HOME Featured Stories August 2007 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, August 31, 2007.

The photo art above is by Fred Reifenberg. It is called "Reflect on This."

1. ROSH HASHANA commemorates the emergence of human being on the sixth day of creation. ROSH (Hashana) means in Hebrew "BEGINNING", "Head", "Chief". The Hebrew letters of ROSH are at the heart/middle of the Hebrew word for Genesis, "BERESHIT", which is the first word in Old Testament. Just like The Creation, so should the new year and our own actions, be a thoughtful (head-driven) -- rather than a hasty -- process. Rosh Hashana is celebrated during the Hebrew month of TISHREY, which means GENESIS in ancient Acadian. Rosh Hashana is referred to as "HA'RA'T OLAM" (the pregnancy of the world), and its prayers highlight the pregnancies of SARAH and CHANAH who gave birth to ISAAC and SAMUEL. NOAH -- who led the rebirth of humanity/world -- also features in Rosh Hashana prayers.

2. THE SHOFAR (ritual horn) is blown on Rosh Hashana, which is also called "YOM TE'ROO'AH" (the day of blowing the Shofar). Shofar is a derivative of the Hebrew word for ENHANCEMENT/IMPROVEMENT (Shipur), which is expected of human beings during the new year. A blow of the Shofar is intended to assemble the People and to awaken one's conscience and soul-searching, a prerequisite for improvement. Such a process requires HUMILITY, symbolized by the Shofar, which is bent and is not supposed to be decorated.

The Shofar is the epitome of Peace-Through-Strength: It is made from the horn of a ram, which is a peaceful animal equipped with strong horns, in order to fend off wild animals.

While the BLOWING of the Shofar is a major virtue (of one person), LISTENING to the sound of the Shofar is a major virtue as well (of the whole community). The Hebrew root of "listening" is the same as the root for SCALE and BALANCE (good deeds vs bad deeds), which is the zodiac sign of the month of Tishrey. The same root also applies to the Hebrew word for "ear", which contains the balancing mechanism in our body. Both Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are observed during the month of Tishrey.

There are three types of Shofar-blowing, highlighting Liberty of human-beings and G-D's Kingdom (MALKHOUYOT), history/memory (ZIKHRONOT) and enhancement (SHOFAROT). They also commemorate the three patriarchs, the three parts of the Old Testament and the three types of human beings on judgment day (pious, evil and mediocre). The Shofar is blown 101 times, which is the numerical value (in Hebrew) of the name Michael, which was one of the names of Moses.

3. THE SHOFAR commemorates faith in G-D, optimism in face of adversity, the lessons of the almost-sacrifice of Isaac (thou shall not sacrifice human beings!), the gift of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (which was ushered in by the Shofar), spiritual and physical deliverance of slaves, destruction of the two Temples, ingathering of the Jews to the Land of Israel and the day of judgment.

4. THE POMEGRANATE -- one of the seven species blessed by the Land of Israel -- features during Rosh Hashana meals and in a key blessing on Rosh Hashana: "May you be credited with as many rewards as the seeds of the pomegranate." The pomegranate becomes ripe on time for Rosh Hashana and contains -- genetically -- 613 seeds, which is the number of Jewish laws (of Moses). It was employed as an ornament of the Holy Arc, the Menorah (candelabrum) and the Grand Priest coat, and is employed as an ornament of the Torah Scroll. The first two letters of the Hebrew word for pomegranate, RIMON, mean sublime and it is known for its crown. The pomegranate (skin and seeds) is the healthiest fruit: much iron, anti-oxidant, anti-cancer, decreases blood pressure, enhances quality of blood and cardiac and digestion system. A Hebrew synonym to a wise person: Wholesome like a pomegranate.

5. COMMEMORATION DAY ("Yom Hazikaron" in Hebrew) is one of the names of Rosh Hashana. One can avoid -- rather than repeat -- past mistakes by examining history. The more one remembers, the deeper are the roots and the greater is one's stability and one's capability to withstand storms of pressure and temptation. The more stable/calculated/moral is the head of the year (Rosh Hashana), the more constructive is the rest of the year.

Rosh Hashana commemorates:

The appearance of the FIRST HUMAN BEING on the sixth day of The Creation,

The beginning of the CYCLE OF NATURE -- seed planting -- and equality of day and night;

The opening of the Ark of NOAH following The Flood;

The almost-sacrifice of ISAAC;

The release of JOSEPH (who is buried in northern Samaria, Nablus) from Egyptian jail;

The laying of the cornerstone to the Second TEMPLE;

The three Patriarchs, ABRAHAM, ISAAC and JACOB were born during the month of Tishrey, which is called "The Month of the Strong Ones" -- Nature and Patriarchs;

The two days of Rosh Hashana are dedicated to Abraham and Isaac and Yom Kippur (which ends the Ten Days of Repentance/Atonement, initiated on Rosh Hashana) is dedicated to JACOB;

The Patriarch ISAAC and the Prophet SAMUEL were conceived, in Tishrey, by SARAH and CHANAH;

6. ROSH HASHANA IS A UNIVERSAL -- NOT JUST JEWISH -- STOCK TAKING (REPENTANCE) DAY (Yom Teshuva, Yom Hadeen in Hebrew), which is the first of the Ten Days of Atonement, culminating on Yom Kippur. A Hebrew word for atonement/repentance is TESHUVA, which also means spiritual and physical RETURN (to core values and to the Land of Israel). On Rosh Hashana one is expected to plan a "budget" for the entire year. The prerequisite for a wholesome "budget" is HUMILITY, without which one is incapable of objective "stock taking". The three Hebrew words, Teshuva (repentance/atonement), Shiva (return) and Shabbat -- derived from the same root -- constitute a triangular (personal, national and spiritual) foundation, whose strength depends on the level of Education and Commemoration. According to King Solomon, "The triangular cord cannot be broken."

May past year's curses be over, and may we earn the blessings of the coming year!

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, August 27, 2007.

The Israeli media is busy reporting:

"This November will mark 60 years since the famous and fateful UN partition vote that paved the way for Israel's cre ation. The Knesset plans to reenact the vote with fanfare.

"The commemoration is to occur this coming November 29 (Thursday, the 19th of Kislev), when Israel's parliament will festively reenact the UN vote that took place exactly 60 years before. An invitation has already been proffered to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and the ambassadors of the 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition will also be invited." [IsraelINN.com]

What is there to celebrate?

In a statement to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), on October 2, 1947, the representat ive of the Jewish Agency for Palestine said the following about fairness, balance, and justice of the recommendation to partition Palestine:

"According to David Lloyd George, then British Prime Minister, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Pal estine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish state. Transjordan had, nevertheless, been severed from Palestine in 1922 and had subsequently been set up as an Arab kingdom.

"Now a second Arab state was to be carved out of the remainder of Palestine, with the result that the Jewish Nationa l Home would represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. Such a sacrifice should no t be asked of the Jewish people.[1]

"... 17,000,000 Arabs now occupied an area of 1,290,000 square miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem ce ntres, while Palestine, after the loss of Transjordan, was only 10,000 square miles; yet the majority plan proposed to reduce it by one half. UNSCOP proposed to eliminate Western Galilee from the Jewish State; that was an injustice and a grievous handicap to the development of the Jewish State."[2]

If the Partition Plan would have been implemented, it is likely to assume that the tiny state of Israel would be unable to repel any coordinated Arab assault. Jerusalem, according to the recommended plan, would not be the Capitol of a Jewish state - Jerusalem would have been internationalized.

The Knesset and the Government of Israel should reconsider their venue:

What should be remembered is that Israel's independence is not a result of a partial implementation of the Partition Plan. Resolution 181 [Also known as the Partition Plan] has no legal ramifications -- that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181's validity hinged on acceptance of the General Assembly's recommendation by both parties.

Professor Lauterpacht clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights to either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue - the status of Jerusalem - Lauterpacht wrote that any binding force the Partition Plan would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda [Latin, "treaties must be honored"], that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

"... the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence - especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations."[3]

Reviewing Lauterpacht's arguments, Professor Julius Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, added that Israel's legitimacy, or the legal foundation for its birth, does not reside with the United Nations recommendation to partition Palestine, which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

"... The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arm s against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control."[4]

Resolution 181 had been tossed into the waste bin of history, along with the partition plans that preceded it.

Instead, celebrate by reenacting the reading of Israel's Declaration of Independence; 5 Iyar 5708, 14.5.1948


1 Yearbook of the United Nations 1947-48. 1949. I . 13. December 31, 1948. See: http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-documents/11270.htm. (11270)

2 Delivered by Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, October 2, 1947.

3 See: Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places (London: The Anglo-Israel Association, 1968), page 52.

4 Professor Julius Stone (1907-1985), Israel and Palestine, Assault on the Law of Nations (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), p. 127. The late Professor Stone was recognized as one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations. His work represents a detailed analysis of the central principles of international law governing the issues raised by the Arab-Israel conflict. He was one of a few scholars to gain outstanding recognition in more than one field. Professor Stone was one of the world's best-known authorities in both Jurisprudence and International Law.

Eli E. Hertz, who is President of the Myths and Facts Organization. Contact him at the website: www.mythsandfacts.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, August 31, 2007.

This was written by Robert Chamberlain and it appeared in the New York Post
(www.nypost.com/seven/08072007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/saudis__arms__terror_opedcolumnists_robert_chamberlain.htm). Robert Chamberlain is an associate analyst at the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Washington-based think tank focusing on the Persian Gulf Arab countries.

SAUDI Arabia is often touted as one of America's closest Middle Eastern allies. Indeed, the Bush administration is now negotiating a $20 billion arms deal providing the Saudis with America's best weaponry. The time, however, has come for the United States to challenge Saudi Arabia to act as an ally.

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has found itself in the news lately; a recent article in The LA Times reported that Saudi citizens comprise 45 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq. Half of the suicide bombings are carried out by Saudi citizens, and of the 135 foreign fighters in American detention facilities, half are Saudi. This should function as a red warning light to American officials. But thus far, it hasn't. On July 27, The New York Times reported that some elements in Saudi Arabia are giving financial aid to Sunni groups involved in the Iraqi insurgency. Earlier this year, a close aide to the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, hinted that Saudi Arabia would fund Sunni groups to protect them from the Shiite majority in the case of a precipitous American withdrawal.

Instead of help from Saudi Arabia, we get high-ranking Saudi officials who encourage Saudis to find a way to join the insurgency in Iraq. In 2005, NBC investigative reporter Lisa Myers reported that Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan, a close ally of King Abdullah and the president of the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council, stated that those who can enter Iraq safely with the intention of raising the word of Allah won't be blamed. He also said that those who wish to fight the Americans need no permission from anyone, or need not be under a reputable leadership, but must dedicate their work to the sake of Allah. To date, al-Luhaidan remains in his post, with no action taken against him.

Saudi Assistant Minister of Interior Mohamed Bin Naif has allegedly been helping Saudi citizens travel to Iraq to fight against American troops. Through him, elements of the Saudi government do indeed fight terrorism - by exporting Saudi terrorists to Iraq. This is ironic, because the Interior Ministry is supposed to be halting the flow of terrorists out of Saudi Arabia. And in November of 2005, 26 Saudi clerics, including 21 government clerics, issued a fatwa that called for Muslims to join in the insurgency in Iraq. None of these clerics has been punished, and they still remain in their posts.

Perhaps even worse, King Abdullah himself called the American operations in Iraq an "illegitimate" occupation. Saudi Arabia also seems intent upon opposing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a puppet of Iran. According to the Times, Saudi officials even tried to provide documents alleging that al-Maliki had advised radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to "lay low" during the American surge. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilizad, protested to King Abdullah that the documents were forgeries.

With Saudi officials acting in such a manner, it would only be logical for the Bush administration, at the very least, to push the government to clamp down on clerical fatwas calling for jihad against the United States and its Iraqi allies. Or even better, perhaps the Bush administration could urge the Saudi government to take a good, hard look at Saudi citizens with one-way tickets to Syria and Jordan. The Bush administration has done little to pressure the Saudi government to stem the flow of fighters to Iraq (via Syria and Jordan). The Saudis have taken some measures to stem the flow, but these are often weak, and fail to do much. These measures seem especially ironic in light of the fact that Saudi officials are encouraging Saudi citizens to fight in Iraq.

It's time for the administration to take off the blinders when assessing their bilateral relations with the Saudis. The United States should threaten the Saudis with the prospect of losing the recently announced $20 billion arms deal unless the Saudi government shuts the faucets of terror and extremism spewing suicide bombers and fatwas. The Saudi networks of recruiters and financiers shipping thousands of Saudi suicide bombers and terrorists to Iraq and the world must be brought to a halt.

The Saudi government must be forced to arrest clerics issuing pro-insurgency fatwas. Any Saudi official who aids or abets terrorism should be dealt with severely, meaning he should lose any official position and be punished with a harsh prison sentence. Most important, the United States must pressure the Saudis publicly; back-door assurances have not worked since 9/11.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Ellen Horowitz, August , 2007.

This was written by Brad Wilmouth and it appeared August 28, 2007 on NewsBusters

On Monday's MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams, host and MSNBC General Manager Abrams attacked CNN's series God's Warriors for "a defense of Islamic fundamentalism and the worst type of moral relativism," and as "shameful advocacy masked as journalism," quipping that series host Christiane Amanpour "avoided getting bogged down in objectivity." Abrams further took exception with Amanpour for comparing those who support Israel's defense strategy to Muslim terrorists: "Christians and Jews, for example, who support Israel's strategy for self-defense are just as much God's warriors, according to Amanpour, as the Islamic radicals who blow themselves and others up in an effort to destroy the world as we know it." (Transcript follows)

After contending that Amanpour attempted to "understand" violent Muslim fundamentalists without trying to "understand" evangelical Christians and Israelis, Abrams played a clip of Amanpour in which she "blames the warrior Jews" for the anger of radical Muslims. Amanpour: "Muslims, like people everywhere, abhor terrorism. The small minority who resorts to violence is symptomatic of something many of us have failed to understand: the impact of God's Jewish warriors goes far beyond these rocky hills. The Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Muslim world."

