was not given any food."

Susan's brother, still young and not fully indoctrinated in the things of Islam, smuggled scraps of food to his sister, though "most days she could only feed on mud"; he also dug a hole under the door, pouring water through it, which she was forced to lap "using her tongue."

These two cases are not "aberrant" or "misrepresentative" of Islam. For starters, even if one were to accept that al-Shabaab in Somalia are "extremists," we find that "the transitional government in Mogadishu fighting [against al-Shabaab] to retain control of the country treats Christians little better than the al-Shabaab extremists do. While proclaiming himself a moderate, President Sheikh Sharif Sheik Ahmed has embraced a version of sharia that mandates the death penalty for those who leave Islam."

He probably embraced this "version of sharia" as there is no other version: all four recognized schools of Muslim jurisprudence mandate death for apostates. (Meanwhile in Lala land, the New York Times advocates sharia in America.)

As for the Uganda anecdote, Susan's father actually opted to follow the most lenient form of punishment allowed for apostasy: while Islam's three Sunni schools of law condemn the apostate to death, the Hanafi School "progressively" advocates beating and imprisoning females until they see the "error of their ways" and return to Islam.

Likewise, though Susan's father was arrested, he was "quickly released," doubtless because the authorities recognized that he was only upholding Islam.

Such is the potential fate of all Muslim converts to Christianity wherever Islam is strong. Thus, a Christian pastor in Iran remains behind bars, where he is being tortured and awaits execution for refusing to recant Christianity. Even in onetime Christian Norway, a Muslim convert to Christianity was tortured with boiling water and told by fellow Muslim inmates "If you do not return to Islam, we will kill you"; if deported to his native Afghanistan, he risks death by stoning for leaving Islam (note again the agreement on the penalty for apostasy between individual "fanatics" and Muslim governments).

To all the relativists out there, they have but one question to ask themselves: where is the other religion that kills defectors? There are none; only gangs, not religions, exhibit such a "mafia" mentality — hence the argument that Islam is more a political system than a religion.

Finally, it should be noted that Islam's suppression of individual choice is not limited to forcing Muslims in far off places to adhere to Islam; rather, the enforced denial of the human conscience in a billion or so people has negative, if unspoken, implications on a global level.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at This article appeared today in Hudson New York and is archived at 10327/islam-apostasy

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, September 15, 2011.

Last week I was in Basel, Switzerland, representing The Toronto Zionist Council, at a congress of about 200 interested individuals who met to discuss Israel, legal rights, a bit of history, politics and academics, but mostly, the future of Israel. You can't do that in August 2011, without being acutely aware of the impending threat of a U.N. vote. Prior to arriving I had gotten varied responses about this gathering, ranging from negative, through neutral, or bemused, to tentative inquisitiveness.

Generally, when I arrive in a new place it takes a day, at least a few hours to get comfortable. It isn't a matter of learning everything about the place, but more about having enough information to form the framework on which the pieces fit as you add more.

A bit delayed by hurricane Irene, I joined the group for dinner in the Musiksaal at the Stadt Casino and at once felt I had either stepped through one of my high school classes further back in time, or was on the forefront of the discussion of Israel's future — and it created an immediately comfortable framework for my Basel.

The Stadt Casino is where Theodore Herzl convened The First Zionist Congress, on August 29th — 31st, 1897, after being barred from holding his visionary convention in Munich by the local community leadership. Inside the Stadt nothing has changed, or maybe everything has been kept the same.

"Together for the Sake of Jerusalem", August 29th — 31st, 2011 was organized by people from Europe and Canada. Among them, Jacques Gauthier, a Toronto lawyer with a doctorate in international law, wrote his thesis was on the subject of the legal title and sovereignty of Jerusalem. Springing from this, the program, and the discussion strike me as being consistent with 1897, especially in that it feels like this convention is straining to move the discussion forward in a most positive direction. The discussion about Jerusalem is mostly, by extension also the discussion about Israel.

The current standard of discussion about either, politically, academically, diplomatically, or on the street, always seems to begin with security — and end with security. If the pillars are right, politics, education and diplomacy (fostering understanding) there is a problem getting two people to agree as to what "security for Israel" means. Security can be defined in so many different ways, it is hard to foresee there ever being a total resolution, not only because there are so many different ideas as to how, what and where, but because there is ultimately no such thing as total security.

So there must be a better place to start. In Basel there were politicians, representing many countries, lawyers talking law, academics who presented historical and academic perspectives, and those who presented insights into what I would call "Israel's reality". If the presentations were informative, the discussion was both broadening and empowering and brought into focus the need to be positive and vocal, as well as the value of each person's efforts.

Ultimately though, if the goal is to resolve the conflict that has surrounded Israel since well before its creation, which means signing an agreement — into international law — you have to start with international law, not wishes, not dreams or aspirations, not security, and certainly not politics. International law, the laws of the U.N., Great Britain and the United States clearly designate Jerusalem as belonging to the Jewish people. The law constitutes Israel's only practical or useful position, because, in that it is existent and written, it is a clear and straightforward starting point. Security is the natural result. Similarly, there are borders for Israel in international law, as specified in the San Remo Accords of 1920. They are not the 1967 (sic, really 1948) armistice lines and their legitimacy has been upheld by International Court of Justice rulings.

In international law Israel is a nation within the community of nations of the world, a nation with equal if not better standing than most. Given the current political environment this must not be overlooked as that will allow it to be ignored.

In that context, the educational programs, and the diplomatic support are necessary to help us build a solid future for Israel, according to Israel's rights in international law. It is up to us to embrace it and not bar it from our community.

This is the final resolution adopted by those in attendance.

A conference was held from August 29 to August 31, 2011, in Basel, Switzerland, in the historic Musiksaal.

The Alliance for International Justice in Jerusalem organized this significant event. It brought together Jewish and non-Jewish participants from many nations for the purpose of affirming their support for the recognition of the international legal rights of the State of Israel and the Jewish people in respect to the City of Jerusalem.

On August 31, 2011, the Basel Conference adopted the following Declaration:

The Alliance for International Justice in Jerusalem re-affirms the inalienable historic and legal rights of the State of Israel and the Jewish people to a unified Jerusalem as their capital.

The Alliance acknowledges the tremendous contribution of Theodor Herzl, who outlined his vision for the restoration of a Jewish State at the first Zionist Congress held in Basel on August 29,30 and 31, 1897. This vision was realized on May 14, 1948.

The 2011 Basle Conference reiterates the significance of the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations relating to the sacred trust of civilisation, followed by the San Remo Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers on April 25, 1920, and the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922. These were the foundational instruments for the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

These instruments together constitute the Charter of Freedom of the Jewish people.

The Alliance calls upon international leaders to display wisdom and courage when making decisions that relate to Jerusalem at the Sessions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly to be held in September, 2011.

The 2011 Basel Conference calls upon the Nations to honour their solemn and irrevocable pledges as well as their legal obligations to the Jewish People established under the law of Nations.

The Alliance for International Justice in Jerusalem calls upon all nations to reject any resolutions and actions that would violate Israel's legitimate sovereignty over all of Jerusalem.

It is up to us.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, September 15, 2011.

The latest toy has hit the shops... a talking Muslim doll.

Nobody knows what the heck it says, because no one has the balls to pull the cord!...... ;~)


Contact Dave Nathan at

To Go To Top

Posted by Edward Alexander, September 15, 2011.

As the international noose grows ever tighter about Israel's throat, the learned classes of Diaspora Jewry are not asking themselves the right questions.

'Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. 4:9). "And Moses said unto the children of Gad and the children of Reuben: 'Shall your brethren go to the war, and shall ye sit here?'" (Numbers 32:6). These should have been the besetting questions for American-Jewish intellectuals during Hitler's twelve-year war against European Jewry; but generally they were not.

They should be the pressing ones for the learned classes of Diaspora Jewry today, as the international noose grows ever tighter about Israel's throat; but they are not.

Long after World War II had ended, William Phillips, co-founder of Partisan Review, recalled that Irving Howe, the most astute political mind among the Jewish intellectuals, "was haunted by the question of why our [Jewish] intellectual community ... had paid so little attention to the Holocaust in the early 1940s.... He asked me why we had written and talked so little about the Holocaust at the time it was taking place."

One may, for example, search the pages of Partisan Review from 1937 through summer 1939 without finding mention of Hitler or Nazism. When Howe was working on his autobiography, he looked through the old issues of his own journal Labor Action to see how, or indeed whether, he and his socialist comrades had responded to the Holocaust. But he found the experience painful, and concluded that the Trotskyists, including himself, were only the best of a bad lot of leftist sects. He told Phillips that this inattention to the destruction of European Jewry was "a serious instance of moral failure on our part."

The leading New York intellectuals had shown appalling indifference not only to what had been endured by their European brethren, but to what had been achieved by the Jews of Palestine. Events of biblical magnitude had occurred within a single decade. A few years after the destruction of European Jewry, the Jewish people had created the state of Israel. Of this achievement, Winston Churchill, addressing Parliament in 1949, said: "The coming into being of a Jewish state in Palestine is an event in world history to be viewed in the perspective, not of a generation or a century, but in the perspective of a thousand, two thousand or even three thousand years.

"That is a standard of temporal values or time-values which seems very much out of accord with the perpetual click-clack of our rapidly changing moods and of the age in which we live. This is an event in world history."

The moral failure of ignoring the Holocaust was now compounded by a related failure: having averted their eyes from the destruction of European Jewry, the Jewish intellectuals now looked away from one of the most impressive assertions of the will to live that a martyred people has ever made. The writers had been immersed in the twists and turns of literary modernism, in the fate of socialism in the USSR and the US, and most of all in themselves, especially their "alienation" not only from America but from Judaism, Jewishness, and Jews. Indeed they defined themselves Jewishly through their alienation from their Jewishness.

Looking back on this debacle many years later, Saul Bellow admitted: "It's perfectly true that 'Jewish Writers in America' ... missed what should have been for them the central event of their time, the destruction of European Jewry. I can't say how our responsibility can be assessed.

We ... should have reckoned more fully, more deeply with it. Nobody in America seriously took this on and only a few Jews elsewhere (like Primo Levi) were able to comprehend it all.

"The Jews as a people reacted justly to it. So we have Israel, but in the matter of higher comprehension ... there were no minds fit to comprehend.... All parties then are passing the buck and every honest conscience feels the disgrace of it.... Not a particle of this can be denied."

IN ONE sense, Howe and Bellow were the (embarrassed) prototypes, if not exactly the progenitors, of today's bumper crop of "anti-Zionist" Jewish deep thinkers.

Howe, even more contrite than Bellow about his "moral failure," was among the first to see what was coming, and by 1970 found the treachery of the younger generation of Jewish intellectuals literally unspeakable: "Jewish boys and girls, children of the generation that saw Auschwitz, hate democratic Israel and celebrate as 'revolutionary' the Egyptian dictatorship; ... a few go so far as to collect money for Al Fatah, which pledges to take Tel Aviv. About this, I cannot say more; it is simply too painful."

Many of these "Jewish boys and girls" are by now well-established figures in journalism and academia, tenured and heavily-petted, warming themselves in endowed university chairs, or editorializing from The New York Times or New York Review of Books. But the "alienation" of which the older New York Jewish intellectuals belatedly grew ashamed became the boast of the Judts, Kushners, Butlers, Chomskys, and their acolytes.

These are people who do not merely "sit here" while their brothers go to war. They take the side of their brothers' enemies and call their cowardice courage. Others, more cautious, discover that the Jewish state, which most Europeans now blame for all the world's miseries (with the possible exception of global warming,) should never have come into existence in the first place, and that "the [non-Zionist] roads not taken" would have brought (and may yet bring) a "new" Diaspora Golden Age. They are forever organizing kangaroo courts (called "academic conferences") to put Israel in the dock; or else they are churning out articles or monographs or novels celebrating those roads not taken; or they are performing as "public intellectuals," breathlessly recommending a one-state solution or a no-state solution or (this from the tone-deaf George Steiner) "a final solution."

Their strategy is at once timely and timeless. By a happy coincidence, they excavate from relative obscurity long-dead Jewish thinkers who opposed Zionism altogether or opposed political Zionism (a Jewish state) at the very time that their liberal, progressive colleagues are discovering that the nation-state is itself obsolete and that Israel is the most pernicious nation-state that exists or has ever existed. But in another sense they are ahistorical and disdainful of time because they write as if there were no difference between Jewish opposition to a conjectural Jewish state eighty or a hundred years ago and opposition to a living entity of almost six million souls under constant siege.

In 1942 a character named Yudka ("little Jew") in Haim Hazaz's famous Hebrew short story The Sermon says that "when a man can no longer be a Jew, he becomes a Zionist." But the unnatural progeny of the New York Intellectuals embody a new, darker reality: when a man can no longer be a Jew, he becomes an anti-Zionist, building an "identity" on the very thing he would destroy. They have turned on its head the old slogan of assimilationism, which was "Be a Jew at home, but a man in the street." Their slogan is: "Be a man at home, but a Jew in public." By the time Howe and Bellow came to recognize that their lack of brotherly concern with Jewish survival had indeed been a "moral failure," a new generation of Jewish intellectuals was already proclaiming it as a virtue entitling them to put on the long robes and long faces of biblical prophets.

Their prodigious work in painting Israel's decent society black as Gehenna and the pit of hell has forced a small yet crucial revision of Orwell's famous pronouncement about moral obtuseness and the ignorance of the learned: "Some ideas are so stupid that only [Jewish] intellectuals could believe them."

Edward Alexander is the author of numerous books, including Irving Howe: Socialist, Critic, Jew, and (with Paul Bogdanor) The Jewish divide over Israel: Accusers and Defenders. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=237978

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 15, 2011.

The road from Ein Boqeq to Arad

"I thought I made a mistake once but it turned out it was a creative moment."
— Scott Fleming


Had I been wandering the desert with Moses and the Jewish people, I'd likely have stayed in the back of the pack, enjoying the new scenery in quiet contemplation. To me, the best route between two places is the one unexplored. And so I often find myself taking random turns onto dirt roads that lead in the general direction of my destination, frequently getting lost but often rewarded with new vistas to satisfy my creative thirst.

The road that climbs from Ein Boqeq and the Dead Sea to Arad is curvy and steep and one afternoon, stuck behind the ubiquitous, slow-moving Israeli truck, I spotted an intriguing sign pointing toward Masada and directed my car off road. I bumped along a rocky plateau for about 10 minutes when I came upon this majestic mountain stretched out before me with a perfect canopy of cumulous clouds. I found the high ground and grabbed my widest angle lens in order to capture the vastness of the setting. I would have preferred the whole rock formation to be sunlit, but the position of the sun that day caused a shadow to be formed by a nearby mountain. Sometimes, getting lost is the best path to a new discovery.

Technical Data: Nikon D70, 12-24 zoom at 12mm, f13 @ 1/80th sec., ISO 200.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at and visit his website: Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 15, 2011.

Voters think so. A Republican candidate's upset victory to succeed Rep. Anthony Wiener in a district have three times as many Democrats partly is due to voter discontent with President Obama's policy on Israel. Voters perceive Obama as anti-Israel.

No he is not, insist the editors of the New York Times, Obama's " for Israel has never wavered." They advise PM Netanyahu not to deem the election a warrant to "...refuse to make any compromise with the Palestinians, no matter how essential for Israel's own security."

Accuse GOP of contradicting U.S. policy. Mistakenly, say the editors, Republicans have rebuked "Obama for saying that Israel's pre-1967 borders — with mutually agreed land swaps — should be the basis of any peace agreement. That has been the basis of every deal sought by American presidents for more than a decade. Mr. Netanyahu now hints that he, too, accepts it."

Call Netanyahu intractable and embarrassing Obama. Netanyahu has been "intractable, building settlements..." "Egged on by Congressional Republicans, he has sought to embarrass Mr. Obama."

Obama penalizes Iran. "Mr. Obama has repeatedly affirmed support for Israel and backed it up with action. He increased sanctions on Iran. He cooperates with Israel on security and helps finance an Israeli anti-missile system. The U.S. persuaded Egypt to protect Israeli diplomats. Now Obama threatens to veto UN recognition of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) as a state, thereby risking ties with the Arab world (Ed., 9/15/11).

Pretending to be pro-Israel. The New York Times has been as anti-Zionist for as long as the State Dept. has been, despite unwavering statements of support for Israel. They say they support Israel, but they support attempts by jihadist Arabs to deprive Israel of secure borders and most attempts by Israel to defend itself from terrorism. (Dismantle checkpoints, don't pound Gaza terrorists, etc..) That subtle ruse takes many people in.

Netanyahu compromises, P.A. wants war. The Times incorrectly states that Netanyahu refuses to compromise. He has offered many concessions to the Arabs, but the Arabs have offered none. Palestinian Authority head Abbas even refuses to recognize the Jewish people's right to a state in the Jewish homeland, all of which he claims. Clearly, the P.A. wants to conquer Israel, as its ideology instructs it to. The more Israel offers, the more the Arabs demand.

Obama's demand would get Israel conquered. If a deal with the Arabs were "essential for Israel's own security," why wouldn't Netanyahu make one (aside from the fact that the Arabs reject every offer)? As stated, the proposed deal would deprive Israel of secure borders and would not secure recognition of Jewish sovereignty and an end of the war. If Netanyahu, as hinted, accepts the deal Obama proposed, then he is sacrificing what is essential for Israel's security.

Times one-sided on building, Arabs may, Jews may not. How unfair to accuse Netanyahu for being intractable for building settlements! (He doesn't build new ones as implied, though why not, the PLO agreed to the Oslo accords, which put no restrictions on Jewish construction. Netanyahu sometimes allows Jews to build in existing towns.) The accusation is unfair, because: (1) The Arabs keep building their own settlements; and (2) When Abbas demanded that Israel suspend building in Judea-Samaria for a time, apparently because Obama embarrassed Israel by making that seem a condition for negotiations, Netanyahu conceded, but Abbas refused to negotiate and then demanded, as does the Times, a continuation of that one-way suspension.

Obama fabricates diplomatic incidents against Israel. Netanyahu has not done anything to embarrass Obama. No incidents can be cited, not fairly, that is. When some minor functionary published a notice of some routine step in a construction project, visiting Vice-President Biden claimed to be insulted, and so did the whole Administration. Their pretense was not convincing. Worse, they harped on that false accusation, instead of trying to defuse it.

When Netanyahu visited the White House, Obama mostly snubbed him, and in an obviously calculated way. Just before a Netanyahu visit to the White House, Obama publicly sprang more demands on Israel, almost an ambush. There were other such fabricated incidents.

The Obama administration repeatedly denounces Israel harshly and not for doing anything wrong, and fails to denounce Abbas for honoring terrorists and indoctrinating Arabs to believe that Israel stole their country.

U.S. policy on territory misstated. U.S. policy was not for a complete Israeli evacuation of the Territories except for land swaps. The U.S. drafted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which did not require that. President Bush sent Israel a letter of understanding that Israel may keep its large "settlement blocs" and did not suggest land swaps. Obama denied the letter, which had been made public. The Times is not telling the truth.

Sanctions on Iran not done for Israel. The sanctions on Iran have not had much deterrent. They came so slowly and mildly, to Obama's discredit. Nor were they applied for Israel's benefit — does the Times pretend that Iran is no enemy of the U.S., whose troops Iran gets killed by supplying Iraqi insurgents? The Times' claim reminds one of the antisemitic claim that "the Jews" dictate U.S. policy to benefit Israel at the sacrifice of U.S. interests

When Israel was considering eradicating Iran's nuclear facilities, Obama made it nigh impossible. Obama also tantalized Israel with the false allegation that the Arabs would not let the U.S. eradicate Iran's nuclear facilities, unless Israel made a deal with the P.A.. He insinuated the false hope that then the U.S. would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Actually, Arab states implored Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, regardless of P.A. statehood. Diplomatic cables had informed Obama of that truth, but Obama went ahead with the false claim anyway. A liar who blackmails Israel is not an unwavering supporter of Israel.

U.S. policy on Israel does not affect relations with the Arabs. There is no basis for urging a U.S. policy against Israel in order to preserve Arab relations with the U.S.. Scholars have shown that Arab leaders understand when Israel acts in its own interest and when the U.S. supports its ally, Israel.

On the other hand, the Arab people mostly are anti-American, because they favor jihad and dislike the American way of life. Prejudice is not based on what hated people do but on the pre-existing, ideological and psychological hate for them. Radical Islam is gaining support among the Arabs. It may make its greatest gains as a result of two Obama blunders: (1) Helping to topple Mubarak in Egypt, leaving the Moslem Brotherhood likeliest to succeed him and inherit the fine military that the U.S. financed there; and (2) Bombing in Libya without knowing who would succeed Ghadaffi. Sure enough, today's NY Times has a headline, "Islamists' Growing Sway Raises Questions for Libya.

Apparently, President Obama is not good for both the U.S. and Israel. He and the New York Times mistake their ideology for reality, foe for friend, and fostering jihad for promoting justice.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, September 15, 2011.


It is neither short nor a comfortable read, but read it anyway as I felt it touches every fiber of your mind and body....

Written and delivered as a sermon by Atlanta Rabbi Schlomo Lewis, this is the most cogent look at the world's plight, and that of the Jews, that I have ever had the privilege of reading. It was delivered the first day of Rosh Hashanah 2010.

Do yourself and your family a great service by taking a quiet ten minutes to read it thoughtfully.


Many years ago a Chasid used to travel from shtetl to shtetl selling holy books. On one occasion he came to a wealthy land owner and asked if he would like to purchase a book of Torah teachings. The banker agreed and not only purchased the book, but paid for it with a hundred ruble note. He then began to chat with the Chassid and offered him a cigar, taking one also for himself. The Chassid noticed that the banker proceeded to rip a page from the holy book he had just bought and holding it to the open flame on the stove, used the page to light his cigar. The Chassid said not a word but simply drew out from his pocket the 100 ruble note he had just received from the banker, held it over the stove as well and used it to light his cigar.

This simple, little tale reflects a profound divergence of values. Our sympathy clearly and instinctively is not with the banker but with the pious Chassid. None of us would come to the defense of the banker. None of us would claim moral supremacy for the banker. None of us would justify his boorish deed. As the sages of the Talmud would say — "Pshita — It is so obvious." Sadly though our planet is immersed in perversity where morality is not so manifest — where the book burner is a hero and the pious one, a villain.

I thought long and I thought hard on whether to deliver the sermon I am about to share. We all wish to bounce happily out of shul on the High Holidays, filled with warm fuzzies, ready to gobble up our brisket, our honey cakes and our kugel. We want to be shaken and stirred — but not too much. We want to be guilt-schlepped — but not too much. We want to be provoked but not too much. We want to be transformed but not too much.

I get it, but as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard. And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express. I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious. I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.

We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn't know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn't refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn't call the Gestapo, militants. We didn't see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people. We did not apologize for Dresden, nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein, nor for D-Day.

Evil — ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake. It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tubruk, not just Vienna, not just Casablanca. It was the entire planet. Read history and be shocked at how frighteningly close Hitler came to creating a Pax Germana on every continent.

Not all Germans were Nazis — most were decent, most were revolted by the Third Reich, most were good citizens hoisting a beer, earning a living and tucking in their children at night. But, too many looked away, too many cried out in lame defense — I didn't know." Too many were silent. Guilt absolutely falls upon those who committed the atrocities, but responsibility and guilt falls upon those who did nothing as well. Fault was not just with the goose steppers but with those who pulled the curtains shut, said and did nothing.

In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win..... to rid the world of malevolence.

We are at war... yet too many stubbornly and foolishly don't put the pieces together and refuse to identify the evil doers. We are circumspect and disgracefully politically correct.

Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable.

A few years ago I visited Lithuania on a Jewish genealogical tour. It was a stunning journey and a very personal, spiritual pilgrimage. When we visited Kovno we davened Maariv at the only remaining shul in the city. Before the war there were thirty-seven shuls for 38,000 Jews. Now only one, a shrinking, gray congregation. We made minyon for the handful of aged worshippers in the Choral Synagogue, a once majestic, jewel in Kovno.

After my return home I visited Cherry Hill for Shabbos. At the oneg an elderly family friend, Joe Magun, came over to me.

"Shalom," he said. "Your abba told me you just came back from Lithuania." "Yes," I replied. "It was quite a powerful experience." "Did you visit the Choral Synagogue in Kovno? The one with the big arch in the courtyard?" "Yes, I did. In fact, we helped them make minyon." His eyes opened wide in joy at our shared memory. For a moment he gazed into the distance and then, he returned. "Shalom, I grew up only a few feet away from the arch. The Choral Synagogue was where I davened as a child."

He paused for a moment and once again was lost in the past. His smile faded. Pain filled his wrinkled face. "I remember one Shabbos in 1938 when Vladimir Jabotinsky came to the shul" (Jabotinsky was Menachim Begin's mentor — he was a fiery orator, an unflinching Zionist radical, whose politics were to the far right.) Joe continued "When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears. He climbed up to the shtender, stared at us from the bima, glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. 'EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLAWST AYER SHTETL — He's coming. Jews abandon your city.' "

We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler. We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right — his warning prophetic. We got out but most did not."

We are not in Lithuania. It is not the 1930s. There is no Luftwaffe overhead. No U-boats off the coast of long Island. No Panzer divisions on our borders. But make no mistake; we are under attack — our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land.

Now before some folks roll their eyes and glance at their watches let me state emphatically, unmistakably — I have no pathology of hate, nor am I a manic Paul Revere, galloping through the countryside. I am not a pessimist, nor prone to panic attacks. I am a lover of humanity, all humanity. Whether they worship in a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or don't worship at all. I have no bone of bigotry in my body, but what I do have is hatred for those who hate, intolerance for those who are intolerant, and a guiltless, unstoppable obsession to see evil eradicated.

Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil doers. Let me state that the overwhelming number of Muslims are good Muslims, fine human beings who want nothing more than a Jeep Cherokee in their driveway, a flat screen TV on their wall and a good education for their children, but these good Muslims have an obligation to destiny, to decency that thus far for the most part they have avoided. The Kulturkampf is not only external but internal as well. The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square, in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent. Thus far, they have not. The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times. They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeera condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent — thus far, they have not. Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and define it.

Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.

I recall a conversation with my father shortly before he died that helped me understand how perilous and how broken is our world; that we are living on the narrow seam of civilization and moral oblivion. Knowing he had little time left he shared the following — "Shal. I am ready to leave this earth. Sure I'd like to live a little longer, see a few more sunrises, but truthfully, I've had it. I'm done. Finished. I hope the Good Lord takes me soon because I am unable to live in this world knowing what it has become."

This startling admission of moral exhaustion from a man who witnessed and lived through the Depression, the Holocaust, WWII, Communist Triumphalism, McCarthyism, Strontium 90 and polio. — Yet his twilight observation was — "The worst is yet to come." And he wanted out.

I share my father's angst and fear that too many do not see the authentic, existential threat we face nor confront the source of our peril. We must wake up and smell the hookah.

"Lighten up, Lewis. Take a chill pill, some of you are quietly thinking. You're sounding like Glen Beck. It's not that bad. It's not that real." But I am here to tell you — "It is." Ask the member of our shul whose sister was vaporized in the Twin Towers and identified finally by her charred teeth, if this is real or not. Ask the members of our shul who fled a bus in downtown Paris, fearing for their safety from a gang of Muslim thugs, if this is an exaggeration. Ask the member of our shul whose son tracks Arab terrorist infiltrators who target — pizza parlors, nursery schools, Pesach seders, city buses and play grounds, if this is dramatic, paranoid hyperbole.

Ask them, ask all of them — ask the American GI's we sit next to on planes who are here for a brief respite while we fly off on our Delta vacation package. Ask them if it's bad. Ask them if it's real.

Did anyone imagine in the 1920's what Europe would look like in the 1940's. Did anyone presume to know in the coffee houses of Berlin or in the opera halls of Vienna that genocide would soon become the celebrated culture? Did anyone think that a goofy-looking painter named Shickelgruber would go from the beer halls of Munich and jail, to the Reichstag as Feuhrer in less than a decade? Did Jews pack their bags and leave Warsaw, Vilna, Athens, Paris, Bialystok, Minsk, knowing that soon their new address would be Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau and Auschwitz?

The sages teach — "Aizehu chacham — haroeh et hanolad — Who is a wise person — he who sees into the future." We dare not wallow in complacency, in a misguided tolerance and naïve sense of security.

We must be diligent students of history and not sit in ash cloth at the waters of Babylon weeping. We cannot be hypnotized by eloquent-sounding rhetoric that soothes our heart but endangers our soul. We cannot be lulled into inaction for fear of offending the offenders. Radical Islam is the scourge and this must be cried out from every mountain top. From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience. Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America? None. After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America? None. After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America? None. And yet, we apologize. We grovel. We beg forgiveness.

The mystifying litany of our foolishness continues. Should there be a shul in Hebron on the site where Baruch Goldstein gunned down twenty-seven Arabs at noonday prayers? Should there be a museum praising the U.S. Calvary on the site of Wounded Knee? Should there be a German cultural center in Auschwitz? Should a church be built in the Syrian town of Ma'arra where Crusaders slaughtered over 100,000 Muslims? Should there be a thirteen story mosque and Islamic Center only a few steps from Ground Zero?

Despite all the rhetoric, the essence of the matter can be distilled quite easily. The Muslim community has the absolute, constitutional right to build their building wherever they wish. I don't buy the argument — "When we can build a church or a synagogue in Mecca they can build a mosque here." America is greater than Saudi Arabia. And New York is greater than Mecca. Democracy and freedom must prevail.

Can they build? Certainly. May they build? Certainly. But should they build at that site? No — but that decision must come from them, not from us. Sensitivity, compassion cannot be measured in feet or yards or in blocks. One either feels the pain of others and cares, or does not.

If those behind this project are good, peace-loving, sincere, tolerant Muslims, as they claim, then they should know better, rip up the zoning permits and build elsewhere.

Believe it or not, I am a dues-paying, card carrying member of the ACLU, yet from start of finish, I find this sorry episode disturbing to say the least.

William Burroughs, the novelist and poet, in a wry moment wrote — "After one look at this planet, any visitor from outer space would say — "I want to see the manager."

Let us understand that the radical Islamist assaults all over the globe are but skirmishes, fire fights, and vicious decoys. Christ and the anti-Christ. Gog U'Magog. The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; the bloody collision between civilization and depravity is on the border between Lebanon and Israel. It is on the Gaza Coast and in the Judean Hills of the West Bank. It is on the sandy beaches of Tel Aviv and on the cobblestoned mall of Ben Yehuda Street. It is in the underground schools of Sderot and on the bullet-proofed inner-city buses. It is in every school yard, hospital, nursery, classroom, park, theater — in every place of innocence and purity.

Israel is the laboratory — the test market. Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy. It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West.

In the Six Day War, Israel was the proxy of Western values and strategy while the Arab alliance was the proxy of Eastern, Soviet values and strategy. Today too, it is a confrontation of proxies, but the stakes are greater than East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel in her struggle represents the civilized world, while Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Iran, Islamic Jihad, represent the world of psychopathic, loathesome evil.

As Israel, imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel's galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt. Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel's galling plight ultimately will be ours. Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew. We are the trial balloon. The canary in the coal mine. If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from "good guys" then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda.

Moral confusion is a deadly weakness and it has reached epic proportions in the West; from the Oval Office to the UN, from the BBC to Reuters to MSNBC, from the New York Times to Le Monde, from university campuses to British teachers unions, from the International Red Cross to Amnesty International, from Goldstone to Elvis Costello, from the Presbyterian Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

There is a message sent and consequences when our president visits Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and not Israel.

There is a message sent and consequences when free speech on campus is only for those championing Palestinian rights.

There is a message sent and consequences when the media deliberately doctors and edits film clips to demonize Israel.

There is a message sent and consequences when the UN blasts Israel relentlessly, effectively ignoring Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea, China and other noxious states.

There is a message sent and consequences when liberal churches are motivated by Liberation Theology, not historical accuracy.

There is a message sent and consequences when murderers and terrorists are defended by the obscenely transparent "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

John Milton warned, "Hypocrisy is the only evil that walks invisible."

A few days after the Gaza blockade incident in the spring, a congregant happened past my office, glanced in and asked in a friendly tone —

"Rabbi. How're y' doing?"

I looked up, sort of smiled and replied — "I've had better days."