Abrams soon brought aboard Muslim author Asma Hasan, Air America host Reverend Wilton Gaddy, and terrorism analyst Steve Emerson for a discussion of the topic, during which Emerson labeled the CNN series as "the most unfair series" and "the most dishonest series on television that I've seen in my 20 years of reporting or covering terrorism." Emerson further criticized Amanpour for not showing examples of violent Muslim extremists in Europe such as the Madrid and London bombings, and for portraying Jews and Christians as "demons." Emerson: "I thought that, in part, the actual dogma of this series actually focused mainly on Jews and Christians as being the demons, and in fact, one could accuse her of actually engaging in anti-Christian and anti-Semitic behavior by the selection of facts she chose to choose."

Abrams showed a clip of Amanpour speaking to Christian youth leader Ron Luce of Teen Mania Ministries during which she contended that campus rules prohibiting female students from wearing short skirts and prohibiting male students from using the Internet without supervision reminded her of "totalitarian regimes," and compared the female dress code to what the Taliban did. Amanpour: "But that's what the Taliban said. They kept women in their house because men couldn't be trusted around them."

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Monday August 27 MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams:

DAN ABRAMS: For the past week, CNN has been proudly promoting and then celebrating its series called God's Warriors, presumably a look at radicals of different religions willing to fight for their cause. My take: I think it's fair to say it was not what it claimed or promised to be.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So we're not here lobbying for or advocating for or drawing conclusions, either political, religious or ideological-

ABRAMS: Oh, yes they did. CNN should have called it what it was: a defense of Islamic fundamentalism and the worst type of moral relativism. For each of three nights, CNN devoted two hours to the, quote, "warriors" of each religion: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. But rather than distinguish between Islamic terrorists who utilize fierce violence to achieve warped goals, and the merely fiercely religious or even just those who fiercely believe in the state of Israel, Christiane Amanpour avoided getting bogged down in objectivity. Christians and Jews, for example, who support Israel's strategy for self-defense are just as much God's warriors, according to Amanpour, as the Islamic radicals who blow themselves and others up in an effort to destroy the world as we know it. A handful of the most radical of the Jews and Christians who can almost all be identified by name are highlighted. The violent Islamic fundamentalists are, quote, "understood," with no comparable effort to "understand" the evangelical Christians or Israelis. Amanpour even offers an explanation for the angry radical Islamists. She blames the warrior Jews.

AMANPOUR: Muslims, like people everywhere, abhor terrorism. The small minority who resorts to violence is symptomatic of something many of us have failed to understand: the impact of God's Jewish warriors goes far beyond these rocky hills. The Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Muslim world.

ABRAMS: She takes Jewish and Christian political movements, even Jewish lobbyists in Congress, and lumps them in with God's warriors, thereby equating them with the radical Muslim warriors, the quote, "much feared and little understood." Maybe most troubling, much of the warrior Muslim program highlights not the warriors themselves, but claims of discrimination against Muslims.

AMANPOUR: Geneive Abdo is the author of Mecca and Main Street. She says that since 9/11, the majority of American Muslims feel they're singled out for suspicion and surveillance by the government and by ordinary people. Imam Fawaz Jneid, leader of a mosque in the Hague, believes Muslims are under attack, victims of religious discrimination.

ABRAMS: What does that have to do with the warriors? She portrays Muslims as victims, while accusing evangelical Christians of playing the victim.

AMANPOUR: The religious right would have you believe that there's no mention of God anywhere in our public sphere. It's on the currency.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN Legal Analyst: It's on the currency, and they say because it's on the currency, there's nothing wrong with it being in the schools, or in the courthouses, or in the Capitol.

AMANPOUR: But they also play the victim somewhat.

ABRAMS: This series was well-produced and successful, but also shameful advocacy masked as journalism. We have opinionated hosts here on MSNBC who offer opinions on a wide range of topics, including me, but I admit it when I'm advocating. In the end, this was exactly what she said it wasn't: lobbying, advocacy, and an effort, intentional or not, to have people draw particular conclusions.


Before we talk about some of this other stuff, Asma, what do you think about the comments that I just made?

[ASMA HASAN, Author of Why I Am a Muslim]

ABRAMS: A little history lesson for you. I covered the Oklahoma City bombing trial, and you talk to any of the prosecutors who prosecuted the case. In the end, they don't believe that it was part of some militia effort. So that's just fiction, and that's the problem here. The facts are so important.

HASAN: But didn't Timothy McVeigh say in writings from prison that he didn't like how the government was treating Christians, how they were restricting Christians?

ABRAMS: Yeah, he didn't. He didn't. That's right. That's right. That's the beauty of this. Steve Emerson, the beauty of this is they highlight throughout the CNN piece, they highlight identifiable people, Christians and Jews, who've been arrested and convicted of various crimes. And they lump it in, and they claim this is all one big religious fundamentalism.

STEVE EMERSON, Terrorism Analyst: Right. It's so contrived, I thought that I was watching Al-Jazeera. The treatment of radical Islamic fundamentalists were given kid-glove treatment. They explain the Muslim Brotherhood as a peaceful movement. They explain jihad as a peaceful internal struggle. I mean, this was inverting reality on its head. And when they described terrorism, they could only explain it in terms of Muslims being the victims, not being the perpetrators. I felt that, I was really, I felt that the viewer here was really dishonestly treated here. And as far as the treatment of Jews and Christians, when Christian lawyers went to law school, they were called, demonized as "God's warriors." And when Jewish supporters of Israel lobbied for Israel, they were demonized as somehow causing riots throughout the Middle East. This was the most unfair series and, I think, the most dishonest series on television that I've seen in my 20 years of reporting or covering terrorism.


ABRAMS: Reverend Gaddy, let me ask you this. Let me play this piece of sound for you where, again, Christiane Amanpour compares some of the fundamentalist Christians to the Taliban. And I want to ask you if you think this is a fair comparison.

AMANPOUR: On campus, students must follow a strict set of rules. When I, you know, read that women have to wear skirts of a certain length and guys aren't allowed to, you know, go on the Internet unsupervised, I mean, I think, you know, totalitarian regimes.

RON LUCE, Christian youth leader: No, it's about learning to have disciplines that communicate purity, you know. The skirts' length are to keep guys from, you know, any man on the planet could be distracted, and we don't want to unintentionally create distraction.

AMANPOUR: But, Ron, that's what the Taliban said. They kept women in their house because men couldn't be trusted around them.

ABRAMS: Fair comparison, Reverend Gaddy, between a dress code and the Taliban?

[Reverend WILTON GADDY, The Interfaith Counsel]

ABRAMS: And they back it up, again, we're not just talking about individuals who we can name, but there is a large and significant movement of fundamentalist Islam, which I think ends up being minimized by equating this all. I'm sorry, Asma, I interrupted you before.

[HASAN talks about international criticism of Jewish settlement expansion]

ABRAMS: Okay, but that's fine. That's fine. But that doesn't address, look, I'm not going to have debates about the settlements here. I'm debating the bias, the overt bias of this CNN series.


ABRAMS: Steve Emerson, I want to play you this piece of sound. It's a final one. ... And this is again suggesting, let's listen, and then we'll talk about it.

AMANPOUR: Across Europe, Islam is the fastest growing religion, the number of Muslims tripling in the last 30 years. This increased Muslim presence and violence like the Van Gogh murder play into the hands of right-wing politicians, like Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament.

ABRAMS: All right, Steve Emerson, again, "play into the hands," the Muslims as the victims, again, throughout this whole piece.

EMERSON: Exactly. She didn't mention the Madrid bombings, she didn't mention the two London series of bombings, she didn't mention the number of attacks in Europe, throughout Europe. She didn't mention the vast amount of Wahabist radical Islamic influence and supporters in the United States. She omitted all of that in an attempt to bring the perpetrators who she claimed were right-wingers or Christians or Jews. I thought that, in part, the actual dogma of this series actually focused mainly on Jews and Christians as being the demons, and in fact, one could accuse her of actually engaging in anti-Christian and anti-Semitic behavior by the selection of facts she chose to choose.

ABRAMS: Reverend Gaddy, go ahead.


ABRAMS: Well, I can tell you this, CNN is listening to this segment, so maybe they will hear you loud and clear on that and make up for what I think was really well done but ultimately shoddy journalism.

Ellen W. Horowitz is an author who lives in the Golan with her husband and children.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michelle Nevada, August 31, 2007.

As I sit here typing, the newest warrior in a religious war of sorts is kicking and punching and moving within me. As yet unborn, this tiny person represents the best hope for the future of Judaism, as do the new lives that are coming before and after. This child will be raised in a religious Zionist home, encouraged to be a part of Israel and the Jewish people, encouraged to pursue Torah, encouraged to marry Jewish and raise a family, encouraged to learn and grow and prosper.

This child, like its many siblings, will find love and comfort in our traditions and our people, and will be surrounded with Jewish books, Jewish friends, and Jewish life. Even more importantly, this child will be joined by thousands upon thousands of Jewish friends who will be raised with the same important guiding principles: the newest draftees in a war of demographics.

Ităs a war we are already winning, at first whispered among us -- as if saying it too loudly might somehow break the magical power of which we were beginning to become aware, and then spoken of in tentative terms: perhaps, if things keep going this way, Israel will find itself a majority religious nation . . . .

Now, as the headlines are beginning to build, as the newspapers and news shows are beginning to be more and more aware, and as the secular government ministers begin to speak with more and more panic about their inability to keep the state from ităs religious roots, the parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles of this demographic force are beginning to smile outright.

We arenăt ready to boast, or cheer, or go into the streets -- yet. We are still waiting for the inevitable last throws of secularism to try to push its weight around and eliminate our advantage, importing large numbers of non-Jews, attempting to give away strategic lands -- doing anything to maintain their illusion of power.

We look with sadness upon the last throws of their backward rein where they kowtow to terrorists and sacrifice our land and our people to the great idol of "peace." We have seen how "peace" has stood, like a graven image, unable to move or speak, while our living G-d still gives us hope and promise of returning to our Holy places and reclaiming our Holy land. We know there is a lot of pain to come, but we also know the slow unrelenting mass of religious children are headed their way, and there isnăt a whole lot they can do about it.

It has been going on for years. The secular public has been having fewer and fewer children, valuing life-style over life. The Reform and Conservative streams of Judaism in the US and Europe have been intermarrying, assimilating, and losing their Zionist ideals. As Reform and Conservative synagogues see their numbers decreasing over the years, religious Jews see their congregations growing.

The religious public--still in love with the land of Israel; still yearning for our holy places; still dreaming of a land where Torah is important; and still understanding that without Israel, we are a lost people--have made aliyah; moved to Yesha, Jerusalem, Hevron, and Tiberias; sent our children to religious schools despite the great sacrifices weăve had to make; defended the land; and established Hesder Yeshivas where we integrate Zionism and Torah. Even when we canăt make aliyah, we send our children to Israel to study and to serve. And, all the while, all over the world, religious Jews have been growing in numbers. We have a high birth rate because we value life. Our numbers are increased by a great number of newly religious Jews, and a steady stream of sincere converts, who also value life and have many children. Now we see news stories of how the IDFăs officers are 40 percent religious , how secular teaching colleges are facing shortages of students while religious teaching colleges have more students than they know what to do with . We see less tolerance for anti-Jewish secular policies like stores open on Shabbat, the sale of pork, the disruption of religious volunteers in Israeli schools, and the ejection of Jews from Jewish lands.

We are not yet a majority in Israel, but we know the time is coming soon . We see the way that organizations like "Peace Now" try to remove us from our land, and we see that soon their complaints will lead not to abandoning the "territories," but to annexing them. We see in Gaza how abandoning land does not lead to peace; it leads to war. We see how abandoning Torah does not lead to success; it leads to failure. So, listen good Peres, Tamir, Beinish, and Olmert: your time in power is short. Soon our children will be in your seats, they will be making the decisions, and they will bring glory back to Israel in the only way it can be found: through G-d. Ităs something you canăt stop. It is already upon us. The demographic war is one you have already lost and will continue to lose -- with each and every tiny foot-blow and tiny punch of new Jewish lives. Michelle Nevada is a religious Jew from rural Nevada. Contact her by email at Michelle_Nevada@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, August 31, 2007.

Dhabah Almontaser, the nearly anointed principal of Brooklyn's madrassa and CNN's fully annointed Christiane Amanpour both agree that in Arabic, "Intifada" means a "shaking off." Amanpour gave an example of how to use the word by saying that "Palestinian (terrorists) were (merely) shaking off the Israeli Occupation;" Almontaser, when challenged about the infamous tee-shirts, said that "Intifada-NYC" referred to young Muslim girls "shaking off oppression."

In November of 2005, Fox's O'Reilly showed live footage of the French Intifada as it raged in Paris. According to WorldNetDaily, Saudi billionaire Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, (aka Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin AbdulAziz AlSaud), who owns 5-6% of the Fox News Channel, personally called Rupert Murdoch and asked him to change the offensive (but accurate) caption: "Muslim Riots" to the less offensive (and less accurate) "Civil Riots." Within thirty minutes, the Prince had his way.

To paraphrase New York Post columnist Cindy Adams: Only in America kids, only in America.

Our fine Saudi prince also owns shares in Times-Warner/AOL/CNN, which he first acquired in 2002. According to Forbes, the London Guardian, and other media outlets, in 2002 the Prince "claimed to own 1.4 billion in AOL stock...in 2003 he bought another 450 million of AOL stock." God knows what he owns now. (Yes, he's the very Prince whom Presidential hopeful Rudy Guiliani humiliated when he refused to accept his ten million dollar donation for humanitarian aid immediately following 9/11).

Has bin Talal's ownership influenced Amanpour's highly touted, highly slanted, and highly tedious three part series "God's Warriors?" I have no inside information here but I doubt that any overt bribes were involved.

Amanpour dresses in safari-like bush jackets but they are never grungy, and are in fact glamorous in color and fit. She is no Oriana Fallaci, no Susan Sontag, but is probably the best CNN has to offer in terms of Talking Heads who presumably think. To those unfamiliar with Amanpour's background, she lived in London (still does), attended schools in America, and her husband, James Rubin, is Jewish. He once worked for former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright--another Jew who did not know she was one.

After watching Amanpour's segment on the Jews, I was disheartened and outraged. How long will people have to suffer Big Lies on our screens and be forced to react defensively, only after the fact? How much Saudi money might really be involved in CNN's series? In addition to bin Talal, we do know that the Saudis have been buying up shares in the Western media, (UPI for example), influencing curriculum on campuses, and in some instances, buying certain journalists outright. (There is a scandal about this still under wraps in Europe right now. Stay tuned for an update).

Amanpour, whose father is a Muslim Iranian, her mother British, and who spent the first eleven years of her life in Teheran, set out to portray Jews as religiously driven terrorists, illegal land-grabbers, and fat-cat American lobbyists with dual loyalties. She interviewed former President Carter and John Mearsheimer (but not anyone of stature who can easily rebut what they say). Both men believe that Israel is an apartheid state and that the Zionist lobby controls American foreign policy. (See CAMERA'S excellent point by point refutation of Amanpour).

Amanpour makes sure to track down Israelis who have advised the government that "settling an occupied land" violates the Geneva convention and international law (such as Theodore Meron); the Jewish Israeli lawyers who defend Palestinians and who often successfully, challenge the Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes. She has female settlers on camera who allegedly say that they believe Palestinians should be killed or expelled. She shows the security wall at its ugliest without context and she focuses on individual Palestinians who are indeed being seriously harmed by its creation. (No, she does not show the Jews being blown up, week after week, in a non-stop series of 9/11s that might explain the desperate need for such a tragic but strategic structure).

In my no doubt alarmist and paranoid view, she is trying to position American and world Jewish support for Israel as essentially equivalent to American and world Muslim support for Hamas and for other Muslim terorrist organizations who also engage in humanitarian aid and social service projects. Just as the leaders of the Holy Land foundation are being tried as supporters of terrorist organizations in America today, Amanpour's portrayal of Jewish support for an allegedly "illegal," "racist," or "apartheid" Jewish "settler state" with a "handful of Jewish terrorists" may now lead to simiilar attempts to shut down American-based fundraising for Israel and to dampen Congressional support for military foreign aid to Israel.

Perhaps Amanpour does not envision this at all but merely wishes to show that there is terrorism on both sides of the divide. But this is not true. While there is indeed a "handful" of "Jewish terrorists" or ideologue of Jewish reprisals, (Meir Kahane, Baruch Goldstein, Yigal Amir, and the Jewish Underground are named), such figures are just that--a handful, and their attempts at indiscriminate violence have either been prevented or immediately and seriously punished by the Israeli government.

Further, Amanpour fails to draw the right conclusions from what she does show on camera. In every instance, Israeli government officials, including former Shin Bet and IDF spokesmen are the ones who prevent Jewish terrorists from striking, who arrest and imprison them when they commit violence, who sentence them to between 7-15 years in jail or to life sentences. There are no posters all over Israel glorifying their violent deeds as there are on the West Bank for their shahids and shahidas and in the no-longer occupied Gaza strip. Israeli textbooks and television videos do not sing their praises in Israel as is the case among the Palestinians.

It gets worse. She views the Muslim claim to Al Aqsa and the Temple Mount, not as equal to but as superior to the ancient Jewish claim. She fails to draw a single conclusion from the fact that Muslims did not--and still do not--allow non-Muslims access to their holy Jewish or Christian religious sites although Jews guarantee that access to all religions.

So, there I was, licking my wounds when I turned on the TV to see Amanpour's second segment.

Amanpour has never met an Iranian or for that matter a Muslim whom she does not like; yes, even the terrorists and one fundamentalist imam in "the holy city of Quom" receives only a flirtatious wag of her finger when he rather cheerfully admits that women are not allowed to do certain things and are condemned to other things--but that's for their own good, to protect them. She is warm with him, much less warm with his so-called Israeli counterparts.

She opens her segment on Muslim Warriors with a charming, well-spoken, highly westernized young man, Ed Husain, who was deceived, or who rebelled and became associated with a terrorist group in his native London. Once he realized that they are killing innocent people, even children, he backed away. He has written a book about leaving Islamism.

Ed Husain does not represent most Muslims who at best, remain silent and who do not condemn Islamist imperialism, religious fundamentalism, or America- and Jew-hatred. There are a handful of Muslims who criticize Islam openly. Many are tortured, killed, forced into exile, impoverished, live in hiding, publish under psedonyms. Her interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali was very, very brief --no more than a minute altogether. On the contrary, she kept returning to former nun Karen Armstrong whose views on Jews, Israel, and Zionism are anti-Semitic with a vengeance. Armstrong also defended veiling and compared it her own habit as a nun. (Stay tuned for more to come about this).

As to women? Amanpour does not tell us any stories of honor killings or women who avoided being honor-murdered but instead focuses on a happy, modestly veiled Muslim-American woman who describes how her choice to "cover" is denigrated and held suspect in America.

Each and every portrait of a Muslin or of a Muslin terrorist's family presents soulful, thoughtful people, perhaps a bit "different" than you and I but still human, likeable, charming--maybe even made of better stuff than you and I in the west who crave material posessions, display female bodies, allow men and women to intermingle in sexually charged ways, drink alcohol, and refuse to live in a God-centered world.

Amanpour is worse than all the others (writers mainly) who have been blasting Judaism and Christianity but mainly in order to be able to also blast, but in a lesser way, Islam. The thesis is that we are all guilty, all to blame, that each religion is clannish, "different," its texts support violence, its extreme followers are but a handful, nothing for the world to worry about.

These are all false assumptions and outright lies.

I will be posting my views of Amanpour on God's Christian Warriors tommorrow.


In her three part series, Amanpour is far more combative and confrontational with both Jewish and Christian religious leaders than she is with Muslim leaders. She is warmer, softer, more "at home," with even the most extreme of Islamist leaders, perhaps even more respectful, than she is with their allegedly Jewish or Christian counterparts.

Amanpour completely fails to make the distinction between Islamists who teach hatred of infidels and women and who blow infidel and Muslim civilians up (as well as honor-murder their own women); Israelis who are under perpetual terrorist seige and who are trying to defend themselves against Islamist attacks; and conservative Christians who are trying to moblize votes, change laws, or win hearts and minds with words, not bombs (although she certainly has lots of footage of the bloody bombings at abortion clinics--bombings I personally abhor and mourn--as do many Christians).

Amanpour wants us to like Muslims--even the most extremist among them. They are human, prick them will they not bleed? But she does not want us to like Christians or Jews, especially those who are Zionists.

Amanpour does not seem to show the same respect towards conservative Christians who wish to dress modestly, remain chaste until marriage, and avoid a secular culture of rampant pornography and rape as she shows their far more extremist counterparts in the Islamist world or than she shows, at great length, one well-spoken Muslim-American woman who decides to "cover."

In one instance, Amanpour accuses Ron Luce, a Christian leader of teenagers, as being like the Taliban. He actually answers Amanpour in a rather charming, disarming way. She will not be moved. Amanpour herself takes no stand on what Luce says about an American secular and popular culture which allows virgin teenager America to be raped on the sidewalk as we pass by without stopping or caring.

Perhaps Amanpour can't forgive these "radical" Christians their support for Israel, their "Zionism." She presents Pastor John Hagee (together with the late Jerry Fallwell) as Doctor Strangeloves. Hagee, by the way, sees Iran as a threat to America and Israel. As he speaks of his Christian love of Zion, Amanpour cuts to a presumed Israeli air attack againt innocent civilians, replete with weeping, civilian Arab women.

Amanpour again returns to former President Jimmy Carter--this time to have him tell us that he had to break with evangelical Baptists over their sexist position on women in the church. Carter who believes that Israel is an "apartheid" state and whose library has been hugely funded by the Saudis is the new feminist in town.

Amanpour has a definite political agenda--no less so than the Christian conservatives whom she attacks for daring to conduct "stealth politics, under the radar" when they engage in Christian voter drives. Amanpour wants to put a Democrat in the White House. She wants someone there who will move against the so-called Israel Lobby and who will finally stop funding Israel. She wants our next Commander in Chief to engage in nicey-nice diplomacy with Iran. She wants Americans to stop fearing that every Muslim might be a terrorist and to start accepting a parallel Islamic/Islamist universe right here on our own soil.

Yes, our ethnically super-trendy, British-accented war correspondent really wants exactly this. And she wants us to see that such right-wing Christians are no different than Islamists, including Bin Laden, who want a world Caliphate. (We are all the same, all cultures are equal, remove the mote from your own eye before you judge anyone else, etc.)

To accomplish her goal, Amanpour presents Christian conservatives as truly scary, as mounting a Crusader-like Army against liberal secular America--but not necessarily a violent war against terrorist Islamism. Amanpour exploits America's hottest domestic issues (abortion and gay marriage) in order to accomplish her own foreign policy aims.

By the end of her third and final segment we are meant to fear and loathe the Christian conservative right far more than we are meant to fear or loathe Amanpour's Amadinejad whom --incredibly--she never accuses of funding Hezbollah's terrorist work abroad. What she mainly shows us in Iran are Shi'a Muslims at prayer, engaged in theatrical-religious rituals. We do not see them funding and masterminding Hezbollah as it takes down civilian (and Christian) Lebanon, lays seige to Israel, blows up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina. She shows us the child-martyrs (one estimate has 850,000 dying in the Iran-Iraq war) as themselves true believers as opposed to victims of sadistic adult handlers.

Her third segment is one long running advertisement for a Democratic candidate for the next Presidency. She is electioneering as hard as she accuses the Christians of doing.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women's studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women's Health Network (1974). She is currently on the Board of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and lives in New York City. Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 31, 2007.

This is a UN Watch Briefing:

Danny Rubinstein of the Israeli Haaretz newspaper editorial board used the World Zionist Organization to fly himself to a UN conference yesterday in Brussels where, according to a UN summary, he accused Israel of being "an apartheid State."

Rubinstein was billed as the top speaker tonight at a Zionist Federation event in London, part of a series celebrating Israel's upcoming 60th anniversary. According to British community insiders, the World Zionist Organization paid for Rubinstein's return travel from Tel Aviv and -- unaware of the remarks he would make -- for his stop-over to address the UN event in Brussels.

In addition, the London federation was reportedly to pay him an honorarium of U.S. $1500. It was suddenly announced this afternoon, however, that Rubinstein's appearance has now been canceled.

The quote from Rubinstein's remarks was confirmed by several sources attending the 2-day conference organized by the UN's Palestinian division at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, the UN conference describes itself in innocent language but in fact promotes a hardline agenda that runs contrary to the balanced principles of the Middle East peace process-whose Quartet sponsors, ironically, include both the European Union and the United Nations.

That a leading Israeli journalist -- presented by the UN as a member of the Haaretz editorial board -- would participate and grant legitimacy to a Soviet-era enterprise born out of the "Zionism is Racism" canard, whose sole aim is to assault Israel morally, legally and financially, was disturbing enough. But that he would full-throatedly join the jackals, calling Israel an "apartheid state," is a scandal.

The article below is called "UN Palestinian Conference at European Parliament is "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing."
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c= bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=4338489 For additional informatio, call 41-22-734-1472

Geneva, Aug. 30, 2007 -- A conference organized today and tomorrow at the European Parliament in Brussels by a UN Palestinian committee contravenes the principles of the Quartet-sponsored Middle East peace process, said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitoring organization.

The objective of the conference, according to its sponsor, the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, is to support Israeli-Palestinian peace. Yet the conference program and list of speakers reveals a one-sided focus on blaming and coercing Israel, said Neuer, and contravenes the balanced principles of the Road Map framework in which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are now negotiating.

"The conference is a wolf in sheep's clothing," said Neuer. "The UN Palestinian division portrays its event as building bridges, but they excluded anyone representing Israel's position, so these are bridges to nowhere."

Palestinian presenters include activists like Raji Sourani, who justifies Hamas attacks as "resistance," and Jamal Juma, who describes Israel as a "colonial racist apartheid state." Also speaking at the conference will be Leila Shahid, Palestinian envoy to the EU and cousin to late PLO leader Yassir Arafat, along with several other Palestinian officials. Other presenters from the Middle East and Europe either head or are closely tied to pro-Palestinian lobby groups, and campaign for boycotts and sanctions against Israel.

The conference also invited a handful of selected Israeli presenters who are ardent advocates for Palestinian claims, such as Michel Warschawski, self-described as a "well-known anti-Zionist activist." According to Neuer, "by citizenship they may be Israeli, but only a scoundrel or a fool would imagine these token Israelis as representatives of their nation's point of view. The organizers deliberately excluded anyone who genuinely represents Israeli society, or who might dare to speak for Israeli human rights, for Israeli women maimed by Hamas rockets, Israeli children traumatized by bus bombings, Israeli forests and eco-systems burnt and destroyed by Hezbollah rockets supplied by Iran and Syria. All of this is completely erased from the conference narrative."