"What's the matter? Is there anything I can do to cheer you up?" he inquired.

"Thank you for the offer but I'm just bummed out today and I showed him a newspaper article I was reading.

"Madrid gay pride parade bans Israeli group over Gaza Ship Raid." I explained to my visitor — "The Israeli gay pride contingent from Tel Aviv was not allowed to participate in the Spanish gay pride parade because the mayor of Tel Aviv did not apologize for the raid by the Israeli military."

The only country in the entire Middle East where gay rights exist, is Israel. The only country in the entire Middle East where there is a gay pride parade, is Israel. The only country in the Middle East that has gay neighborhoods and gay bars, is Israel.

Gays in the Gaza would be strung up, executed by Hamas if they came out and yet Israel is vilified and ostracized. Disinvited to the parade.

Looking for logic?

Looking for reason?

Looking for sanity?

Kafka on his darkest, gloomiest day could not keep up with this bizarre spectacle and we "useful idiots" pander and fawn over cutthroats, sinking deeper and deeper into moral decay, as the enemy laughs all the way to the West Bank and beyond.

It is exhausting and dispiriting. We live in an age that is redefining righteousness where those with moral clarity are an endangered, beleaguered specie.

Isaiah warned us thousands of years ago — "Oye Lehem Sheh-Korim Layome, Laila v'Laila, yome — Woe to them who call the day, night and the night, day." We live on a planet that is both Chelm and Sodom. It is a frightening and maddening place to be.

How do we convince the world and many of our own, that this is not just anti-Semitism, that this is not just anti-Zionism but a full throttled attack by unholy, radical Islamists on everything that is morally precious to us?

How do we convince the world and many of our own that conciliation is not an option, that compromise is not a choice? Everything we are. Everything we believe. Everything we treasure, is at risk.

The threat is so unbelievably clear and the enemy so unbelievably ruthless how anyone in their right mind doesn't get it is baffling. Let's try an analogy. If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading

Anyone buy that medical advice? Well, folks, that's our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria. It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. — There is no negotiating. Appeasement is death.

I was no great fan of George Bush — didn't vote for him. (By the way, I'm still a registered Democrat.) I disagreed with many of his policies but one thing he had right. His moral clarity was flawless when it came to the War on Terror, the War on Radical Islamist Terror. There was no middle ground — either you were friend or foe. There was no place in Bush's world for a Switzerland. He knew that this competition was not Toyota against G.M., not the Iphone against the Droid, not the Braves against the Phillies, but a deadly serious war, winner take all. Blink and you lose. Underestimate, and you get crushed.

I know that there are those sitting here today who have turned me off. But I also know that many turned off their rabbis seventy five years ago in Warsaw, Riga, Berlin, Amsterdam, Cracow, Vilna. I get no satisfaction from that knowledge, only a bitter sense that there is nothing new under the sun.

Enough rhetoric — how about a little "show and tell?" A few weeks ago on the cover of Time magazine was a horrific picture with a horrific story. The photo was of an eighteen year old Afghani woman, Bibi Aisha, who fled her abusive husband and his abusive family. Days later the Taliban found her and dragged her to a mountain clearing where she was found guilty of violating Sharia Law. Her punishment was immediate. She was pinned to the ground by four men while her husband sliced off her ears, and then he cut off her nose.

That is the enemy (show enlarged copy of magazine cover.)

If nothing else stirs us. If nothing else convinces us, let Bibi Aisha's mutilated face be the face of Islamic radicalism. Let her face shake up even the most complacent and naïve among us. In the holy crusade against this ultimate evil, pictures of Bibi Aisha's disfigurement should be displayed on billboards, along every highway from Route 66 to the Autobahn, to the Transarabian Highway. Her picture should be posted on every lobby wall from Tokyo to Stockholm to Rio. On every network, at every commercial break, Bibi Aisha's face should appear with the caption — "Radical Islamic savages did this." And underneath — "This ad was approved by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by Taliban, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, by Islamic Jihad, by Fatah al Islam, by Magar Nodal Hassan, by Richard Reid, by Ahmanijad, by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, by Osama bin Laden, by Edward Said, by The Muslim Brotherhood, by Al Queda, by CAIR."

"The moral sentiment is the drop that balances the sea" said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Today, my friends, the sea is woefully out of balance and we could easily drown in our moral myopia and worship of political correctness.

We peer up into the heavens sending probes to distant galaxies. We peer down into quarks discovering particles that would astonish Einstein. We create computers that rival the mind, technologies that surpass science fiction. What we imagine, with astounding rapidity, becomes real. If we dream it, it does, indeed, come. And yet, we are at a critical point in the history of this planet that could send us back into the cave, to a culture that would make the Neanderthal blush with shame.

Our parents and grandparents saw the swastika and recoiled, understood the threat and destroyed the Nazis. We see the banner of Radical Islam and can do no less.

A rabbi was once asked by his students.... "Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?" Replied the rabbi, "If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, 'di hoyz brent.' Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber."

During WWII and the Holocaust was it business as usual for priests, ministers, rabbis? Did they deliver benign homilies and lovely sermons as Europe fell, as the Pacific fell, as North Africa fell, as the Mideast and South America tottered, as England bled? Did they ignore the demonic juggernaut and the foul breath of evil? They did not. There was clarity, courage, vision, determination, sacrifice, and we were victorious. Today it must be our finest hour as well. We dare not retreat into the banality of our routines, glance at headlines and presume that the good guys will prevail.

Democracies don't always win. Tyrannies don't always lose.

My friends — the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. "EHR KUMT."

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to

To Go To Top

Posted by Jeff Walton, September 15, 2011.

"Do these Presbyterian and United Methodist officials believe that punishing Caterpillar, Motorola or Hewlett Packard will help create a peace in the Middle East?" -IRD President Mark Tooley

Washington, DC — A committee charged with making recommendations on investments held by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recently has advised that the denomination's General Assembly divest from three firms doing business with Israel. The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society has advised the same.

The PCUSA Committee on Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI), with the Methodist group, singled out Motorola, Hewlett Packard and Caterpillar as targets for divestment.

In 2006 the PCUSA governing General Assembly overturned previous endorsement of anti-Israel divestment. In 2008, the General Assembly instructed Presbyterians not to over-identify with one side in the struggle. Polls of Presbyterian lay people and clergy show most rejecting that the PCUSA be an advocate for any one side. The governing United Methodist General Conference overwhelmingly rejected anti-Israel divestment in 2008. Both denominational conventions meet next year and will now revisit the issue.

Similar anti-Israel divestment actions have been rejected by other denominations.

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

"Do these Presbyterian and United Methodist officials believe that punishing Caterpillar, Motorola or Hewlett Packard will help create a peace in the Middle East?

"Radical activists influential in oldline denominations always portray Israel as the chief obstacle to Middle East peace, and by extension, the United States as directly complicit through its support of Israel.

"Church agencies should strive for fairness. Targeting Israel as the Middle-East's unique villain, while virtually ignoring grossly repressive regimes, terrorism and radical Islam, is a disservice to church members and to the wider public.

"Both the PCUSA and United Methodist agencies backing anti-Israel divestment are heavily influenced by small factions of activists not representing the wider church. Hopefully mainstream opinion in these churches will reject anti-Israel divestment, which likely would only enhance Middle East tension and further postpone meaningful peace."

Contact Jeff Walton by email at and visit his website, The Institute on Religion and Democracy (

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, September 15, 2011.

Now that the PA request for a Judenrein state was confirmed, I thought I should repost this excellent article by Matthew M. Hausman. It was first posted in March 2011 in IsraPundit.


In seeking to impose a Palestinian state on Israel, the Obama Administration, European Union, and western media have displayed a cynical contempt for history that is astounding in its breadth and scope. Pressure is brought to bear solely on Israel, who is expected to sacrifice sovereignty and security in the name of an ideal that is premised on a repudiation of the Jews' right to self-determination in their ancient homeland.

The Palestinians are expected to concede nothing — not even their oft-stated goal of the phased destruction of Israel. Nothing illustrates the hypocrisy better than a comparison of their demand that Israel accept an Arab "right of return" with their ambition for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Like the Nazis with whom the Mufti and other Arab leaders were so closely allied during the Second World War, they seek to create a Judenrein state as a springboard for the elimination of a Jewish presence in the Mideast. Ironically, western progressives are enabling the process, even though it entails human rights violations that would certainly be illegal in liberal democracies.

The continuing support for the Palestinian cause by the United States and European Union — and their contribution of billions of dollars that fund antisemitic propaganda masquerading as school curriculum, line the pockets of the corrupt Abbas regime or end up in the coffers of Hamas — would indicate an abdication of reason if the true goal were to achieve a lasting, substantive peace. However, such behavior is not incongruous if the real purpose is political realignment with the Arab-Muslim world at the expense of Israel's integrity as a democratic, Jewish nation. Although Obama and the EU claim only to support the rights of the Palestinians as an indigenous people, they have adopted the cause by uncritically promoting a revisionist narrative that is built on a denial of Jewish history. However, the Jews' rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term "Palestinian" was ever used to refer to an Arab population that accreted largely through immigration during the sunset years of the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish people originated in ancient Israel; the Palestinians did not.

The Arab-Muslim world's true intentions regarding peace with Israel should be apparent from its centuries-long oppression and subjugation of Jews in Arab lands and its stated refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation. The two-state solution is proffered as a ruse for the destabilization of Israel, and western apologists are complicit in the charade by their refusal to insist on Arab recognition of Jewish historical rights, and by their failure to condemn the Palestinian goal of state building through ethnic cleansing. Whereas any perceived attempt by Israel to transfer Arab populations would certainly inspire international condemnation, the Palestinians' open and notorious aim of expelling Jews from historically Jewish lands — lands that were never part of any sovereign Arab nation — is met with conspicuous silence or tacit approval. Indeed, President Obama's demand last year for a building freeze in Jerusalem was a blatant attempt to coerce Israel to implement apartheid-like measures against her own citizens in order to limit the Jewish population of her capital.

Nevertheless, Jewish habitation in Judea, Samaria, and Israel proper, including Jerusalem, was a fact from antiquity into modern times — until Jordan conquered the territories and dispossessed their Jewish inhabitants during Israel's War of Independence. When Jordan (then known as Transjordan) conquered Judea and Samaria in 1948, it expelled the Jews living there, collectively dubbed these territories the "West Bank," and annexed them in violation of international law. Israel's subsequent acquisition of these lands in 1967 in truth effectuated their liberation from foreign occupation; and renewed Jewish habitation thereafter constituted nothing more than repatriation. Israel's liberation and administration of Judea and Samaria were perfectly legitimate under prevailing standards of international law, despite Palestinian claims to the contrary. In fact, it is Palestinian land-claims that are dubious, based as they are on Jordan's transfer of its negotiating "rights" over these territories to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo process. Because Jordan seized these lands illegally, however, it never possessed lawful title in the first place, and accordingly had no legitimate rights to convey to the PA.

In consideration of these facts, it is reasonable to question why Israel should even entertain the notion of a two-state solution, particularly as it requires her to discount the indigenous heritage of her own people and surrender ancestral lands to those who unapologetically call for her destruction. One must also question the wisdom of negotiating with the PA, which could easily be displaced by Hamas through open revolt or by an Islamist-influenced election such as occurred in Gaza. This is a particular concern in view of the political upheavals currently sweeping across the Arab world, where popular unrest has reinforced the legitimacy of military juntas and strengthened the political profile of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Alternative Solutions

In determining the permanent status of Judea and Samaria, many advocates believe Israel instead should be guided by the principles laid out at the San Remo Conference of 1920, during which the Supreme Council of Principal Allied Powers made decisions implicating the future of the territories they liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The Council among other things incorporated the Balfour Declaration into its program and recognized that the Jews comprised a people defined not solely by religion, but by nationality and descent as well. Moreover, it recognized that the Jews were indigenous to the Land of Israel and, accordingly, that they had the right to self-determination in their homeland. The Mandate for Palestine of 1922 further guaranteed the right of "close settlement," which recognized that Jews could settle anywhere west of the Jordan. No similar recognition was accorded Palestinian-Arab nationality at that time because it simply did not exist. Rather, the local Arabs considered themselves to be culturally part of the greater Syrian community, and much of their population had accrued through late migration into the area only after the Jews had begun rehabilitating the land and creating economic opportunities that did not exist elsewhere in the Mideast.

The acceptance of the San Remo program by the League of Nations — and the restatement of its ambitions in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine — evidenced an acknowledgment of the Jews' status as an indigenous people and their right to settle anywhere in their homeland, including Judea and Samaria, and thus underscored the legal basis for the reestablishment of the Jewish state. Consequently, traditional recognition of the Jews' indigenous rights should inform any proposals for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would be consistent with the ideals set forth in the "Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples," voted on by the U.N. in 2007. Of particular relevance is the language contained in Article 10, which states:

"Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return."

Though the true intent of this nonbinding declaration may have been to promote the Palestinian cause at Israel's expense, it cannot be divorced from the long-standing recognition under international legal conventions that the Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Accordingly, it implicitly reinforces the Jewish connection to lands the Palestinians now attempt to claim as their own, and provides justification for potential resolutions that are premised on legally-cognizable Jewish claims, rather than on politically-motivated or apocryphal Palestinian pretensions.

If a state of Palestine were to be created, any policies requiring the ethnic cleansing of Jewish inhabitants would violate international law as recognized at San Remo and under the original Mandate for Palestine, which the United Nations is currently bound to honor by virtue of Section 80 of the U.N. Charter. Such ethnic cleansing would also contravene the precepts set forth in the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other conventions. Thus, in order to exist in compliance with international law, such a state would have to provide for the Jews — as indigenous people — to remain on their ancestral lands in Judea and Samaria. It would also need to recognize the Jewish right of close settlement. Jewish residents of such a state would have to retain Israeli citizenship and be governed by Israeli law, and the Arab state subsuming their communities would have to recognize Israeli sovereignty within their enclaves. Jews wishing to travel to Israel proper would have to be free to do so without harassment. Such arrangements exist in other parts of the world, for example, in North America, where Alaskans cut off from the mainland United States are permitted to travel through Canada in order to visit the lower Forty-Eight, or in Europe where citizens of EU countries are permitted to travel across national borders unimpeded. Indeed, the Quartet seeks to impose just such an arrangement on Israel by demanding that Gaza be connected by a corridor to a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria.

It is unlikely, however, that a Palestinian state would recognize any Jewish rights or permit Jewish residency. It is equally unlikely that it would recognize Jewish autonomy or Israeli sovereignty. Thus, a more realistic scenario — if there is to be a Palestinian entity — might be the creation of a federation or confederation in which some of the territories currently under Israeli administration would be linked with Jordan, where a majority of the population already identifies as Palestinian. A "confederation" could be created by ceding some territory for a semi-autonomous region that would then be joined with Jordan under an umbrella government of general, limited powers. The concept of confederation provides that Jordan and a Palestinian entity would each maintain individual sovereignty and would exercise unilateral powers outside the scope of the general government's jurisdiction. The authority of the general government would be limited to those powers specifically agreed upon by the constituent entities. The risk of confederation, however, is that the entities could elect to separate in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.

A similar but distinct concept is "federation," in which sovereign authority would be constitutionally allocated among the member states and the general government, but in which the structure of government could not be altered by the unilateral acts of its constituents. That is, neither entity could dissolve the union in order to establish an independent Palestinian state. Such a federation would consist of Jordan and a Palestinian entity created on land transferred from Judea and Samaria, but would not include Jewish towns or population centers. Likewise, Israel would retain control of all land necessary to ensure her security and to protect her water rights in the Jordan valley. These same constraints on land transfers would apply to a confederation as well.

Regardless of the technical form, the resulting Palestinian-Jordanian entity would be independent from Israel and would include no land or power sharing in Jerusalem, which would remain exclusively under Israel's dominion and control. Jerusalem was never the capital of any sovereign Arab nation, and Jordan's illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 does not provide a legal basis for Palestinian claims over the city. In contrast, Israel does have a lawful historical claim to Jerusalem, in which Jews have constituted the majority population for generations, since long before Israeli independence to the present day. Moreover, Jerusalem was the ancient capital of Jewish kingdoms that were the only sovereign nations ever to occupy the land. Consequently, there can be no justification for dividing the city. Arabs residing in Jerusalem would remain subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, and Israel would continue to protect and facilitate access to all religious sites and shrines as she always has done.

Israel could enforce a similar arrangement between Gaza and Egypt, after which Israel would sever any remaining connection to Gaza. Thus, Egypt would be solely responsible for servicing Gaza's infrastructure, utility, and humanitarian needs, leaving Israel to concentrate on consolidating and enhancing her security presence along her southern border.

These concepts are not new or unique, but rather were the subject of analysis and debate in the 1990s by the late Daniel J. Elazar, founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others. Proposals involving these and similar models were put forth as alternatives to a free-standing Palestinian state. At the time, a federal model was considered by many to be a more workable paradigm than independent Palestinian statehood for protecting Israeli security, particularly by those who recognized that the Oslo process tended to sacrifice Israeli rights and security concerns. Proponents of some kind of Arab federal union believed that the costs of administering a hostile population would continue to grow, but that an independent state of Palestine would threaten Israel's security and pose an existential challenge to her long-term survival. These ideas are regaining currency today in part because the political unrest now rocking the Arab world emphasizes the risk that an independent Palestinian state would be subject to the same destabilizing influences. It is likely that such a state would quickly become a terrorist haven and a hostile military threat, particularly if it were to be created from lands that currently provide Israel with strategic security buffers.

Not everyone believes that the creation of such entities will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, there is growing support in some segments of Israeli society for formal annexation of Judea and Samaria, in whole or in part, or for de facto annexation through the extension of Israeli civil law into these territories. Although there may be disagreement regarding the most appropriate strategy, there is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns, instead of waiting passively while a two-state plan is foisted upon them by outside powers who have no regard for Israeli sovereignty.

Despite international pressure for the creation of a Palestinian state devoid of Jews, Israel must be guided by her own priorities, and must not lose sight of the rights of Jews as indigenous people in their homeland, including those rights recognized at San Remo and reinforced by the Mandate. A Palestinian state created by dispossessing Jews from their ancestral lands would be in violation of international law and would represent a repudiation of history. Unfortunately, American and European support for a Judenrein Arab state illustrates that international law is not applied equitably when the net effect would be the validation of historical Jewish rights or Israeli national integrity. Therefore, Israel must resist all calls for her to sacrifice her security needs and Jewish character, and should work instead to expose the double standard underlying the international community's unjust and unreasonable demands.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Gershon Perlman, September 15, 2011.

There is always another option. Not the business savvy one, not the politically expedient one, not the (Kissinger) real politic one and certainly not the popular one. There is the overlooked one the one never thought of, the just one.

In 1948 when there were not too many Jews left in the world the UN reluctantly at the US & USSR's urging granted the remaining Jews a sliver of land on the eastern Mediterranean coast to be called Israel. This tiny sliver of land was nothing more than a flimsy life preserver that wasn't meant to last long in the Arab ocean, only to gain points for its supporters,(it was an election year in the US & the Russian's had pinned some hopes on the handful of Jewish communists in Israel who were still living the communist delusion).

Israel survived the Arab onslaughts and even expanded its territory, despite the American arms embargo.

The same thing happened in 1967. An almost defenseless country won against all odds (American arms embargo still intact, Israel still not much more than a sliver, 9 miles wide).

The Arabs have 22 countries. They are all Moslem, all Arab, the same culture, the same traditions, and the same language. There is no "Palestinian" people.

Yes the world owes us! Part of you annihilated 1/3 of the world's Jews, others of you sat on the sidelines, those who fought tyranny didn't lift a finger to interfere in the "Jewish problem." Then the Arabs were Hitler's allies. Today his moral descendents.

Israel has a right to all the Jewish land liberated in 1967, in that war of defense. The Arabs who refuse to live with us there in peace should move out. They have 22 lands of choice. It is more moral that a million Arabs be moved than half a million Jews. This is a just solution to the Israel-Arab conflict.

Contact Gershon Perlman by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Yitzhak Heimowitz, September 15, 2011.

Our sages, of blessed memory of the Mishna and Talmud were very wise people. We would do well to learn from their wisdom. They taught: A king cannot excuse insults to his honor. This is in contrast to an ordinary person, who can do so.

In the Middle East honor is very important. The king, who represents the entire nation, cannot forgive insults to his honor, which is the national honor. If he does this, he is regarded by all our neighbors as weak, and invites further insults and injury. Perhaps he will be regarded differently in Washington or London or Paris, but they are not our neighbors in the Middle East.

Turkish Premier Erdogan began to "stick it" to Israel as early as 2009. On Jan. 29, 2009 at the World Economic Conference in Davos he publicly insulted our president before the eyes of the entire world. And not any president, Shimon Peres, the prophet of the "new Middle East"! Erdogan rose and deliberately and demonstratively walked out while Peres was speaking, in front of all the world media. He knew exactly what he was doing and achieved the effect he wanted.

What was Israel's response? We figuratively wiped off the spittle from our faces and said, "It must be raining." At that moment Erdogan saw Israel as weak and he has never stopped attacking us and insulting us ever since. The Mavi Marmara incident is instructive. Turkey was well aware of the plans and preparations of the IHH terrorists and encouraged them to try to break the blockade by force. It could have been a turning point, but after our soldiers heroically defended themselves from the terrorists who tried to kill them and killed those terrorists first, Israel slipped back into the routine of excusing and justifying ourselves and our actions.

Every time Erdogan insulted us again, we responded weakly. So the insults and injuries increased, until now they reach a new climax every day. Some Israelis and "friends" tell us, "Why don't you apologize already and stop all these attacks on you." Apologize for what, to whom and what good will it do?

Erdogan demands not only an apology for Israel's killing the terrorists on the Mavi Marmara, but also payment of compensation and cancellation of the blockade on Gaza. Without the latter, the first two won't help. And who will be crazy enough to cancel the blockade at Erdogan's behest after the U.N. Palmer Commission declared it legal?

Next, apologize to whom? The man who sent the IHH terrorists on their mission? And why, because we foiled them?

Rather, we should look truth in the eye. For almost three years, Erdogan has been engaged in a campaign in which Israel is only a part. His first purpose, in which he has succeeded, was to become the dictator of the Muslim Republic of Turkey. To the surprise of many, he defeated the army generals who were his major obstacle and jailed many of them where they await trial for treason.

His second purpose is to become the leader of the Muslim world. He is well on his way to achieve this, especially after Mubarak fell and Egypt is in shambles, Iran is shunned, and Syria is engaged in bloody civil war. He is about to make a triumphal tour of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, and is considering a stop in Gaza (which he may postpone at present.) To realize this ambition, he insults, denigrates and attacks Israel, its leaders, people, army and industry and will continue to do so. In Tsarist Russia the anti-semites had a motto, "Beat the Jews and save Russia." Erdogan has modified this to, "Beat the Jews and conquer the Muslim world."

So far he is succeeding and that is why, no matter what we do, he will not stop his anti Israel escalation. Israelis are not the only ones who do not understand this. The Obama administration is also clueless, which is why all they do is to keep repeating that Turkey and Israel should "make up".

For quite a while Israel has been a favorite Turkish supplier of sophisticated military equipment. No matter what he says publicly, Erdogan wants this to continue. Note his complaint that Israel has not returned to Turkey unmanned aircraft which were sent back here for servicing. Also note the Turks are coming to the annual Israel Defense and Security Expo in October. No boycott there.

However, we must realize that any weapons system we supply to Turkey will end up in the hands of Hamas and Hezbullah, sooner rather than later. If we are not willing to supply anything directly to Hamas, we had better rethink the wisdom of supplying it to Turkey.

Israel's response to Erdogan's Turkey should be taken from Teddy Roosevelt's famous advice, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." There is nothing we need to say to drive Erdogan up a wall. He will do that all by himself. On the other hand there is really nothing we can say or do to conciliate him. He wants to beat us on the head as his stepping stone to Islamic hegemony and as long as that works (as it is working) he won't stop.

Israel's actions should be guided by the principle expressed by the Romans as, "If you want peace prepare for war."

Sept. 11, 2011

Contact the Heimowitz Family by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, September 15, 2011.

Who kicked the Jews when they were dead or dying? Who stole the Jewish Homeland and gave most of it to the arabs? Who hide beneath the voluminous robes of the oily arabs who in turn were permitted to set the policies of the US State Department? Answer: The Chiseling Britz, that's who.

The Chiseling Britz are wetting their nappies and ramping up their anti-Jew propaganda machines because they know that the heretofore sleepy-headed Jews are waking up to the truth of recognized and settled International Law that long ago set the boundaries of Israel during the Twenties. The San Remo Resolution and the treaties that re-inforce it and the League of Nations mandate the protects Israel establish that only the Jews have a legal, recognized right to the lands of Israel historically and still called Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights and all the lands within the boundaries established last century.

Then along came the oil-spoiled Saudis who rewarded X-POTOS Jimmy Carter's NGOs to thank him for helping the arab newcomers apply new names to Judea and Samaria and the ignorant Jews, the loudest Jews, the "lefty" Jews let the arabs put these words in their ignorant mouths and so they, too, began to use words such as "West Bank" as a wrong-headed appellation for Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem belongs to Israel. And to no others.

The Chiseling Britz worry that the politically uninformed Israelis will awake to their rights and stand up to the Hashemites and tell them where to stuff it. The Chiseling Britz are frantic because they know that the Israelis have an absolute right to re-claim the lands stolen from the Jewish Homeland by the Chiseling Britz and the right to restore them to Israel. The Chiseling Britz are counting on a certain Jewish Polish immigrant to haggle and gabble until he soils Israel's sovereign rights which helps to explain why the Chiseling Britz dare to insult all Jews with their scurrilous anti-Israel propaganda.

We believe the Chiseling Britz will secretly help the arabs clip US wings in the Middle East but only if the US can be made to appear weak and unwilling to protect its allies. In which case, we believe that the Chiseling Britz will have to face off with the French for to battle for Israel's offshore gas fields while the cold and patient Saudis play both against each other.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel who understand the schemes of the Chiseling Britz and who know how to combat the greedy seditious Jews who are willing to take gifts for themselves from Israel'e would-be conquerors.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel for they are the boulder that stands on the path of Islamic imperialism.


Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Renanah Goldhar, September 14, 2011.

Dear Friends of Israel,

We would like to propose an action fromt the Canadian government and we are also asking people in leadership in America to help get this information out, and to perhaps consider actions against the UN.

Our position is that the UN is violating its own charter by supporting any kind of status for the PA which implies claims to/and goals of statehood. The UN would be violating its own charter in agreeing to any upgrade of the status of the PA in the UN. The UN has already given the legal sovereignty of this land to Israel and the Jewish People.

We are asking leading personalities in the US to help us send out this information, and to consider actions which would hold the UN accountable for acting illegally.

We propose a Canadian goverment action such as a Member's Bill, withholding of Canadian funds, or other action, that would call for accountability from the UN should the UN be shown to be acting illegally i.e. against its own charter in its support of any upgrade of the status of the PA in the UN. We also propose that in this same bill, funding be withheld from the UN or at least to any of the organizations including UNWRA and other organizations that Canada funds in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, should it be shown that there exists a connection to terrorism from any of these organizations.

Please see attached, the letter from Howard Grief on the legal foundation for the opposition to the UN supporting a call for statehood by the PA. When we consulted Mr. Grief, we were not aware that the PA might be considering the move of requesting a step towards statehood through upgrading of their status, rather than filing for recognition of complete statehood on Sept. 20th. We suggest that it is public knowledge that any step towards statehood by the PA is part of their plan to deligitimize Isreal and is equally illegal because the land was already given to Israel. We plan to check with Mr. Grief as to our supposition that the same reasons for opposing UN support for a PA declaration of statehood apply to any step which supports that end purpose.

We base our position on the following:

1) The Mandate's purpose was to reconstitute Palestine as the National Homeland for the Jewish People world-wide. This cannot be interpreted to mean reconstituting Palestine as a national homeland for the Arabs.

2) According to Article 80 of the UN Charter, all rights emanating out of a Mandate continue in full force and effect during and after the expiration of the mandate.

According to the Palestine Mandate:

a) The Jewish People world-wide have the right to settle in all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, including Judea and Samaria (also referred to as the "West Bank"), Gaza and the Golan,

b) No land under the Mandate may be ceded to foreign powers (Article 5),

c) The Mandatory must do everything in its power to fulfill the aims of the Mandate, which are to reconstitute Palestine (i.e.the geographical area of the Jewish bilbilcal homeland) as a national home-land for the Jewish people world-wide recognizing their historical connection to the land. (Articles 2,4 and 6).

3) The UN is not a sovereign and may not give to anyone else, land which was already given to the Jewish people under international law.

4) Even if they were the nicest people, we should not give part of our land to them. The Arabs were given the majority of the Ottoman Empire for their self-determination. In addition, the majority (77.5% of Palestine) of what was to be the Jewish Homeland was already taken to create a homeland for Arabs in Palestine i.e. Jordan. Any person who thinks that they are violent because we control the West Bank, should consider that when the Arabs had control of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), they declared a war of annihilation on the rest of Israel.

5) We would like to attach a review of CIDA's activities in the areas of Gaza and Judea and Samaria (also referred to as the "West Bank" to consider if there are any ties to terrorism from the organizations that receive money from Canada. Also we would like to review the activities of UNWRA and the fact that Canada gives a significant portion of money to this institution which supports the incitement of hatred, violence against the Jews of Israel, and lies about the Jews, Israel and history as part of their goal to train huge numberbs of children who will grow up to murder Jews and blow themselves up as perceived martyrs. If we can show that UNWRA is doing this we propose that Canada stop all funding to UNWRA immediately. If the same is the case with any of the other organizations that Canada gives money to in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, we propose that this funding stop immediately.

We also propose that Canada stop all its funding to the UN should the UN be shown to support ties with terrorism such as seems to be the case with UNWRA.

Joe and Renanah Gemeiner

Contact Renanah Goldhar by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Steven Carol, September 14, 2011.

We must all celebrate the small victories of earlier today — election results in NY CD 9 (a repudiation of President Obama's anti-Israel policies, and the seeming concession that the Obama administration has told the PA it will veto any UN Security Council resolution re a "statehood" bid, albeit conditional on Israeli and PA acceptance of a new "outline" plan being encouraged by the Obama administration. The main feature calls on Israel to make further concessions!!

Anti-Israel Poster in Kew Gardens/Union Turnpike subway station

Nevertheless, the campaign against Israel continues — now with NY City Subway posters. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL — the war against Israel continues on all fronts — political, military, economic, and diplomatic.

BTW — In reference to the slogan on the subway poster — of historic note: The phrase "peace and justice" was one, President Sadat repeated and repeated. It was not, or is not "peace" in the Western sense (as a peace between the US and Canada after the War of 1812, or peace between France and Germany after World War II. It meant and means a "cease-fire" until the next round. "Justice" is the code-word for restoration of the FULL RIGHTS of all those who claim to be "Palestinians" — first and foremost the so-called "RIGHT OF RETURN" whereby over 6 million "Palestinians" will be allowed to enter the rump of Israel (after any further withdrawals) to demographically cause the demise of the Jewish State.

As the person who alerted me to the poster asks:
Any ideas as to how to deal with this?

Dr. Steven Carol is Prof. of History (retired), Associate Producer and Official Historian of Middle East Radio Forum (

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, September 14, 2011.

This was written by Jibran Khan and it appeared in Asia News. It is archived at drinking-water-for-residents-in-one-of-Islamabad% E2%80%99s-Christian-ghettoes-22614.html


Such is the fate of hundreds of residents of the France Colony, a walled area of some 600 dwellings, some of them one-room hovels for up to seven people, living in inhuman conditions and poor sanitation. Residents slam the authorities for their lack of concern about their fate and the government for its empty promises. An educational project by the Masihi Foundation could improve things.

Islamabad (AsiaNews) — Forced into a ghetto without basic human rights, Pakistani Christians often lack drinking water and decent sanitation, with up to seven people living in one-room hovels, children included. Many call the France Colony home, an area in central Islamabad that is isolated from the rest of the city by a wall. Despite complaints, nothing has changed. Now, there is a glimmer of hope after the Masihi Foundation set up a school for local children, providing them with books, bags and uniforms free of charge, a project activists hope to bring to the rest of the country.