The UN's Palestinian division is funded by a multi-million dollar budget, part of a sprawling infrastructure of anti-Israel committees and programs launched by the General Assembly in 1975 alongside its resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism." In the past six months, the division organized gatherings in Doha, Rome, Pretoria, and New York.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon and leaders of the EU and the European Parliament must commit themselves to the goal of redirecting the division's budget to actually helping Palestinians, said Neuer, by building medical clinics and schools that teach peace in the West Bank and Gaza.

"Instead of taxpayers from Europe and the U.S. paying for more destructive propaganda, these funds should be converted into ploughshares of hope. Tragically, the Arab regimes responsible for the Palestinian division's annual renewal seem more interested in preserving grievances than solving them. It is time for European and UN leaders to emphasize that anti-Israel propaganda and posturing are relics of the past -- and hurt the cause of peace rather than help the Palestinians."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, August 31, 2007.

The Sharon-Olmert bunch kicked 10,000 Jews out of Gaza two years ago and they have just begun to settle them into new lives. And it is going to cost many more billions before the damage done to the Gazan Jews is alleviated. Now they plan to kick out some 100,000 to 200,000 Jews from Biblical Israel! This is beyond insanity.

The Jews are going to go from being the People of the Book to being the People of the Streets. Maybe if they're going to end up on the streets anyways, maybe they should start acting up now. Walking around the Knesset Building in a single file without stopping -- thus stopping traffic and having cars add some noisy honking. Singing with amplifiers outside Peres' home. Tracking the self-serving MKs who are letting Olmert's government destroy Israel, as long as they have their perks -- making disparaging remarks about these Olmert-enablers in rap mode. Lot's of things they could do. They could learn a few things from the Arabs, who have officialdom living in fear that they will riot at anything -- and it isn't an irrational fear, because the Arabs and their useful idiots (Lefts Marxist Israeli Jews, especially the Appease Now crowd) will indeed make media-worthy trouble at just about anything.

And who is to receive Israel's heartland? The Abu Mazen Fatah and al Aqsa boys -- our "good terrorists". As an editorial in Asharq Alawsat pointed out: "The glaring farce today is that forces from the Hamas movement are the ones presently guarding the Israel-Gaza border, while al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade and Fatah are the ones bombarding Israeli towns with missiles. As for Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the state of Gaza -- or rather, the head of the coup -- he gave a speech last Friday in which he stated that there is a local, Arab and international conspiracy that aims to undermine Hamas so as to ensure the failure of the Islamic model of governance."

So while Hamas and Fatah are exploring ways to kiss and make up, Fatah's boss, abu Mazen, has the job of grumbling while Olmert hands him Israel's heartland (what the Mainstream Press calls the West Bank, so people won't realize it's what's been called Samaria and Judea since ancient times.) "What," Abbas will mutter. "Is that all you are offering? And you expect me to talk to you for so little? Let the Arabs refugees into Israel and maybe I'll give you 5 min."

Oh, will nothing wake the Israelis up? Will they sleep through their own demise?

This was written by Gil Ronen and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) Israel's government has agreed, in writing, to hand over 6,250 square kilometers of land -- the equivalent of its entire biblical and strategic heartland -- to an Arab terror state. So reports Dr. Guy Bechor, a leading expert on Arab affairs, who also supplies some of the details of the negotiations. Bechor reports, based on "leaks from the Palestinian side," that Israel has, in the past few days, presented Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas at least one draft of an "agreement of principles."

  • The agreement calls for a state named Palestine to be established alongside Israel, and have a territory of 6,250 square kilometers: the equivalent of all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
  • "Palestine" will be demilitarized.
  • Most of the Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria over the past 40 years are to demolished and their inhabitants expelled, according to the plan. The remaining communities are to be concentrated in small salients for which the Arab state will be compensated with additional territory elsewhere in present-day Israel.
  • A passage of some sort will connect Gaza and Judea and Samaria. It will be under Jewish sovereignty and Palestinian administration.
  • Israel agrees to redivide Jerusalem. Arab neighborhoods will be under Arab sovereignty and Jewish ones under Jewish sovereignty. Mention is made of "religious areas," but further details are not known as of yet. Each side will recognize the other's spiritual needs.
  • The "refugee" question is not mentioned at all, and Bechor reports that this is the main sticking point. Abbas is insisting that Arabs descended from those who fled Israel in 1948 be allowed to return to Israel, at least in principle.

Bechor says that Abbas and his men have gone over the draft and are not pleased; they know how to negotiate, he notes. In a recent interview with PA TV, Abbas said that "declarations of principles are a waste of time" and "useless." What the PA wants, he said, is a clear timetable for establishing Palestine, as well as an Israeli pullback, demolition of Jewish communities and "return of refugees" (i.e., the flooding of Israel with Arab citizens).

The Arabs are hoping Israel will become more pliable in November, when an international diplomatic conference, sponsored by the US, is to be held in an attempt to hammer out an accord.

An official close to Mahmoud Abbas, Mustafa Bargouti, said that the idea of a conference is "an Israeli trap" and that nothing will come of it.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, August 31, 2007.

As Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas try to work out some phraseology that will satisfy everyone (from Olmert's standpoint that "everyone" includes not only key foreign players but also key decision makers in the Israeli criminal justice system) while not cornering any key Israeli or Palestinian element with wording that explicitly crosses their mutually irreconcilable red lines, U.S. security coordinator in the territories, General Keith Dayton, is busy trying to repeat the mistake he made in the Gaza Strip.

Except this time Dayton is pushing for disaster on a much grander scale.

General Dayton filled the PA and affiliated armories in the Gaza Strip with weapons and ammunition fully confident that this would stop Hamas. It didn't. In retrospect he armed Hamas.

Today he is pressing for a huge project to create yet another Palestinian army in the West Bank. And given that the definition of the Road Map's "dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure" appears to be "putting the terrorists on the PA payroll", this army will hardly be comprised by former choir boys.

And we will face the consequences when things break down. And the odds are very good that they will.

General Dayton has an alternative.

Instead of pushing for five new Palestinian battalions throughout the West Bank, why not focus first on a model city -- or even better a model village?

Provide that village with what General Dayton considers the ideal level of security resources with a clear set of quantifiable performance goals. Goals that include the confiscation and destruction of weapons, ammunition and other contraband in the village.

If and when the model village project works out it can be expanded to a cluster of villages and if and when that works to other clusters and cities until ultimately the entire West Bank is transformed.

That's if things work out as General Dayton hopes and expects.

On the other hand, if reality is more powerful than General Dayton's hopes and expectations the project can be stopped well before its failure would leave us facing another five battalions of well trained and armed terrorists.

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) and it appeared on the IMRA website today. Contact Dr. Lerner by email at imra@netvision.net.il and visit the website -- http://www.imra.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, August 31, 2007.


"It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism." "'Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel, said Guiliani.'" (IMRA, 8/16.)

From Guiliani one expects frankness. He said what the Bush administration says but puts off. Would he? He would not be in a hurry to set up another Islamic state as is the State Dept., but would he be firm with the State Dept.?

My disappointment is his accepting the notion that Arabs are entitled to another Arab state, and that the Palestinian Arabs, who are not particularly different from the other Arabs in the region, are entitled to another Palestinian Arab state, again at the expense of the Jewish homeland. He should ask why. That vicious population deserves nothing.

He also doesn't understand that Islam won't make peace with an infidel state. Such a state contradicts the basic principle of Islam. That principle is that once Islam has seized an area, as it once did ancient Judea, it is entitled to it forever.


Conflict used to be by nation states. Now there is an amorphous assault on civilization. The challenge is based more on ideology. We need to strategize.

The "realist" school of foreign policy would not fight Islamist ideology with our own. That forfeits a great advantage, failing to utilize our strengths. Understand that democracy follows good governance and not the reverse. We should not make a deal for the sake of having a treaty nor negotiate for the sake of negotiating. Successful negotiation requires national unity and strength to back it up! We must reform the State Dept. so it represents and presents American ideology to foreign countries. Judge our diplomats by their results! Although the UNO has some use, it has failed to help in every major dispute.

We must understand the enemy and our own limitations, and not promise too much. We must reevaluate and rebuild our pared-down military refashion and expand NATO to meet the new, Islamist threat. (NATO is untrustworthy.)

Our enemies are allowed to operate in many countries and are supported by some. They fight informally (but the ACLU thinks that makes them civilians). "Above all, we must understand that our enemies are emboldened by signs of weakness. Radical Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. In some instances, we responded inadequately. In others, we failed to respond at all. Our retreat from Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993 convinced them that our will was weak." We cannot rely upon mutually assured destruction as a deterrent. They would blackmail us with nuclear power (IMRA, 8/17).

Guiliani's text as a whole is comprehensive, cogent, masterful. One can't see that from the portions newspapers selected. Does he mean what he said? Does he realize that the State Dept. is out to protect the Saudis and destroy Israel?


Most of the greenhouses with which the Jews in Gaza had built a marvelous agriculture and prospered, and which they left for the Arabs to keep thousands of people employed, instead were looted by the Arabs, destroyed, or used unsuccessfully and abandoned.

The IDF discovered that one greenhouse was put to use. It hid the entrance to a tunnel being dug for infiltration into Israel to commit terrorism (IMRA, 8/15).


Germans were shocked. They read a document reprinted from the days of E. Germany. It ordered border guards to shoot people trying to flee at the border, even if women and children were among them. Germans had thought that Communism was a benign ideology that just didn't work. Some had nostalgia for the German Communist regime. The Communist Party was making a comeback (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/17).

I remember the common practice of shooting people trying to escape. Why didn't Germans remember it, or, if too young, have been taught about it? People living in a country may be ignorant of its worst problems.


The IDF has completed the first stage in upgrading the reservists' equipment. It filled warehouses with modern and ample equipment (IMRA, 8/17).

It won't get to the second stage, because war will come, first. I think that many reservists won't make it to the warehouses, because either the warehouses will be bombed by Arab missiles or the P.A. and Hizbullah forces will sweep in and cut them down en route. Israel is making a grave error in not wiping out the P.A. and Hizbullah forces in advance, another in shipping arms to Fatah.


Candidate Guiliani accepts federal responsibility for Americans' medical care, but his plan could not solve the problem. He proposed a $15,000 tax credit for families to spend on treatment or keep if they minimized expenses (NY Sun, 8/17).

Plans need an incentive to reduce medical costs. His plan wouldn't reduce government expense, since the credit stays the same. The plan depends upon people being employed and at relatively high wages. Tax rates now are calibrated to exempt the high proportion of the population that earns little. They would neither get the tax credits he is contemplating, nor afford private insurance. More of the taxpayers who would be eligible for the tax credits would not need them. The plan, like plans for giving certain Palestinian Arabs a state, is not thought through.


A Saudi cleric declared that Allah decreed Islam for the whole world, and for its own good. He described the non-Islamic world as beastly immodest, literally filthy, and unhappy (IMRA, 8/17).

There is too much immodesty here, for me, but it is contrary to Western faiths, too. The problem is not lack of Islam but lack of faithfulness. It is a minor problem compared to the oppression and backwardness that makes so many Muslims constantly enraged, frustrated sexually, violent, approving of deceit, and tolerant of slavery. As for filth, they have many water shortages and open sewers. My officer had been stationed in Morocco. A Muslim wearing a robe would squat on the sidewalk, and then arise, leaving behind a pile of feces. That was decades ago and may have been just Morocco. If Islam is so great, let it prove it, especially by example, and not depend upon force and deceit to gain ground.


UNRWA complained to the P.A. that its employees in Judea-Samaria were detained and threatened, in an attempt to drag UNRWA into its civil strife. Endangering its employees may make its mission impossible (IMRA, 8/17).

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Islamists drive out foreign relief agencies. In the P.A., Islamists often attack foreigners who've come to help their people. Charity for Muslims is not appreciated and facilitates jihad. It also fosters a welfare mentality upon the recipients. Let the Muslims stew until they reform. Defend ourselves better and take care of our own people.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 31, 2007.

This was posted by Forkum on the Cox and Forkum website

A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists. The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist. The installment did not appear in the Post's print version, but it ran on WashingtonPost.com and Salon.com. The same will hold true for the upcoming Sept. 2 strip, which is a continuation of the plotline.

Click here to see the Aug. 26 "Opus" strip about radical Islam.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 31, 2007.

This comes from today's World Net Daily

Affiliation with al-Qaida called totally unnecessary to be part of holy war

Although the U.S. government and much of the press still look for an al-Qaida connection before referring to domestic mayhem committed by Muslims as "terrorism," Islamist websites are teaching the opposite: There's no need for al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden or any other terror group or leader -- just the dedicated Muslim and his "gun and bullet."

The Middle East Media Research Institute says the campaign, which gives detailed instructions on how to set up a terror cell, raise money to fund its operations and select Western targets, calls on every Muslim to "regard jihad as a personal duty and to take initiative to establish a jihad cell without waiting for recognition from al-Qaida." "For example, assassinating the American ambassador," the website instructions said, "takes no more than a gun and a bullet." The instructions are titled, "How to Join Al-Qaida, Form a Jihad Cell, and Select a Western Target."

It is not clear when the instructions, which appeared this week, were written, MEMRI said, but they were produced by the "Al-Thabitoujn 'Ala Al-'Ahd" website, affiliated with al-Qaida in Egypt but currently inactive.

Some of the instructions, MEMRI said, include:

  • "You feel that you want to carry a weapon, fight, and kill the occupiers, and that it is our duty to call for jihad as much as to call for prayer. ... All that is required is a firm personal decision to fulfill this obligation, and participation in jihad and the resistance. ...

  • "Do you really have to meet Osama bin Laden in person in order to become a jihad fighter? Do you have to be recognized by al-Qaida as one of its members to become a jihad fighter? If al-Qaida commanders should be killed, would the jihad be eliminated? What would you do if al-Qaida did not exist today? How is Osama bin Laden different from you? -- [yet] he managed to establish the world jihad organization. Who provided training to Osama bin Laden and Abdallah 'Azzam when they went to Afghanistan to become the first Arab jihad fighters?

  • "The answers to these questions are the following: I don't have to meet Osama bin Laden to become a jihad fighter. Moreover, there is no need to meet even one jihad fighter to become one. Neither do I need recognition from al-Qaida. ...

  • "As the first step, imagine that al-Qaida does not exist and that you are interested [in waging] jihad -- what would you do in this case?. ─ If you know any young people -- whether one, two, or more -- in your area, mosque, or university who are as dedicated and enthusiastic about jihad as you are, come to an understanding with them, and together form a cell whose objective is to help Islam and only Islam. ...
  • "At first, your cell should have no more than five members, all absolutely trustworthy. ─ The cell must have a commander and a shura council. ─ The commander must clearly realize that he is Osama bin Laden to the cell members...
  • "Each cell should have a source of funding. ─ When you have several members, you will [surely] find the funds for your cell. ─ Then you should buy weapons, make plans, brainstorm, plot your plans, monitor your enemy's important objectives, and study its moves. Set a goal; for example, assassinating the American ambassador -- is it so difficult? Is it [indeed] difficult for someone who has already crushed America in his home?
  • "What is the difference between you and the hero of the New York attack, Muhammad Atta, who planned an action which even today shakes the world every time it is mentioned? Assassinating the ambassador takes no more than a gun and a bullet. One could disguise oneself as a peddler in order to tail [the target], which shouldn't cost a lot of money. ..."

MEMRI also said the website instructed cells to maintain contact among themselves "but by no means in a direct or conventional way. What will unite you is the love of Islam and the motto 'There is no God but Allah.' You much meet once a month. ... You must not meet in the same place twice. ─ Personal meetings with a small number of people [must happen] once a week."

And the cells should have two classes of members, "members who do not [act] openly and are not wanted by the authorities, and members who are wanted (who have been arrested in the past or on whom the intelligence apparatuses have a file). ... "

The instructions provide that the "secret" members will do the intelligence work, raise funds and recruit new members, while "those who act in the open must perform the primary military operations such as assassinations. ..."

"You must be aware that you have brothers everywhere, and that they are expecting the actions of you and your friends even if they don't know you in person or by name, ..." MEMRI said the instructions reminded.

President Bush has warned Americans of the danger of such cells. Near the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which killed about 3,000 Americans, he said terrorism sends "small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations; they live quietly among their victims; they conspire in secret, and then they strike without warning."

"In this new war," Bush said, "the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists, themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operation. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are under way.

"To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and, when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America, and on the battlefields around the world," he said.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, August 31, 2007.

(IsraelNN.com) The Hevron Jewish Community has released a sharp, detailed report accusing the Israeli Government of breach of trust, abuse, and hostility towards the Jewish owners of Arab-stolen property in the City of the Patriarchs.

Entitled "The State of Israel's Management of the Stolen Jewish Property in Hevron," the report was issued this month in honor of the 78th anniversary of the Hevron massacre. In August 1929, Arabs brutally murdered 67 of their Jewish neighbors in their homes and in the local yeshiva. The Jewish survivors were then removed from Hevron, leaving behind their homes and land to be stolen by the Arabs. Only after the 1967 Six Day War did Jews return permanently to reclaim their homes and property. They soon found, however, that doing so under Israeli rule was not to be as easy as they thought.

The report begins by terming itself a "grave indictment" against those in the government who, "for decades have been exploiting their standing and have tried to apply their full influence to prevent the return of the Jewish properties to their owners, and to prevent the correction of the historic injustice of the 1929 pogroms."

The report aims to "detail how, for a generation, the State of Israel has been betraying its mission as the representative of the Jewish Nation in the City of its Forefathers, with disdain, disregard and even hostility vis-a-vis its historic mission of rehabilitating the ancient Hevron community that was destroyed by Arab rioters..."

In short, the report presents what it calls "a major failure of legal, historic and moral significance."

What Happened When?

The report's authors feel that a historic perspective is necessary, and Chapter One recounts the massacre of 1929, followed by the transfer of most of the property to Jordan's "Trustee of Enemy Zionist Property" in 1948. With no one to stop them, the Jordanians proceeded to:

  • bulldoze the Jewish quarter's houses, stationing an outdoor market there;
  • destroy and desecrate the Avraham Avinu synagogue, building atop it a sheep sty, garbage dump, and public restroom;
  • and destroy and vandalize the ancient Jewish cemetery, using the gravestones for local construction.

Parts of the property were rented out by the Jordanian Trustee to local Arabs, while other parts were ignored by the Trustee, and were simply taken over by private or public elements without being registered. "There is actually no proper and full registration anywhere of the stolen Jewish property in Hevron, because of faulty management by both the Jordanian conquerors and the Israel Trustee," the report states.

Israel Takes Over From Jordan

The Israeli Trustee received control of the property in 1967 following the liberation of the Biblical homeland areas of Jerusalem, Judea (including Hevron), Samaria, and more. "It now had a historic Jewish-moral opportunity to correct the injustice and restore Jewish life to Hevron -- but it did so only partially, despite repeated requests by both the original owners and the Jewish Community of Hevron that had received power of attorney to settle most of the properties."

The function of the Trustee is to act in the best interests of those he is representing, the report states, and to ensure that the property does not remain desolate. "Yet Israel constantly and systematically did the opposite... For instance, regarding Hevron property that had been consecrated to a Jewish religious trust, the Supreme Court ruled that Israel could manage it as though it owned it. At the same time, regarding the Moslem Waqf properties in Judea and Samaria, the State does not intervene at all -- even when the Waqf works in tandem with terror organizations."

The report says that by allowing many of the properties to remain vacant and desolate, it is abrogating its basic obligations as a Trustee: "The Trustee/State absurdly overlooks the Arab renters' obligations, while at the same time making extra sure their rights are not harmed... thus ignoring its obligations towards both the property (by leaving it vacant and desolate) and the owners (by not letting them move in)."

Tel Romeida, For Example

Two Jewish-owned plots of land (Bloc 34416, plots 52 and 53) at the heights of the Tel Romeida neighborhood stand adjacent to an IDF base and Jewish homes in the neighborhood -- yet the government bans Jews from setting foot there. The land had been rented to an Arab, but the contract was stopped by the Civil Administration in 2000.

The Jewish Community of Hevron, granted power of attorney by the owners, has asked several times to be allowed to rent the land. In 2003, the IDF Central Region Commander agreed -- but to this day nothing has been done to allow the Jews to move in, and it remains desolate. At the same time, the State/Trustee also does very little to stop Arab infiltration and illegal usage of the area -- whereas Jews who have tried to enter the plots have been arrested and tried.

This is a perfect example, the report states, of the government's hostile attitude towards the Jews of Hevron: "These plots have all the necessary conditions -- land owned by Jews who have given official power of attorney to the Jewish Community, no Arab 'third party,' security permits, and the submission of proper requests throughout the years -- and yet despite all, the property remains desolate, in clear violation of the owners' will."

Moving into the Market

The area now known as the Marketplace -- the part of the Avraham Avinu neighborhood that the Jordanians turned into an outdoor market -- is undisputedly Jewish-owned. After the IDF closed down the Jordanian market because of the security dangers it presented, and after it stood desolate for seven years, and immediately after the murder of the infant Shalhevet Pass by an Arab sniper terrorist, several Jewish families moved into the storefronts and turned them into their homes.

This led to a drawn-out legal battle in which the State demanded to expel the Jews. The State's main claim was that families who moved in illegally should not be rewarded. The report notes the absurdity: "In the [State's] eyes, the 'sinners' who must not be rewarded are the Jews who acted in accordance with the owners' wishes and by their request -- and not the Arabs who murdered and threw out the Jews in 1929!"

Ultimately, at the end of 2005, an agreement was worked out according to which the Jewish occupants would leave, to be replaced shortly afterwards by other Jewish families who would rent the buildings. The Jews fulfilled their end of the bargain -- but Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said the State need not fulfill its side, because of "legal and political considerations."

After having been thus betrayed, two families moved back in to adjacent buildings -- and were brutally and violently removed by army and police forces earlier this month. This expulsion, the report states, is a "mocking symbol of the hostility and disdain that the State of Israel has for the stolen Jewish property," from several aspects:

  • The eviction was not necessary, as the Supreme Court had ruled it permissible, not obligatory;
  • it was meant only to impart a lesson that 'sinners should not be rewarded' -- when in fact it was clear to all that their requests to move in had been ignored for years, leaving Jewish-owned property vacant and desolate;
  • it was done against two families that had left peaceably on their own in the past, based on a government promise that was not fulfilled;
  • it was tremendously violent and destructive. The properties were turned into ruins -- in opposition to the Trustee's obligation to preserve the property, and as an indication that the government meant to ensure that no Jews ever live there. It was the first time since 1929 that a synagogue had been destroyed in Hevron -- and the destroyers were Israeli soldiers and policemen.


The report also notes the State's extra-harsh approach towards Jews who wish to actualize their rights to the Jewish property -- especially in comparison with the forgiving approach towards Arabs who infiltrate into these areas. For instance, a Jewish teenager was caught sleeping in one of the refurbished apartments in the market area. The police arrested him and demanded that he be distanced from the area for 60 days, claiming, "The State affirms the existence of a policy, approved by the Justice Ministry, calling for extra precautions to ensure that the Hevron market area remains empty."

The judge asked the State representative about the closure order placed upon the apartments for "security reasons": "Why do these security reasons necessitate only the closing of the apartments, yet allow people to walk by there? Is it more dangerous for people to enter the apartments than to merely walk by?"

The State's representative answered, "This is the judgment of the Central Commander..." However, he did not add that the order was issued by the Central Commander at the behest of the Deputy Attorney General, Shai Nitzan, for the purpose of preventing Jewish entry into the storefronts.

Conclusion: End the Israeli Trusteeship!

Israel's hostile approach cannot be due to its opposition to Jewish presence in Hevron, the report states: "The government of Israel has recognized, ever since a Cabinet decision in 1980, the legitimacy of Jewish habitation in Hevron -- and even anchored this right in an international agreement, the Hevron Accord of 1997."

"However," the report continues, "as the Trustee of the property, Israel relates to the Jewish owners as an enemy. This is an absurd and intolerable situation for anyone who sees Israel as the country of the Jewish Nation."

The writers of the report therefore call upon the State of Israel to end its trusteeship immediately, "especially given the fact that in 1995, a peace treaty was signed with Jordan -- ending the state of war between the two countries, ending Israel's status as an 'enemy' vis-a-vis Jordan, and ending the need for Israel to fill the shoes of Jordan's Trustee of Enemy Zionist Property..."

"Alternatively," the report concludes, "Israel's policy makers must instruct all the government echelons to immediately stop the systematic harassment and discrimination of the owners of the stolen Jewish property... The State must first repair the damage it did in the market property, and then begin corrective reverse discrimination, leading to the restoration of dynamic Jewish life in Hevron as it was before the pogrom of 1929."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, August 31, 2007.
This was written by Dov Hikind (NY Assemblyman, D -- Brooklyn) and it appeared in The Jewish Press [NY] August 31, 2007.

There was a surreal sense to embarking on a pre-dawn journey to visit Jonathan Pollard in the federal correction facility in Butner, North Carolina. Daylight had not yet broached the horizon, and the gray stillness of the morning at 4:45 a.m. punctuated the gravity of the day's mission. It was a restless night for me: In the last 22 years of Jonathan's incarceration, I had read countless books and articles, researched his case, and been briefed by Rabbi Pesach Lerner, the Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel. And now, I was going to see Jonathan, who had spent most of his life in confinement.

After many years of advocating on Jonathan's behalf, through myriad channels, I wanted to look into his eyes, be with Jonathan and feel with Jonathan. There are some moments, when I contemplate the last 25 years, that have become for me the fulfillment of my destiny, the reason I was elected to public office. It may be reflected in the eyes of a constituent, a senior citizen who was on the verge of having their Medicaid benefits terminated. And it was echoed on July 31, with the crushing sound of steel electronic prison gates slamming behind us with jarring finality in the federal institution in North Carolina.

Meeting with Jonathan was humbling, and it was a full 24 hours until I could integrate and process the experience. Jonathan's faith is immutable, and his love is unfathomable. He has been disavowed, deserted, and denigrated by his beloved Israel. And yet he yearns for her embrace. Initially, regrettably, the Jewish community distanced itself from Jonathan, but his infinite love for the Jewish people has not been tempered.

We were escorted into the room with an intelligence officer accompanying the four of us: Rabbi Pesach Lerner, who has done more for Jonathan than anyone, apart from his wife, Esther; Dr. Joseph Geliebter; and Wolf Sender. And there was Jonathan Pollard. We rushed to embrace, and as we hugged and kissed, the solemnity of the moment, the purity of his love, was overwhelming. It was a profound rendering of the dignity of the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim. Encased in steel, enclosed by razor-sharp barbed wire, for 2 Ż hours we spoke of what Jews have spoken about throughout the milennia: Israel, Torah, and the Jewish condition.

Jonathan was fully read on my recent trip to Europe to survey the violent surge in anti-Semitism in England, France, Belgium, and Germany. His inspired analysis and grasp of the malignancy of European anti-Semitism was brilliant. Jonathan lead the conversation with an anthology of books he had read and was in the midst of reading with titles I have difficulty pronouncing. There are few minds like his, and fewer with a commitment of heart and spirit that is comparable to his.

Keeping kosher in a federal penitentiary is truly a nisayon. It makes it that much more challenging that Jonathan is a Type 2 diabetic, and his condition is acute. The proper monitoring, diet, treatment prerogatives that would control his diabetes are not available to him. Rabbi Lerner bought Jonathan snacks from the vending machines, all inspected for the proper kosher certification. When Jonathan ate the offered chocolate pudding and peanut butter and crackers, one of our group commented that "this food is terrible for a diabetic." Jonathan wistfully answered, "But I'm hungry." I will never forget those words. Jonathan regularly forsakes a diet that would be better advised for his health, because of Kashrus issues.