With 1.6 per cent of the population and some 3 million believers, Pakistan's Christian minority is the country's second largest religious minority after Hindus. For a long time, it has been the victim of marginalisation and violence, made worse by the progressive Islamisation of the country launched by General Zia-ul-Haq in the mid-1980s.

Most Christians are rural migrants. When they arrive in the cities, they are forced to live in so-called colonies, virtual ghettoes, and take humble jobs as cleaners and sanitation workers with a status comparable to that of India's untouchables.

The France Colony (pictured) is in the heart of Pakistan's Federal Capital of Islamabad. It gets its name from the fact that the old French Embassy was located in the area. It has 600 dwellings, surrounded by a wall. Access is provided by one main entrance, plus three or four rarely used openings, on the other side of the compound.

Muhammad Saddique, a local Muslim, said that the wall was built after local "rich and noble Muslim families" called on city officials to protect them from the eyesore of the 'Christian ghetto. However, this has forced Christians to use only the main gate.

Yaqoob Masih, a France Colony resident, blames the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for depriving "us of our basic rights," such as "the right to clean drinking water" and "hygienic conditions".

The irony is that "90 per cent per cent of the population in the France Colony works as cleaners for CDA and keeps the capital clean. Yet, their own colony has unhygienic conditions."

The colony residents live in overcrowded spaces with no access to basic facilities," Shahid Masih, another resident, said. "Residents have not been given ownership rights despite repeated promises by the federal government. I live in one room with a family of seven".

Sheeba Sadiq also lives in France Colony. "Each incoming government makes populist claims about rights regularisations." But "in the second decade of the 21st century, we are still living in subhuman conditions."

Yet, amid the degradation, one initiative has brought some hope for a better life to the Christians of France Colony.

Earlier this year, the Masihi Foundation, a Pakistan humanitarian organisation, set up its own school in the area, providing free English medium quality education to the residents of France Colony.

It is the first programme of its kind for a Christian community living in the capital. Students get free books, bags, uniforms and other educational material.

Activists are hoping to replicate the initiative in other parts of the country.

"I am grateful to the Foundation for thinking about us," colony resident Abid Masih said. "I want my children educated so that they can live a better life."

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 14, 2011.
"We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won't agree to the presence of one Israeli in it."

Frankly, Ambassador Areikat, some may recall there's an adage; "what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This article appeared in Israel Hayom newsletter_article.php?id=1101. It is by Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies


The PLO ambassador to U.S. insists future Palestinian state should be free of Jews.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas previously voiced same view. "We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won't agree to the presence of one Israeli in it."

PLO ambassador to the U.S. Maen Areikat (PLO Delegation Website)

The PLO's ambassador to the U.S., Maen Areikat, said that any future Palestinian state should be free of Jews, according to USA Today. The newspaper reported that Areikat made the statements during a meeting with reporters on Tuesday in Washington. Areikat expressed his vision of a separation between Jews and Palestinians saying, "After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated ... We are trying to preserve the concept of a two-state solution ... and to make the Israelis understand there will be consequences for their actions."

In response, former U.S. National Security Council official Elliott Abrams commented that such a move would be reminiscent of those adopted by the Germany's Nazi regime. USA Today quoted Abrams as having said that such a demand by Palestinians was objectionable and "a despicable form of anti-Semitism," especially as the Jewish population residing in what may become the future Palestinian state would number no more than 1 percent of the population there. "No civilized country would act this way," Abrams said.

In December 2010, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas expressed similar sentiments over separation between Jews and Palestinians. During a press conference in Ramallah, Abbas told reporters, "We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won't agree to the presence of one Israeli in it." Abbas was then commenting on unconfirmed reports that the Israel Defense Forces would retain a presence in the West Bank even after the establishment of a Palestinian state. "We are ready to have peace on the basis of international legitimacy and the road map, which we have accepted, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative .. .but when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence in it," Abbas said then.

USA Today reported that the PLO ambassador stressed the unequal status given to Palestinians at international legal institutions, while Israel enjoys full access and membership. The Palestinian Authority has announced that it will unilaterally seek full membership from the U.N. on Sept. 20, as peace talks with Israel remain deadlocked. The authority hopes to win U.N. endorsement for Palestinian statehood in the entire West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

Since the U.S. announced Thursday that it would veto such a bid for statehood in the Security Council, the bid will then go to the General Assembly, where it is expected to be passed by a significant majority, possibly changing the Palestinian Authority's status in the U.N. to "non-member state."

U.S. President Barack Obama told the German news agency DPA's Spanish-language service on Monday that the Palestinian move was a "distraction," and stressed that the U.S. would "strongly" oppose the statehood bid as "counterproductive." Such a move would place Palestinian relations with the U.S. in danger of being re-evaluated, as U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, which stands at $740 million according to a 2010 State Department report, could be put on hold as a result of the Palestinian declaration.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, September 14, 2011.

Despite its power, tiny Jewish state vulnerable to hateful campaign of destruction


Israel's victory in 1967, its superiority in weaponry, the success of its economy, and its triumph in every war in which its existence was at stake has bred a dangerous complacency. Indeed, most Israelis today ridicule the very idea of Israel's impermanence.

At a first glance Israel looks like an independent, vital, productive Jewish state in its historical land; a state capable of self-defense and of ingathering millions of Jews from the Diaspora. In spite of dreadful wars, continued Islamic terror, world bias and blatant Arab attempts to destroy Israel, the tiny Israel has grown and prospered.

Schools, universities, hospitals, technical institutes, theatres and publishing houses have flourished in a newly refashioned but ancient tongue. So did Jewish democracy. Israel made the desert bloom and it showed that Jews, too, can wage war. Israel survived, after 16,450 troops have died in six wars with Arab countries.

Imagining nightmarish scenarios may be an illusion of some pessimist, non-Jewish writers. Perhaps Israel will live through a happy period ahead and the worst-case predictions will never materialize. After all, a recent Gallup poll found Israel to be the seventh-most happiest country in the world. However, according to another poll, released by Yedioth Ahronoth a few years ago, 47% of Israelis are concerned that in 2048 — the centenary of Israel's founding — there will be no Israel.

Israel's enemies are currently working hard for a future that is clear to them: a world without Zionism; a world without Israel. Will Israel survive? This looks like a strategic question now that the United Nations is going to decide about Israel's future with the recognition of a new Islamic state on its borders: Palestine.

Israel is a small country. This is not to say that it's destined for extinction; only that it can be. Of the children of Abraham, the descendants of Ishmael occupy 800 times more land than the descendants of Isaac. Any political change in these countries would have a quadrupled effect on Israel's security and sovereignty.

Moreover, in its vulnerability to extinction, Israel is not just any small country. It is the only small country whose neighbors declare its very existence an affront to God and make its extinction an explicit, paramount national goal. Only one nation is regarded as virtually having no civilians: Israel.

Is Turkey the next Iran?

The rulers of Turkey and Egypt are now leading Israel into a dangerous corner. Egypt was cleansed again of all its Jews, after the Israeli embassy was attacked and destroyed. Even the PLO, which was forced into ostensible recognition of Israel in the Oslo Agreements of 1993, is still ruled by a national charter that calls in at least 14 places for Israel's eradication, a sign of how deeply engraved the dream of eradicating Israel remains in the Islamic consciousness.

History has proven that what the Arab people desire rarely coincides with what is good for Israel and the Jews. The current Middle East is like Iran in 1979 and the Palestinian territories in 2006: many words on liberalism and democracy, but anarchy, death and political Islam on the ground.

Professor Bernard Lewis has just warned that Turkey could be "the next Iran." And what would happen if, instead of the corrupted Assad regime, another government took power, one with Islamist genocidal ambitions toward the nearby Jewish state?

The vast majority of Jews in the Diaspora are assimilating and intermarrying at a level unequalled in Jewish history. "The dissolution of European Jewry," observed Bernard Wasserstein in "Vanishing Diaspora: The Jews in Europe since 1945", "is not situated at some point in a hypothetical future. The process is taking place before our eyes and is already far advanced."

There is a sense of increasing erosion of support abroad for Israel, also in the friendly US, and of a constant and unrelenting air of tension, a nagging sense, somehow, of having lost the way despite immense accomplishments.

The odorless scenario of Israel's end sees Theodor Herzl's picture taken down from the wall of the Knesset, the Star of David flag and the Hatikva anthem modified, the seven-branched candelabra removed as the expression of Am Yisrael, the Chief Rabbinate abolished and the name of the state turned into Falastin.

Jews in gas masks

The realistic scenario sees the Palestinian state arming itself and forming alliances with, say, Islamists in Egypt, Turkey, Syria and Iran. War breaks out between Palestine and Israel. The Muslims attack from without and the home front comes under terrorist, guerrilla attack from Palestine. Chemical and biological weapons rain down from Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Israel can be overrun.

Will the Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah launch their rockets at the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Sderot, Beersheba, Haifa, Kfar Saba, Zichron Yaakov and Kiryat Shmona? Will thousands of Jews flee to underground shelters? Will bloody attacks be planned against Jews at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? Will the Jewish holy sites — Rachel's tomb in Bethlehem, Cave of Patriarchs in Hebron and Joseph's tomb in Nablus — be destroyed by local mobs? Will Jewish areas in eastern Jerusalem be subjected to Arab sniper fire? Will Katyusha rockets start falling on runways at Ben-Gurion Airport or on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway, so that Israel's economy would simply cease to exist?

Then we arrive at the worst scenario. Western Intelligence is whispering that Iran is only awaiting the order of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to announce its atomic bomb. To destroy the Jewish people, Hitler needed to conquer the world. All that is needed today is to conquer a territory smaller than Vermont. What will be of Israel in case the Iranian mullahs launch a nuclear bomb on the coastal plain, where more than 70% of population — one-third of all world Jews — lives?

Israel's ports, airports, refining capacities and industries are all there, and 600 feet in the air you see it all, from Ashkelon in the south to the Haifa Bay in the north.

The first Gulf War reminded even the most wishful thinkers that in an age of nerve gas, missiles and atomic bombs, Israel with its compact population and tiny land area is particularly vulnerable to extinction. Twenty years ago, Saddam Hussein's Scud rockets began to rain down on Tel Aviv.

The specter of a chemical attack was Israel's nightmare, because anthrax was a reality in Iraq. In all, 39 missiles fell on Israel. On those cold nights, Jews wore gas masks, because Saddam had revived the idea in the Israeli unconscious that the Jews could be gassed again. And so Israelis checked their shelters, sealed doors and windows, stood in line for gas masks in the hallways of schools and watched chemical-warfare defense videos. Food cans quickly disappeared from the supermarkets.

Saddam's Scuds damaged 4,393 buildings, 3,991 apartments and 331 public institutions. This account does not include the incalculable costs of equipping every Israeli with a gas mask, of the need for every Israeli family to prepare sealed rooms, of the national disruption caused by multiple alerts, and lost business and tourism.

It can happen again. Now or tomorrow. Israel is not on the edge, but it is a small country. It can disappear, and it knows it. Meanwhile, some parts of the world are drooling with anticipation for it.

Giulio Meotti is a journalist with Il Foglio. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at This article appeared in Ynet News 0,7340,L-4121885,00.html

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, September 13, 2011.

From Aristotle to Gandhi to Jimmy Carter, world leaders have asserted that one must judge a nation by the way it treats its most vulnerable. How then should one judge a society whose leaders condemn the most vulnerable, its own children, to a lifetime of sociopathic hatred and to the macabre belief that the highest calling in their precious young lives is to wage unremitting war and die a martyr's death?

The Palestinian Authority (PA) set up its own educational system in 1994, shortly after the Oslo Accords were signed (9/1993). Prior to the 6-Day War (6/1967), the schools of the West Bank and Gaza Strip used Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks, which the Israeli government censored after achieving sovereignty over those territories, due to the extreme anti-Israel and anti-Jewish language of these texts. However, in 1994 the PA's new Ministry of Education reintroduced the uncensored Jordanian and Egyptian texts, full of belligerent and anti-Semitic expressions. In response to international criticism, the Ministry undertook the creation of a new set of textbooks, gradually phasing them in from kindergarten through high school, while slowly phasing out the objectionable Jordanian and Egyptian texts.

Much has been written to expose, or to defend, the Palestinian Authority's new textbooks. Critics accuse the PA of the gross misuse of public funds from donor nations to support hate-education, of the violation of international legal norms with the virulence of that education, of wrecking catastrophic psychological damage on young children, and of preparing the next generation for more hatred, more terrorism, more war. Critics[i] acknowledge that the new textbooks are an improvement over their predecessors; but they still contain misleading, inaccurate, biased, selective and distorted history, with confusing and inaccurate maps that show "Palestine" as all of Israel,[ii] with Israeli cities like Tel Aviv replaced by Arab towns, and the exclusion of almost all of Jewish history from discussion about the Middle East. This biased education seems to have the goal of raising a generation of Palestinian children who will strive to carry on the terror war if their parents do not achieve victory in their own lifetimes.[iii]

Defensive assessments of these new textbooks assert the polar opposite,[iv] arguing that the new textbooks are fine, that the detractors are misled or misdirected by right wing Zionist prejudices, and that the PA should be congratulated on the way that its new Education Ministry has handled the difficult job of teaching Palestinian nationhood and history while under siege.

Interestingly, some of these very supportive reports, perhaps inadvertently, validate some of the negative assessments. Professor Nathan Brown, in a generally very positive assessment of the PA textbooks, notes that concepts of civil behavior such as peace, tolerance, and dialogue are important themes, but there is "not a single reference to tolerating Jews or Israelis" (pp. 17 ff.). PA textbooks contain lessons that value peace, pluralism, forgiveness, integrity, and tolerance in historical and present-day contexts; but there are "no these values regarding Jews, Judaism, or the state of Israel". In short, PA textbooks continue to " little to support peace and avoid sensitive issues connected with peace."[v]

The Israel/Palestine Center for Research and information (IPCRI) offers perhaps the most dispassionate, comprehensive and detailed examination of the PA textbooks. On the basis of its in-depth analysis of the entire sequence of textbooks as introduced into classroom use over the past 15 years, the IPCRI studies discern a clear pattern. The PA textbooks started out overtly anti-Israel with skewed and falsified history, incitement to violence, and the exaltation of martyrdom. Over the years they have been moderated, with the most vitriolic hate-teach expunged; but they still reflect some bias and imbalance.

It seems plausible to suggest that the textbooks were cleaned up under international pressure: threats from USA to defund the PA, reports such as those coming from the UK's Taxpayers' Alliance [vi] urging no UK money for "hate education", and EU threats to cut aid. But the desire to imprint on the next generation the need to continue the terror war against Israel is still very much alive; and that brings us to two additional aspects of PA education that must be explored. First, educators acknowledge that much teaching occurs beyond the textbooks and outside of the classroom. Under the leadership of the PA, incitement and hate-teach occur in the classrooms and on TV and radio.

Classroom incitement has been thoroughly documented[vii] as has hate-teach and hate-preach on PA TV and radio, where Jews and Israelis are represented as demonic figures; and the need to wipe Israel off the map is a frequent theme in the eulogies of suicide bombers, martyrs whose deaths in terror attacks intending mass murder endear them to Allah. The goal seems to be to create a seething, raging population of young people far more interested in wiping Israel off the earth's face than in achieving peaceful coexistence.[viii]

And they do not wait until the children start school. Palestinian Authority and Hamas preschool television and radio programming could be called Terrorism for Tots; and such programming continues well into high school. A Hamas weekly program starred a Palestinian version of Mickey Mouse, Farfur, who tells children to pray until there is "world leadership under Islamic leadership" and in the meantime to oppose the "oppressive invading Zionist occupation." Farfar is ultimately beaten to death by an enraged Israeli "settler," and is replaced by an intrepid young bee who buzzes the same message to the preschool viewers. Similar messages are encouraged in the classroom with supplementary material and teacher-guided self-expression that encourage martyrdom and glorify terrorism and terrorists.

So while defenders point out the improvements in the textbooks, they ignore the fact that incitement and hatred and martyrdom are still very much a part of the education process for Palestinian children from early childhood onward.

Second, the role of Hamas in West Bank education is generally unnoticed, but is crucial for an understanding of the impact of PA education on Arab youth. Since 2007 Hamas shares power with Fatah in the West Bank, and the coalition agreement of 2006 puts Hamas in control of the Ministry of Education. Over the last few years, the Minister of Education has moved Hamas loyalists into key positions in the education system. Fatah educators complain that: "When a high-level education job opens up, it goes to a Hamas supporter, with appointees often leapfrogging over other candidates with stronger credentials. Since 2007, eight of 14 West Bank school districts are controlled by Hamas, up from none in 2006, and new teachers are hired routinely from graduates of Islamic teachers' colleges that are Hamas strongholds." The Hamas teachers' union includes some 18,000 teachers in West Bank private and public schools. The latest textbooks already demonstrate Hamas influence.[ix] It is not difficult to foresee the future of PA education in the West Bank and Gaza Strip under Hamas leadership.

New textbooks may appear more moderate, but the classroom environment, the old hate-filled textbooks, TV, radio and the Hamas stranglehold on the Education Ministry all promise more Jew-hatred, more Israel-hatred, and endless exhortation to children's suicidal martyrdom. Hamas uses its own children as political pawns, encouraged to participate in violent demonstrations, taught the virtues of mass murder, and exhorted to die a martyr's death: a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, and a gut-wrenching example of horrifying child-abuse raised to the level of public policy. How does one judge a society that invests so much effort and resources into the intellectual and emotional abuse of its own children?

Do the Palestinian Authority textbooks inspire children to mass murder and suicidal martyrdom? The accurate answer right now may be: not as much as they used to; but if Hamas has its way, it won't be long before they do again. Meanwhile, other resources do exactly that, in the Palestinian classroom, media, and society.

Can a government so filled with hate and bigotry that they crucify their own children on the cross of jihad and Jew-hatred realistically be expected to develop a nation that will work toward peace?


[i] Marcus.html, 2008/04/palestinian_hateeducation_cont.html, betar1057183655.php, Issue/Palestinian-Hate-Education-(K-12).aspx,, and most comprehensive is

[ii] Validated, interestingly, by Nathan Brown who otherwise presents a very rosy view of PA textbooks: nathan_textbook.pdf pp 9f.)

[iii] For detailed assessments and a plethora of examples see: ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID= 111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=6515, ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID= 111&FID=377&PID=1854&IID=3387,, betar1057183655.php, Palestinian-Issue/Palestinian-Hate- Education-(K-12).aspx, 155&doc_id=454, and the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs at Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian_incitement/ Terror-incitement-Palestinian-media.htm .

[iv] myth-incitement-palestinian-textbooks/5626, brown_research_summary.htm, nathan_textbook.pdf, reports-on-palestinian-kids-hatred- grossly-exaggerated/.

[v] Other examples of negative assessments inadvertently validated by defenders can be found on the Miftah website, English/Jan30hy2k4.doc, where Fouad Moughrabi defends the PA textbooks by saying that the new textbooks of 2000 present Israel as "a settler colonial entity that forcibly expelled Palestinians and destroyed their villages" (p. 6), because this is in fact what they are. Moreover, "serious scholars" have embraced this characterization of Israel. Thus he inadvertently acknowledges that the critics are correct. ...this image of Israel as an occupier, destroyer, and ethnic cleanser is indeed taught by the PA textbooks. Because some scholars accept this representation, it is justifiable to teach this to Palestinian children, even though, as critics maintain, children fed this type of education are likely to grow up hating the perceived adversary and seeking to maintain the conflict: hardly a recipe for future peace.

Moughrabi further validates critics in his attempt at rebuttal about the misuse of maps in PA textbooks. He explains that "They [the textbooks] do not provide a map of Israel because the latter has yet to define its borders, and they do not provide a map of Palestine because its borders remain to be negotiated" (p. 3). He may be right that final borders are not yet defined, but he ignores the critique that there is no Israel on Palestinian maps.

He stresses that new textbooks do indeed teach peace and promote tolerance, openness and democratic values, thus indirectly acknowledging that the former ones did not. Then he goes on to say that since the reality of Israel's occupation is cruel and humiliating, it is not logical for the textbook to extend these positive values to Israelis, thus validating the assertion that positive values, while in the text, are not extended to Israelis. (p. 11). See for a comprehensive list of other research demonstrating hate-teach and incitement in PA textbooks which Mr. Barghouti does not mention nor rebut.

[vi] funding_hate_proof6_cors.pdf, fundinghate.pdf, HEPostAnnapolis.pdf .

[vii] See DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=377&PID= 1854&IID=3387, and readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14637

[viii], Issue/Palestinian-Hate-Education-(K-12).aspx, and Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian_incitement/ Terror-incitement-Palestinian-media.htm.

[ix] Knowing that outside approval is important because Palestinian public schools depend on foreign aid, Hamas leaders recognize that any attempt to change the textbooks must be done judiciously to avoid undermining the PA's efforts to portray itself as politically moderate. Validation of this assessment is found in PA/PA2008.pdf, p. 15, where the author notes that 12th grade textbooks, prepared after Hamas took over the Education Ministry, are harsher and more akin to earlier ones than the 11th grade texts.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Middle East studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative ( Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by YogiRUs, September 13, 2011.

This is a Washington Post editorial.

There is a fascinating dichotomy here. The Washington Post's foreign editor hates Israel and its coverage of the Mideast reflects that bias daily. His editor obviously shares his animus towards Israel. However, the editorial board at the paper occasionally, as in the attached editorial, will commit truth and defend the Jewish state's struggle to survive. Only the New York Times exhibits a relentless hostility towards Israel worse than the Post overall, obviously reflecting the feelings of the ownership and editors across the board.


ISRAELIS WORRY that the Arab Spring is turning from a popular movement against dictatorship into another assault on the Jewish state, and their worry is not unfounded. Last week in Cairo a mob attacked the Israeli Embassy, forcing the evacuation of the ambassador and most of his staff; the previous week the Israeli ambassador to Turkey was expelled. Later this month Palestinians are expected to introduce a resolution on statehood at the United Nations, and Israel could be further isolated if, as expected, a large majority of the General Assembly votes in favor of it.

There's little doubt that plenty of Arabs and Turks are angry at Israel. But it's worth noting that, as often is the case in the Middle East, those passions are being steered by governments.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who aspires to regional leadership, has directed a campaign against the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and stoked it with incendiary statements. Mr. Erdogan is furious that a U.N. investigation concluded that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, and thus its intervention to stop a Turkish-led flotilla last year, was legal. He also finds it convenient to lambaste Israel rather than talk about neighboring Syria, where daily massacres are being carried out by a regime Mr. Erdogan cultivated.

The assault on the embassy in Cairo has been condemned by the leaders of Egypt's popular revolution and by some leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both they and Western diplomats blame the ruling military for failing to secure the embassy, and they suspect the omission may have been part of an effort to divert rising public unrest toward a familiar target.

In the West Bank, polls have shown that President Mahmoud Abbas's U.N. statehood initiative is regarded as a low priority by the majority of Palestinians, 60 percent of whom said the better option was resuming direct negotiations with Israel. But Mr. Abbas fears he may be the next target of popular uprising; the U.N. gambit appears aimed in part at preempting that.

This is not to say the trend is benign. Israel is looking more isolated than at any time in decades. It is more than a hapless bystander: Mr. Netanyahu's government could have avoided a crisis with Turkey had it been willing to apologize for the deaths of nine Turks during the interception of the flotilla, which the U.N. panel rightly judged to be an excessive use of force. An incident in which five Egyptian guards were killed when Israeli forces pursued terrorists crossing the border helped to trigger the upsurge in tensions with Cairo. And Mr. Netanyahu's slowness to embrace reasonable parameters for Palestinian statehood provided Mr. Abbas with a pretext for his U.N. initiative.

It nevertheless is in the interest of Western governments, as well as of Israel, to resist the counterproductive and irresponsible initiatives of Mr. Abbas and Mr. Erdogan. In Egypt, the military has cited the attack on the Israeli Embassy as a pretext to apply emergency laws and censor the media; those, too, are steps in the wrong direction. The core demands of the Arab Spring have nothing to do with Israel: They are about ending authoritarian rule and modernizing stagnating societies. Scapegoating Israel will not satisfy the imperative for change.

© The Washington Post Company

Contact YogiRUs by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by YogiRUs, September 13, 2011.

Why both Israel and Washington should prepare for war

This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in Jewish World Review

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where her column appears.


Embassy takeover

We are able to consider the lessons of the weekend's mob assault on the Israeli embassy in Cairo because the six Israeli security officers who were on the brink of being slaughtered were rescued at the last moment and spirited out of the country. If the Egyptian commandos hadn't arrived on the scene at the last moment, the situation would have been too explosive for a sober-minded assessment of the rapidly deteriorating situation with our neighbor to the south.

Any assessment of the weekend's events must begin by recounting a few key aspects of the assault. First, this was the second mob attack on the embassy in so many weeks. During the first assault, an Egyptian rioter scaled the 20-story building where the embassy is housed, tore down the Israeli flag, and threw it to the frenzied mob below which swiftly burned it. Rather than being arrested for the crime of assaulting a foreign embassy, the rioter was embraced as a hero by Egypt's military regime. The governor of Giza awarded him an apartment and a job.

Second, for six hours after the assault on the embassy began on Friday evening, Israel's leaders tried desperately to contact the leaders of the Egyptian military junta to request their intercession on behalf of the trapped security officers.

Field Marshal Muhammad Tantawi refused to speak with either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Third, Egyptians authorities refused to intervene to save the lives of the Israeli security officers until after the Americans intervened directly on their behalf.

That is, Israel's entreaties, and Egypt's international legal obligations were insufficient to move the Egyptian authorities to act to save the embassy personnel from the mob. Only the apparent threat of direct US action against Egypt convinced them to act.

The behavior of the Egyptian mob and military junta alike served as a wake-up call for two key constituencies.

Until last weekend, both the Israeli Left and the US foreign policy establishment believed the situation in Egypt was not significantly worse than it had been under deposed president Hosni Mubarak.

Most Israelis awoke to the fact that Israel's border with Egypt is no longer a peaceful one three weeks ago. After the Egyptian-Palestinian terror cell infiltrated Israel from Sinai on August 18 and massacred eight Israelis on the highway to Eilat, most Israelis recognized that relations with Egypt had been ruptured.

But until the weekend, Israel's Left insisted there was a distinction between the lawless Sinai and the more orderly situation in Cairo. They argued that all that was needed to calm the situation in Sinai was for the military junta to assert its authority in Sinai as it does in the rest of Egypt. Hence, the Left argued that it is in Israel's interest to amend the peace treaty and allow the Egyptian military to remilitarize the Sinai.

Since the weekend, these claims have been notably absent from the discourse. After the Egyptian military allowed the mob to take over the embassy, residual leftist faith in the junta's moderation and commitment to the peace with Israel is swiftly evaporating.

As for the Americans, unlike Israel, American foreign policy hands from across the conservative-liberal divide supported the mob in Tahrir Square that called for Mubarak's overthrow. The Americans hailed Mubarak's demise as a triumph of liberal democratic forces in the Arab world. But in the aftermath of the weekend's assault on the embassy, voices from across the political spectrum in the US are calling for a reassessment of US relations with Egypt.

For his part, Obama's willingness to intervene on behalf of the besieged security guards at the embassy was probably not divorced from his assessment of the political fallout likely to ensue from the slaughter of Israeli embassy guards by the Egyptian mob.

In such an event, the American public would immediately equate Obama's support for the "democratic, revolutionary" mob against longstanding US ally Mubarak with his predecessor Jimmy Carter's support for the "democratic, revolutionary" Iranian mob against the US-allied Shah of Iran in 1979.

The fact that Obama recognizes the political significance of the developments in Egypt signals that he too may be willing to consider adopting a different policy towards Egypt in the months to come.

All of this is important.

In the absence of a reassessment of the situation in Egypt by the Israeli Left and the American policy establishment alike, the chance of anyone adopting rational policies towards the strongest Arab state would remain small.

Any rational policy must be based on an accurate assessment of the dynamics of the post-Mubarak political situation. Specifically, is the junta part of the mob or is it simply unable or unwilling to manage it? Apparently it is a bit of both.

Like its treatment of the rioter who tore the Israeli flag from the embassy building two weeks ago, the regime's arrest in June of the dual Israeli-American citizen on trumped-up espionage charges is an example of the junta acting as part of the mob.

On the other hand, the regime's decision to try Mubarak and his sons in contravention of Tantawi's solemn pledge to Mubarak is an indication that Tantawi and his generals are led by the mob.

As for Grapel — and to a lesser degree Mubarak — the US's ultimate success in forcing the junta to rescue the Israelis trapped at the embassy demonstrates that the US still has significant leverage against Egypt. When it is sufficiently adamant, Washington can force the junta change its behavior.

It is not clear how much this leverage is dependent on continued US financial and military assistance to Egypt. Obviously, an assessment of its significance should guide any US consideration of reducing or cutting off that aid.

As for Israel, the mob's ability to determine the course of events in Egypt and the junta's refusal to stand up to the mob on Israel's behalf is a strong indication that the peace treaty is doomed. After the junta stood back and allowed the mob to storm the embassy, it is impossible to believe the junta will defy the mob's demand to abrogate the treaty.

The fact that the treaty is doomed doesn't mean that Israel will immediately find itself at war with Egypt — although the prospect can no longer be ruled out. The US's continued leverage against the regime — like NATO's leverage against Turkey — may very well convince the Egyptians to maintain a ceasefire with Israel.

On the other hand, US leverage may end after November's elections. The Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are expected to win a parliamentary majority and the presidency.

Given the explosiveness of the situation, it is imperative that the US not repeat its rush to action from January where without considering the consequences of its actions, Washington hurriedly sided with the Tahrir Square mob against Mubarak. The US shouldn't support elections or oppose them. It shouldn't cut off aid or increase it. It shouldn't condemn the junta or embrace it.

The Americans should simply monitor the situation and prepare for all contingencies.

As for Israel, it must prepare for the possibility of war. It must increase the size of the IDF by adding a division to the Southern Command. It must train for desert warfare. It must expand the Navy.

Thankfully, all Israeli personnel were safely evacuated from Cairo. But this happy circumstance must not blind anyone to the dangers mounting in Egypt.

Contact YogiRUs by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Burt Prelutsky, September 13, 2011.

I am not overly surprised when the majority of American Jews continue to support Obama, but I know it confounds Christians. What they fail to grasp is that Israel's survival is not only a low priority item for the president, but for a great many Jews.

My fellow Jews, by and large, are far more connected to liberalism than they are to Judaism, far less familiar with the Talmud than with "Dreams of My Father" or "The Audacity of Hope." The more religious a Jew is, the more likely he is to be a political conservative and to be concerned with Israel's security.

On the other hand, the younger and more secular a Jew is, the more likely he is to identify with Israel's sworn enemies and the more likely he is to prioritize green energy, socialized medicine, same-sex marriages and federally-funded abortions.

It is no mystery that so many iconic figures on the left are secular Jews. They would include Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Henry Waxman, Barbra Streisand, Brad Sherman, Norman Lear, Jon Stewart, Alan Colmes, Bernie Sanders, Steven Spielberg, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Anthony Weiner, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.

I'm afraid that attending synagogue once or twice a year, sprinkling one's conversation with the occasional "schlemiel" and "schmendrick," and having a taste for corned beef or pastrami does not a Jew make. In liberal circles, however, all it takes is voting for the most left-wing candidate on the ballot.

Any Jewish Democrat who takes umbrage at that list will, if experience counts for anything, label me a self-hating Jew. But I think, in my own defense, I need only share a few additional facts to make my case. There are, I believe, 154 Catholics in Congress, 24 in the Senate and 130 in the House. Of the 154, 84 are Democrats, 70 are Republicans.

There are 70 Baptists and Southern Baptists in Congress, 10 in the Senate and 60 in the House. Of the 70, 26 are Democrats, 44 are Republicans.

There are 47 Presbyterians in Congress, 15 in the Senate and 32 in the House. Of the 47, 16 are Democrats, 31 are Republicans.

When you realize that the Republicans in Congress currently out-number the Democrats 287 to 246, you can see that the 145 to 126 Republican advantage in those three major religious groups is nearly perfectly in sync with the overall makeup of the legislature. However, there are 40 Jews currently in Congress, 13 in the Senate, 27 in the House. Of the 40, 39 are Democrats, while Eric Cantor constitutes the entire Republican contingent.