Jonathan acknowledges, "I know I broke the law, all I ask for is proportionality." The sentence Jonathan received was disproportionate and disparate to that of individuals convicted of a similar crime. Jonathan lives every moment to walk out of prison, to touch the soil of the state of Israel, feel her breath on his cheek, and be with his dear wife Esther. The 2 /12 hours vanished and our allotted time with Jonathan was over. It was a life-altering and life-affirming experience for me. I have met few people who match Jonathan's caliber of faith and commitment; it will stay with me forever.

So many have risen to say that Jonathan has suffered enough. So many Gedolim. So many leaders. So many from the intelligence community. And now we must rise as a community and fulfill a mitzvah that is rarer than most: the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim, redeeming the prisoner.

Rav Elyashiv, Shlita and Rav Schteinman, Shlita have written letters to the President imploring George W. Bush to "grant clemency to Jonathan Pollard." James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA has said, "My view is that 20 years is enough─ I think the close relationship between United States and Israel as fellow democracies is also a consideration, and at this point I think he's served long enough." Former mayor and presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani has said that Jonathan's sentence was unfair and "way beyond the sentences served by other people that have been convicted of the same offense."

It is our generation that has been entrusted by God with Jonathan's redemption. Perhaps for a special zchus, perhaps we need more meritorious undertakings. And as we approach the Yomim Noraim, the High Holy Days, we repeatedly beseech God in our tefillos for His mercy. We need to evoke the merits of the heavens for Jonathan's redemption─. and our own. As long as Jonathan is in prison, we are imprisoned by our own failure to redeem him. We cannot rest until he is in his beloved Israel with his beloved wife.

Now, through Yom Kippur, it is imperative that each and every one of us calls the White House to request the release of Jonathan Pollard. Make the call once every day between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. at 202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111 and take part in the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim.

In these very trying times, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and yours a K'siva V'chasima Tova. May the New Year bring with it comfort and peace and renewed hope and promise for all the Jewish people.

COLOR NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard:

    JPEG -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607.jpg

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org /2007/082607.pdf

BLACK AND WHITE NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607a.pdf

Please call the White House for Pollard Today!

15 days to Rosh HaShana

Please call the White House now!

Tell President Bush to free Jonathan Pollard now!

Send him home to Israel for Rosh HaShana!

Telephone number:
1- 202-456-1414

From Israel add your long-distance service provider code to the start of the USA number for example: 0121-202-456-1111 (Israeli codes: 001, 012, 013, 014, 018, etc)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 31, 2007.

So, after all of the excitement and angst and fury, this is where we likely are with regard to "the peace process":

According to the Post this morning, the US-sponsored summit in the fall may be only at the level of foreign ministers and may not involve heads of state at all. A major diplomat at the Russian Embassy here in Israel reported that he had been told this by US Ambassador Richard Jones. Israeli officials say they haven't been told at what level the conference will be held.

It depends, clearly, on what sort of progress is achieved before the conference. Thus the push to get Olmert and Abbas to put together a pre-conference agreement -- that document stating principles.

There's a move here to play it low key out of a desire to not look like idiots when nothing comes of the meeting. But an additional problem is that Saudi Arabia is less than eager to attend, and is more likely to be induced to do so if it's at a lower level.


Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas isn't doing too well:

"A Palestinian leader who feels safer in Jerusalem, Paris and Washington than in Nablus and Jenin will never be able to deliver."

Thus begins Khaled Abu Toameh's report today, citing a senior Fatah official.

Seems that (and this was a surprise to me) Abbas hasn't been in Jenin or Nablus was before the January 2005 presidential elections when he was campaigning. He's referred to jokingly as the mayor of Ramallah because the only time he leaves this city is to go abroad. "A visit to Nablus or a refugee camps in the West Bank remains out of the question, mainly for 'security reasons,'" one of his aides explained.

All in all, Abbas is lacking popularity and credibility. Concludes Abu Toameh, "Given the current divisions among the Palestinians, the ongoing Hamas-Fatah power struggle, the growing mistrust of the US and Israel in the Arab world and Abbas's shaky status, it is highly unlikely that the PA chairman would be able to win the backing of a majority of his people for a US-backed deal."


A brief word about the issue of African refugees coming into Israel via Egypt, as I suspect this is something that's making press in the US.

Some of those who have come -- as I understand it, roughly 3,000 over time -- have been kept here in Israel (where there is discussion as to what to do with them) and some have been turned back to Egypt. The situation is vastly complicated -- far more complicated than would appear at first glance -- and exceedingly painful.

In a nutshell, there is the feeling that we Jews here in Israel have a moral obligation to receive suffering refugees. And that perspective tugs at my own heart, without a doubt. It comes from the gut, in terms of who we are and how we are supposed to act.

But -- while I believe mistakes have been made in handling them -- Israeli officials who respond differently are not necessarily being heartless and without compassion or sense of responsibility.

When one hears "African refugee" one thinks first of Darfur, and this obscures the larger issue. For it turns out that less than 1/4 of those who have come here are from Darfur (most of whom have been kept), and just over 50% are from Sudan at all. The rest are from various other parts of Africa.

Word has apparently gotten out that if you can get yourself to Egypt, and then over the Sinai border to the Negev, that's a wise move. But this could result in absolutely huge and untenable numbers arriving that we are simply not capable of coping with; we are a small nation with a host of problems and an African Jewish population (from Ethiopia) that we are still contending with absorbing. We cannot accept unlimited numbers of refugees, and that message must be delivered; there is talk about building a fence so that they cannot get into Israel.

Then there is a further concern -- though there has been no evidence yet that this has been the case -- that active enemies of Israel from Africa might come with a refugee population. In particular there is concern about al-Qaida, which has an African presence.

Part of the problem in handling this has been Egypt's reprehensible way of dealing with the refugees. From that perspective it is easy to understand why they'd prefer to jump the border and take their chances in Israel (and why our sensitivity is necessary). There was one obscene incident witnessed by Israeli soldiers at the border who saw a refugee killed. If some refugees are being returned to Egypt, acceptable conditions for them must be assured -- and apparently arrangements have been made with Mubarak. Beyond this, it is appropriate for the international community -- the UN High Commission for Refugees and various NGOs -- to be involved here.

According to an Israeli Foreign Ministry official: "Given Israel's size and limited resources, it has taken significant measures. Israel is well aware of its responsibility as a sovereign state, but we cannot address this complex issue on our own."


For about a month, Arabs on the Temple Mount have been digging with heavy equipment, creating a trench 1.5 meters deep and 400 meters long that they say is needed for new electrical cables. They are doing so with the acquiescence of the Israeli government and the Israeli Antiquities Committee.

Independent archeologists from the Committee Against the Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount have become deeply disturbed about this and registered protest without effect. One of the most outspoken, Bar-Ilan University archaeologist Dr. Gabriel Barkai, then called a Jerusalem press conference, at which he explained that archeological ruins of inestimable value have been severely damaged by this work, while Israel is turning a blind eye. He is referring to a seven-meter wide wall that apparently dates to Second Temple times and was likely part of the Temple courts.

An appeal to the High Court, to stop this work will be registered next week. The work is being done at night, which makes inspection more difficult.

Why would Israel turn a blind eye? Because stopping the work would cause protest in the Muslim population and it's easier not to take them on. How despicable is this disregard for our heritage.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, August 31, 2007.

It's Friday August 31, 2007 B"H, the 17th of Ellul. There are 11 days to Rosh HaShana. Please call the White House now!

Tell President Bush to free Jonathan Pollard now!
Send him home to Israel for Rosh HaShana!

Telephone number (Monday to Friday 9AM to 5PM):

Dialing from Israel: Add your long-distance service provider code to the start of the USA number for example: 0121-202-456-1111. (Israeli codes: 001, 012, 013, 014, 018, etc.)

Hours for Israeli Calls: White House telephone lines are manned from 4 PM Israel time to Midnight, from Monday to Friday. Be sure to call before (6:29 PM ) candle-lighting on Friday afternoon. [To ensure a faster response, follow the instructions for "Rotary" telephones regardless!]
Your calls put Pollard on the map!

The Pollard Call-In Campaign spear-headed by the National Council of Young Israel last Spring put Pollard on the map in the White House. His name now appears on the list of subjects that all the White House phone operators are given to record the number of calls. Now, with G-d's help and massive participation in the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim, let's get Pollard out of there, and home for the High Holidays! Amain!

Please call now!

The National Council of Young Israel ad and flyers for recirculation and reprinting to encourage participation in this urgent intiative are available from the J4JP web site. Please click on the link below for the format of your choice:

COLOR NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard:

    JPEG -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607.jpg

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org /2007/082607.pdf

BLACK AND WHITE NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607a.pdf

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Turk, August 30, 2007.

After today's news report that the government of Israel is prepared to relinquish control of the Temple Mount, it has now crossed a final line and must be removed by any means. The Bolsheviks that have ruled Israel for the past fifty nine years need to be stripped of their positions and tried for treason for crimes against the Jewish People. Throughout our long history as a people, we have always had traders willing to sell us out to the enemy for personal gain.

Written into the declaration of independence of the United States are certain safeguards that protect its people from the abusive government. The preamble says That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

While Israel is not the United States, I say it is still a G- d given right for the people of Israel to abolish a corrupt and abusive government.

As Jew's living in the Diaspora, it is our duty to help and protect our Jewish brothers and sisters in Israel from the abusive Olmert government whose intent is to destroy The State of Israel.

I now call upon all Proud Jews and world Zionist organizations to put their differences aside and start making plans to help the brave " settlers " hold on to the land that our brave soldiers reclaimed. We also call on the proud and brave Israeli military to stand with those opposing an unlawful and ungodly so- called leadership. If you are strong enough make plans to go to Israel and stand shoulder to shoulder with our Brothers and Sisters. Please make plans. If you cannot go, then please make a generous donation to help defray the expense of the brave Jews who are willing to put their life on hold to stand by the land and people of Israel.

I will lead by example and go to Israel as will most of our organization's leadership.

If you are willing to make this historical effort, please send me an email. If you are unable to go and are willing to help defray the cost of those who want to go to Israel, please email me directly at chairman@bnaielim.org

Robert Turk is Chairman of B'nai Elim. Contact him by email at chairman@bnaielim.org or call him at (860) 738-8872

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, August 30, 2007.

This was published yesterday by Ira Stoll, Staff Reporter of the New York Sun, in www.nysun.com/article/61485.

Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government burst onto the national scene in March of 2006 with a Harvard "working paper" in which they wrote of the "unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." They charged, "Were it not for the Lobby's ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today.... AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress.... manipulating the media."

At the time, the paper was praised by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the American white supremacist David Duke, while widely condemned by the American Jewish community and a number of general interest publications, including The New York Sun. Next week, the two professors will publish a book-length expansion of their argument, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 484 pages, $26).

In this latest iteration, the professors have tried to clean up their act -- but only on the surface. The "Lobby" has been revised to the lowercase "lobby." Gone in this new presentation is much of the inflammatory rhetoric -- the verb "manipulate," the term "stranglehold," the accusation that AIPAC is a foreign agent rather than an American interest group. The new version of this argument, with its stamp of approval from Farrar, Straus and Giroux, may be more acceptable for sale at a Barnes & Noble near you, for open discourse in the New York Times, on National Public Radio, and at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But from beneath the surface, try though the professors may have to suppress it, what Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt themselves define as anti-Semitism manages to poke through. The professors write that "anti-Semitism indulges in various forms of stereotyping and implies that Jews should be viewed with suspicion or contempt, while seeking to deny them the ability to participate fully and freely in all realms of society."

They are at pains to emphasize that "the lobby is defined not by ethnicity or religion but by a political agenda." Then they proceed to jump in and do exactly what they say anti-Semites do.

What are we to make of the professors' classification of the former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, as a supporter of Israel in part on the basis that "Dean's wife is Jewish and his children were raised Jewish as well"? Or of the assertion that "Christian Zionists exert less impact on U.S. Middle East policy than the other parts of the Israel lobby do," because the Christians "lack the financial power of the major pro-Israel Jewish groups, and they do not have the same media presence"?

Instead of the charge that the Jews or the "Lobby" are "manipulating" the press, the new, cleaned-up, book version of Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer asserts that, "If the media were left to their own devices, they would not serve up as consistent a diet of pro-Israel coverage and commentary." Left unexplained is exactly whose devices the press has been left to, if not their own.

Discussing Elliott Abrams, an aide to President Bush, they quote an unremarkable passage from one of his books -- "there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart -- except in Israel -- from the rest of the population" -- and tutt-tutt, "This is a remarkable comment coming from an individual who holds a critically important position on Middle East policy in the U.S. government."

Clinton administration aides who are American Jews come in for the same treatment. The authors describe Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk by approvingly quoting a Palestinian Arab who protested "negotiating with two Israeli teams -- one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag." The professors protest that they are using the term "dual loyalty" not in its "earlier, anti-Semitic incarnation" but in "a neutral and nonpejorative fashion." It's an awfully fine distinction.

To those with time-in-grade on this beat, there are jarring notes. What's with the notion that the Nazi Holocaust, as Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer write, "killed nearly six million Jews"? Not six million, as some but not all historians have found, but "nearly" six million, a distinction that, without discussing it, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer seem strangely careful to maintain.