Even though Barack Obama has displayed a personal bias favoring Arabs and Muslims ever since he entered the Oval Office, whether it was demanding that Israel stop erecting housing in the so-called settlements, going back to its 1967 borders or glowering at its prime minister as if he'd just nuked Chicago, he's not the first president who has held Israel to an impossible standard while giving the Arabs a pass. At least since Carter, they've all behaved as if the stumbling block to peace is that Israel is just too damn big. Why else would every "path to peace" invariably begin with Israel's being asked to cede land? Inasmuch as Israel is by far the smallest nation in the region, it suggests that each of them, but especially Obama, would have insisted that if it had been up to him, David would have had to first hand over his slingshot, and then fight Goliath from his knees with one arm tied behind his back.

It's a strange form of amnesia that causes the world to forget that in 1948, it wasn't the Jews who banished the Arabs; it was Egypt, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, the invading coalition, that suggested to their friends that they temporarily vacate the premises while the Arab legions finished the job that Hitler began. These weasels were told it would be over in a day or two, and they could then return to divvy up the spoils.

The world also tends to overlook the fact that for decades before Israel achieved statehood, the Zionists had been buying up land at wildly inflated prices from the local Arabs. The world also ignores the fact that thousands of Jews had lived there since biblical times.

Yet another inconvenient truth the world turns a blind eye to is that it was the Arab and Muslim nations in 1948 that banished their Jewish populations and, for good measure, confiscated their money and property.

As if all of that weren't enough to sway public opinion in their favor, 20% of Israelis are Arabs, who not only have the vote, but have seats in the Knesset, Israel's legislature, and whose wives and daughters actually have the rights and freedoms they're denied everywhere else in the sewer known as the Middle East.

Within a few years following the end of World War II, all the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust had found homes, mainly in Israel, Europe, Canada and the U.S. But 63 years after they voluntarily abandoned Israel so the Jews could be slaughtered without any collateral damage to themselves, the so-called Palestinians continue to be "refugees" demanding the right of return, although how one returns to where one has never been is a mystery best left to science fiction writers.

The reason that there are still "refugees" six decades after the fact is that not a single nation in the region wants the riffraff inside their borders. Far better for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and the rest, to keep them right where they are, to be used as pawns in their attempt to scapegoat the Jews for the hunger, unemployment, ignorance and oppression, rampant in their own countries.

Jewish Democrats may be willing to give Obama high marks, but fortunately there are others who have a clearer vision. Which is why some wag has seen to it that the following piece of fiction has gone viral in recent weeks. Claiming to be a message to Obama from Netanyahu, while on his way to the U.S., it reads: "Tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans were driven out of their homes, the only homes they had known for centuries, and forced to live in poverty and squalor south of the border, thanks to American aggression. This festering wound will never heal until America takes steps to return to the internationally accepted lines of 1845. Clearly the settlement activity that's taken place in occupied Mexico since then is illegal. When I meet the President tomorrow, I will tell him to halt all building activity in Texas immediately. Two lands for two people, yes, but not on land taken by force from Mexico."

It's a shame that it never happened. At least if it had, it might have made sense why, at their get-together the next day, Obama had glared at Netanyahu as if he had caught him trying to swipe the White House silverware.

Burt Prelutsky is author of "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco (A Hollywood Right-Winger Comes Out of the Closet)." He has been a humor columnist (L.A. Times), a movie reviewer (Los Angeles magazine), a freelancer (NY Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Sports Illustrated, Washington Times, etc.) and written for TV (several movies, plus episodes of MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, McMillan & Wife, Dragnet, Diagnosis Murder, etc., etc.) Contact him by email at

This article appeared June 4, 2011 in The Patriot Post 2011/06/04/the-agony-of-being-a-jewish-conservative/

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, September 13, 2011.

9/11, Bali, London 7/7, Madrid, Mumbai
and other attacks against the democratic world!

Jews have been fighting the Islamic enemies of democracy since 1920's. They may have different names but the same agenda — Global domination of Islam!

Attack on Israeli Embassy was Led by Jam'a al-Islamiya

Storming of Israel's Cairo embassy, which started on Friday night, Sept. 9, was led by the terrorist Jama'a al-Islamiya, the Egyptian founding branch of Al Qaeda, and two other radical Egyptian Islamist groups. The February 1993 car bombing of the World Trade Center of New York, which was the forerunner of the Sept. 11, 2001 atrocities, was an early Jama'a operation under the al Qaeda label.

Time to Cancel the Oslo Accords by Maayana Miskin

The time has come for Israel to cancel the Oslo Accords, Minister of National Infrastructure Uzi Landau told Arutz Sheva. The "absurd" accords should be canceled both because of the Palestinian Authority's plan to seek unilateral statehood, and because they are harmful (to Israel).

"No less importantly, they paved the way to give legitimacy to the existence of a Palestinian people and to the argument that they deserve a state in Judea and Samaria, the cradle of our society. These accords turned the leader of a terrorist gang, Yasser Arafat, into a supposed cultured leader worthy of joining the society of nations," he continued.

...If the PA does go to UN, it will win majority support, even if leading democracies are against its plans, Landau said. The PA must realize that if it does go to the UN, "the price they will pay will be very high," he said. Despite the PA's public talk of non-violent protests, Israel must prepare for violence, Landau warned. "We look at our neighbors and we see what 'non-violent protests' look like in the Middle East. We will need to defend ourselves".

"Anyone who does not appreciate the danger is naive. For them, the distance between going out to protest and pulling a trigger is very short," he added.

A video. Understanding UN Bias Against Israel

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

Ten years have passed since the 9/11 attacks. The "war on terror", we all were so hopeful it would end international Islamic threat, has turned out to be nothing but a fake show and breeding ground for corruption. It has even produced the unholy alliance with terror states, like the Qaddafi's regime in Libya and other tyrants. Now it has mutated into the support of Islamic revolutions in countries like Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood the dominant political power, and Libya and Syria, with al Qaida elements in the leadership. We suffered the shock of the Islamic terror ten years ago, and have been duped and betrayed by our own inept leadership, which is still in a symbiotic partnership with the Wahabi masters in Saudi Arabia!

Obama Ignores Israel as a Major Target of Islamic Terrorism

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is shocked and appalled that President Obama once again omitted Israel in his list of countries suffering from terrorist attacks. In the talking points issued by the Obama Administration for the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the Al-Qaeda September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C, Israel is ignored as one of the targets of terrorism. (This is not a mistake, but an act of deliberate anti-Israel bigotry!)

Iran — Quiet Nuclear Achiever

Iran 's atomic program moved into the production of 60 percent grade fuel, one step before weapons grade. This progress plus the relocation to an underground location near Qom of accelerated enrichment brings forward to the spring of 2012 the potential completion of between two and four bombs and Tehran's ability to conduct a nuclear test.

Barak Met Enemy to 'Negotiate' Future Riots

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas surprised a group of Israeli intellectuals by informing them that he had met Israel' s Defence Minister Ehud Barak in Amman on Aug 24. The Barak-Abbas meeting in Jordan was more businesslike than diplomatic. It revolved around the Palestinian UN application to be submitted on Sep. 20 and clear security limits laid down by Barak for the Palestinian 'popular' street response.

Turkish Escalation is Tolerated

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stirred up the Middle East further by halting trade with Israel and threatening to attack Cyprus if it lets Noble Energy drill for gas. Israeli businessman Yitzchak Tshuva has options to license some of the gas. Ignoring pleas from the United States to calm down after a United Nations report stated that Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza is legal, Erdogan warned he will send more ships to patrol in the Mediterranean Sea and still is considering a visit to Hamas-controlled Gaza. (Just imagine international 'mayhem' if Israel would have made a statement like this)

Is Spying on a Friend is a One-way Street?

The U.S. government eavesdropped on the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. In 2010, FBI translator Shamai Leibowitz was jailed for 20 months for leaking classified information to a blogger — these documents revealed that the FBI wiretapped the Israeli Embassy in Washington. (Jonathan Jay Pollard is still in the US prison for passing information to Israel, which the United States as a friend was supposed to provide Israel. Even Soviet spies did not stay in prison for so long!)

Democracy is not Strong Point of Islamic Organizations

Last Sunday Hezbullah warned that its patience was wearing thin with the opposition campaign against the terror organization's militias and munitions, saying it would act to 'foil attempts to destabilize the country.'

Warning Given but not Heard by Israel's Political Stupidity

Home Front Commander Maj. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg warned of the increasing peril of a total Middle East war in the wake of the Arab revolts and Israel's rift with Turkey. His comments shocked Israel's policy-makers and the defence establishment out of their placidity. The defence minister's adviser Amos Gilead, hurriedly denied this prediction. "Israel's security situation has never been better," he said insisting "The Arab regimes around us are stable."

Tayyip Erdogan Wants War with Israel

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan coolly moved his country towards an armed clash with Israel — not just over the Palestinian issue, but because he covets the gas and oil resources found opposite Israel's shores. He has ordered Turkish warships to enter the eastern Mediterranean in the belief that by breaking Israel's Gaza blockade, he will win kudos as the first Muslim leader to challenge Israel militarily on behalf of the Palestinians and Arab acclaim as the big shot of the region. (Support of so-called Palestinians is never about them but always about oil and international anti-Semitism!)

Likelihood of Regional War Growing

Senior IDF officer warns of 'radical Islamic winter' that may lead to regional war, which could prompt use of WMDs, the new and more lethal weapons discovered in hands of terrorists during latest round of fighting in Gaza, Major General Eisenberg said at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

Hypocrisy of the Headlines:

"Israel Arrests Militants in Death of British Woman" — "Militants"? Have you heard about Mary Jean Gardner, a 59-year-old British tourist who was studying in Jerusalem? She was killed and dozens of civilians were wounded earlier this year by Hamas terrorists. There were no international comdemnation and outcries! But you do remember Rachel Aliene Corrie a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), anti-Israel organisation, who was accidently killed or threw herself under IDF bulldozer. There is even a wikipedia page dedicated to her, but not to Mary Jean Gardner!

Jewish Jihad is Better. by Steven Shamrak.

Let's declare our own jihad — Struggle for freeing Jewish land!

Many Muslim mullahs, imams and terrorist chiefs have been igniting their followers with the word "jihad" — holy war. Even the leaders of some Muslim countries are not able to resist the temptation. Their true intent is a war against everything that is un-Islamic. Any infidel, not just Jews, any non-Islamic country is a target. Even Muslim countries that allow some flexibility, freedom and personal rights that are not in line with hard-core Islamic doctrine are considered as a blasphemous and also are targeted.

Sometimes, in order to disguise the actual aggressive nature of Islamic jihad, Muslim leaders say that they are misunderstood. They say that jihad has nothing to do with terror and the desire for world domination by Islam; rather, it is a call for the inner struggle of an individual Muslim. Little do they know that the concept of "inner struggle" is a deep spiritual idea of Judaism and Jewish spiritual teaching.

Every year, Jews celebrate the exodus from Egypt. Most Jews celebrate Pesach (Passover) as marking the freedom Jews obtained from physical slavery in Egypt some 3,300 years ago. Not many remember or know that Passover is to remind us that internal freedom of mind and spirit is even more important.

Unfortunately, even so many years after the creation of the independent Jewish State, many Jews are still living in inner mental slavery. We are constantly living under the fear of "them."

"What will they think?"; "This is current reality, they will not allow us to...." — these are the questions that continuously sabotage our efforts to obtain true sovereignty and end the ongoing torture of Arab terrorism that is unleashed on Israel, and which is artificially fostered by international hypocrisy.

The idea of a "two-state solution" has become the only focus of the peace process in the Meddle East. For many years, Israel has tried education, negotiations, economic stimulation, and political and territorial sacrifice. Israel gave control of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo agreement. Nothing has worked so far. These ideas have failed to bring peace to Israel; they just bring more terror.

The idea of removing 240,000 Jews from their ancestral land, Judea and Samaria, does not shock Peace Now supporters. At the same time, they reject the idea of transferring Arabs from Jewish land. Why is the idea of giving up Jewish land to enemies whose goal is complete destruction of the state of Israel not considered radical, but advocating the rights of Jewish people to the land of their ancestors is? The fact that our enemies, not just Arabs, have been persistently working on a one-state solution — a Muslim state without Jews — is completely ignored by many Jews.

We neglect our own right to the unity of Jewish land. Our right to self-determination is forgotten and regularly abused. Our right to live in peace in our own country is non-existent. At the same time, many Jews support the fictional people — the "Palestinians" — that was created for one reason only: to destroy Israel.

It is time for the Jewish people to shake off "Mitzraim" ("Egypt" as a metaphor for internal slavery) and declare our own jihad. This is the fight against self-doubt, self-hate and lack of self-respect. We must unite the Jewish nation, get rid of our enemies and reunite our land. Only when we start to believe in ourselves will the respect from "them" follow.

As you can see, jihad is a good thing when it is properly used. So, let's start a Jewish jihad. It will be good for us.

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, September 13, 2011.

Palestinians Must Step Up Sewage Recycling' was written by Sharon Udasin and Lahav Harkov and it appeared September 8, 2011 in Jerusalem Post

Erdan says PA should creating desalination plants and sewage treatment facilities.


While the Palestinian Authority continues to rely on Israeli water and electricity sources to keep its residents powered and quenched, Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan said that he felt the PA "can have an infrastructure" if the authorities take more steps to implement basic needs, like creating desalination plants and sewage treatment facilities.

The Palestinians currently have much more access to water than any country in the Arab world — excluding Lebanon, as it has a large river — and huge strides have been made since 1967, Erdan said.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to supply the Palestinians with freshwater every year, 80 percent above what was required of the country in the Oslo Accords, and if the Palestinians would recycle their sewage water as Israel does with most of its own, the Palestinian water supply would be even greater, according to the minister.

"We told Palestinians we are willing to give them all the knowledge, but they insist on using fresh water and sending us sewage," Erdan told The Jerusalem Post in an interview on Wednesday. "We are giving them fresh water and getting back sewage."

The minister was particularly worried that along with the building of the new Palestinian city of Rawabi, there will be no solutions for the household waste and sewage created in the process, and he said he has received no answers from the authorities there.

"I've been trying around the world to get help from places like the United Nations and the World Bank to pressure the Palestinians to cooperate because they are here to stay and we need to cooperate on basic needs — electricity, water," the minister said. "They can have an infrastructure."

As far as electricity goes, the World Bank is currently assisting the PA in developing its own resources, according to Erdan.

Contact Avodah at and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, September 13, 2011.

1. I confess that it is a rare day when I actually enjoy something that appears in Haaretz. And an even more rare day when Haaretz exhibits something witty.

But the political editorial cartoon that appeared yesterday was delightful and almost would have been enough reason to buy yesterday's paper.

The cartoon concerned the Labor Party primaries, which were held yesterday. There are four leftist contenders for the position of party Commissar, all of them basically claiming to promote the exact same agenda, all of them claiming to be anti-capitalist "social democrats." These are Amram Mitzna, the ex-Mayor of Haifa, once described by me as the most dangerous politician in Israel (see, Isaac "Buji" Herzog, a New Israel Fund poodle (many Israeli politicians have infantile nicknames like him — if you still want to go into politics, I understand that the nickname "Goo goo goo" is still unclaimed), Shelly Yachimovich and Amir Peretz.

Shelly is the leading girlish cheerleader for socialism in Israel. She used to be a TV talking head before she decided to sit on her tuffet. She is not particularly bright, but, unlike the other three, she is basically clean and honest. She used to be the favorite of the tent protest crowd, who would follow her home wagging their tails behind them. But then she managed to antagonize Israel's totalitarian Left when she suggested that good socialists should NOT treat or consider Jewish settlers to be the enemy. That led to nonstop attacks against her in Haaretz.

That leaves Amir Peretz, a subliterate who made his career as a sort of Israeli Jimmy Hoffa, running the Histadrut Trade Union federation (or what I call the Histadrut organized crime family) for a while. Peretz bears a remarkable resemblance to a Mexican gardener I once employed in California. I would be very surprised to hear that he has ever read a book. I met him once in the Knesset where I testified about the proposed (back then) national health insurance law. He did not understand a word I said and stared with glassy eyes, and it was NOT because of my accent.

As you can see, this is a great bunch of losers. In the primaries, Little Shelly and Pedro Peretz came out as the winners, but neither with enough votes to take the party chiefdom in the first round (and now will have a second round run-off).

I personally prefer that Peretz win, because he is such a loser that his leadership of the Labor Party will finish it off altogether. He is much easier to beat than any of the other three. I suspect though that Little Bo Peep, er, I mean Shelly, will take it.

Oh, about that cartoon I mentioned. It shows the four main characters from the Wizard of Oz skipping along. Shelly of course is Dorothy. The cowardly lion is Peretz. The tin man is Mitzna, and the scarecrow is Herzog. It was delicious!

2. Noam Chomsky proclaims the Prophet Elijah as the "First Anti-American"
"Using Privilege to Challenge the State" privilege-to-challenge-the-state-by-noam-chomsky
By Noam Chomsky
Source: Boston Review

Excerpt: In the Hebrew scriptures there are figures who by contemporary standards are dissident intellectuals, called "prophets" in the English translation. They bitterly angered the establishment with their critical geopolitical analysis, their condemnation of the crimes of the powerful, their calls for justice and concern for the poor and suffering. King Ahab, the most evil of the kings, denounced the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel, the first "self-hating Jew" or "anti-American" in the modern counterparts. The prophets were treated harshly, unlike the flatterers at the court, who were later condemned as false prophets. The pattern is understandable. It would be surprising if it were otherwise.

(I happen to regard the mount on which Balaam was riding to be the oldest Chomskyite)

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 His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassaah Levy, September 13, 2011.

This was written by Alex Joffe, a research scholar with the Institute for Jewish and Community Research. This appeared today in Jewish Ideas Daily and it is archived at module/2011/9/13/main-fe


Spying goes on everywhere, all the time, 24/7. But the way spying is treated — when it is discovered, when it is publicized, when spies are arrested, tried, and jailed — is highly variable, especially in the United States. The timing is almost never a matter of chance, and the latest stories about American Jews spying for Israel are not coincidental.

Two American Jews have just pled guilty to attempting to transmit classified information to the Israeli government. In the first case, Elliot Doxer, a computer firm employee, thought he was passing trade secrets to an Israeli consular official — who turned out to be an FBI agent. Doxler said he was trying to help Israel, but prosecutors noted he was also seeking Israeli help in getting information about his estranged wife and son. He faces 12 years in prison.

The second case involved a U.S. government space scientist, David Nozette, who pled guilty after trying to sell defense information to a person he thought was a Mossad agent. Nozette first came to the attention of the FBI for failing to disclose that he had once consulted for Israel Aircraft Industries. Having identified him as a potential threat, the FBI offered him money. He took the bait. He could serve a sentence of 13 years.

A third recent case turns out to be more complicated and illuminating. Shamai Leibowitz, an Israeli-American lawyer, worked as a translator for the FBI. He came into possession of classified documents, transcripts of FBI wiretaps of the Israeli embassy in Washington, involving Israeli efforts to influence Congress and U.S. public opinion in the matter of the Iranian nuclear threat. Leibowitz disapproved of these efforts and gave the documents to a left-wing blogger, Richard Silverstein, so that Silverstein would publicize them. Leibowitz has received a 20-month sentence for mishandling classified material.

No one seems especially surprised that the United States intercepts Israeli embassy communications; recent WikiLeaks documents have provided details of U.S. intelligence-gathering within Israel itself. But in other ways the Leibowitz case is surprising. In contrast with several journalists (such as James Risen of the New York Times, who faces a subpoena for having received documents from a former CIA employee), Silverstein has gotten no subpoenas. Stranger still is that Leibowitz, a well-known left-wing lawyer in Israel, was hired to work on classified FBI documents. By contrast, American Jews sometimes face special obstacles in getting U.S. security clearances: They have been asked whether they would bear arms for America in a war against Israel, a question not posed to members of other ethnic or religious groups.

All countries spy in and on the United States. Washington analysts, inside and outside government, share information all the time, and the line between classified and unclassified information is often blurry. But in the theater of espionage arrests, Israel appears to be singled out, with alleged Israeli spies attracting a unique level of attention.

In part, this special treatment is the bitter fruit of the Jonathan Pollard case. Pollard, a civilian analyst for the U.S. Navy, pled guilty in 1987 to providing extensive secret information to an Israeli intelligence operation. Though more damage was done to America by Soviet spies like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, Pollard's activities particularly angered the U.S. intelligence establishment: Their counterintelligence arm had been humiliated, and Reagan administration officials like Caspar Weinberger felt betrayed by an ally.

Pollard was sentenced to life in prison, and American Jews have been in the crosshairs ever since. In 2004, U.S. Defense Department official Larry Franklin was accused of revealing classified information to two staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The case made front-page news worldwide. After five years, the charges against the AIPAC staffers were dismissed. Franklin was convicted, but his sentence of 13 years was reduced to 10 months of house arrest. In the course of the prosecution, it was revealed that the U.S. government had been investigating AIPAC and various Middle East specialists since 1999.

Other features may also account for some of the focus on Israel. Along with China, Russia, and France, Israel is said to conduct especially aggressive economic espionage in the United States. Israel has a small defense relationship with China. But the rules are different for small U.S. allies than for large U.S. rivals. In 2010 alone, there were at least 11 major cases of Chinese spying in the United States. Almost none received any serious media attention, except for the penetration of Google by Chinese hackers. The phrase "dual loyalty" virtually never appeared.

Perhaps least coincidental of all, the recent Israeli espionage cases appeared at the time of an interview given to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who described Israel as an ungrateful ally. The Obama administration's animus against the Netanyahu government is well known, and at least one commentator has suggested that Gates's criticism was designed both to embarrass Netanyahu and to soften the blow of the probable U.S. veto of the Palestinians' "Unilateral Declaration of Independence" at the UN at the end of September.

Stories about Israeli intelligence operations in the United States abound, often crossing the line into the realm of anti-Semitic paranoia. Recall, for example, the stories about teams of alleged Israeli operatives posing as art students in the United States and gathering intelligence, possibly related to September 11; or the stories about Israeli spying on phone systems in the U.S. Capitol and elsewhere; or the tales of Israeli agents filming the September 11 attacks. The circulation given these stories reflects a willingness in the mainstream media to put Israel in a suspicious light. And in the dark, quiet game of counterintelligence, Israel is sent the message that America is watching. That same message is being delivered to American Jews.

Hadassah Levy is Website manager of

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, September 13, 2011.

This was written by Spengler and it appeared in Asia Times
( Middle_East/MI13Ak01.html). Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman, the author of How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying Too), just published by Regnery. His collection of essays from First Things magazine and Asia Times Online, It's Not the End of the World — It's Just the End of You (Van Praag) appeared this month as well.


A small country, its land reclaimed from a hostile nature, fights for survival against overwhelming odds for 80 years. Surrounded by enemies dedicated to its destruction, it fields the world's most innovative army and beats them. Despite three generations of war, the arts, sciences and commerce flourish. Its population grows quickly while the conflict empties the failed states that surround it. And it becomes a beacon of hope for the cause of freedom.

I refer not to Israel, but to the Dutch Republic of the 17th century, whose struggle for freedom against Spain set the precedent for the American Revolution. The final three decades of the Eighty Years War (1568-1648) coincided with the terrible Thirty Years War.

In 1600, a million-and-a-half Dutchmen faced an Austrian-Spanish alliance with more than 10 times their population; by 1648, the people of the Netherlands numbered two million, while the Spanish and Austrians had perhaps a quarter of their people. Holland had become the richest land in the world, with 16,000 merchant vessels supplying a global trading empire, graced by artists like Rembrandt and Vermeer and scientists like Huygens and Leeuwenhoek.

We might speak of the "isolation" of the Dutch at the outset of the Thirty Years War, although England backed them from the outset; that is why Philip II of Spain launched the Great Armada in 1588. Holland faced more formidable enemies than modern Israel; in place of the feckless Third World armies of Egypt and Syria, the Dutch fought Spain, the superpower of the 16th century, with the world's best professional infantry bought with New World loot. The superior Dutch navy disrupted Spanish lines of communication, and a new kind of mobile infantry defeated the static Spanish square with continuous musket fire.

Holland confronted a formidable adversary, determined to extirpate its Protestant religion; Israel faces a group of failed or gradually-failing states whose capacity to make war is eroding. Seven months after the start of the Arab uprisings, Israel's position is a paradox.

The prospects for a formal peace are the worst since 1977, while Israel's military position has improved. The Syrian army is too busy butchering protesters to attack the Jewish state, and the uncertain position of the Bashar al-Assad regime weakens its Lebanese client Hezbollah. Egyptian popular sentiment has turned nastily against Israel, but the last thing the Egyptian army needs at the moment is a war with Israel that it inevitably would lose.

Egypt is a failed state. It has no way out. Chinese pigs will eat before the Egyptian poor, as wealthy Asians outbid impoverished Arabs for grain. Egypt imports half its caloric consumption, and its foreign exchange reserves last week dipped below what its central bank called the "danger" level of $25 billion covering six months of imports, down from $36 billion before Hosni Mubarak was toppled. The reported reserve numbers probably include Saudi and Algerian emergency loans. With no tourism and much of the economy in shambles, the country is sliding towards destitution; it barely can feed itself at the moment. What will Egypt do when its reverses are gone? Almost half of Egyptian adults can't read, and the 800,000 young people who graduate yearly from the diploma mills are qualified only to stamp each other's identity cards. It is not surprising that football rowdies attacked Israel's embassy in Cairo last week.

The rupture in Israeli-Turkish relations, in turn, reflects Turkish weakness as well as the fanaticism of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey faces a short-term squeeze and a long-term crisis. Erdogan won re-election last June more as an economic manager than as neo-Ottoman imperial leader, but his economic success rested on a 40% rate of bank credit growth, and a consequent current account deficit equal to 11% of gross domestic product, the same level as Greece or Portugal.

As I reported last month (Instant obsolescence of the Turkish model, Asia Times Online, August 10, 2011), Turkey's stock market has fallen by nearly half in dollar terms since late 2010, and its currency has lost 20% of its value. Erdogan's economic Cave of Wonders has dissolved into the Anatolian sand, and Turkey faces a long period of belt-tightening.

Turkey's economic problems are a discomfort; its ethnic problems, by contrast, present an existential threat in the long run. In a quarter of a century, Kurdish will be the cradle-tongue of nearly half of all Turkish children, as Kurds have four to five children per family while Turkish-speakers have just 1.5. At some point, Turkey in its present form will cease to exist. Kurdish nationalism is stronger than ever; as Omar Aspinar [1] of the Brookings Institution wrote on September 11 in Zaman Online:

Kurdish political aspirations have reached unprecedented levels in the last 10 years ... Kurdish ethnic, cultural and political demands are fueled by a young and increasingly resentful generation of Kurds who are vocal and frustrated not only in Eastern Anatolia but also in Turkey's large Western cities including Istanbul, Izmir, Mersin and Adana. Turkey's nightmare scenario is Turkish-Kurdish ethnic violence in such western urban centers.

The Kurds know that the demographic future belongs to them, and that Erdogan's frantic calls on Turkish women to have more babies will do nothing to change matters. "The Kurdish issue," warns Aspinar," remains Turkey's Achilles' heel."

Rather than isolate Israel diplomatically, Turkey and Egypt have buttressed its diplomatic position. By declaring the United Nations' Palmer Commission report on the May 2010 Gaza flotilla incident "null and void", Turkish President Abdullah Gul put his country in the position of the rogue state. Egypt's failure to prevent an attack on Israel's embassy was a gross violation of international standards. Diplomacy, though, makes little difference, because Israel requires only the support of the United States.

The most likely outcome is a prolonged low-intensity war in which Israel suffers more rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza, and occasional terrorist infiltration from Sinai and the West Bank, but no organized military threat from its immediate neighbors. Iran's nuclear program presents an existential threat to Israel, and remains the great unknown in the equation.

As Jonathan Speyer [2] wrote in a September 11 report for the Gloria Center, Iran's attempt to lead an anti-Israel resistance bloc "has fallen victim to the Arab Spring", particularly after Tehran aided the despised Syrian regime. But Speyer warns that this "should because for neither satisfaction nor complacency".

A country that knows it must fight daily for its existence may thrive under interrupted stress. That is unimaginable for the Israeli peace camp, which dwindled into political insignificance after the Intifada of 2000, as well as for America's liberal Jews. But most Israelis seem to have adapted well to a long-term war regime.

The Dutch certainly did. When the Thirty Years War began in 1618 over Bohemia's attempts to cast off Austrian rule, Holland knew that Spain would take the opportunity to settle accounts with its breakaway Protestant province. Expecting a Spanish invasion, the English Separatists living in Holland decided instead to become Pilgrims to the New World. ''The Spaniard,'' their leader William Bradford wrote in 1618, ''might prove as cruel as the savages of America, and the famine and pestilence as sore here as there.''

A year after the Mayflower sailed to Plymouth Rock in 1620, Spain sent an army into Holland, and in 1625 the Spanish took the great Dutch fortress of Breda, just 90 kilometers from Amsterdam; Velasquez's canvas depicting the city's surrender hangs in Madrid's Prado Museum. The Dutch defenders kept the Spanish army away from their coastal cities only by opening the dikes and flooding the countryside. Had the Pilgrims stayed and the Spanish won, the Pilgrims likely would have been burned as heretics.

Spain embargoed Dutch trade and succeeded in damaging its economy, although Dutch attacks on the Spanish fleets bringing treasure from the New World provided some breathing room. One by one, Holland saw its German and Danish Protestant allies beaten by Austro-Spanish alliance, and by 1625 was fighting alone. By the late 1620s, though, Holland was winning a war of attrition against overextended Spain, and could match the Spanish in the field.

The military balance remained precarious; in 1629 the Spanish army within 40 kilometers of Amsterdam. The turning point came in 1632, when the Dutch took the Flemish city of Maastricht, breaking Spain's hold on the Catholic Low Countries. When Spain and France went to war in 1635, the victorious Netherlands dominated European trade and its "Golden Age" reached fruition.

Holland boasted the world's strongest navy and a dominant position in world shipping trade, and its home provinces became impregnable.

The Dutch were smart and tough, but they beat the Spanish empire in large part by being better than their adversaries. The Dutch republic offered Europe's first example of religious toleration. Iberian Jews and French Huguenot found refuge in Holland against religious toleration, and the skilled immigrants made invaluable contributions to the Dutch economic miracle — something like the Russian immigrants to Israel today.

When Dutch armies invaded the Spanish Netherlands (now Belgium) they offered religious freedom to the Catholics they absorbed. Countries that attract talented people have an enormous advantage over countries that drive them out.

Without stretching the analogy too far, the religious conflict that surrounded 17th century Holland have something in common with today's Middle East. Americans know almost nothing of the Thirty Years War; not a single Hollywood film nor one popular novel recounts its major events. It is a tale of unrelenting misery, of battles and marches and countermarches that left nearly half of Central Europe dead.

It degenerated into a duel between two powers who both acted out of the mystical conviction that they were God's chosen people: the France of Cardinal Richelieu and the Spain of the Count-Duke Olivares. It foreshadowed the neo-paganism that nearly conquered Europe in what British statesman Winston Churchill called "the second Thirty Years War" of 1914-1945.

The conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite Islam may cause something like a Thirty Years War in the Middle East, as Arabs, Turks and Persians fight for the mantle of Divine Election. The difference is that Europe descended into the maelstrom from a peak of economic and cultural success; the Muslim nations of the Middle East are goaded by a profound sense of humiliation and failure.

What transpires may be even more horrific than the events of 1618-1648. The methods the American military employed to win a respite in Iraq might set such a conflict in motion, as I argued last year in "General Petraeus' Thirty Years War" [3]. Once again, the nation that embodies religious faith embedded in democratic values will prevail despite the chaos around it.


1. Time to focus on the Kurdish question, Today's Zaman, September 11, 2011.

2. Israel, Iran and the New Middle East, Gloria Center, September 11, 2001.

3. General Petraeus' Thirty Years War, Asia Times Online, May 4, 2010.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 12, 2011.


The August 18 terrorist attack that murdered eight Israelis was perpetrated by the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC).

PRC is described as an independent terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip. It does not tout any clear national, ideological, or religious affiliation. However, it is supported, subsidized, and trained by Hamas. PRC also coordinates operations with Iran and Hizbullah. It just acts independently, the IDF finds. By that means, Hamas claims it is not involved in PRC terrorist activities [and should not be punished for them], but the jihad goes on. PRC has committed many acts of terrorism, including rocket attacks (Independent Media Review and Analysis from

Commentators long have accused Hamas of turning rockets over to other groups to fire, in order to disclaim responsibility for them. Now the IDF apparently has intelligence findings that give it the confidence to state so openly. All along, however, Israel said it held Hamas accountable for the territory it claims to control. Does it hold Hamas accountable?

The attempted deceit on the Israeli side is the government's pretense that its bombing of one or two unoccupied Hamas bases is proper retaliation for a Hamas attack. Proper means of dealing with Hamas would be to bomb all of its known bases, arms factories, and arms depots, at once and when the terrorists are inside. Then Hamas would not be able to harm Israelis much nor, in combination with other forces, constitute a strategic menace to Israel.


The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) regularly accuses the U.S. of "Islamophobia" on the Iranian government's English language channel, Press TV. CAIR claims that right-wing U.S. politicians and commentators promote anti-Muslim sentiment, and that whole groups are "Islamophobic." On dozens of TV segments, CAIR popularizes the notion that Muslims fare badly in the U.S..

CAIR accuses the government of developing a philosophy of Islam and its adherents as the enemy. It depicts U.S. Muslims as expecting to be under surveillance at any mosque. The FBI should thwart terrorist plots but not instigate them in order to prosecute. CAIR's Ibrahim Cooper also said that the same types of arguments used against Muslims in the U.S. and Europe were used by the Nazi Third Reich (David J. Rusin, 7/22/11 07/cair-regularly-slams-america-on-iranian-tv).

There is much surveillance, but that is because Islamists plot much terrorism. There is no general government or popular hatred of Muslims. Our government bends over backward to call Islam a religion of peace, which it is not. Propaganda in the Muslim world that accuses the U.S. of persecuting Muslims unfairly riles up the Muslim world against us.

The Federal government does utilize entrapment to prosecute people in general, not just Muslims. The entrapment ascertains who is susceptible to offers to join conspiracies. But the enticement may create a plot that otherwise would not be hatched. It is a dubious tactic. It actually may create some crimes.

The arguments used by the Nazi regime all were false. Muslims do, however, engage increasingly in jihad. Warnings against plotting jihad make sense, as the recent commemoration of 9/11 remind us. Therefore, CAIR's analogy with Nazi Germany is specious. Analogy proves nothing; it is misleading propaganda.

CAIR presents the U.S. as extremist. Doing so impugns itself as extremist. Nevertheless, CAIR, which is pro-jihad, pretends to us to be moderate.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, September 12, 2011.

When there is an accelerated progression of events, a responsible party is expected to be ready for anything that may come next.

Let us take the case of the Israeli embassy in Cairo, Egypt, as an example. Israel and Egypt have maintained a peace for the last thirty-two years. Some may have described it as a cold peace, but it allowed Israel to redeploy its assets with a concentration on the northern front with Syria and Lebanon. There was no need to maintain a deterrent protective force of several divisions in the south.

Israel and Egypt cooperated on many fronts, security and the fight against terror being the most important of them. Thus, the naval "blockade" on Gaza is a joined attempt of both countries to prevent entrance of means of war (trained personal, weapons, money, etc.), to control the free movement of those engaged in terrorism and to avoid a fast vessel from becoming a weapon itself (much like airplanes were used on 9/11/2001) against critical infrastructure in Israel, just moments away from the Gaza seashore.

Egypt has acted as an intermediary between Israel and Hamas, Israel and the Palestinian Authority and Israel and others. For more than five years an Israeli soldier has been held in captivity and Egypt has repeatedly been the medium in negotiations. In all these instances, Egyptian military managed to maneuver, maintaining its image as a leading Arab country (i.e. no friend of Israel) on the one hand and a reasonable voice of reason that can work with the Arabs' archenemy, the Israelis.

Undoubtedly it is very important for Israel to maintain peace with Egypt, however lukewarm it was, even cold or hostile it is becoming. This however does not allow throwing caution to the wind, to act stupidly or ignore the lessons of the past.

Early in 2011, the US President decided to drop the Egyptian President and demanded the latter take leave of his country. Singlehandedly, President Obama managed to topple a friendly regime that was otherwise stable for decades. History will show that like President Carter, who is singlehandedly responsible for the assent to power of the Islamic Republic of Iran, President Obama is responsible for enabling the Muslim Brotherhood to finally take over Egypt.

Did Israel immediately redeploy its forces, or at the very least was there a redrawing of the strategic threats map so that analyses and preparations could take place?

It did not appear so. The Sinai Peninsula became infested with highly trained enemies of Israel and immense firepower. An attack was carried out from Egypt into Israel proper, killing eight and wounding numerous others with precision, military style. Some of the events of the combined attack were implemented by those dressed as Egyptian soldiers and/or from their locations, and so several real Egyptian soldiers died in the events that ensued.

Israel has apologized deeply, for there was never an intention on Israel's part to engage in fighting. This terror attack was forced upon Israel from within Egyptian territory, and Egypt is partially responsible for not controlling its own country. However, it was not Israel's attempt to retaliate against Egypt — just to protect its citizens.

Egypt used its dead soldiers as an excuse for a tougher stand against Israel. A revenge of sorts was necessary to quench the thirst of the multitudes against Israel.

For many months the West was in awe of Arab multitudes, "youth" they were christened, demonstrating, often risking their lives, for a better life, for a regime change, for democracy. Israel, everyone noticed, was really not front-and-center in these demonstrations. But was that really the case? Hatred toward Israel and the Jews resonated throughout, with the possible exception in broadcasts to the West. Israel was the insurance policy: It could always be blamed.

When progress was slow, there was a turn of the tide and the anti-Israel sentiment flared up. All along it remained just inches below the surface, clearly visible and reachable. The sentiments of the populace were echoed by the military in control. The floodgates were slowly opened.

What ensued was a demonstrator scaling the building where the Israeli embassy is located and removing the Israeli flag. Following that incident, Egypt installed a protective wall around the building.

How was Israel to react to the changing political landscape in Egypt?

First, the families of all diplomats and all non-essential personnel should have returned to Israel. This is exactly what was done in Iran in 1978, when Israel sent jumbo jets to Teheran to evacuate all the women and children.

Still 70-80 people remained in Cairo and had to be evacuated by two Israeli jets.

Second, the remaining skeleton staff should have ensured that nothing was left at the embassy other than furniture and meaningless equipment. No documents, hard drives or anything of substance should have been left. Even if Israel was not yet practicing paperless offices, there should have been nothing in case the location of the ambassador had to be changed at a moment's notice.

This was not done, for after the takeover documents were strewn across the street from where the embassy was housed. Accounts of the night in question indicate that the security guards were busy shredding documents to the very last minute.

Third, escape routes and drills constantly should have been conducted, with fully operational safe houses to which to relocate the personnel. I remember as a child going through these drills at the Israeli school in Teheran. We were instructed how to escape from an upper floor, when to use the roof and when to use the ground escape. Experts showed us how and where to hide and how to evacuate, and we repeatedly practiced these until they became routine.

I remember equally as vividly, three decades later, when I offered the Israeli Consul General in Los Angeles use of our offices in case they needed to relocate on the spare of the moment. It was tense times and such an eventuality could not be ruled out.

How is it possible that six people remained inside the embassy with only a metal door separating them and a lynch mob? Why were they still inside? What were they protecting?

If Khomeini's ascent to power has taught us anything, it is that an embassy, whether Israeli, American or any other, is meaningless if the place is empty of any human being and of any classified material. Taking over a structure contradicts international conventions and practice, but one should care less about image and more about the lives of its people. Also, it is easy to remotely destroy a physical location when there is no threat to the country's people still in hostile territory.

Fourth, Israel's handling of the situation was miserable at best. Israel was unable to contact Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Military Council. He was "unavailable" or "unreachable," so Israel ran as fast as it could to daddy and mommy to exert the full weight of the United States of America.

Is this the new reality: Israel as merely America's child? Anything bad just run to daddy? Then you should not be surprised when you are treated as dependent, a person who cannot decide or act on its own. The word "sovereign" comes to mind. Has Israel lost that too? We should not be surprised when America tells Israel to stop building houses for its people in its own capital and expects Israel to do exactly as it is told.

We all remember what Israel accomplished in Entebbe. In Egypt the situation was different and evolving by the minute. So severe was the situation, the head of security implored the situation room that if his men and he are lynched, their families learn about their deaths in person. This was released to the media. A telenovela (soap opera) in real time, and how appropriate the victim was no other than the usual villain — the Israeli aggressor — with the fierce Mossad agents begging for their lives.

Tears dripping, almost filling buckets, the report from the situation room in Jerusalem is befitting the best thriller (or "24") or the worse soap opera (or in Israel of yesteryears, the Friday early evening Arab movie). America to the rescue, oh those good and noble Americans. Israel no longer knows what to do or how to act independently.

Where were the Israelis? Incapable? Incapacitated? Afraid? Lacking ingenuity in face of adversity? Why was there not a mission en route to rescue the Israelis? Egypt is a friendly country and there is still a peace between the two countries. Would that have been construed as an act of war by Israel?

No one would buy such spin by Egypt, because every country expects and demands the integrity of its territory safeguarded by the host country. Be it the residence of its official representative (usually the ambassador) and/or the embassy, the car of the ambassador or the diplomatic mail. If these are violated in any way, a very delicate system all around the world is in jeopardy, one that is crucial to maintain.

The six Israelis in the embassy were not heroes and they should not have been there. The situation was indeed very serious, but it is all of Israel's doing. Israel should have been prepared for such a development and not have resorted to begging the Americans for help.

In Entebbe, Israel showed such extraordinary courage and amazing spirit, its special forces became legendary. The meaning of employing creative and unexpected methods to protect one's citizens, of performing miracles in the eyes of the world and showing how unique the new Jewish people were was carved in the collective mindset.

Decades have passed, and another member of the Netanyahu family is again leading Israel against all odds in a time of crisis. The first captivated our imagination with strength and wits, the latter with tears and the media.

Use your brains, Israel. Learn from the lessons of the past. Look around and internalize what is happening. Prepare and do not be caught again with your pants down. The sight is unpleasing and unnerving to you, and to the rest of us.

For those interested in the full account of what took place, as related by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, here is the translation as reported on Saturday, September 10, 2011:

Early this morning, at about 5:00 a.m., a complex rescue operation was safely completed to free the staff of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. From inside the Situation Room at the Foreign Ministry, I worked alongside the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defense, the Head of the Shabak, Head of the Mossad, the IDF Chief of Staff and all of their staffs. One overriding mission laid before us — to secure the welfare and safety of Israel's emissaries. We worked together in a responsible manner to ensure that this situation would end in the best possible manner.

Immediately at the beginning of the incident, I ordered that all the Embassy staff and their families in Cairo be put on a plane and returned to Israel. At the same time we worked together with Egypt and the American government to assure that our remaining staff at the Embassy would be rescued without harm.

I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the United States, Barack Obama. I asked for his help. This was a decisive and fateful moment. He said, "I will do everything I can." And so he did. He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us. We owe him a special measure of gratitude. This attests to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States. This alliance between Israel and the United States is especially important in these times of political storms and upheavals in the Middle East.

I wish to cite also the intervention of the Egyptian Commandos which prevented a tragedy. We maintained direct channels of communication throughout the night with the Egyptian government. It was clear to all that the defense of an Embassy, and particularly the Israeli Embassy, is the obligation of any sovereign state.

I therefore also appreciate the words of the Egyptian Information Minister who condemned the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. Many world leaders and Arab leaders joined him in this sentiment. I attach great importance to this. Israel will continue to adhere to the peace treaty with Egypt. We are working together with the Egyptian government to quickly return our Ambassador to Cairo. I wish to make sure that the necessary security arrangements for him and for our entire staff will be effective and will assure their necessary safety. At the same time, our diplomatic delegate in Cairo will continue to represent Israel until the Ambassador's return.

During this long night, we were required to make many difficult decisions. I would like to share with you one conversation from this night. On the line was Yonatan, the security officer of the Embassy. He and his men, six in number, were trapped in the Embassy building. The mob entered the building and entered the office. Only one door separated between the mob and Yonatan and his friends. He sounded perfectly calm to me, and on the other hand understood the situation in which he and his colleagues found themselves.
During the ongoing event, he requested from the security officer in the Foreign Ministry one thing: If something happens to me, he said, my parents should be notified face to face, and not by telephone. I got on the phone line and I said to him, "Yonatan, be strong. I promise you that the State of Israel will do everything in its power and will use all possible resources in the world in order to rescue you and your friends unharmed and whole from this situation."

And thank God this morning they all landed in Israel. A short while ago I spoke with Yonatan and his mother. They sounded wonderful.

I wish to say one more thing this evening to you, my fellow Israeli citizens: The Middle East is now undergoing a political earthquake of historic proportions. Perhaps this can be compared to what happened a century ago at the end of the First World War with the establishment of a new world order. In the face of this historic turmoil we must act coolly and with responsibility. We must understand that these events are occurring as a result of deep and strong political undercurrents. We in Israel have a tendency to think that everything happens because of us or that we are somehow at fault for the turbulence in our area. There are many external and strong forces at work here. More than anything else, we must in these times act to safeguard our security. This is the anchor of our existence, especially in these turbulent times. We must work towards advancing our national interests in the area at the appropriate time.

We will continue to keep the peace with Egypt. This is in the common interest of both countries. We will work toward preventing a further deterioration in our relationship with Turkey. We did not choose this sequence of events. To the extent that the matter depends upon us, we shall act to lower tensions and do everything possible to restore relations.

We shall continue to work towards peace with the Palestinians. To this end, we must return as quickly as possible to the path of direct peace negotiations. Only in this manner will we be able to advance and achieve a peace agreement. Regarding this negotiation, I believe that many people today in our nation and around the world who see what is happening in our area will understand our justified stance in defending our security interests in any future agreement. I would like to thank again the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defense, the security forces and above all our brave young men who were trapped for many long hours in the embassy. We worked together as a cohesive team in order to prevent a tragedy for the State of Israel and to return our men home peacefully.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at

To Go To Top

Posted by YogiRUs, September 12, 2011.

This was written by Eric Rozenman, a Washington-based news media analyst. It appeared in Washington Examiner:
( op-eds/2011/09/remembering-truth-about-911- isnt-islamaphobia#ixzz1XlZLteAz


It is asserted, in connection with 10th anniversary observances of al Qaeda's Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that "we are not at war with Islam, only against a tiny minority trying to hijack this peaceful religion for violent ends." The assertion is more lullaby than description.

A decade after the terrorist murders of 3,000 people, 10 years including U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Transportation Safety Administration's strip-search X-rays and Manhattan's ground zero mosque, U.S. leaders including Presidents Bush and Obama have avoided a basic truth: We are not at war with Islam, but what is perhaps the most influential ideological trend in contemporary Islam is at war with us.

Shortly after the destruction of New York City's World Trade Center and the coordinated attack on the Pentagon, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf reassured Westerners that no more than 10 or 15 percent of Muslims supported Sunni extremist Osama bin Laden. That would be at least 130 million people, roughly equivalent to the combined populations of France and Germany. Hardly a majority of the world's Muslims, but much greater than a "tiny minority."

Shi'a extremists, epitomized by the mullahs running Iran's Islamic Republic, have been at war with the West, the United States in particular, since the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Related attacks have included the 1983 bombings of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon, the '86 destruction of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the countless deaths of GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan from Iranian-designed or supplied roadside bombs. All as hors d'oeuvres to Iran's accelerated development of nuclear weapons.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg insinuates that opponents of the ground zero mosque are "racists." A USA Today editorial implies that those objecting to consideration of Shariah (Islamic law) in American courts are bigots. A few questions, then, for our opinion leaders:

1) Recognizing that Islamic thought and practice is diverse, according to mainstream theological interpretations, what is the status of Muslims who convert to other religions? Do authorities still consider them apostates subject to execution?

2) In normative Islamic thought, is the category of dhimmi, the "protected" status of Christians and Jews as "people of the Book," still operative? Protected, that is, from oppression by Muslim majorities if they accept second-class status and pay the jizya tax on unbelievers?

3) Regarding internal and external jihad, personal religious self-improvement or active defense against enemies of Islam, are groups like al Qaeda, which call for "jihad against the Crusader and Zionist West" and re-establishment of an international Islamic caliphate, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, with holy war a part of its very name, mistaken or merely excessive?

4) How does that answer relate to the concepts of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, the world of Islam in which peace is to reign and the non-Islamic world in which war against Islam's enemies is permitted?

Other such questions could be asked of leaders given to uncritical references to Islam as "a religion of peace." These include: Why are portions of some European cities "no-go zones" for non-Muslims, including police? Why have there been several dozen significant domestic U.S. terrorism cases since 9/11 involving Muslim participants, among them the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, but no similar outbreak from followers of other religions?

For champions of diversity and tolerance, what is the status of homosexuals under Islamic law, or of a non-Muslim spouse? May he or she raise their children as non-Muslims?

The three major monotheisms — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — have common roots. But their development has taken divergent paths. Islam has not had to accommodate itself to millennia of dispersion, as Judaism did. Neither has it experienced transformative upheavals like Christianity's Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation, although extremist-driven bloodshed from Algeria to Indonesia may yet produce something similar.

On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, let us eschew empty, if comforting generalities. Instead, let us simply, profoundly, remember.

Contact YogiRUs by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, September 12, 2011.

This was written by Karen Feld and posted yesterday on
( 2011/09/09/haunted-by-political-correctness/).

"One of the men had a palpable contempt in his eyes and the other, a goofy smile. I got a visceral reaction, a gut reaction, but didn't know where to go with that. I thought, 'If these guys don't look like Arab terrorists, who does?'" Then he added, "I mentally slapped myself, thinking, 'I have to be politically correct.' These guys paid big bucks, $2,400 in cash for first class one-way tickets connecting in Boston to Los Angeles. I thought, 'I better treat 'em right.' Little did I know I had the devil standing right in front of me."


When I spoke to my longtime friend, Michael Touhey, he shared with me his trepidation about the upcoming ten year anniversary of September 11. "I want to be the man I was before 9/11," he told me, "the man open to wonder and spontaneity."

Until recently that jovial, sandy-haired man was only a memory of his former self to the post 9/11 Touhey. Now, he is a retired US Air ticket agent whose unfortunate destiny led him to check in two of the terrorists, Mohammed Atta, the mastermind of the attacks, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari in Portland, ME, ten years ago on the morning of 9/11.

"I'm doing well," Touhey told me. "I landed on my feet."

But it hasn't been an easy journey for Touhey, now 65. He remembers well that morning in 2001.

For several years, Touhey blamed himself for not only the incidents but also the suicide of Ana Zanni, the American Airlines agent in Boston who checked in Atta on his connecting flight, AA #11. Touhey never met her but chided himself for not giving Atta his connecting boarding pass in Portland. Fear consumed his life. He was unable to work and retired from the airline. He had intrusive symptoms including flashbacks, nightmares and hallucinations. He hesitated leaving his home and was always on high alert.

Touhey describes himself as a normal guy who grew up in a large Irish-Italian, Catholic family in the mostly black projects of Roxbury, MA. "I was not brought up to be politically correct," he said. "We used slang words for ethnic groups." He was drafted into the Army which he calls "a great equalizer" and credits the military with preparing him for dealing with the public. "It had a mellowing effect in terms of looking at the world."

At 21, he found his niche working at Allegheny Airlines and then its successor, US Air, for 37 years, first in Boston and then Portland, ME. His engaging personality and ability to deal with the public was one of Touhey's assets. In fact, he viewed his role as providing service to the passengers. When the two terrorists checked in, only 17 minutes prior to departure time, they gave Touhey a difficult time because he wouldn't issue a one-step boarding pass for a connecting flight on another airline. Touhey describes himself as "a dinosaur in the business" since he didn't believe in giving a connecting boarding pass for another airline in another city.

When he heard that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center, Touhey said, "I felt a feeling in my stomach like when someone you love deeply, leaves you."

"I was afraid to leave my house after that day. I would make up excuses if I had to go out. I'd get dressed and then not leave. I'd think, 'Are all the windows closed? Is the dishwasher turned off?' I'd take an hour to check all these things. I made excuses not to go out. It was scary I would go on-line to look up the shortest route even though I knew how to get to my destination."

But that wasn't all. He recalls how he "would drift off and lose track of time, sometimes sitting in my parked car for 45 minutes after turning off the engine before going in the house. I would just stare out the window not realizing the time. It was like being in a time lapse," Touhey said. "I was in the worst place I had ever been. My rational mind was telling me one thing, but my subconscious was telling me something else." Touhey also remembered being in a shower with the hot water running until it turned cold. "Little did I realize that I stood there staring at the wall long enough to use up a 65 gallon hot water tank," Touhey said. "I thought it was five minutes."

He felt even worse when his wife, Maureen, a US Air flight attendant, was flying. "I felt safer when she was here."

He went to one psychologist after another seeking help. "The first three were very sympathetic and listened. All agreed he suffered from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), but each admitted to him that it was more than he could deal with. All wanted to medicate him. "I didn't want to be 'Prozac Mike.'"

Finally he found a psychologist who told him he was "disassociating." He disconnected from his surroundings and then snapped back with no concept of the length of time that had elapsed. This psychologist was able to help him, but "I had to embarrass US Air into covering the cost of the treatment for PTSD," explained Touhey.

In addition to talk therapy, the psychologist used energy modalities including electrotherapy stimulation during which he placed electrodes on Touhey's earlobes. "I felt a small pulsed electric current," he said. This low level current is believed to increase brain levels of serotonin and dopamine while decreasing cortisol levels. "I sat back, closed my eyes and thought about the morning of 9/11 while the psychologist controlled the electric current. It was as if I saw the whole thing in slow motion. I tried to bring myself back to that moment. It was almost like a high definition video camera. I could see it in slow motion. I very emotional and crying." He asked me, "What are you seeing now? What are you dealing with now? Then he asked me to think of something pleasant, something that makes me smile and laugh. That's when I felt change. I felt like putty. It worked. The way I look at things changed. It took me from the worst place I've ever been to a more comfortable place." After a half dozen hourly sessions, Touhey says he feels "more relaxed and alert."

"I was over-analyzing myself," explained Touhey. "Now I can just be."

Looking back at the morning of September 11, 2001, Touhey recalls, "One of the men had a palpable contempt in his eyes and the other, a goofy smile. I got a visceral reaction, a gut reaction, but didn't know where to go with that. I thought, 'If these guys don't look like Arab terrorists, who does?'" Then he added, "I mentally slapped myself, thinking, 'I have to be politically correct.' These guys paid big bucks, $2,400 in cash for first class one-way tickets connecting in Boston to Los Angeles. I thought, 'I better treat 'em right.' Little did I know I had the devil standing right in front of me."

He couldn't do much since the security regulations, which had been tightened to level three after the bombing of the USS Cole six months before, had been loosened to level two. "So I couldn't set them up for extra security as you could do with young Arab males prior to that time," Touhey said. However, he did put extra green tags on their checked bags. In accordance with the CAPS computer program, then in effect, that was a flag not to load the bags on the plane until the passenger had actually boarded.

Today, Touhey admits he's grown less politically correct, more suspicious and pays more attention to his gut instinct. "I've always hated political correctness. It grates on me."

"There's never a day that passes without thinking about that day. "It's just there. It's in my blood, in my system. It's like sky. It's always there." But he no longer feels responsible. He's at peace with the knowledge that he couldn't have done anything differently. He did call the FBI after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. His name — albeit misspelled — is marked in history in the first footnote of the 9/11 Commission's official report.

Touhey won't be watching the 9/11 coverage on TV. He's relived the events in his mind too many times. Instead he plans to sit by the lake and enjoy a leisurely lunch with a glass of wine at my home in western Maine. He wants to acknowledge this somber day with valued friendship and the beauty of nature as he does most days when he tends to his garden adjacent to his home in Scarborough, ME. He's proud of his lettuce and tomatoes... and his recovery.

Contact Susana K-M by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, September 12, 2011.

This was written by Seva Brodsky, and it's archived at


We were walking in Nazareth yesterday with some friends from a nearby kibbutz, and I saw the following display of religious sentiment (click here to see photo), which really shocked me. I couldn't believe my eyes. What do you think would happen in the US in a similar situation?

The photo shows a huge sign displayed near the entrance to one of the holiest churches in the whole of Christendom (Church of the Annunciation), so that all the Christian pilgrims and worshippers would see it clearly ("And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers" — Holy Quran).

The Christian Arab caretaker (in the Synagogue Church, where Jesus supposedly worshipped back in his day) complained about the sign. Our friends told us that the little mosque next to the sign was built when the city wanted to convert the adjacent parcel of real estate into a parking lot some years ago (in 2000?). The Islamists rebelled, insisting that it was some holy Muslim site, demanding to build a big mosque there. This led to riots and a large influx of Muslims from the West Bank to "protect" the site.

So, in the end, the "compromise" with the city was that a small mosque would be built and the remaining part of the lot would be converted into pedestrian area. Except I doubt that the offensive sign (or the Palestinian flags) were ever bargained for ... Incidentally, I also found this photo on the web, which is even more revealing, as it shows the full flag (of the Islamic Movement?). Does this constitute protected free speech according to Israeli law?

3. The sign on a building facing one of the major streets of the city states "Islamic Movement — Political Department".

I asked an Israeli lawyer friend of mine about the bigoted religious sign in the first picture: Was it protected by free speech according to the laws of Israel, or could it be construed as "hate speech"? What about the Palestinian flag — is that allowed as per the current legislation? I did not even bother asking about the Islamic Movement, which for some weird reason hasn't been outlawed yet. Here was his reply:

"In practice — PLO flags are not banned, because they also represent PNA (the authonomy), so there is decision of Supreme Court saying that it is OK. Regarding the sign — as long as it is by Muslims and not against them, the court will tolerate it. Furthermore, it is clearly free speech about religion on religious property. It is not against any particular religion, but it glorifies Islam."

It would be interesting to come up with some statements — even if remotely similar — from within Jewish and Christian canonical texts and to post them nearby, just to see what the reaction would be. Double standards? Ugh ...

I guess democracy IS a suicide pact, after all ...

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, September 12, 2011.

Be the first of your friends to like this.

So long as the West focuses on names and faces in the so-called "war on terror" — as opposed to focusing on ideas and motivations — so long will it possibly win battles, even as it slowly loses the war.

As we approach the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, we win another battle with the recent slaying of al-Qaeda's number 2. According to the Associated Press, "U.S. and Pakistani officials said Saturday that al-Qaida's second-in-command, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, has been killed in Pakistan, delivering another big blow to a terrorist group that the U.S. believes to be on the verge of defeat."

Splendid news. However, some context:

Before Osama bin Laden, the face of al-Qaeda, was killed, it made sense to announce, by way of prelude, the killing of various al-Qaeda members, such as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, Abu Ayub al-Masri, Abu Laith al-Libi, the notorious Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and any number of other "Abus" (and "Ibns"); it also made sense to exult, even if with hyperbolic headlines — "al-Qaeda receives devastating blow" — by way of saying the noose is tightening around bin Laden, who was next.

However, with the killing of bin Laden — the snakes head, the face of terror, the heart of al-Qaeda — it is becoming a bit redundant for the administration to continue boasting over the killing of yet one more al-Qaeda member; just as it is redundant to continue asserting that al-Qaeda is on the "verge of defeat."

After all, any number of analysts insisted that with the killing of bin Laden, al-Qaeda was as good as dead, thereby implying that whether this or that member gets killed is irrelevant. Peter Bergen, for example, declared that "Killing bin Laden is the end of the war on terror. We can just sort of announce that right now.... It's time to move on."

More to the point: the administration's inordinate focus and optimism over the killing of the latest al-Qaeda member (one can place past and future names here ______ ) ultimately exposes its myopic approach — an approach that tries to localize the problem, to give it a face, to treat it as a temporal and tangible entity that can be defeated through arms.

The unfortunate fact is that, even if al-Qaeda were totally eradicated tomorrow, the terror threat to the West would hardly recede, since al-Qaeda has never been the source of the threat, but simply one of its manifestations. The AP report obliquely reflects this: "Senior al-Qaida figures have been killed before, only to be replaced," even as the Obama administration is optimistic that "victory" is at hand.

To get a better perspective on the overall significance of the latest killing of an al-Qaeda member, consider how at the turn of the 20th century, the Islamic world was rushing to emulate the victorious and confident West — best exemplified by the Ottoman empire itself, the preserver and enforcer of Islam, rejecting its Muslim past and embracing secularism under Ataturk. Today, 100 years later, the Muslim world has largely rejected secularism and is reclaiming its Islamic — including jihadist — heritage, lashing out in a manifold of ways. Consider how many Islamist leaders, organizations, and terrorists have come and gone in the 20th century alone — many killed like bin Laden — only for the conflict between Islam and the West to continue growing by the day.

It's in this context that the Obama administration audaciously evokes the word "victory," simply because yet another jihadist has been killed.

This, of course, is to be expected, considering the administration, which has a tendency to censor words — and thus knowledge — concerning the nature of the threat, just released a much vaunted policy paper on countering terrorism that never once uses the word "Islam(ism)" or "radical Islam," while myopically fixating on al-Qaeda, one of countless jihadist organizations that seek to subjugate the West.

Despite its narrow approach, the administration itself has inadvertently conceded to the existential nature of the threat, as it has begun to acknowledge that lone wolf terrorists — jihadists who have no connection to al-Qaeda other than that they share the same worldview — are a greater threat.

As Attorney General Eric Holder put it, "the threat has changed ... to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born."

Note how Holder ignores the most important factor to understanding and ultimately defeating jihadists — their motivation — by dismissing it as "whatever reason." Even so, the administration's acknowledgement of the lone wolf jihad proves one thing: it is doctrinal ideologies floating among Muslims around the world — not just the caves of al-Qaeda — that create terror threats.

So when Counterterrorism chief John Brennan says that "Taking him out of commission is huge. There's not another bin Laden out there. I don't know if there's another Atiyah Abd al-Rahman out there" — he can rest assured that while those two are gone, countless are the no-names out to emulate them, in a myriad of ways.

To conclude, by all means, target and kill terrorists, singly and collectively, and rejoice over it; but keep in mind that even if al-Qaeda were expunged from existence, while that would be a battle well won, it would not be the end of the war, which has been prosecuted in various forms and frequencies for fourteen centuries, and will not end with the elimination of this or that individual or organization.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at This article appeared today in Hudson New York and is archived at 10294/winning-battle-al-qaeda-losing-war-jihad

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 11, 2011.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative — the ground Zero mosque project — "an independent, multi-faith and multinational project that works to improve Muslim-West relations," wants to unite all religious moderates behind him. He condemns (Wall St. J., September 8, 2011, op-ed) the mass-murderer in Norway as not being a true Christian. "...those who kill innocents in the name of Allah are not true Muslims."

Imam Rauf's Islamic community center in lower Manhattan touted reconciliation from 9/11. But "the vitriol hurled against me and Islam was overwhelming. Islam is evil, our critics said. The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim." He notes that those criticisms were recorded by the Norwegian murderer.

Quoting his prophet, Rauf asserts that Islam is a religion of peace. Rauf denounces terrorism against civilians in the West and among Muslims abroad. The real problem is extremism in all faiths, he concludes. Among them, he complains, "moderates have let themselves be hijacked by extremists." Is he right?


No, other religions have neither extremist ideologies nor extremist movements. Equating other religions with Islam, which has a jihadist tradition and a Radical Islamist movement, is unfair to other religions.


The analogy to the Norwegian fanatic is specious. Sane critics of Radical Islam are not responsible for warped decisions by a few lunatics. Rauf should know that. Demagogic arguments like that are suspect.


Reporting for, I heard the speeches by politicians, think tankers, heads of organizations opposed to the mosque site, first responders, and survivors at the big anti-Ground Zero Mosque rally. Some of them I knew. I read masses of signs, and spoke to members of the audience. One person condemned Islam, but all the rest accepted mosques elsewhere but not on land damaged on 9/11. They opposed Radical Islam's assault on the U.S.. Those familiar with Rauf's record saw in his project an attempt to propagandize for a gradual imposition of Islam on us.

The issues therefore are neither freedom of religion nor bigotry, but the feelings of the victimized and the true purpose of the Islamic center.