They claim that anti-Semitic bigotry was widespread "until recently," but minimize its current surge in Europe. Statistics are piled upon statistics to dismiss the problem of anti-Semitism in France, with no mention of the fact that France's ambassador in Great Britain called Israel a "[expletive] little country" or of the fact that the number of French Jews each year who are fleeing France for Israel has more than doubled in recent years because of the anti-Semitism . Of the anti-Semitism among European Muslims, the authors assert that "some of it" is "provoked by Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians." It's a textbook example of the error of blaming the Jews for anti-Semitism rather than the anti-Semites.

Genuine anti-Semites, such as the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who in 2002 said of Jews, "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," -- a quote omitted by the professors -- get stunningly favorable treatment in this book. Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer buy into the claim that Hezbollah's initial rocket attacks on Israeli towns last summer were intended not to kill Jews, but to divert Israeli attention from a kidnapping raid on Israeli soldiers. Sheikh Nasrallah preached, "death to America" and "each of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah. The most honorable death is to be killed." These are but two more quotes omitted by the professors, who write that "it is impossible to make that case that the United States supported Israel" against Hezbollah "because it was the morally correct policy choice." They may think Israel had no moral high ground against Hezbollah -- they clearly do think that -- but to claim that such a case is "impossible to make" overstates it.

If Hezbollah is practically benign, in the view of Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer, so too are Israel and America's other enemies. "Tehran has made several attempts in recent years to improve relations with Washington and settle outstanding differences, but Israel and its American supporters have been able to stymie any dÚtente between Iran and the United States," they write. "Absent the lobby, there might already be a peace treaty between Israel and Syria." Israel's existence, they write, "is not in danger at present." Saudi Arabia, they claim, has offered to sign a peace treaty with Israel. "Remarkably, Iran has even offered to put its nuclear program up for negotiation and offered to work out a modus vivendi with Israel," they write. Israel's supporters in America doubtless wish the professors were right, but know they are not.

Also apparent, even in this newly polished presentation, is the shakiness of Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt's grip on the facts. They claim that terrorist attacks "do relatively little damage to Israel's economy." What of the fact that, amid a terrorism surge, foreign tourism to Israel declined to 718,000 in 2002 from 2.7 million visitors in 2000? They claim that "the Arabs were not attempting to destroy Israel" in the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, dismissing the assertions of Arab leaders to the contrary as "largely rhetoric designed to appease their publics." The implication of the qualifier "largely" in that sentence, undermining as it does their own claim, seems largely to have escaped the professors.

The authors get a good ride out of the qualifier "largely" elsewhere in the book, too. "Unlike virtually every other country, Israel is largely immune from criticism on Capitol Hill," the professors write. The professors go on to name a long list of lawmakers who have criticized Israel, the country's supposed immunity notwithstanding -- Paul Findley, Lincoln Chafee, Charles Hagel, Earl Hilliard, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Roger Jepson, Charles Percy, Nick Rahall. Others, such as David Bonior, are omitted.

New to the book version is the claim that the Israel lobby is damaging not only American interests but also Israel's interests, a claim the authors repeat -- with a straight face -- again and again. Their concern for Israel's interests is touching, but it's a safe bet that the American Jewish leadership and the Israeli voters and elected officials ;have a more reliable judgment of what is in Israel's interests than do these two professors.

The professors have their own view of American Jews, reporting with a tone of some exasperation that many of them "still believe that anti-Semitism is rife." That view is sure to be confirmed after reading this book.

But one need not pass judgment on the motivations of Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer to reject their conclusions. One can even assess, as does David Remnick, writing in this week's New Yorker, that, "Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists," while still finding fault, as Mr. Remnick does, with their unrelentingly negative depiction of Israel and mystifyingly rosy depiction of Israel's enemies.

The professors blame the Israel lobby in America for nearly everything, from the failure of peace to break out between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to the failure of peace to break out between America, Iran, and Syria. "In fact, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it has long been so supportive of Israel," they write. It's all too neat -- the Israel lobby as an all-purpose scapegoat, a catch-all to blame for everything from the Iraq War to al Qaeda. As Mr. Remnick put it, "Mearsheimer and Walt give you the sense that, if the Israelis and the Palestinians come to terms, bin Laden will return to the family construction business."

It's not a useful argument for Middle East policymakers, but it is an illuminating one for those concerned about the state of both the American publishing industry and higher education. The authors conclude by noting ecstatically that "In November 2006, twenty-five peace researchers in Germany called for questioning the 'special relationship' between Germany and Israel,' because of Israel's actions against the Palestinians." That relationship is about to be eroded further by the publication of this book by the German company Holtzbrinck, through its imprint Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

That these authors could propound these views from prominent perches at respected American universities is a sign of a decline in standards in American higher education. During World War II, Harvard and the University of Chicago threw themselves into the effort to defeat the Nazis. In the current war, at least two professors are calling not for a defeat of the Islamist terrorists but for appeasing them at Israel's expense. This book is long but it offers not a scintilla of evidence that doing that would advance either America's security or the cause of freedom.

Contact Koira at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 30, 2007.

The IDF is honoring its heroes from last summer's Lebanon War, and so some of the bravest are being featured in the media. The small sketches I offer here are evidence sure and clear of the caliber of the Israeli people. They are the best.

Dr. Yehuda David, 53, an orthopedic surgeon, was on vacation when the war broke out. A major in the reserves, he hurried back and contacted the IDF. He is now being honored for his consistent dedication and self-sacrifice. He spent the entire war inside of Lebanon, carrying his 60 kg. pack -- filled with medical supplies -- on his back wherever he went; he treated some 50 soldiers.

"I sign on for volunteer service," he said, "since if the soldiers are willing to give everything they can, I am also willing to give everything I can. After 2000 years in exile it is an honor to serve in the IDF."

On the Friday night before one of the war's biggest battles, at Saluki, he assembled his battalion and suggested they light candles and recite the Shema before heading out to fight.


Erez Ramati, also a doctor, was with his battalion at Saluki as well. He and his medics were treating the wounded from his battalion when he was informed that soldiers from another company also needed help. To get to them he had to run through an open area, directly exposed to Hezbollah fire.

"There was no time for hesitating," he explained, since there were people who were wounded and they needed me. This was not about heroism or bravery but about doing what you need to do."


I mentioned the other day the conference taking place under the auspices of the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. That it's turning out to be a bad scene is no surprise -- we knew it would be. B'nai Brith, which sent people from its Foreign Affairs Office, to monitor the proceedings, paints a dismal picture. "This is a conference of Israel-haters," said its director, Adam Mouchtar.

What is perhaps most unsettling is that we're talking about Europeans: the European Parliament is hosting; European speakers have labeled Israel "apartheid" and called for a boycott. NGO-Monitor, based here in Jerusalem, reports that their "research has shown, non- governmental organizations funded and supported by the EU...are at the forefront of the political campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel."


Mahmoud Abbas, PA president, is not attending the conference but sent someone to make a statement on his behalf. In expressing hopes for a peace agreement with Israel, he alluded to the "inalienable rights" of the Palestinian people, which is, after all, what the committee sponsoring this gathering is dedicated to. A brief comment is in order, for the record:

The Palestinian Arabs have NO inalienable right to a state. Don't be taken in on this. It's not a question of when they will exercise this right, with the right itself an acknowledged given. It simply doesn't exist, any more than the "right of return" for the so-called refugees exists.

The Palestinians are a self-defined (or invented) group. I would like to say that they don't even exist as a people, but I recognize that they're created their own identity in recent decades; they've internalized it (and taught it to their children) and the world has bought it, so the argument becomes moot.

What I can say is that they have no long history as a distinct people, and no long history in the land. Prior to 1948, the Jews in Palestine were called Palestinians and the Arabs called themselves Arabs. It's on the record for anyone who investigates this to see: They used to say they were part of the Arab nation or greater Syria. Many who today call themselves Palestinians came into Palestine as migrants with the influx of Jews in the years before the founding of Israel -- they came from places like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Syria, looking for work, as Jewish development created jobs. Neither in language nor in culture are they distinct from surrounding Arabs.

And while they have invented themselves and created the myth of the Palestinian people, it is a shallow thing, without deep national identity. This is why there are divisions between Palestinians groups: loyalty to clan or party comes before national loyalty. This is why they cannot get their act together -- forming a nation is not really their priority.

The need to create a national identity was not intrinsic in a positive sense -- it was born in the main as a negative reaction to Jewish presence in the land. Compare this with the Kurds who have distinct culture and a strong national identity, and who long for establishment of a Kurdistan. (There is no UN committee for the inalienable rights of the Kurds, however.)


Yesterday the IDF picked up in northern Gaza a 15 year old Palestinian Arab boy who had explosive devices that he was planning to use for a suicide attack. He is in custody.

This is just one more instance of the terrorists making use of minors for their purposes.


Not good news. Khaled Abu Toameh of the Post reports that Abbas has now appointed a special advisor on Jerusalem affairs, Adnan Husseini. This suggests that Abbas expects Olmert to negotiate the status of Jerusalem. I'll have more to say about this shortly.


This isn't good news either: General Dayton, US security coordinator for the PA areas, has a peachy keen idea. He wants to institute five new Palestinian battalions in Judea and Samaria, complete with training and equipment supplied by the US (using the $80 million that's been allocated). This -- of course! -- is to strength Abbas.

Does this take your breath away, as it does mine?

He's been there, and done that, you see. In Gaza. And it was a colossal failure. The US is now smarting over the sophisticated weaponry and intelligence equipment that has fallen into Hamas hands because Fatah was quick to cut and run. And they want to do it again? On a bigger scale yet.

What does one say about the intelligence, or the ability to grapple with reality, of someone who repeats what already failed so miserably, especially when the repeat performance, if it fails again, could be disastrous?

This plan is in its early stages, and is supposed to progress slowly. If equipment is to be transferred to the PA, Israel will have to approve it. It would be foolish, I guess, to hope that our government will see so clearly the danger of this fighting equipment falling into the wrong hands and being turned on us (as ALL weaponry supplied to PA forces has ultimately been turned on us to some degree), that permission will be denied. Maybe if the IDF and intelligence forces are adamant?


Meanwhile Olmert has said that what he hopes to achieve with Abbas is conclusion of a single page agreement on principles for future negotiation. The wording would be kept vague enough to avoid diplomatic pitfalls that would be brought about by anything too specific.

Said Olmert: "I believe that we want and can make decisions, but the Palestinians have a number of groups, they have no stable democracy, and there is uncertainty about the government and their institutions..."

Explaining further, he added, "We will not push [Abbas] toward any declarations that will be good at noon and cause us to lose everything by evening." This means no feet to the fire, no demands for taking our terrorism, nothing that the people would object to. Doesn't take the "process" very far. This is what Olmert calls a "political horizon."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 30, 2007.

This comes from Cox and Forkum Cartoons website.

This cartoon was originally posted on August 1, 2004, and is in our second book Black & White World II, which can be ordered at
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000967.html along with our latest book.

From FOX News: Iraqi Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Suspends Mahdi Army Activities.

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army militia in order to reorganize the force, and it will no longer attack U.S. and coalition troops, aides said Wednesday.

The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state television that the goal was to "rehabilitate" the organization, which has reportedly broken into factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained and supplied by Iran.

"We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum period of six months starting from the day this statement is issued," al-Araji said, reading from a statement by al-Sadr.

In Najaf, al-Sadr's spokesman said the order also means the Mahdi Army will no longer launch attacks against U.S. and other coalition forces.

"It also includes suspending the taking up of arms against occupiers as well as others," Ahmed al-Shaibani told reporters.

Asked if Mahdi militiamen would defend themselves against provocations, he replied: "We will deal with it when it happens."

The order was issued after two days of bloody clashes in the Shiite holy city of Karbala that claimed at least 52 lives. Iraqi security officials blamed Mahdi militiamen for attacking mosque guards, some of whom are linked to the rival Badr Brigade militia.

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, August 30, 2007.

This comes from The Weekly Standard
www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/the_iran_dossier.asp It was posted yesterday by Michael Goldfarb, editor of www.WorldwideStandard.com

Kim Kagan has produced her latest Iraq Report for The Daily Standard, this one detailing Iranian activity inside Iraq over the last 15 months. The report is the most comprehensive document on this subject I've come across, and it includes a series of maps and other images that help illustrate the mechanics of Iranian influence in Iraq.

I follow this stuff pretty closely, but I've never been quite clear on exactly what constitutes the "special groups" that MNF-I discusses so frequently, who finances them, what shape they take, etc. Kagan goes a long way toward clarifying this:

The Qods Force and Hezbollah trained Iraqis in groups of 20 to 60 so that they functioned as a unit--a "secret cell" or "special group." The Iraqis returned to Iraq after their training, maintaining their group's organization. Thus, each "special group" in Iraq consisted of 20 to 60 Iraqis who had trained together in Iran in how "to use EFPs, mortars, rockets, as well as intelligence, sniper and kidnapping operations." These special groups could be combined into larger organizations. The director of the Amin Allah charity coordinated "more than 200 rogue JAM members" and "ordered them to conduct assassinations on local citizens and government officials who oppose the group's illegal activities."

How about the Sheibani network we've heard so much about?

By August 2005, Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani had developed an extensive "network of insurgents created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps with the express purpose of committing violence against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq." Sheibani's group introduced into Iraq "'shaped' explosive charges," based on a model used by Hezbollah against the Israelis, and its fighters trained in Lebanon as well as Sadr City and "'another country,'" according to U.S. intelligence sources. An American military official in Baghdad explained that "the U.S. believes that Iran has brokered a partnership between Iraqi Shiite militants and Hizballah and facilitated the import of sophisticated weapons that are killing and wounding U.S. and British troops." An American Special Operations Task Force report claimed "the Lebanese Hizballah leadership believes that the struggle in Iraq is the new battleground in the fight against the U.S." Sheibani's group was estimated to include 280 fighters organized into 17 bomb-making teams and death squads.