Most Americans oppose an Islamic center at ground zero. John Esposito, director of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University attributes that to American society being like the KKK or Nazis. As did Rauf in his Op.-Ed., Mayor Bloomberg and the New York Times smeared his critics as bigots (Brendan Goldman, American Thinker, 8/29/10

How moderate is tarring all his critics and critics of Radical Islam with the same brush as "extremist?" It is not mainstream to call most Americans Klan-like or Nazi-like. Does Mr. Esposito promote for religious understanding by falsely defaming our whole country? After being dishonest about their critics, how honest are Esposito's and Rauf's claim to be moderate?


Citing scripture to "prove" goodwill is an oldest ploy. But Islamic scripture's later teachings contradict its earlier teachings about tolerance and peace. Islamic jurists have resolved the contradictions by giving priority to the later parts. The later parts advocate intolerance and holy war. Imam Rauf cites the earlier parts that, as a clergyman, presumably he knows are not operative. Islam encourages such deceit of non-believers in behalf of Islam.

This kind of deception has been documented by Radical Muslims in America and in the Palestinian Authority. They tell Western audiences one thing and their own people the opposite. Palestinian Arab leader Abbas still does. Likewise, heads of major U.S. Muslim organizations pretend to be moderate, but defend terrorist organizations and have ties to them.


Imam Rauf has a record of extremism. For example, he called America an accessory to 9/11. Rauf has accepted funding before from Radical Muslims. He is cagey about who will fund the current mosque project.

Rauf must consider Sheikh Qaradawi a moderate Muslim, when calling him "the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today." But Qardawi said that Hitler "put the Jews in their place," that homosexuals deserve execution, and that women should undergo a genital operation to protect their chastity. Qaradawi is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and supports Palestinian Arab suicide bombings (Brendan Goldman, American Thinker, 8/29/10.). Does Rauf really not know Qaradawi is a radical and favors terrorism that Rauf claims to oppose?

When asked if he condemns Hamas terrorism, Rauf replied, "...the issue of terrorism is a very complex question." [Muslim authorities may tell us they oppose killing innocent people, but to their own people, they rationalize murdering Israeli civilians of any age.]

Rauf named the ground zero mosque "The Cordoba Initiative." When the jihadists conquered Spain in 711, they converted the Cordoba cathedral into a mosque. It became the Islamic center of Spain, which some of them, in accordance with Islamic principles, have stated a desire to reclaim. To Muslims, the ground zero mosque would represent a triumph of jihad. Once established, Western officials have found, radical mosques are difficult to shut down (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/22 from August 20, 2010 — Rael Jean Isaac publications/id.7115/pub_detail.asp ).


Islam has been engaged in jihad for centuries, when and where it can. Radical Muslims are inciting the masses to rejoin them in the name of actual Islamic principles. Radicals have been demeaning and attacking us Americans for years. The motive is religious, the action is aggression.

What is needed by Muslim clergy who claim to be moderate is not an Islamic center of interfaith tolerance. The other religions are tolerant. It insults them to suggest that they need lessons in tolerance, when it is the aggressors who need to become tolerant.

Therefore, let imam Rauf denounce specific Islamist organizations for their intolerance and violence, instead of making general statements against terrorism! Let him denounce Saudi Arabian domination of most mosque clergy and some university centers of Middle East studies. Let him identify extremists both because of their violence because of their preaching. Let him demonstrate to his co-religionists that the Radical Islamist ideology is repugnant to Islam. Let him organize supposed moderates against extremists. Let him prove himself a fighter against Radical Islam!

If Radicals have hijacked Islam, let Rauf rescue it! His quarrel is with them.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Glenn Fischer, September 11, 2011.

This column was first published on Sept. 12, 2001, and received an extraordinary response from readers worldwide. It's likely the most read column in the English language on 9/11. It was written by Leonard Pitts, Jr. and it appeared in the Miami Herald. Leonard Pitts Jr. ( Leonard Pitts Jr. won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2004. He is the author of Becoming Dad: Black Men and the Journey to Fatherhood. he blogs at


It's my job to have something to say.

They pay me to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.

You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.

What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed.

Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause.

Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.

Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.

Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, social, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae — a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though — peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.

Some people — you, perhaps — think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals.


Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel. Both in terms of the awful scope of their ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the United States and, probably, the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before.

But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.

I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future.

In the days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.


You see, the steel in us is not always readily apparent. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold.

As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.

So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you just started.

But you're about to learn.

Contact Glenn Fischer by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 11, 2011.

There is no way to begin my post today with anything other than an acknowledgement of the fact that this is the tenth anniversary of the most horrendous terror attack the United States has ever know.

I salute the memory of the thousands inside the Twin Towers who died that day, and the bravery and selflessness of those who rushed to help, whether as professionals such as firefighters or volunteers.


Along with the memorials and the painful recollections, however, it is critical to ask, "And so...?" Where has the last ten years led the United States?

In this regard, I'd like to share the thoughts of Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council and editor of the Journal of International Security Affairs.

In a piece called "Defining Terrorism Down: A decade later, a wider war on terror is needed," he addresses the very serious problem of a US that minimalizes the current struggle against terrorism. Read it and take it to heart. Lives are on the line here. (All emphasis has been added.)

"Listening to the rhetoric of the White House, it would be easy to get the impression that Washington is just days away from declaring 'Mission accomplished'...

"Such triumphalism, however, is both premature and unfounded. After all, the contemporary terrorist threat confronting the United States and its allies is considerably larger than just al Qaeda. America today faces a trio of distinct — and daunting — strategic challenges.

"The first is the Sunni jihadist front embodied by al Qaeda, its affiliates and its ideological fellow travelers...while al Qaeda may be down, it decidedly is not out...the organization remains relevant, operating through regional franchises such as North Africa's al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its Persian Gulf branch, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. More dangerous still, the group's ideology has become a source of inspiration for a diverse network of radical cells and "'one wolves' the world over, which have shown both the ability and the resolve to take up al Qaeda's war against the West as their own.

"The second challenge confronting the United States and its allies is a state-centric, mostly Shia global movement that is tethered to one nation: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nearly all of the groups that make up this radical collective (from Lebanon's Hezbollah to Iraq's disparate Shia militias to various Palestinian rejectionist groups) rely extensively on Tehran for economic, political and ideological support. The scope of that assistance is staggering...

"Perhaps America's most important contest, however, lies within the Muslim world itself. Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion. Its adherents already make up as much as one-fifth of humanity, and...its ranks are poised to swell in coming generations. Although those who hold the most extreme interpretations of the religion are a distinct minority, a substantially larger percentage has proved itself sympathetic to at least certain elements of that worldview, from support for the spread of Shariah to antipathy toward the United States. Islamists of all political stripes understand this state of affairs very well and, as a result, have made it their mission to court, engage and exploit this constituency. That, in turn, makes Islam's 'undecided voters' — those who have not yet become irreconcilably opposed to the West — the center of gravity in the current conflict and the place where our struggle against the extremist ideology of our adversaries will be won or lost.

"Washington, however, has been woefully slow to adapt to these challenges. During the George W. Bush era, America's post-Sept. 11 offensive against al Qaeda and its Afghan hosts, the Taliban, set in motion a sweeping worldwide counterterrorism campaign that for a time put the United States on the offensive...

Since taking office, Team Obama has taken a rather different tack. President Obama undoubtedly deserves credit for the May killing of bin Laden...His administration also has become noticeably more aggressive in prosecuting the tactical campaign against jihadist elements in a number of theaters, including South Asia and Southwest Asia. At the same time, however, the White House has waged a persistent campaign to downgrade the intellectual parameters of our current struggle from a comprehensive 'war on terror'" to a more modest series of 'overseas contingency operations.'

The results are more than merely semantic. The Obama administration's latest counterterrorism strategy, released publicly in late June, paints a simplistic picture of the contemporary threat, focusing exclusively on the state of America's campaign against al Qaeda and its affiliates...

"...the Obama administration's counterterrorism strategy represents nothing so much as an exercise in deliberate minimalism. It defines down the contemporary threat arrayed against the United States and its allies and enables official Washington to declare imminent victory against it. Strategically, however, such an approach is both counterproductive and deeply dangerous. That is because the past decade has shown radical Islam to be a phenomenon that is far-flung, resilient and complex. We ignore its scope — and its menace — at our own great peril." defining-terrorism-down


Caroline Glick, writing in "The war America fights," also looks at problems inherent in the way that the US is fighting terror.

Beyond the fact that "the US has unevenly applied its tactic of denying terrorists free rein in territory of their choosing," she pinpoints two major concerns. And these are concerns that I, too, have addressed time and time again. (Here, again, all emphasis has been added.)

"...since September 11, 2001, the US has steadfastly refused to admit the identity of the enemy it seeks to defeat.

"US leaders have called that enemy al-Qaida, they have called it extremism or extremists, fringe elements of Islam and radicals. But of course the enemy is jihadist Islam which seeks global leadership and the destruction of Western civilization. Al-Qaida is simply an organization that fights on the enemy's side. As long as the enemy is left unaddressed, organizations like al-Qaida will continue to proliferate."

"[The refusal of US authorities] to acknowledge the nature of the enemy has paralyzed their ability to confront and defeat threats as they arise. For instance, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was not removed from service or investigated, despite his known support for jihad and his communication with leading jihadists. Rather, he was promoted and placed in a position where he was capable of massacring 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood, Texas.

"Had the US not been in denial about the identity of its enemy, Hasan's victims would likely be alive today.

"So too, the US's refusal to identify its enemy has made it impossible for US officials to understand and contend with the mounting threat from Turkey. Because the US refuses to recognize radical Islam as its enemy, it fails to connect Turkey's erratic and increasingly hostile behavior to the fact that the country is ruled by an Islamist government.

"... the US's refusal to reckon with the fact that radical Islam is the enemy fighting it bodes ill for the future. Quite simply, America is willfully blinding itself to emerging dangers. These dangers are particularly acute in Egypt where the US has completely failed to recognize the threat the Muslim Brotherhood constitutes to its core regional interests and its national security.

"The last problem intrinsic to the US's War on Terror is the persistent and powerful strain of appeasement that guides so much of US policy towards the Muslim world.

"This appeasement is multifaceted and pervades nearly every aspect of the US's relations with the Islamic world.

"The urge to appeasement caused the US to divorce the Islamic jihad against the US from the Islamic jihad against Israel from the outset.

"Appeasement has been the chief motivating factor informing the US's intense support for Palestinian statehood and its refusal to reassess this policy in the face of Palestinian terrorism, jihadism and close ties with Iran.

"Appeasement provoked the US to embrace radical Islamic religious leaders and terror operatives such as Sami Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi as credible leaders in the US Muslim community...

"Appeasement stood behind the US's bid to try to entice Iran to end its nuclear weapons programs with grand bargains.

"It motivated US's decision not to confront Syria on its known support for al-Qaida and Hezbollah as well as Palestinian terror groups...

"It motivated US's decision not to confront Syria on its known support for al-Qaida and Hezbollah as well as Palestinian terror groups...

"WHEN A nation engages in appeasement at the same time it wages war, its appeasement efforts always undermine its war efforts. This is particularly the case, however, in long-term wars of containment such as the one the US is fighting against Islamic terrorism...

"...the US's moves to appease its enemies empower them to keep fighting.

"Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are far stronger militarily today than they were on September 11, 2001. Hamas controls Gaza and would likely win any Palestinian elections.

"Hezbollah controls Lebanon.

"Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons and is poised to become the predominant power in Iraq. Its Egyptian nemesis Hosni Mubarak is gone.

"Ten years ago Iran and its terror allies and proxies could have only dreamed of having the presence on the Western Hemisphere they enjoy today.

"The US was able to win the Cold War through its policy of containment because throughout the long conflict there was strong majority support in the US for continuing to pursue the war effort...

"The US government's moves to appease its Islamic enemies undermine the domestic consensus supporting the War on Terror. And without such domestic solidarity around the necessity of combating jihadist terrorists, there is little chance that the US will be able to continue to enact its containment strategy for long enough to facilitate victory.

"...since it came to power in January 2009 the Obama administration has worked intensively to confuse the American people about its nature, necessity and goals. President Barack Obama dropped the name 'War on Terror' for the nebulous 'overseas contingency operation.' He has rejected the term 'terrorism,' and expunged the term 'jihad' from the official lexicon. In so doing, he made it impermissible for US government officials to hold coherent discussions about the war they are charged with waging. Meanwhile, the public has been invited to question whether the US has the right to fight at all.

"Today the events of September 11 are still vivid enough in the American memory for America to continue the fight despite the administration's efforts to discredit the war in the national discourse and imagination. But how long will that memory be strong enough to serve as the primary legitimating force behind a war that even in its limited form is far from won?" 2011/09/the-war-america-fights.php


Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reflects the same attitude when he writes, "A Decade Out, We're Losing: The US has handed the reins to the jihadists through its policy of endlessly appeasing Muslims." (Emphasis added)

"Ten years after 9/11, the war on terror is far from over, and we are losing it.

"We were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by Islamic jihadists who explained, in writings they left behind, that they were committing mass murder in the name of Islam, inspired by the teachings of Islam, and in defense, as they saw it, of Islam...

"Yet 10 years later, it is not only the height of political incorrectness to speak about the motives and goals of those who attacked the United States on that terrible day. It is explicitly against United States government policy to look into such matters.

"Ten years after 9/11, we have a President who has communicated in numerous ways that the United States' new primary response to Islamic jihad terror is to redress what Muslims perceive as grievances. Barack Obama​ has even declared: 'I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.'

"Obama's policies toward Islamic terrorism proceed consistently from the assumption that the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is entirely the West's fault, and that he can thus bring that conflict to an end by means of sufficiently generous overtures to the Islamic world." 09/a-decade-out-were-losing.html


Perhaps you will feel alarmed after reading all of this. Sickened. Spittin' mad. But this is how you should be feeling. Be alarmed, and sickened and spittin' mad enough to keep this post, think seriously about it, and share it widely.

If you love American, push for this to be a major focus of presidential debates and at the core of decisions on who should next be president of the US.

Spencer assures us, "Losing" is not the same as "lost." Be part of the effort to turn around a deplorable situation.


Now, the "catch-up" that has been waiting for some days:

The "social justice movement"/"housing protest" held a final major series of demonstrations last Motzei Shabbat (Saturday night). It was supposed to be the finale of the protest phase of the push to find solutions to the problems that were highlighted. Events were held in a variety of places, and the numbers were definitely large; but I will not cite the numbers provided as I've learned again and again that such figures are often inflated.

A host of commentators see this movement as having the political goal of infusing left wing persons, parties, and policies into the government.

After this, tents were supposed to be folded (although this has not been done cooperatively in all cases) and negotiations with the government are now supposed to follow.

Today the JPost has run an editorial on this issue. It suggests that the Trajtenberg Committee — which has been charged by the government with meeting with the protesters and developing recommendations for solutions — is lost before it even begins. Chair of the leftist Histradrut labor federation, Ofer Eini, it seems, has already mocked potential Trajtenberg solutions because "all" that it will be doing is reallocating some two to three billion shekels, moving it from one budget line to another. Eini, you see, is annoyed because the Committee's brief is to stay within budget parameters. But he would like to see expenditures of some 20 billion shekel each year beyond what is in the budget. That is, he wants to see the government go seriously into debt.

It is not going to happen, because Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is trained in economics, and Finance Minister, Yuval Steinitz, and others in the government know better. They know this would be the way to disaster. The irony is that Standard and Poor's has just raised Israel's credit rating from A to A+. This is not about to be undone.


And what of that wearisome subject, the Palestinian Arabs and the UN?

A few days ago, the PLO let it be known that the Palestinian Authority was without the legal jurisdiction to speak on behalf of all the Palestinian people at the UN — only the PLO could do that.

Shortly thereafter, a number of Palestinian Arabs factions or a coalition of activists — they have been only vaguely identified — submitted a letter to the UN offices in Ramallah urging UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to "add his moral voice in support of the Palestinian people." The letter was carried by a woman who has several sons in Israeli prisons. Cute.

The PA has let it be known that this was not an official act and that Mahmoud Abbas, conducting himself on behalf of the PA — apparently in disregard of the PLO statement — would be submitting an official request to the UN soon.

Frenzied last minute attempts by the US government to bring Abbas back to the negotiating table have, of course, been futile.


Two points worth making with regard to the PA/UN issue. First, at long last, there was a formal statement from the US regarding the fact that it would veto a PA request in the Security Council.

Then I want to note a news item from last week indicating that in recent months the Shin Bet (Israeli security forces) have arrested dozens of Hamas terror suspects belonging to 13 different terror cells in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. A number of terror attacks were planned, including one 2-1/2 weeks ago that was supposed to include a suicide bombing in Jerusalem and abduction of an IDF soldier.

Very simply, Hamas is seeking to bolster its strength in Judea and Samaria. PA security forces — some of whom have been supported and trained by the US precisely for the purpose of responding to Hamas — either are not able to do so, or (very likely!) have no will to do so. Give the PA a state, and in due course it will go the way of Gaza. But the world pays this possibility little mind.


And then...Turkey. On September 2, the UN Palmer Commission presented its long-delayed report on the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident to Ban Ki Moon. A day prior, the contents had been leaked.

The report concluded that Israel faces "a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law."

The report acknowledged that the Israeli Navy "faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara, requiring them to use force for their own protection."

However, it further concluded that Israel's force was "excessive," and that it would be appropriate for Israel to issue of statement of regret (which Israel had already done). No apology was called for.

The further recommendation was that in the interest of stability in the Middle East relations between the two countries should be repaired.


Turkey's response to this, however, has been enormously hostile and belligerent: Apologize, Ankara told the Israeli government, or face repercussions.

Diplomatic relations with Israel have been downgraded by Turkey, so that the ambassador, Gabi Levi, is now persona non grata, and all diplomats above the "second secretary level" (the lowest level in the Israeli foreign service) have been ordered out. There apparently remains some question as to whether an Israeli military attache will be permitted to remain in the country. (Israel would prefer that he remain in order to keep channels of communication open.)

Israel travelers were severely harassed in the airport in Istanbul (although there was some question as to whether orders came from the government on this).

There has been serious saber rattling by Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who last Thursday said that Turkish war ships would accompany the next flotilla and that in time Turkish ships would move to break the Gaza blockade directly. He has since backed down from some of this.


The good news here is that Netanyahu did not budge with regard to the Turkish demand that Israel apologize, saying that foreign relations cannot be conducted on the basis of threats. In fact, last week he went to a naval base in Haifa and addressed "officers and comrades-in-arms" who were involved with the Mavi Marmara, telling them that "we are proud of you. We salute you."

A remaining problem to be dealt with is the potential legal liability of individual officers involved Israel is working on this.

Shin Bet, I will add in closing, saying that Hamas has established a command post in Turkey.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Ehrenfeld, September 11, 2011.

This is an article written by Pesach Benson that appeared in Honest Reporting Backspin wikileaks-media-relations-hezbollah-style/


We've known about Hezbollah's media strong-arm tactics with Western journalists. Even Nic Robertson admitted during the 2006 Lebanon War that he was a tool of Hezbollah.

Now WikiLeaks paints an even bleaker for Taher Abbas, a journalist with the misfortune of living in — of all places — Beirut's Dahiya neighborhood, where Hezbollah is based.

According to the confidential cable, which was sent by US ambassador to Lebanon Michele Sison to the State Department in 2009, Hezbollah members repeatedly harassed a Lebanese reporter known for his disdain for the Shiite organization.

Sison said that after Taher Abbas, who reported for the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, returned from the US after covering the last presidential election, three Hezbollah members came to his home and interrogated him over his and his family's life. They asked what cars he and his wife drive, where his kids go to school and whether he had internet access. They even asked about his eight-year-old daughter's political opinions.


The eerie encounter with the Hezbollah operatives did not end with the interrogation; Abbas said he was followed, and his phones were tapped. Abbas' friends even told him that the Shiite organization has spies stationed in residential buildings in his neighborhood, who report an unusual activity.

Although this doesn't appear to be the case with Abbas, journalists often put up with intimidation because they don't want to lose access. The classic example of sacrificing principles for access is CNN in Iraq, as former executive Eason Jordan admitted. However, Michael Totten says losing access to Hezbollah is "no big deal."

This is how Hezbollah treats Western journalists. I'd say I'm surprised more journalists don't mention this sort of thing in their articles. But most journalists don't write first-person narratives. Industry rules generally don't allow them to describe these kinds of incidents. Even though it has been years since Hezbollah has kidnapped or physically harmed Western journalists, some may be afraid to rile up an Iranian proxy militia that is listed by the United States government as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah informed me that I'm officially blacklisted (meaning they will no longer give me interviews or even quotes) for what I have written about them in the past.

Some journalists don't want to burn bridges to their own access and make their jobs harder. I don't personally care. Last year I interviewed a high-level Hezbollah official, Mohammad Afif, but it was a useless interview that wasn't even worth publishing. My translator told me that what Afif said matched exactly word-for-word what Hezbollah says every day on their own Al Manar TV channel. Losing access to these guys isn't that big a deal.

Small consolation to Taher Abbas. He lives in the Dahiya.

I invite Palestinian journos living in Hamas or Fatah neighborhoods to commiserate in the comments section.

Contact Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 10, 2011.

Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

Having spent the last couple of posting focused on campus anti-Semitism, I anticipated the need for some news catch-up. But what has happened is that news has caught up with me. I write now not to review, but to share a very current event — one that transpired over Shabbat and which I have just learned about.

After sundown on Friday night, some hundreds of Egyptians — referred to as "rioters" or "protestors" depending on the source — overran the Israeli embassy in Cairo.

This was not all together a surprise. If you remember, the Israeli flag was torn down from the Embassy recently by an Egyptian, who was then made a popular hero as a result. About three weeks ago, Egyptian security forces arranged for the construction of a concrete security wall of some substance around the building where the Israeli Embassy is housed, precisely because of concern that rioters might cause trouble.

Well, they have:

Embassy Takeover (MSNBC)


After the wall was broken down, some dozens of rioters entered the building, moved to the third floor and began ransacking offices. During this period, Egyptian police did nothing to intervene, but ultimately cleared out the rioters.

In the early morning hours two Israeli planes were sent into Cairo, and came back with Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Levanon and some 80 people, including Embassy diplomatic staff and their families. I have no information on how they were brought out of the building. Netanyahu, addressing the nation tonight, said, "We only had one mission in mind — to ensure the safety of the Israeli envoys in Egypt."

Netanyahu had called President Obama at about 2 AM and asked for his assistance. The president's reply: "I will do whatever I can." "I think we owe him a special thanks," Netanyahu said tonight. Obama applied leverage which, it is believed, helped to move Egyptian security forces to finally act.

After the Embassy staff had been rescued — and it's unclear as to whether Obama's pressure had come early enough to facilitate this — six Israeli security officers were left stranded inside the building. With one metal door between them and the rioters, they were frightened for their lives. And it is here that the American intervention apparently did make a difference: Egyptian commandos, apparently acting after the rioters had been driven from the building, dressed the Israelis as Arabs and slipped them out. They have returned to Israel now as well. Foreign Minister Lieberman praised them for behaving professionally and with cool heads.


A bit of background here: The crowds that rioted at the Embassy had not come out solely for this purpose. Thousands were demonstrating in Tahrir Square in Cairo against the military regime because they was not instituting reforms quickly enough. Part of what was protested was the continuation of the peace treaty with Israel, and the readiness to continue to export natural gas to Israel.

There was also anger about the fact that Israel had killed Egyptian security forces in the Sinai, during the operation outside Eilat when terrorists had attacked. There is no public clarification that I am aware of with regard to this situation: the terrorists had worn Egyptian uniforms, and it seems to me not all together certain as to who in Egyptian uniform had done what, nor certain as to what the line of fire was when these forces were shot. The Israeli forces were aiming from the Israeli into the Sinai, returning fire that had presumably originated with the terrorists. But, at any rate, the crowd was angry.


Given this background, it is difficult to determine to what degree the Egyptian authorities had failed to intervene last night because they were quite content to allow the crowd to go after the Israeli Embassy, and to what degree because they were feeling somewhat beleaguered already. Probably some combination of the two. It does seem that the military regime is skating on thin ice.

According to a report from YNet, both Netanyahu and Barak had tried to reach Mohammed Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Military Council, during the night, but were told repeatedly that "he could not be located." He was avoiding a political hot potato.

During his TV statement tonight, Netanyahu said that Israel was working with the Egyptian government for the return of the Israeli diplomatic staff to Cairo. Israel would stand by the peace treaty with Egypt. (Right now, as I understand it, one Israeli diplomat remains in Cairo to retain the Israeli presence there — who this is and where he is, I do not know.)

Egypt's ruling powers, whatever their ambivalence about Israel, and the insecurity of their position, are giving no overt sign of wanting to break that treaty. It is absolutely in their best interest to retain it: the last thing they need at present is a reduction in financial support from the US (which is predicated on that treaty) or war with Israel.

Egyptian officials say that some of the rioters and those who instigated the riots have been apprehended and will be tried in state court under emergency provisions. And some apology or regret for what transpired has been expressed.

Egypt has taken criticism for the attack on the Israeli Embassy from many quarters — because this is something that is not supposed to happen. Even Bahrain's foreign minister has said that, "the failure to defend the embassy building is a blatant violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations."


That "catch-up" as well as follow-up on this will follow soon.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, September 10, 2011.

The world is now well into the post-Oslo era, in which the delusions and denials of reality that were the foundations of the "Oslo peace process" are being acknowledged for what they were. For those returning to the planet Earth from Fantasyland in the "Oslo" parallel universe, it behooves them and us all to bear in mind some of the unpleasant facts of life about the Middle East.

1. The Arab world has never come to terms with Israel's existence within ANY set of borders whatsoever and is still seeking the destruction of Israel and its population.

2. ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, and not stability nor peaceful relations. It will seek warfare with Israel and not solutions to the economic and social problems of its citizens.

3. The only reason Arafat and the PLO ever wanted control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was to use them as bases for attacks on Israel. This is the only real use to which they will be put by any future Palestinian state.

4. There is no alternative that will stop the bloodshed and war in the Middle East other than the adoption by Israel of an unambiguous policy of R&D, that is, of Re-Occupation and Denazification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Every other alternative proposal for stabilization and pacification is delusional.

5. Denazification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip must be based partly on the programs of Denazification imposed on Germany and Japan by the Allies after World War II, but in part must be different. Such Denazification policies will have to stay in place for decades. There is no other way in which Israel can prevent the daily massacre of its civilians by the Palestinian terrorists.

6. The bulk of Palestinians have lived outside Israeli "occupation" for years, and their "liberation" from Israeli "occupation" only produced Nazification, terrorism, mass murders, and radicalization. Their pacification requires re-imposing of martial rule by Israel.

7. The instability of the Middle East is not caused by Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands but by PLO-Hamas occupation of Israeli lands. 8. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state.

9. The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the right to set up their own state. It is doubtful whether they ever did have such a right, but even if they did — they forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism. Like the Sudeten Germans.

10. Palestinians are Arabs. The Arabs already rule 22 states. There is no reason why they should be entitled to a 23rd, and creation of such a 23rd Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza will escalate Middle East violence and world terrorism.

11. The Palestinians are not and never were a "nation". They are not even a tribe. They are a branch of Arabs with only minor secondary cultural differences that distinguish them from Syrians, Lebanese or Jordanians.

12. The Middle East conflict cannot be resolved through endless exhibitions of niceness and restraint by Israel. Israeli niceness, restraint, and goodwill gestures are interpreted by the Arab world as weakness and as signs that the Jews, like Paul McCartney's Band, are on the run.

13. The Palestinians are not "mistreated" by Israel, but ARE poorly treated by the PLO and Hamas.

14. The only Arabs in the Middle East with any semblance of civil rights are those who live under Israeli rule.

15. Israeli Arabs are the best-treated minority in the Middle East and are treated far better than are Arabs living in Arab states. If the intifada "uprising" were in fact a product of oppression and mistreatment of Arabs by a government, then Israel should be the only country in the Middle East that does NOT have an intifada.

16. Oslo has radicalized and Nazified most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties and politicians who call openly for violence against Jews and the destruction of Israel.

17. There exists no set of concessions by Israel that would result in the Arab states coming to terms with Israel's existence.

18. There are no Arab democracies and no support for democracy among significant minorities within the Arab world.

19. Israeli assassination of Palestinian terrorists is in fact a substitute for retaliation in kind against the Palestinians for bombings of Israeli children and other civilians. The alternative to such assassinations is bombings of Palestinian civilians.

20. Israeli settlements are the "mine canaries" of the Arab world. There is no reason why Jewish civilians should not be free to live in peace within Arab countries truly seeking peace with Israel, just as Arabs live at peace within Israel and within the United States. The attitude of the Arab world in general and of the PLO in particular towards such "settlements" is indicative of their attitudes towards Israel and Jews in general. If the Palestinians are NOT seeking peace with the Jews, and they are not, then the real problem is that Israel has built too few settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

21. Today it is the purpose of Israeli settlements to prevent replication of Gaza in the West Bank. To do so, Israel needs to build MORE settlements!

22. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate.

23. There is an inverse relationship between the material comfort of Arabs living under Israeli rule and political moderation. The better off they are in a material sense, the more violent and radical they are. More generally, Arab radicalism and terror are positively correlated with comfort and education and wealth. Bin Laden and his people were filthy rich. There have been no undernourished Palestinian suicide bombers.

24. Palestinians endorse terrorism and violence against Jews by near-universal majorities.

25. Israeli Arabs endorse terror and violence against Jews by large majorities. They also support al-Qaeda.

26. There are no visible Palestinian public figures who oppose violence, terror and Islamist fascism.

27. There is not and never has been a Palestinian "peace movement".

28. The PLO is itself very much a manifestation of Islamist fascism and was founded by Islamist fundamentalists.

29. Peace cannot be achieved through pretending that war does not exist.

30. The Israeli Left is responsible for the bloodshed in Israel. The Israeli Left rescued the PLO from oblivion in the early 1990s, armed it, and allowed it to become entrenched in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israeli Left is as wacky as is the pro-Taliban campus Left in the United States.

31. The only peaceful terrorist is a dead terrorist.

32. Israel cannot restore the credibility of its military prowess through "signaling," but rather only through using that prowess and putting its military might to actual use. .

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 His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, September 10, 2011.

The most incredible article I read in years (and I read many a day)... Not only brilliant, but funny to extreme.

It was written by Daniel K. Eisenbud, columnist and member of The Jerusalem Post's editorial staff. He made aliya from New York City in July 2010, and resides in Jerusalem. It appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post Article.aspx?id=237211


It's simply not enough to inherently know that someone is spreading lies — we must also be able to state the facts ourselves, in real time.

By every conceivable metric, the Jewish People is the most unfairly and egregiously vilified subgroup in the history of mankind.

For millennia, we have been chronically alienated, expelled, hunted, humiliated, tortured, murdered to the point of near extinction — and to add insult to injury, we continue to be flagrantly libeled by the world's media, governments and academic institutions.

Yet we remain the gift that just keeps giving, don't we?

Indeed, despite being an unparalleled receptor of the most vile and irrational venom ever formulated, we continue to thrive disproportionately in virtually every vocation requiring intellect.

To be sure, regardless of constituting a paltry 0.2 percent of the world's population, Jews have been awarded a mind-blowing 22% of all Nobel prizes, 25% of all Kyoto prizes, 33% of all Wolf Foundation prizes, and a staggering 38% of all US National Medal of Science prizes.

If there has ever been proof of Mark Twain's maxim that it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog, Jews have substantiated it beyond a shadow of doubt.

And despite being a canine roughly the size of one of Paris Hilton's designer-purse dogs (comparatively speaking), we remain the toughest, most resilient and smartest breed of dog on the planet.

We have repeatedly and irrefutably proven (on a biblical scale, no less!) that notwithstanding our diminutive size, we can put a pack of rabid Rottweilers down faster than you can say "Baruch Hashem."

THEREFORE, IT is utterly ludicrous that there remains one very simple question that continues to vex us all: How is it that we are losing the "intellectual war" — a war based on a narrative that should play to our greatest strengths?

Metaphorically it's the equivalent of Eddie Murphy losing to Al Gore in a stand-up comedy competition. It's inconceivable.

Nonetheless, we are being defeated at our own game.

Now, certainly, it is fair to argue that the game is fixed — that anti-Semitism makes any chance of a fair fight laughable. And there's undeniable truth to that contention.

However, we have been winning fixed fights for the duration of our existence — frequently with one hand tied behind our backs, and the other hand sporting broken and bloodied fingers and knuckles.

So let's not wallow in the absurdity of our poor odds. It's self-defeating, and a given that must be accepted. As my wise grandmother Carola would say: "It is what it is."

That said, it is first important to define what the intellectual war is.

SIMPLY STATED, it is the fight for minds and hearts. And while the mind and heart are clearly disparate entities with wholly different functions, they cannot be considered mutually exclusive in this particular equation. That is because we can't win this war with one and not the other.

As we all know, anti-Semitism is driven as much by emotion as it is by intellect (if not far more). However, as powerful as emotion is, it is generally rendered useless in the face of irrefutable truth. Of proof.

For example, while the vast majority of anti-Semites fervently hate Jews, if you were to ask them to articulate why this is so, they would be hard-pressed to present a cogent argument based on fact.

Instead, they would likely restate hackneyed lies, including the Jewish-led execution of Jesus, varying blood libels, the Israeli-created "apartheid state" of the Palestinians, and the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world — all of which have no merit whatsoever.

If subsequently convinced that each of their arguments are false, even a fool would be reluctant to debate unequivocal lies. Therefore, we must change the false narrative propagated by each person and news cycle by utilizing the power of truth.

AS THE great Twain also said: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

But to successfully combat the onslaught of lies, we must first ask ourselves how effective we are individually in dispelling the myths of the Jewish people in a constructive manner.

I think most of us would be surprised by how little Jews of all ages and stripes truly know about the facts of our past and present necessary to effectively neutralize the lies against us.

Indeed, if you were to go to any given American college campus — which, as we all know, is fertile ground for brainwashing students of all backgrounds (including Jews) into unjustly bashing Israel — how many of the Jewish students are knowledgeable enough about the lies and misconceptions generated about Israel to constructively defend it?

While there are no substantive data on this subject, empirically it's safe to say that we'd all be unpleasantly surprised by the nominal number of students who fit that description.

Truthfully, how many of the "grown-up" Jews you know are intellectually equipped with enough factual information to disarm a person espousing patent lies about us and our homeland?

It's simply not enough to inherently know that someone is spreading lies — we must also be able to state the facts ourselves, on the spot, backward and forward, in real time.

Otherwise, all we're going to do is participate in the same never-ending shouting match that leaves everyone within hearing distance as ill-informed, angry and deaf to the truth as they were before it took place.

THEREFORE, OUR goal is twofold: (1) to aggressively inform ourselves of all the lies propagated about Israel; and (2) to change that false narrative in a way that resonates emotionally — in a way that is constructive.

The former cannot be accomplished without everyone in the Jewish community making a concerted effort to know their facts inside and out. And the latter cannot be accomplished by being, as my father would say, "dead right" — which is the equivalent of being intellectually correct, but self-damaging.

That said, the way truth is spread is as important as the truth itself. So we must be right without beating potential intellectual converts and allies over the head with an anvil.

That's where the heart comes into play.

Ultimately the only way to win this war is to change the narrative by ensuring that our intellectual soldiers are armed with the facts needed to do so — and that those facts are spread quickly, calmly, rationally, and without condescension or anger, which only creates an endless contagion effect.

WE DON'T have the luxury of a fair fight — nor, as Golda Meir once said, of receiving the most beautiful eulogy in history.

Undoubtedly, military might is essential in containing this war, but attempting to win it with missiles alone is the equivalent of using a few million hammers to destroy billions of perennially reproducing locusts. It's simply impractical.

In the end, the war against the Jewish people will not be won with our missiles, but with our hearts and minds — the most powerful weapons we have.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to Visit his website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 10, 2011.


The Deal

The federal government wants to "sell" 125 more Abrams tanks, related equipment, training, and other munitions to Egypt. Congress has final word whether to authorize this. The proposal is made despite continued demonstrations in Egypt that indicate lack of stability there.

The Pentagon advises Congress that "the sale of the tanks would contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East."

"The sale would provide Egypt with a modern tank fleet, enhancing its capability to meet current and future threats, the Pentagon further stated."

"News of the deal raised eyebrows in Israel, which has carefully watched arms sales to Egypt ever since Cairo began to receive annual military aid of some $1.3b from the United States following the peace treaty the two neighbors signed in 1979." Israel is concerned that the next elections could leave radicals in charge of Egypt's first class military machine (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, 7/10/11

Israel Lobby Inert?

What does "Israel carefully watches arms sales to Egypt" mean? The arms flow! What an example for refuting the notion of the Israel lobby dictating U.S. Mideast policy!

Deal Justification Contradicts Reality

Egypt already has a modern tank fleet of 1,000. Egypt is not a force for economic progress. Its own economy generates little income. Egypt may run out of funds and food in months. Somewhat friendly toward the U.S. before, Egypt is less so now and may well become even less so.

More A Subsidy Of Aggressor Than A Sale

The total, official military subsidy of Egypt since 1979 is $40 billion. But the U.S. also has donated billions of dollars for civilian use. Those additional billions may have enabled Egypt to divert domestic revenues to the military. Egypt certainly has built a formidable military.

To call the proposed deal a "sale" makes it seem as if it benefits the U.S. economy. But you can see that the effect is for U.S. taxpayers to pay for the military manufacturing. The language accompanying the contract proposal being sent to Congress is boilerplate. Such proposals are worded automatically, without study and regardless of circumstances. Egypt is not stable, and arms for fighting major wars do not help stabilize it.

What Egyptian Stability?

Egypt is ruled by a military that is trying to maintain the old order, but which is influenced by the mob, and which has an informal understanding with the Moslem Brotherhood. The people are turning more Islamist.

Islamists bid to take over the country. The population largely is violent in general, murderous toward Christians, demanding hostility toward Israel. It probably is anti-American, too.

Already the people are calling for an end of the non-aggression pact with Israel. That means resuming Egypt's aggression against Israel. Egypt's military doctrine is based on war with Israel. After all, despite the Pentagon's message about helping to protect Egyptian security, no enemy armies threatening that security. Rather, it is Egypt that threatens the security of Israel. Aggression is destabilizing.

Egypt long has violated trade, tourism, and diplomacy normalization parts of the treaty. The nonchalance with which the people of Egypt suggest further breaking its treaty with Israel reflect underlying instability.

Although the Pentagon calls for stability, U.S. foreign policy often makes for instability. For decades, the U.S. has hampered Israeli self-defense and has supported terrorists such as the PLO and the Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese Armed forces. The U.S. undermined the Mubarak regime, without knowing what would ensue. The U.S. made war on the Khadaffi regime, without knowing what forces would emerge in control. Already, victorious Libyan rebels are purging minorities.

Egypt can wage war for a while with its excellent naval, air, and ground forces. All the U.S. has accomplished is to prepare an Arab state for a new war against Israel. Foreign aid is as wasteful a use of the American people's money as any other.

Opponents of U.S. subsidy of Israel on economic and peace grounds: Why are you silent about U.S. subsidy of the Arabs, which exceeds the U.S. subsidy of Israel and which is more wasteful and less constructive for peace?


When she was the New Israel Fund (NIF) Associate Director in Israel, Hedva Radovanitz, told a U.S. official in February 23, 2010, that she expects Israel to have an Arab majority in future. She thought that the disappearance of the Jewish state would not be a tragedy.

Ms. Radovanitz has been campaigning against a bill that would demand that foreign-funded NGOs in Israel must acknowledge its source of funds. She noted that the Left was disappearing from Israel, and with it the domestic constituency of leftist NGOs that NIF subsidizes.

NIF has been accused of fabricating anti-IDF foes used by the UN Goldstone report to accuse Israel of wronging in its Gaza war. Many pro-Arab NGOs in Israel are funded by the NIF and testified for that report
( News.aspx/147525 from Wikileaks).

If NIF leaders don't care whether Israel survives, how pro-Israel can they be?

If Palestinian Arabs take over the state of the Jews, whom they keep trying to murder, to the applause of the Palestinian Authority leaders, what would happen to the Jews there? They would be dispossessed and flee or be murdered, wouldn't they be? And that former NIF leader does not consider their mass-murder a tragedy?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, September 9, 2011.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit, that purports to be the public affairs voice of the Jewish community here, which, of course it is not, asked the Zionist Organization of America, Michigan Region to help with an event. The ZOA was to obtain an audience and sponsor a luncheon for an Israeli diplomat the Council had brought in for a tour of the local Jewish community. The ZOA-MI did so and had a nice turnout.

Generally it has been our experience that Jewish Community Councils, Federations, the American Jewish Committee, Hillels and many other establishment Jewish organizations nationwide, have a propensity for a particular political point of view and almost invariably, a speaker is hired that not so subtly proclaims it.

We were therefore not surprised with the delivery of the diplomat who addressed us. She was Orli Gil, Israel Consul General for the Midwest based in Chicago. Ms. Gil was well spoken and had a list of diplomatic credentials attained over the years. She also had a history of appearing at gatherings sponsored by such organizations as listed above.

She assumed her post as Israeli Consul General to the Midwest region in July 2008 and is a career diplomat who has served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 22 years. Ms. Gil holds a BA in English and Hebrew Literature from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem — hardly an education, by the way, directed toward political expertise.

Ms. Gil spoke well enough. Unfortunately, the Israeli Government message that she presented was disappointing, to say the least. It was sometimes difficult to determine whose view was being presented — the Israeli or the Arab.

The terminology used by Ms. Gil was shocking. She had somehow learned to use the pro-Arab version. She spoke of Israel having "conquered" much Arab territory in 1967 and was "occupying" it to this day. She spoke of Israel "giving back" land that Israel had "conquered" and was fully prepared to "give back" more for peace.

Never did she seem to understand and certainly did not verbalize the fact that Israel had simply regained territory that should have been the Jewish Homeland in the first place. Never did she remind the audience that the Jewish claim to the land goes back over 3000 years. Never did she state that there is no genuine legitimate Arab claim to the land and that at no time was there an Arab nation on that land. In fact, the term "Palestinian" always referred to the Jews living there.

Arabs were simply designated as Arabs who had migrated into the area when the Jews began to drain the swamps, make the land habitable, utilized Jewish genius to bolster the entire economy and thus create jobs for these Arab immigrants. They streamed in from Iraq, Egypt, Syria and surrounding areas only because in Palestine and then Israel, they finally had a chance to make a decent living and to obtain the huge benefits of a democratic nation that they do not have in their own Arab countries to this very day.

If Consul General Gil and the entire Israeli diplomatic corps had read From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine published in 1984 book by Joan Peters and describing, in great detail, the origins of the Arab population of Palestine, they would learn these basic facts. These facts have been studiously ignored by an Israel government too obtuse to understand their public relations significance.

Furthermore, Judea and Samaria (not "West Bank"), Gaza and the Golan Heights never "belonged" to Arabs and certainly not Jordan, Syria and Egypt, who themselves conquered them in 1948. At that time, these bordering nations invaded the newly "reborn" Jewish nation in an attempt to immediately abort its rebirth. To be perfectly accurate, these Arab nations were the "occupiers" from 1948 until they were finally expelled in 1967 by the Israelis in the Six Day war of self-defense.

But, this is all old hat and virtually beyond repair. What was even more depressing was Orli Gil's discourse on the so-called "peace process" It appears that the Israeli Government under PM Netanyahu and his stalwarts Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres et al, who somehow, under the pathetic Israeli political system that keeps dinosaurs in power forever, are still pursuing a "peace process" which has been an unmitigated disaster.

Not one gesture of peace or huge swath of territory given to the Arabs has been reciprocated other than as a sign of weakness and a greater opportunity to enlarge their Arab terror bases against the Israelis.

Gil had the inane idea, as does her titular boss, Bibi Netanyahu, that the Arabs will eventually come to the table and give up their self determined right of return of millions of third generation "refugees", they will agree to a demilitarized state, they will allow Israel to control the Jordan Valley, the Egyptian border, the Lebanese border, allow the IDF to police Judea and Samaria as needed to protect Israeli citizens, allow Jerusalem to remain undivided and remain only the capitol of the Jewish state and not make it the capitol of a "Palestinian" state, etc. and to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.

To me, this last requirement is the greatest of the abominations. How I as a Jew or Israel as a Jewish nation has to ask anyone to grant them the "right to exist" when we have over 3000 years of such an obvious existence and G-d given at that, is beyond abomination.

It is abomination enough to make me ill and to yearn desperately for the day when, G-d willing, Israel finally has political leaders with genuine self respect, genuine pride in their people and their nation and are finally able to shed off their sick dependency upon others and feel the need to plead with them to recognize Israel's very "right to exist." Instead, hopefully one day, we will have leaders with the confidence and strength to tell the immediate world exactly where to get off.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gavriel Queenann, September 9, 2011.

Firebrand lawmaker Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) plans to introduce a bill in US House of Representatives expressing congressional support for Israel's right to annex Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.

The move comes as Palestinian Authority officials move forward over US objections with a controversial request for a declaration of statehood at the United Nations.

Walsh's resolution, modeled closely on a bill introduced in the Israeli Knesset, is the latest effort by Congress ahead of the proposed UN vote. Lawmakers from both parties returned from stints in Israel last month warning that Congress could seek to cut aid to the PA if they actually go ahead with the vote.

"We've got what I consider to be a potential slap in the face coming up with the vote in the UN, which is absolutely outrageous," Walsh told reporters.

"It's clear that the United States needs to make a very strong statement. I would argue that the president should make this statement, but he's not capable of making it. So, the House needs to make this statement, if the [Palestinian Authority] continues down this road of trying to get recognition of statehood, the U.S. will not stand for it. And we will respect Israel's right to annex Judea and Samaria."

On Thursday US officials said they would exercise their veto of any attempt to grant statehood to the PA at the UN Security Council. But that hasn't stopped lawmakers in both countries from threatening the consequences of a declaration.

Walsh is moving forward with his resolution after meeting last month in Israel with Danny Danon, a deputy speaker of the Knesset and Likud Party member known for criticizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from the right. Earlier this year, Danon introduced a bill that would annex all of "Area C," a large portion of the West Bank that includes Jewish settlements and rural lands but would spare the largest Palestinian cities.

Danon is now leading a campaign to pressure Netanyahu to move forward with the unilateral annexation.

Walsh, who said he'd been considering a similar measure before arriving in Israel in August, confirmed that he and Danon "bounced some ideas off each other" on the resolution.

Danon argued in a New York Times op-ed earlier this year that a request from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for a UN statehood declaration would amount to a nullification of the Oslo Accords, which dictate that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."

That means Israel would be free to unilaterally annex Judea and Samaria, he wrote.

In the op-ed, Danon downplayed the potential international consequences by pointing to past Israeli annexations as evidence the country could withstand international condemnation.

Walsh says he plans to spend the rest of the week gathering cosponsors.

Gavriel Queenann writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 9, 2011.

This is by David Singer. It appeared today in Arutz-7 Articles/Article.aspx/10594


Two of the many intriguing matters facing the United Nations in dealing with any proposal to seek recognition of a Palestinian Arab State along the 1967 lines — are:

Who will make such application on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs?

What conditions will the United Nations demand to ensure that up to 500000 Jews living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will not ultimately face arbitrary expulsion as a result of its decision?

Palestinian Authority President and PLO Chairman — Mahmoud Abbas — has stated that the PLO — not the Palestinian Authority — will be making the approach to the UN — telling a press conference:

" Going to the UN does not mean the end of the PLO. It's the PLO that will submit the application to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state. The PLO will remain the protector of the rights of the Palestinians until the establishment of a Palestinian state and the complete end of occupation."

Hamas is not a member of the PLO — but both are sworn to eliminating the State of Israel — the former by jihad, the latter by acquiring territory in stages as a prelude to a final assault on the Jewish State.

The PLO has made it abundantly clear that it is not prepared to accept the rule of international law — openly declaring in Article 20 of its Charter:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."

Will United Nations members support such blatant and continuing disregard of international law by the PLO and fail to demand the PLO amend its Charter?

The PLO has also refused to acknowledge the connection of the Jewish people with their ancient biblical and legally sanctioned homeland by stating in Article 20 of its Charter:

"Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Will the United Nations endorse any PLO approach whilst it exhibits Jew-hatred on such a scale?

The "complete end of the occupation" referred to by Abbas — even in the context of any two-state solution — means the ethnic cleansing of all Jews living in the newly recognized Palestinian State by forcibly expelling them from their homes where tens of thousands have lived for more than thirty years.

Their right to live there has been sanctioned in international law by Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Member States of the United Nations cannot close their ears or avert their eyes to what Abbas has made very clear:

"We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won't agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,"

Like Hitler — he is being truthful. Will the world be listening and responding this time round?

To make sure there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation Abbas repeated his blunt warning:

"But when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence in it."

Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank and East Jerusalem following Jordan's conquest of both areas in 1948 — until their return after the Six Day War in 1967.

Abbas has made it clear that he wants to return to the 1948 position — by doing as the Jordanians did — eliminating all signs of Jewish life in East Jerusalem and the West Bank by ethnic cleansing and by destroying Synagogues, desecrating holy sites and trashing Jewish cemeteries.

As the United Nations deliberates on a Palestinian State along the 1967 lines — it might do well to remember what happened the last time the Arabs occupied East Jerusalem from 1948-1967:

"After the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem was captured, the destruction, desecration and systematic looting of Jewish sites began and continued. 57 ancient synagogues (the oldest dated to the 13th century), libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals.

The city's foremost Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. Appeals were made to the United Nations and in the international community to declare the Old City to be an 'open city' and stop this destruction, but there was no response. This condition continued until Jordan lost control of Jerusalem in June 1967.

On the Mount of Olives, the Jordanian Arabs removed 38,000 tombstones from the ancient cemetery and used them as paving stones for roads and as construction material in Jordanian Army camps, including use as latrines. When the area was recaptured by Israel in 1967, graves were found open with the bones scattered. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking lots, a filling station, and an asphalt road was built to cut through it...

The Hurva Synagogue, attributed to Rabbi Moses Ben Nahman (Ramban), was the main synagogue in Jerusalem in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (and possibly much earlier), until the Ottomans closed it in 1589 because of Muslim incitement. It was burned by Arabs in 1721 (Hurva = destruction in Hebrew), but again rebuilt by Zionists in the 19th century, becoming the most prominent synagogue on the Jerusalem skyline.

For that reason, when it was captured by the Arab Legion during the battle for Old Jerusalem in 1948, they dynamited it to show that they controlled the Jewish Quarter. When the Jews in New Jerusalem saw the Hurva burning, they knew that Jewish life in the Quarter had ended (again)."

The Hurva Synagogoue has now been rebuilt — and Israel is certainly not going to allow it to fall into hands that would seek to destroy it once again.

The United Nations faces yet another moment of truth as it is asked to replace direct negotiations by passing a resolution that does not have the approval of the conflicting parties — as last occurred in 1947.

Is the United Nations prepared to signal its willingness to endorse the expulsion of Jews from their current homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in flagrant violation of the decisions of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter?

Those in the United Nations who would support such an outcome should hang their heads in shame.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, September 9, 2011.

To develop a thorough understanding of Islam, one must learn to "connect the dots." For instance, Muslims who adhere to non problematic aspects of Islam, indirectly indicate their acceptance of problematic aspects of Islam — such as enmity for infidels, death for apostates, subjugation for women, and so on.

Connecting the dots.

Consider the Muslim beard. Because Muhammad wanted his Muslims to look different from infidel Christians and Jews, he ordered them to "trim closely the moustache and grow the beard." Accordingly, all Sunni schools of law maintain that it is forbidden, a "major sin," for men to shave their beards — unless, of course, it is part of a stratagem against the infidel, in which case it is permissible.

Prior to Ramadan, Islamic leaders in Egypt called for a million men to grow their beards and show Egypt's adherence to Muhammad's commands. Popular and enthusiastic preachers such as Muhammad Hassan went as far as to pray for the day when 80 million Egyptians grew their beards (a figure that presumably includes women and children, as 80 million is the size of Egypt's entire population).

Amr Adib, a popular talk show host on Cairo Today, mocked this call for a "million man beard" with his trademark sarcasm: "This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!"

He and his Egyptian viewers know quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad — the Salafists — that are most prone to violence and deceit, which were also advocated by the prophet. Towards the end of the program, Adib spoke seriously, ominously, saying this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, "once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam."

While Egyptians instinctively understand how fealty to the Muslim beard evinces fealty, or at least acceptance, to all those other things Muhammad commanded, even in fuzzy Western op-eds, the connection sometimes peeks out. Consider the following excerpt from a recent New York Times piece titled "Behold the Mighty Beard, a Badge of Piety and Religious Belonging":

[A]ll over the Muslim world, the full beard has come to connote piety and spiritual fervor. It is such a powerful cultural signifier, in fact, that it inspires non-Muslims, too.... Of course, the beard is only a sign of righteousness. It is no guarantor, as Mr. Zulfiqar [a Muslim interviewee] reminds us: "I recall one gentleman who came back from a trip to Pakistan and remarked to me, 'I learned one thing: the longer the beard, the bigger the crook.' His anticipation was people with big beards would be really honest, but he kept meeting people lying to him." [emphasis mine]

The italicized portion speaks for itself. Whereas the Muslim beard represents piety, some people, mostly Westerners, are shocked to find that those who wear it are often "crooks" and "liars." In Islam, however, outer signs of religiosity on the one hand, and corruption and deceit on the other, are compatible. After all, the same source — Muhammad, as recorded in the hadith — that tells Muslims to grow a beard also advocates deception and all sorts of other practices antithetical to Western notions of piety.

The hijab, or headscarf, which cloaks Muslim women, also on Muhammad's command, produces the same symbiosis. Tawfik Hamid, a former aspiring jihadist and acquaintance of al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, accurately observes that "the proliferation of the hijab is strongly correlated with increased terrorism.... Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities."

The question is simple: Why do some Muslim men wear the prescribed beard and why do some Muslim women wear the prescribed hijab? Most Muslims would say they do so because Muhammad commanded them to in the hadith.

Yet if such Muslims meticulously follow the minor, "outer" things of Islam simply because their prophet made a few utterances concerning them in the hadith, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, "inner" themes Muhammad constantly emphasized in the hadith — such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and, when capable, perpetual jihad?

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at This article appeared today in Hudson New York why-the-muslim-beard-bodes-trouble

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 8, 2011.

My post yesterday elicited quite a response, and I'm glad for this.

This situation on US campuses, which in many places is horrendous, must be considered simply unacceptable by all of us. This means keeping on top of what's going on and becoming activist in the interest of changing the situation. This is one of those times, folks, when numbers matter and it is possible to make a difference.


Reader Doris M. has called my attention to the work of Dee Sterling, and I share here Sterling's website, (ha-emet = the truth). Please take a look at it.

It focuses in some good measure on the Olive Tree Initiative (OTI), which I mentioned in passing yesterday. OTI sponsors trips by Jewish American students to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, where they are exposed to a seriously biased perspective with regard to Israel. A prime funder of this initiative is the Jewish Federation of Orange County (CA). Other supporters include Hillel and the University of CA. This site offers ways to combat this support of OTI.

Dee is to be congratulated for her efforts, which seem to me just that: sterling.


Jerry Gordon, senior editor of New English Review, has today written a piece, "Grassroots revolt against Jewish federations' support of Israel's enemies," which has been called to my attention by Adam T.

Gordon touches on two related topics, among others, that I have already written about. He says that:

"In Orange County, local activists have mined state public records and, in the process, unearthed details of how the local Federation funded more than $60,000 in grants to U.C.-Irvine for student trips to meet with Hamas representatives on the West Bank." That's OTI he's talking about, and some of this information is on the Ha-Emet site. The more we know, the uglier it gets.


But before even getting to this, he talks about ADL and Abe Foxman. That's the guy who said there's no anti-Semitism on campuses. When I reported on this, I commented that given Foxman's recent history, his position was not surprising. Gordon takes a look at that recent history.

On August 10, Foxman placed a piece on the ADL website called "Shut Down the Sharia Myth Makers." In it, he says that:

"The threat of the infiltration of Sharia, or Islamic law, into the American court system is one of the more pernicious conspiracy theories to gain traction in our country in recent years...

"We stand at a crossroads in American society. We have the option of heading down a path toward a greater tolerance of anti-Muslim xenophobia and fear of the 'stranger in our midst,' or we can rededicate ourselves to the ideal of an America that is open and welcoming to immigrants as well as minority groups who have been here for decades. Let us hope that the better nature of America will enable us to proceed down the second path and reject those who seek to divide us for political gain, or those who wish to stereotype and scapegoat an entire people because of their religious faith."

Oi vey.

Reports Gordon:

Within a few weeks, the Foxman op-ed...had been, in lockstep fashion, printed in more than two dozen Jewish weeklies subsidized by Jewish Federation charity organizations ranging from North Jersey's Jewish Standard to Philadelphia's Jewish Exponent to Wisconsin's Jewish Chronicle to Los Angeles's Jewish Journal.

Read Gordon's full piece at grassroots-revolt-against-jewish-federations- support-of-israel-s-enemies

As far as Foxman is concerned, how about this: He should be fired and his very considerable salary utilized for pro-Israel efforts on UC campuses. (My suggestion only, but not a bad one, I think.)


Lastly for today, Shurat Ha-Din, the Israel Law Center, sent out this morning letters to university presidents in the US warning them that they have legal obligations to prevent anti-Semitism on their campuses, and to prevent university funds from being diverted to unlawful activities directed against the State of Israel. The bottom line is that the universities "may be liable for massive damages."

This campaign is being carried out because of "an alarming number of incidents of harassment and hate crimes against Jewish and Israeli students on US college campuses."

The letter alludes to a recent Supreme Court ruling in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project that holds that it is illegal to provide any support to a terrorist organization — even if that support appears to be relatively benign. Last year, for example, says Shurat Ha-Din, at Rutgers University, Students United for Middle East Justice applied for allocations from a student-run committee for an event in support of an organization that was trying to buy a ship to run Israel's Gaza blockade. Seems the group is monitoring campus activities carefully.


Read about Shurat Ha-Din's efforts here: JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=237118

See the full warning letter here: image/Letter%20to%20Columbia%20U.pdf

And the list of schools the letter was sent to here: image/list%20of%20schools.pdf

Shurat Ha-Din, you may remember, successfully used a legal approach to take the wind out of the sails of the second flotilla.

Law Center director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Kenneth Leitner, director of American Affairs, are top-notch and tireless attorneys doing an incredible job.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, September 8, 2011.

The number of dead Israelis is mounting, and the war has not even officially begun.

It commenced with a combined attack near Eilat, in Israel's south, and quickly crept up moving in two directions, one along the seashore in a north-north-westerly direction, the other in a north-north-easterly direction crossing the vast expanse of the Negev.

The Gazans realized that firing multiple missiles at once renders Israel's Iron Dome system less effective. It is able to stop some, but not all the missiles. So a barrage of Grad missiles hit Israeli towns and cities, like the Negev capital, Beer Sheva.

The escalation has been fast and calculated. Israel has been as swift in eliminating the perpetrators of the attack and their direct commanders, but alas there is a never-ending stream of volunteers-to-the-cause behind them. One is destroyed; ten stand to fill his place.

Thirty missiles launched, thousands ready to be launched behind them. No shortage here either.

And this is from one source: Gaza.

The Middle East in 2011 has proven that the impossible and unthinkable happens and keeps surprising us with its appearance, intensity and grandeur. Mubarak, Qaddafi, Assad, Turkey's ascent, Egypt's cancellation of the Peace Treaty with Israel. Some are still in the works, but then there is a whole third of the year still ahead of us.

Thus, one must always look at the bigger picture and other players in the region. Those who call themselves "Palestinians" (residents and citizens of Israel, namely Israeli Arabs) have not joined the uprising of their brethren in Gaza yet. Hezbollah has not reared its ugly head, and is extremely coordinated with Hamas in Gaza. Then there are multiple others in this neighborhood, all hostile to Israel and seeking its destruction.

Israelis in the south are feeling the discomfort of living under missile fires, but the rest of Israel, for the moment, is quiet. Not for long.

So what does Israel do? The reaction does not extend beyond those directly responsible. Alas, Israel is mistaken again. Those responsible are not only the launchers and their cohort of bandits. Instead, it is the system as a whole and Hamas, from the snake's head to the last "freedom fighters"-terrorists. It is the Palestinian Authority. It is Hezbollah and its system of caves and underground bunkers, from its head-rat to the last "Warrior." It is Syria who has been supplying the military might to Hezbollah, and it is Iran who has been masterminding, supplying, training and orchestrating the events.

What is Israel to do? Should it choose collective punishment or wait, licking its wounds, burying its dead and lamenting some illusion of an elusive peace? Maybe ignore all that is happening against it and focus instead on members of its middle-class losing their standing and becoming destitute?

Luckily at this point in time, Israel will be left with no choice but to retaliate. Israel would not be able to ignore the mounting dead, day after day, and the dozens injured. The disruption of daily life would become unbearable and would creep toward the Center, where all the "beautiful souls" who want peace and think Israel needs to surrender now bask in the joys of life. Life in oblivion will continue until the missiles get to their doorsteps, or actually until they start falling from the skies on their rooftops and gardens, parks and shopping centers, cafes and restaurants.

There will be only one course of action, one that has conveniently been avoided repeatedly. Israel's air superiority has proven insufficient. Ground action is necessary, as was evident both in the Second War in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 and during the land excursion into Gaza in late December 2008 — beginning January 2009.

Israel will have to conquer Gaza, kilometer by kilometer, until the region once again is under full Israeli control. Israel will have to disengage the Gazans from Gaza in a unilateral action to reverse the Disengagement of the summer of 2005.

For those who may mistake Gaza for anything other than what it is, it is an area of approximately 150 square miles (25 x 6). Its residents have vowed to do everything to bring on Israel's destruction and are acting against civilian centers in Israel. They initiate death and mayhem, the classic definition of inflicting terror.

For them, all courses of action are beneficial: Kill Israelis, it helps. Wound them, not bad. Be killed? It is OK since you are going to heaven for an eternal-life of sex with virgins and enslavement of women. Anyone killed fighting is fine, since it will help hasten Israel's downfall. They create scenes that the most famous theatrical productions in the world would not be ashamed to host. Israel is then accused of "collective punishment" and "committing atrocities."

Not enough dead? Inflate the numbers or exhume bodies from graves. That will do just fine.

Whatever they do, there is a carte blanche justification, whereas whatever happens as a result is Israel's fault. At the end of the day, Israel will be blamed according to the double standard now in effect. The world deliberately ignores the facts and fabricates Goldstone Reports of its own.

Israel's action must be swift and painful. It must overtake Gaza, destroying everything in its wake if there is even the slightest sign of resistance. Shoot from a mosque, school or hospital, or even from the most revered "UN buildings," these should be destroyed within moments. Imagine the sights and sounds of the ensuing explosions, with all those missiles and explosives stored there. Guilty of war crimes? The party that uses civilian centers to warehouse elements of war?

There must be refugee camps erected elsewhere, and the population transferred to these camps far away from Gaza. Gaza must no longer exist.

Why? Clearly because Gaza contains the largest stockpile of missiles and other means of warfare in the entire region. Also because Gaza has another side, hidden from above, of underground tunnels creating a city below a city. Lastly, because there are supposedly real refugees who keep squandering the billions they receive from Europe, the UN and elsewhere. Let them be at a real refugee camp and let Israel take care of them.

Israel may have to foot the bill in the short term, but it can keep a tab and present it to all those concerned. Besides, treating the "refugee" problem once and for all will be much cheaper than perpetuating the idea of "eternal refugees."

Gaza must be no more. It wants war, not peace, so it must be prepared for the fulfillment of its craving. If it wants to die, Israel must ensure that terror dies with it. All the "innocent" Gazans can be transferred. They never wanted to be in Gaza in the first place. They want Jaffe and Acre, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

In fact, as a first step, they should be moved to Judea and Samaria. In newly erected tent cities there will be schools where math and foreign languages, literature and science are taught, not how to become a martyr or a terrorist. Schools where childhood blossoms rather than destroyed. Schools where hatred is eradicated and love and respect taught.

At one point there will be peace, but for peace to exist, there must be no Gaza. Gaza at the moment is the power base of evil, the embodiment of Israel's failure to deal with a situation and the clear upper hand of Hamas.

Hamas calls things by name. It is time that it is fed some of its own medicine.

Some may say that this will lead to Israel loosing its support base with American Jews and others throughout the world. To them I say, American Jewry long ago deserted the Jewish State, and the world will condemn Israel no matter what she does. So she must act. It is better to be alive and accused than dead and maligned.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at

To Go To Top

Posted by Chana Ya'ar, September 8, 2011.

Arab schools located in Jerusalem neighborhoods claimed by the Palestinian Authority in its bid to become a new country are refusing to use Israeli-altered textbooks.

The principals and teachers in the schools have said they will not teach with Arabic-language materials that have been revised and altered by Israel's Ministry of Education, a PA official announced Wednesday.

To avoid using the new, revised textbooks, some 90 percent of the students attending the schools instead purchased the official PA versions, according to Samir Jibril, the PA official in charge of Jerusalem education. Jibril told the WAFA news agency the PA textbooks would be copied and distributed among the rest of the students.

"Every Palestinian school must only teach the Palestinian version of 2011 curricula textbooks that are produced by the Palestinian Ministry of Education," Jibril told WAFA. He described the Israel Education Ministry's revisions to the PA textbooks in Jerusalem as "provocative" and accused the Jewish State of attempting to "distort historical facts and misinform students about the Palestinian identity and history."

The dispute centers on an Israeli government decision to remove poems by PA poet Haroun Hashim Rashid, as well as all terminology relating to the intifada and references to Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. In addition, Israel's Education Ministry apparently replaced introduced the history of Jews in Jerusalem into the schools' textbooks on Islamic religion and Arabic history, and replaced other information in the process.

Born in Gaza in 1927, one of Rashid's most famous poems is one called "A Refugee's Scream," which has been translated into English.

"We will be back one day and bask in warm hopes / We will be back no matter how much time passes or the distance widens," says the poem.

Like much of Rashid's work, the poem is focused on the PA "right of return" — the dream of the Arabs and their millions of descendants who fled Israel in 1948 and during the wars that followed that one day they will be able to return and be given back their homes.

This dream has been fed and nurtured like a festering ulcer through the decades by the attacking neighboring Arab countries that encouraged them to flee, and to which they fled. These countries then refused to accept them into their populations, forever holding them at arms' length apart in "refugee camps" for generations after, as political pawns, up to this day.

It is for this reason that the United Nations is forced to annually provide billions of dollars in support to the so-called "Palestinian refugees" — now many generations past — in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and in the numerous Arab countries around Israel, through its UNRWA agency.

Ahmad Rweidi, the PA official in charge of the Jerusalem department in the office of PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, told WAFA he considered the Israel Education Ministry decision "illegal, because Jerusalem is an occupied city."

On Thursday, the PA officially launched its campaign to gain recognition as an independent, sovereign Arab country and membership in the United Nations.

Chana Ya'ar is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Isi Leibler, September 8, 2011.

On September 20, the vast majority of the 192 member countries of the United Nations will probably "recognize" a Palestinian state.

The "recognition" will not be accompanied with caveats about dismantling PA terrorist organizations such as Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades or ending the incitement to hatred and murder of Jews and Israelis that pervades all levels of Palestinian society. There will be no requirements for demilitarization. Nor will negotiations by the PA to unite with the genocidal Hamas be curtailed. The Palestinians will not be obliged to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will continue demanding the Arab right of return to it.

Renewal of negotiations with Israel are unlikely because the Palestinians realize that their goals can be more effectively achieved by leveraging international pressure on us to make further unilateral concessions — and dismantle us in stages.

This event will be followed by qDurban III, a UN endorsed hate fest designed to delegitimize and demonize the Jewish state. The principal participant will be Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently predicted that the UN recognition of Palestinian statehood would represent the first step toward the inevitable elimination of the Jewish state. Like the preceding meetings in 2001 and 2009, this purportedly "anti-racist conference" will overwhelmingly concentrate on spewing venom against Israel.

The founders of the United Nations, who after the defeat of Nazism endorsed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, could never have visualized that the organization they created would become controlled by dictatorships and tyrannies and transformed into a platform for promoting genocide.

This was exemplified by the Libyan representative serving as president of the UN General Assembly in 2009, succeeded in July this year by Qatar with Iran as a vice president; genocidal Iranian president Ahmadinejad repeatedly addressing the General Assembly as an honored guest; North Korea, renowned proliferator of nuclear arms, elected to chair the Conference on Disarmament; and Iran, notorious for stoning women for adultery, appointed to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

But nothing beats the bizarre UN Human Rights Council, 80 percent of whose members, according to the Freedom House index for 2010, are either "not free" or "partly free" countries. Not surprisingly, scoundrels are appointed to positions of authority. Thus we have Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Palestinian territories, who claimed that the US backed and executed the 9/11 attacks, and recently also posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his website. The Advisory Committee is chaired by Morocco's Halima Warzawi, who previously blocked an effort to condemn Saddam Hussein for gassing 30,000 Kurds. It also includes Jean Ziegler from Switzerland, who praises Fidel Castro and Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe and co-founded the "Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights" — the recipients of which included Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, Louis Farrakhan and Hugo Chavez.

The chatter about human rights initiated by tyrannical states that inflict monstrous injustices on their own people represents the ultimate hypocrisy. Examples abound: Libya moved a motion to "end all forms of racial discrimination"; Iran called on the US to ensure implementation of international humanitarian law; China demanded an end to "excessive force by law enforcement bodies"; and North Korea called for a ban on torture.

In this degenerate UN Human Rights Council, a pogrom environment dominates, with 70% of all resolutions directed against Israel.

This also applies to the General Assembly, where demonizing, delegitimizing and attributing all the woes of the world to the Jewish state is reminiscent of the Middle Ages, when Jews were blamed as the principal source of all the evils confronting mankind.

Daniel Pipes estimates the total number of deaths in world conflicts since 1950 to be in excess of 85 million.

The 50,000 deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict would thus account for less than 0.05% of this total. To this day, while hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world are slaughtered or denied elementary human rights, the hypocritical UN has not commissioned any Goldstone type reports to investigate such massacres, but shamelessly directs the bulk of its energies toward condemning Israeli settlements or construction in Jewish Jerusalem.

Alas, primarily due to realpolitik, the "enlightened" European countries — whose soil has been drenched with Jewish blood for 2,000 years, culminating in the Holocaust — are, at best, inclined to abstain, but more recently have been endorsing primitive anti-Israeli resolutions.

SO HOW should we respond to the impending vote on Palestinian statehood? We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that we will never achieve justice at the United Nations. The combination of Islamic countries, rogue states and dictatorships guarantees that the most extreme resolutions against Israel will always be overwhelmingly carried. Blaming Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for this state of affairs because he failed to provide a "plan" is simply primitive political demagoguery. What "plan" beyond making suicidal unilateral concessions could conceivably satisfy the Palestinians? But we should not panic. Despite President Barack Obama's ongoing policy of engaging and appeasing extremists and Islamic states, the US will almost certainly prevent the UN Security Council from imposing sanctions and boycotts against Israel.

Contrary to Defense Minister Ehud Barak's recent hysterical remarks, this is not a "diplomatic tsunami," and we must take advantage of the UN platform to convey the case for Israel to our friends and allies.

We must bear in mind that the UN General Assembly can make proclamations, but it cannot "create" a state or change the status on the ground. Besides, in the absence of the IDF protecting the weak and corrupt PA, a genocidal Hamastan would displace it — a situation that even most European states would not wish to foist upon the region.

Today most Israelis would endorse a Palestinian state — provided Palestinians faced up to the issues mentioned in the opening paragraph of this column. Until Abbas is willing to recognize the Jewish state and forgo the "right of return," even Obama will be obliged to exercise the US veto at the Security Council. And if the Palestinians resort to violence — Abbas has called for "Arab Spring-like popular resistance" — we must be prepared to overcome our adversaries as we did in the past.

On the positive side, there are rumblings in the United States Congress reflecting grassroots frustration with the annual $7.7 billion of American taxpayer funds being provided to the UN, despite the fact that the global body's original noble objectives have been reversed and it has been transformed into a depraved organization.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the powerful Congressional House Foreign Affairs Committee, maintains that the UN no longer has any credibility as a force for peace in the Middle East. She objects to the US "paying one-fifth of the bills for the UN's anti-Israeli activities including the UN Human Rights Council, a rogue's gallery dominated by human rights violators who use it to ignore real abuses and instead attack democratic Israel relentlessly."

She remarks that "at the UN, money talks and smart withholding works," noting that in 1989 Yasser Arafat pushed for membership at the UN for a "Palestinian state," but his initiative was stopped in its tracks when the George H. W. Bush administration threatened to cut off US funding from any UN entity that upgraded the Palestinian mission.

She has concluded that with the Obama administration refusing to leverage US funding to defend US interests, Congress must fill the void. Thus on August 30, with 57 co-sponsors, she introduced the United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act, which would terminate US contributions to any UN entity upgrading the Palestinian mission.

The bill would also require the US to disaffiliate and cease funding the Human Rights Council until it repealed its permanent anti-Israeli resolution. It would freeze contributions to UN activities related to the defamatory Goldstone Report and the Durban hate fest and suspend support for UNWRA until it ceased employing terrorists.

Ros-Lehtinen said she was promoting this resolution "for the sake of our ally Israel and all free democracies, for the sake of peace and security. And for the sake of achieving a UN that upholds its founding principles."

The Senate will probably narrowly block this resolution, and the Obama administration has already bitterly condemned the bill, which it would undoubtedly veto.

But the fact that such a resolution could be submitted by the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee signals a growing frustration with the UN, which may sooner rather than later lead to a showdown with this obnoxious organization.

Congress is the bright light in the current difficult situation confronting us. In the long term, as the American public becomes increasingly disillusioned with the groveling behavior of the Obama administration toward the decadent and biased UN, there is hope that congressional intervention will ultimately succeed in employing US clout to bring an end to such outrageous behavior.

In the meantime, we should remain resolute and stand our ground.

Contact Isi Leibler by email at and visit his website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, September 8, 2011.

Being Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology.

Iranians are proud spiritual descendants of King Cyrus the Great, the author of the first charter of human rights. Some of Cyrus' children live in the patch of land called Iran. The overwhelming majority — free humans with human beliefs — live in every country, city, and village of the earth.

These world-wide people, one and all, irrespective of nationality, color, or creed are Iranians because they all adhere to the Cyrus Charter; they practice and defend its lofty tenets; and, transfer this precious humanity's treasure to the next generation.

Unequivocal genetic findings have clearly established that biologically there is only one human race; that the genetic variation within a single troop of chimpanzees, for instance, is greater than that of any two human groupings, no matter how different they may appear physically.

What makes people different is not their biology, but the "software" that runs them. There is ample proof to support the above assertion. A case in point is the present menace posed by the people whose life is programmed by the software of Islam: an ideology anathema to the Cyrus Charter. And the results are self-evident. Hate, superstition, violence, and a raft of other inhuman beliefs drives these religious fascists. These captive followers of the primitive Islamic Charter are both the perpetrators and the victims of much suffering. The result is backward Islamic societies that are intent at dragging the rest of the world into the same sorry state. Misery likes company, it is said.

We recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic software is deeply engrained in the minds of many Muslims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the Islamic software and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life — liberty.

Islamic clergy, the parasitic prime beneficiaries of Islam, are master practitioners of the carrot and stick strategy. By drawing heavily from the Quran and the Hadith, the conniving mullahs and imams have assembled a potent arsenal of threats and promises to keep the faithful in line. They had little trouble in so doing, since Islamic scripture is replete with graphic horrific punishment awaiting the wayward and the unbelievers, while the rewards for the obedient docile, if he is male, are described as endless variety of sensual pleasures. Anyone daring to leave the corral of Islam is apostate and automatically condemned to death. And that's just for starters. The punishment awaiting the ungrateful deserter of the one and only true path, Islam threatens, is a raft of horrific eternal torment in Allah's hell.

And for the true faithful — the mindless robot — the promised rewards, all physical pleasures, are infinite and eternal.

In spite of these horrid threats and empty promises, more and more people are beginning to recognize Islam for what it is. It is difficult, but not impossible to leave the fraudulent Islam's captivity. Hundreds of thousands have done so successfully and have enjoyed the blessings of liberty.

A great threat facing free people is the recently petrodollar energized Islam embarking on a campaign of recruiting more people under its dark banner. Millions of disenfranchised underclass in the non-Islamic world, and millions more mentally under-developed may flock to Islam, deluded by its empty promises.

Islam is no longer in its own self-made cage. It has broken out and has established powerful presence in much of the non-Islamic world. Islam is a charter of submission. It is a sworn enemy of freedom and views the Cyrus Charter as heresy. Freedom and tyranny are incompatible. Free people must do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty and assist others to break from the bondage of Islamic captivity.

The interdependent world community faces great challenges that demand a united effort, uncompromisingly based on justice, to meet the various ills it faces. We can no longer be complacent about events in distant world affecting alien people. Distances are bridged and alien people are now diverse members of the human family.

We honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for proclaiming from a Birmingham jail, "Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere." To demand justice for others, he risked his life, left his native Georgia, and ended in jail of the-then-bigoted south — Birmingham, Alabama. We "Iranians" of the world — free humans — must do no less. We must demand justice for our belief-kin who are suffering under the yoke of Islamofascism in Iran or anywhere in the world.

We also do well to recall the example of an Irish-American President — John F. Kennedy — looking at the Communists' Wall of Shame in Berlin, proclaiming, "Ich bin ein Berliner" — "I am a Berliner." By so claiming, he helped rally free people of the world that brought down the wall and created a momentum that eventually swept the totalitarian Communist wall-builders into the dustbin of history.

Now the world is facing wall-builders of a different kind: the Islamofascists who have been at their shameless work for centuries. As their walls built with superstition, discrimination and blood are crumbling; they are intent at building walls in new territories.

But once again, human decency is rising to the challenge. This time in the voice and actions of billions of free people who proclaim: we are also children of Iran in the spirit of Cyrus the Great; "we meet any challenge and pay any price" to defeat Islamofascism; and, we will not rest until humanity is completely free of the despotic rule of Islam.

We Iranians in spirit — free people of the world — greatly cherish liberty, where the mind is imbued with enlightenment, and every individual by the virtue of being born human is afforded measured freedom. It is within the open expanse of liberty that each and every person can be at his or her best. And when the individual person is at his best, humanity is at its best.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and the thriller Operation Persian Gulf. Contact him at This article is archived at publications/id.10330/pub_detail.asp

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, September 8, 2011.

Italian journalist says world should be ashamed for forgetting Israeli terror victims


What can be worse than 9/11? What Israelis have experienced in the months immediately before and after the destruction of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. If 3,000 Americans have been killed in a single horrible morning commemorated by the world, Israel has a very different Ground Zero, day after day, a suicide bomber after another.

In some ways the terrorism suffered by Israel has been worse than 9/11, especially because in a small nation like Israel terrorism produces a ripple effect through society. If 9/11 is now an emblem of evil remembered worldwide, Israel's suffering has been deliberately forgotten.

We have read everything about the American mothers and fathers who didn't came back home 10 years ago, the firemen, the survivors, the people who jumped from the Twin Towers, and the heroes of the flight that crushed in Pennsylvania. However, a demonic strategy of silence worked very well in the case of Israel: it's as if the Israeli victims never existed.

Indeed, the "civilized" world should feel ashamed for leaving the Israelis alone during the Second Intifada.

If 9/11 was a military operation conducted by 19 Saudi fanatics that wanted to destroy the military and financial symbols of US power, Israel has been struck in the most familiar and routine places: scores of young people and children, women and elderly incinerated on civilian buses; cafes and pizzerias destroyed; shopping malls turned into slaughterhouses; mothers and daughters killed in front of ice cream shops; families exterminated in their own beds; infants executed with a blow to the base of the skull; fruit markets blown to pieces; nightclubs eviscerated along with hundreds of students; seminarians murdered during their studies; husbands and wives killed in front of their children; brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren murdered together; children murdered in their mothers' arms.

If 9/11 was conducted by four squads of suicide pilots, in Israel there have been more than 150 suicide attacks carried out. It's a black hole that in 15 years swallowed up 1,557 people and left 17,000 injured. Israel is a tiny country — a jet can fly from one end to the other in two minutes. If a proportion of the population equivalent to those 1,557 victims were murdered in the US, there would be 53,756 Americans killed.

Moreover, the 9/11 attacks did not produce 17,000 wounded civilians like the Second Intifada. Israeli figures of those wounded in terror attacks, extrapolated to the population of the US, would be the equivalent of some 664,133 injured.

Children's faces burned

The terrorists have always selected their targets in Israel very carefully, to cause as much destruction as possible. One suicide bomber in Rishon Lezion massacred a group of elderly who were enjoying the cool air on the patio, where they had no protection. There are the shopping malls like in Efrat, pedestrian areas like in Hadera, bus stops like in Afula and Jerusalem, train stations like in Nahariya, pizzerias like in Karnei Shomron, nightclubs like the one in Tel Aviv, buses of students like in Gilo, bars and restaurants like in Herzliya, and cafes like in Haifa.

The 9/11 killers didn't plan specifically how to inflict further pain to the survivors. In Israel pieces of metal were added to the explosives in the terrorist's vest or backpack, with blasts often severing limbs completely. Many Israeli children have had their faces burned or their hands rendered useless; some have had their sight ruined forever.

There are trembling elderly people, totally dependent. There are people who go insane and don't want to live anymore because they are haunted by the sound of the explosion, secluding themselves in their homes. Naturally, the focus has been mainly on the people killed in terror attacks, but more than eight times as many have been wounded.

This is the true face of the war against the Jewish people: Jews scathed and scarred, living reminders of the Israeli 9/11. They require years of costly and complicated physical and mental rehabilitation. Israeli doctors estimate that 40% of the injured will have permanent disabilities. There are survivors of attacks who struggle even to get rid of the stench of death.

Some Israelis are still hospitalized with injuries sustained in suicide attacks years ago; many more require repeated hospital visits and multiple operations. Many are unable to work. Thousands of families have been forced to alter their lives to care for a wounded member. For all those killed, there are many, many more left alive but burned, scarred, blinded, hearing-impaired, or missing limbs. Many sustain fractures, vascular injuries, paralysis, or brain damage.

Blood-covered parking lot

Just a couple of months before 9/11 an Israeli discotheque was destroyed by a suicide bomber. The Dolphinarium was named for a dolphin tank that once stood there; nearby were big Tel Aviv hotels. That evening, dozens of Russian-born students were waiting to get into the disco for an evening of dancing and friendship.

However, this place of happiness was turned into a slaughterhouse — young people with hands blown off and faces reduced to a pulp, a hail of blood, corpses, and torsos. The parking lot in front of the Infinity nightclub was covered in blood, and the cars were littered with body parts.

Two months after 9/11, on a busy Ben Yehuda Street in downtown Jerusalem, two suicide bombers killed 11 young Jews. People were walking without an arm or a leg. That evening, Ben Yehuda was no longer part of the world — it was an anti-world. There were people running around aimlessly. Others were sitting on the sidewalk, dazed. A young woman walked back and forth on the sidewalk like a robot. Someone was holding a human limb.

What happened in a poor city like Afula was certainly less spectacular than the tons of metal and ashes in Manhattan. But I do really believe that the majestic horror of 9/11 can be matched by the lone death of an Israeli girl, Inbal Weiss, who was in a bus returning from the university when the bomber took her life near Hadera. Her proud parents, who are the most honorable part of Israel, were waiting for Inbal at home.

For me, these innocent Israeli victims are all saints and heroes. And those who survived them are the best humankind has to offer because they hold on to the value of life. September 11 should be remembered forever as a turning point in world history. The Israeli civilians should be honored with the same global sorrow and respect.

Giulio Meotti is is a journalist with Il Foglio. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at This article appeared in Ynet News 0,7340,L-4119676,00.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 8, 2011.

"A great photograph contains a mystery, an elusive and haunting nucleus that makes us return again and again to probe its depth, hoping to winnow yet another insight."
- Martin Elkort


I often tell people that I practice photography, like meditation or Tai Chi, in order to elevate my awareness of subtleties in nature that often go unnoticed. As a professional who strives to continually create original and inspiring images, I frequently return to old subjects and attempt to shoot them anew. One technique I have used successfully involves building unconventional relationships between the subject and its immediate environment to give a fresh face to the familiar. The two photos I am sending this week are excellent illustrations of this concept.

The upper image features ripe sabra fruit which had toppled into a field of dry grass.

Sabra fruit and flowers are normally seen as part of the larger, green and spiny cactus plant, so this image offers and alternative to the traditional view. The blurred blades of grass don't impede the viewer's eye as it searches for the photo's subject. Instead, I think they add a bit of realism to the photo as the fruit appears in a natural state, exactly as it was found on the day I walked past it.

The second image emerged while pursuing a shot of black grapes. In the end, the grapes take a back seat to the leaves and the beautifully textured vine, which comes to dominate the photo. I left just enough of the grape cluster visible to help the viewer identify the subject. Here, too, by altering the proportion or the position of the main subject, a new perspective is unveiled, and an old subject is reborn.

Technical Data

Upper Photo: Nikon D300, 18-200 zoom at 75mm, f6.3 @ 1/640th sec., ISO 200.
Lower photo: Nikon D300, 28-105 zoom at 62mm, f9 @ 1/200th sec., ISO 400.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at and visit his website: Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Hilltop, September 7, 2011.


Dear friends and fellow Jews,

As the UN vote on Palestinian statehood approaches, Israeli security forces are gearing up for more Arab violence. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Judea and Samaria, where IDF intelligence has already determined that large scale provocations on the roads, mass marches on settlements and the attempted destruction of Jewish infrastructure and agriculture will be attempted.

Here in Itamar, as a new school year begins, we see the mood of the local Arabs changing, and we're bracing ourselves for all contingencies. At the same time, for the sake of our children, we're obliged to continue as if nothing extraordinary were in the offing.

Out on the hilltops of Itamar, where there are no security fences, and parents acknowledge that faith in the Almighty is their only true defense against enemy aggression, we are asking for your support, for the sake of our children. Please take a minute to review the text below from It succinctly explains our dilemma.

And kindly forward this email to five like-minded friends or family members.

With G-d's help, may we all succeed.

Aryeh Katz


Alumoteinu — Building the Hilltops


At this stage, Alumoteinu is an effort to secure a kindergarten for 2011-2012 for the girls who live on the hilltops outside Itamar. We finished our first year at great expense to the community's parents but hope this year (with our new charitable organization status) to avoid the undue financial pressures we experienced in the last.

The kindergarten was established to avoid putting our daughters on a school bus into Itamar, a journey that forces them to pass several vulnerable points on the mountain ridge that descends into the yishuv, and upon which two murders have occurred, including that of former chief of Itamar security, Shlomo Miller H'YD.

In addition to security, there is also no separate girls' kindergarten in Itamar. There exists one for boys and one that is mixed. Our girls require a separate institution going forward, one that also caters to the more Chasidic orientation of many of the hilltop's residents.

Moreover, we as parents desire to create a more challenging Torah environment for our girls than presently exists in comparable schools in the region. Last year, we saw how strongly our four and five year olds responded to programming that included regular parashat hashavua, chagim, mussar and derech eretz lessons.

Of course, the girls also engage in a full array of crafts, outdoor games, singing and storytelling, baking and tiyulim (hikes) that are co-ordinated to build their understanding of halacha and inculcate a love of Eretz Yisrael.

How Can You Help?

Our needs are modest. We require a simple, permanent structure to accommodate our growing class size and prepare ourselves for coming years. The community is expanding and, thank G-d, our birth rate is robust.

A number of boys on the hilltop have one more year before they, too, will be forced to make the treacherous descent into Itamar. We are planning now to obviate that necessity. A boys' kindergarten will open next fall, 2012, G-d willing, and a Talmud Torah, housed in the same building as the girls' school, will come into being in subsequent years.

To conclude, the parents of Itamar's hilltop toddlers are a committed group. They're resilient, and they're determined to stay and build their community, regardless the vagaries and vicissitudes of the current political situation. They have expended tremendous physical, emotional and financial resources to see their dream of a flourishing, proud Jewish community overlooking Shechem become a reality.

The next step requires that they look outward, to their brothers and sisters throughout the Land of Israel and abroad, in order to accomplish the task of building an adequate educational facility for their children.

The current financial reality is thus: until we have roughly two full classrooms of students, we remain ineligible for governmental support. And until that hurdle is overcome we remain a privately run enterprise with a sizeable cash shortfall.

As we enter the new school year, that shortfall is in excess of $7000.

We ask that you consider taking on one or more of the sponsorship possibilities listed below. Consider also, involving your shul or business in the project. Partner with us. And we'll grow together.

Available Sponsorships

Sponsorship of Talmud Torah that will house both boys' and girls' schools (separately): $180,000
Sponsorship of one teacher's salary for one year: $17,500
Sponsorship of our current shortfall going into 2011-2012: $7300
Sponsorship of one classroom's worth of supplies for one year: $1300
Sponsorship of one year's tuition for a single student: $900
Sponsorship of one classroom worth of desks and chairs for students: $550
Sponsorship of one teacher's desk and chair: $240
Sponsorship of sets of sifrei kodesh, i.e., one set of children's Chumashim: $30

We are eager to keep our children close. We are also in need.

If you are eager to help, please go directly to the Paypal Donate button at the top of the page and give generously. If you require more information, please contact us by email, mail or telephone (see below).

Cheques can be made out to: ALUMOTEINU — ITAMAR (Registered Charity #580534741) and sent to the address listed at bottom.

One hundred percent of your donation will be put toward the funding option of your choice. There are no middlemen or percentages taken from your contribution.

Official receipts for Israeli taxpayers will be issued promptly. While we await official registered charity status in the U.S. and Canada, those desiring receipts for tax purposes should contact us directly (see below).

Aryeh Katz
Givat Alumot
Lev HaShomron 44834


In Israel — 054-641-4801
Abroad — 011-972-54-641-4801
Skype —

Contact the Itamar Hilltop Community by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak, September 7, 2011.

Which is worse, a government-controlled media or a supposedly free media that uses its power to undermine democracy?

In 2002, CBS 28-year veteran journalist Bernard Goldberg published Bias, a book which highlighted the liberal bias he perceived in mainstream media. The problem, Goldberg detailed, includes group think, a lack of newsroom intellectual diversity and mono-perspective outlooks that dominate how the news is filtered and presented to the media consumer. He provided dozens of examples of how reporters dealt with issues by simply regurgitating the propaganda of pressure groups they favor, how political correctness in network newsrooms puts "sensitivity" ahead of facts and how fairness, balance and integrity have disappeared from network television.

Over the past weeks, echoes of many elements of his theory could be seen in the Israeli media's extensive coverage of the "social justice" campaign which has filled our streets — and our newspapers, television screens and radio waves.

Several days before the opening event of the "July 14 movement," triggered by Daphni Leef's desperation at being unable to locate a flat in central Tel Aviv, the print media were already reporting it.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, although commenting that the protest was quite real and genuine, was typically blunt in his criticism, saying on August 11, "The media has to check itself, their coverage of the protest is very one-sided and brutal... I see people at the different protests and I see that they are opportunists, along for the ride."

Ma'ariv columnist Ben-Dror Yemini was even more critical of his colleagues, writing, "more than any other protest, this is one of the media. Perhaps millions are being invested in organization, adverts, posters and loudspeaker cars, but not one agora (cent) is diverted for the media because most of the media have allowed themselves to become the broadsheets of the protest.

Never in Israel has there been such a mobilized media."

Uzi Benziman in The Seventh Eye noted that "the media fell upon the protest with great appetite because the media milieu is part of the wave of revolt, because many identified ideologically with the demonstrations and perhaps mostly because it was a good story that photographed well and lasted for a good few weeks."

It is a fact that media personnel assisted in focusing the overwhelming anti-Netanyahu messages early on by personalizing the headlines. The message to the public was primarily that Netanyahu was responsible.

That this was the "largest demonstration ever" was repeated ad nauseum. The media conveniently "forgot" the 1982 Sabra/Shatilla rally, the pro-Golan Heights rallies in 1995, the 1999 ultra-orthodox demonstration against the Supreme Court or the 2005 anti-Disengagement rallies. No one mentioned the September 1993 anti-Oslo Rally in Jerusalem or the pro-Jerusalem demonstration in 2000, all larger. From the outset, there were violent incidents at the "tent camp" but they were either downplayed or faded out of mind with no followup at the police or district attorney's office. Ben Hartman reported on July 23 in The Jerusalem Post that demonstrators were arrested by police after blocking an intersection with mounted police clashing with protestors, using smoke grenades to clear the junction. MK Miri Regev was physically attacked and others were verbally berated. The media response was muted, especially compared to the pasting recieved by members of the national-religious camp whenever one of theirs steps out of bounds.

Another aspect was the extensive live-feed coverage of several of the main protests. On at least two Saturday nights, for some three hours there was nothing else one could watch. On Kol Yisrael, they almost forgot to air the advertisements.

THE JULY 14 movement was anything but a grass-roots campaign. This "elephant in the room" was ignored journalistically, with the exception of a Dror Eydar column.

Indeed, another of the criteria by which one could measure media bias was the media's treatment of those who strayed from the well-trodden path. Sharon Gal, who hosts Channel 10's daily financial news show, was excorciated by his colleagues for daring to ask Daphni Leef "hard" questions about her upper-class background and lack of military service. Margalit Tzanani, actress Anat Waksman and others who even so much as hinted at criticism of the demonstrators, were promptly put in their place by the media and forced to recant.

Social media group MyIsrael publicized a Rotter net scoop and uploaded a 2002 petition bearing Leef's signature demanding that soldiers and those enlisting refuse to serve in the IDF. Did this end Leef's stardom? Did the media crucify her as it did Dr. Gabi Avital for daring to question some aspects of global warming and the theory of evolution? Of course not.

Some journalists did remain true to their profession.

Ma'ariv's Kalman Liebeskind discovered that Stan Greenberg was involved last March in helping lay the groundwork for a possible protest that would be facilitated by various radical left-wing groups. The memo drawn up demanded "action, not thinking, constant action." He also showed that the numbers game was patently false and that reports on the number of participants could not be trusted. Guy Maroz and Orly Vilnai exposed the political bias behind the demonstrations and especially the financial backing of tycoon Daniel Abrahams. Additional independent research uncovered that 80 percent of the movement's leadership are professional left — and far left-wing activists partially supported by the New Israel Fund.

Yet the media did not uphold equal standards. Nationalist camp demonstrations typically involved youth.

This was criticized on educational grounds. Parents were admonished for exposing their children to the reality as they saw it. Yet baby carriage marches were organized as part of the "social justice" campaign, with even infants being exploited by their parents. If that's legitimate for one side, it should be for the other side, too.

The media was not caught ruminating about the fact that at the end of the day even a few hundred thousand demonstrators are a minority. The media should not attempt to undermine a democratically elected government whose election platform promised a free economy.

The media should have noted that the Netanyahu government, in contrast for example to the Sharon government, is making an effort to answer at least some of the complaints of the demonstrating public. Sadly, the past six weeks have demonstrated yet again that Israel's democracy is shaky.

Eli Pollak and Yisrael Medad are, respectively, chairman and vice-chairman of Israel's Media Watch ( This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post Article.aspx?id=237092

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 7, 2011.

Days go by, and life intervenes, but here I am at my computer and prepared to write.

Please follow this posting to the end for a link to a video on this issue, and information on how you can be involved.


On Monday, I attended a presentation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin on anti-Semitism on the campuses of the University of California.

Rossman-Benjamin, who lectures in the Jewish studies department at the Santa Cruz campus of the university, focused on such UC campuses as Santa Cruz, Berkeley, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Irvine. But her words apply in at least some measure to a host of other N. American universities, as well.

"Anti-Semitism," as it is referred to here, appears in the guise of anti-Zionism. This is the new anti-Semitism: A double standard is applied to Israel; comparisons are made between Israel and the Nazis; claims are made that the Holocaust is invented or exaggerated.

While many of us are broadly familiar with the problem, the details, as provided by Rossman-Benjamin, are bone-chilling. Her report makes you want to shake your head in incredulity and ask, THIS is happening in America? Sadly, alarmingly, the answer is, yes.

Muslim groups supported by ethnic minority groups on the campuses speak about Israeli "crimes against humanity;" promote BDS campaigns; publicly display bloo