And on the effect of the surge on Iranian activities:

In 2006, Coalition forces were also spread too thin to cover the lines of communication south of Baghdad. For example, only 200 soldiers from the Polish Division in Multi-National Division Central-South were stationed in Kut through spring 2007, detached from the bulk of their unit. Thus, smugglers could bring Iranian weapons without expecting interdiction along open routes in 2006.

The surge of U.S. and Coalition forces, including the addition of another Division Headquarters, made it possible to begin interdicting weapons flowing along the major highways and the Tigris River. Multi-National Force-Iraq reinforced Kut with 2,000 soldiers from the Republic of Georgia, who arrived in July and August 2007 for operations that will commence in September. MND-C plans to use this brigade to search every truck coming along the highway through Kut.

There's so much information in this document, it's hard to rip just a few items from the text. Still, for anyone trying to understand the role of Iranian forces in Iraq, and the complex networks the supply and sustain, "The Iran Dossier" is a must-read. Click here or on the image above right for the pdf.

Download the Report from

Contact Koira at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Besa Center, August 30, 2007.

This was written by Efraim Inbar and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392492694&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). The writer is professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. Write the Center at Besa.Center@mail.biu.ac.il

When the radical Islamist Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June, several commentators concluded that since the organization's primary concern was consolidating its rule, it would try to reach a long-term truce with Israel. In accordance with this rationale, Hamas would be more flexible on a deal to free the abducted soldier, Gilad Schalit, and would refrain from attacking Israel. Neither scenario materialized.

In reality, Hamas is not signaling moderation, but continuous violent struggle against the Jewish State. The organization is waging a limited war against Israel and preparing for an escalation in the conflict. Kassam rocket attacks have intensified, and work continues on extending the range of the rocket. Infiltration attempts by terrorists into Israel have also grown.

Palestinian mortars have even targeted the crossing points into Gaza used for transferring much-needed food and fuel into the Strip. Additional tunnels have been dug, and arms smuggling has reached a peak since Hamas took control of Gaza. Furthermore, Hamas sends hundreds of its men to Iran for advanced training. And Hamas has significantly enhanced its military capabilities across a range of areas.

WHILE ISRAEL has recently become slightly more active militarily in the Strip, it still shows unnecessary restraint. The fears that a large-scale ground attack in Gaza might be costly in casualties are exaggerated. It's an assumption which needs reassessment. Similar arguments were voiced against a large-scale invasion of Judea and Samaria before Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, and they were proven wrong.

Gaza has yet to be subjected to an Operation Defensive Shield-like military treatment, and this is why the level of violence emanating from Gaza is so high. Moreover, delay in addressing the Hamas challenge might prove more costly in the future, as our experience with Hizbullah in Lebanon has clearly shown.

STRATEGICALLY, ISRAEL'S reluctance to commit troops in battle to deal with Hamas aggression signals weakness. The widespread perception within the Arab world that Israeli society is extremely sensitive to the loss of human life invites enemy violence. It was largely this perception that motivated the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel in September 2000.

The "spider web" theory propagated by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah -- that Israel's emphasis on the value of human life as well as its self-indulgent Western characteristics render it weak and vulnerable -- are also based on this view.

Nowadays, in order to terrorize Israeli citizens, Gazans count on Israel's reluctance to employ land operations and attack targets in dense population areas.

ISRAELI POLICY should signal that life on the Palestinian side of the border will be invariably affected by Palestinian violence intent on deteriorating the quality of life on Israel's side of the border. Palestinian dependence on Israel for electricity and water supply should be capitalized on to impress upon the Palestinians that reciprocity is the name of the game.

Israel has no obligation to the Palestinians if they are indiscriminately killing civilians and damaging valuable infrastructure. International law permits a military response, including artillery, aimed at the sources of fire, even if the fire is coming from urban areas. Israel should not hesitate to create a refugee wave by warning about impending fire on residential areas. Such tactics may result in a degree of Palestinian restraint.

Moreover, the international atmosphere is very conducive to an Israeli strike on Hamas-controlled Gaza. Hamas is largely ostracized by the international community, which wants to help Mahmoud Abbas restore the authority of the PA to the Gaza Strip. Anything Israel does to weaken Hamas' grip on Gaza will be viewed with understanding.

Abbas himself and his impotent coterie are quietly expecting that Israel will act to erode the control of the Hamas regime. Similarly, the so-called moderate Arab states will hardly be displeased if Hamas is weakened by Israel. The Hamas takeover of Gaza was a great shock for them as it encouraged Islamic opposition groups in their own countries.

FINALLY, the US may be expecting Israel to land a blow on the radical Islamic regime. Jerusalem failed to deliver a victory against Hizbullah in the summer of 2006 and can ill afford to be again seen as ineffective. Moreover, if the West is serious about establishing a united front against the Islamic Republic of Iran, Gaza is a good place to start.

Regime change should not, however, be the goal of the inevitable Israeli military onslaught in Gaza. Israel can weaken Hamas, but it cannot impose an Arab ruler over the 1.5 million Gazans. It is beyond the power of Israel, or of any Western outsider, to influence the social and political dynamics of the Gaza Strip. Reoccupation of Gaza is, therefore, also not recommended.

Israel's goal should be merely defensive -- to destroy Gazan capabilities to harm Israel.

This means our temporary presence in all places where such capabilities are developed; their destruction and, after the evacuation of Gaza, systematic surgical strikes against reemerging terrorist cells.

The model for Israeli military activity in Gaza should be the successful way Israel deals with the terrorist infrastructure in Judea and Samaria.

To Go To Top

Posted by Liz Diego, August 30, 2007.

This was written by Cinnamon Stillwell and it appeared in American Thinker
(www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/ campus_watch_and_californias_m.html) Cinnamon Stillwell is the Northern California Representative for Campus Watch. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it became painfully clear that if America was to become more engaged in the Middle East, it would need to develop a greater understanding of the area. Scholars of Middle East studies at our nation's universities were called upon to explain the religious, cultural and political dynamics of the region to students, journalists, and politicians

Unfortunately, many of the leading academic lights in the field proved to be woefully unprepared for the conflict at hand and-much worse, were actively hostile to the interests of the United States and its allies.

It was for this reason that in Sept. 2002, Middle East Forum director and Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes started Campus Watch (campus-watch.org), a project intended, as stated at its website, to "review and critique Middle East studies in North America, with an aim to improving them."

Campus Watch has since focused its efforts on the West Coast, where no shortage exists of Middle East studies academics with problematic perspectives. Consider the following views publicly expressed by denizens of the ivory tower:

"As far as I can tell, American empire is safe and secure, despite my best efforts to topple it (although Musab al-Zarqawi seems to be doing a good job in Iraq)." UC Irvine history and Islamic studies professor Mark LeVine

"Israel is an 'apartheid state' and a 'colonial state,' but Hamas and Hezbollah are 'liberation movements.'"
-- Diablo Valley College Middle East studies instructor Imam Amer Araim

"America's military presence is metastasizing throughout the Arab world to the point of malignancy. Isn't it curious that Muslims are the ones under pressure to proclaim that their religion is the 'religion of peace'?" UC Berkeley Islamic studies professor Hamid Algar

"You can't have a Palestinian state with its own rights, when you have 150,000 Jewish extremists sitting in the middle."
-- UCLA history professor Gabriel Piterberg

"It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. ...They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!
-- UC Berkeley Islamic studies lecturer Hatem Bazian

Unfortunately, such sentiments are par for the course at California colleges and universities where a culture of political correctness has allowed apologists for radical Islam to dominate Middle East studies.

Instead of offering college students the historical basis and intellectual tools to help them better understand the realities of a changing world, far too many Middle East studies professors engage in indoctrination. The classroom has become merely a tool for pushing a political agenda.

At the same time, students that dare to buck the prevailing orthodoxy often find themselves the victims of intimidation and suppression at the hands of their own professors and administration. Professors that diverge from the party line can also face ostracism and, at times, discrimination.

In working to stem the tide of intolerance and academic dishonesty on California's colleges and universities, Campus Watch will inevitably run up against the sort of smears to which it has long been subjected. Critics often accuse Campus Watch of practicing "McCarthyism" or "censorship," but they couldn't be further from the truth.

In reality, Campus Watch analyzes and critiques Middle East studies, employing specialists in the field, original research, and the largest archive of related news and information available on the Internet.

Campus Watch holds no governmental power, nor does it control academic and financial decision-making at colleges and universities. Campus Watch takes no position on debates over tenure and, according to its mission statement, "fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds."

Only those who equate criticism with censorship could confuse Campus Watch with being anything other than what it is -- a participant in the free exchange of ideas. After all, rigorous debate should be the very essence of higher education.

Yet in the rarified, insulated world of academia, professors arrogantly assert that they should be answerable to no one: Not even the taxpayers who foot the bill for keeping the universities running. In what other profession would such a demand for unaccountability be tolerated?

Simply by shedding light on the discipline, Campus Watch is bucking that trend. Judging by the level of vitriol generated in response, its efforts are paying off.

The state of Middle East studies should concern us all. And, lest one be misled, the issue at hand has nothing to do with political or religious affiliation. Rather, it's about the importance of providing students, politicians, and journalists with accurate and fair information on this most important of fields during this crucial time.

The next generation deserves no less.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, August 30, 2007.

To date, Western civil industrial powers, not to mention Eastern civil industrial powers, resist confronting Iran with force, deterred mostly by the consequential major disruption in oil supplies that would surely follow. The nuclear emerging Persian nemesis knows those civil nations will continue to react tepidly in response to its spinning centrifuges, applying sanctions with limited impact, lest their own oil addicted economies bear the brunt of a 'catastrophic' reduction in ever needed prehistoric energy supplies, not only from an invaded Iran but other Middle Eastern pushers likely to be involved in a terrorist inspired backlash, not to mention the unthinkable 'catastrophic' downward jolt to 'Big Oil's' balance sheets. Profit junky CEOs cannot bear even short term hardship bound to unleash the wrath of money-mad instant gratification obsessed stockholders, breathing fire and brimstone, in addition to the truly devastating collateral damage inflicted from Main Street to Wall Street as well as analogous worldwide venues. No doubt, twelfth Imam deluded fundamentalist Islamic Persian autocrats, frothing for that savior to arrive ridding the planet of the collective infidel i.e. everyone not mesmerized by their misogynistic Shiite faith, will not take a licking but keep on ticking much like the clock soon to be affixed to the fuse of a nuclear bomb set to detonate when the turbaned Dr. Strangelove cadre whimsically pushes the big hand and little hand together on the-you guessed it- number twelve, as in Imam. Could Tel Aviv be the first target in the crosshairs of those contemptuous perilously irrational characters?

Nicolas Sarkozy, France's newly elected president, sees the radiating light, thus subtly, yet intrepidly, suggests his nation would not be opposed to military action directed at the mad Persians, a disastrous reaction he infers indeed to avoid a much greater disaster. Might we contrast such prescient analysis with the BBC's craven response to Al-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, asserting 06/27/2007 on Lebanese television "if the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight." This abominable Arab founded the pan-Arab daily in London in 1989, circulating its propaganda to about 50,000 readers, and is also a regular commentator on Sky News and BBC News. A BBC weak kneed weak minded spokesperson responding diplomatically oozed to the Jerusalem Post, "We should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organizations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint.".... "The BBC is required to explore a range of views, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or underrepresented." .... "The BBC will sometimes need to report on or interview people whose views may cause serious offense to many in our audiences. We must be convinced , after appropriate referral, that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offense." Hello!!! Al-Bari Atwan said he would dance if Iran bombs Israel!!! Only a worm posing as a journalist would not blast such a statement. How many times might Winston Churchill turn over in his grave listening to such despicable drivel from the wretched communications network representing the fair nation he once brilliantly led? Then again, if indeed oil is thicker than blood, we must note that British Petroleum (BP) is extensively involved in Iran's chemical and commercial schemes, as well as IRNA, a joint gas exploration venture between BP and NIOC (National Iranian Oil Company) in Scotland, thus the BBC might be a tad hesitant to indirectly step on the toes of the British Isle's superpower corporation, latter day Persia's petrol partner , prominent member of the aforementioned fossil fuel fraternity A/K/A 'Big Oil'? After all, broadcast licenses can be revoked by a retaliatory government, perhaps itself bedded down with such deep pocket corporate types involved in that heartless industry. Therefore, let us tip our berets to France's esteemed President Nicolas Sarkozy, obviously a principled leader whose soul remains fully intact!

U.S. President George W. Bush, more so than the newly elected French leader, robustly denounces those 'axis of evil' leaders of Iran, yet, along with erstwhile British Prime Minister and junior partner Tony Blair, as well as a few others, belied such rhetoric by their deeds. Resoundingly toppling 'Sadist Hussein' to its west, subduing the Taliban to its east, both of Sunni ethnicity, has substantially strengthened Shiite Iran. No doubt, Hussein and the Taliban were and are despicable, more than deserved a shock and awe pounding, however, without such predators neutralizing a more perilous Persian predator, the Middle East has been transformed into an unstable emerging nuclear bastion of terror with Armageddon potential. This seemingly unintended consequence, albeit baffling to comprehend how it might not have been predicted, should force all civil Western and Eastern industrial powers as well as all vulnerable Sunni regimes to aggressively act in concert against Iran, in effect bringing its fundamentalist Shiite leaders to their knees or 'wiping them off the map', yet that is not the case. Iranian influence, in fact, continues to spread into Hugo Chavez's Venezuela for one, still not causing Bush and his cronies to dust off an expanded version of the Monroe Doctrine and pounce before the cancer further metastasizes incredulously through their neighborhood to the south. Is a continuous flow of oil so essential that the Iranian lunatics will be allowed to amass a nuclear arsenal, threaten the security of all Muslim and non-Muslim nations, especially Israel, in its continental neighborhood and beyond, also supplying terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hizbullah with the means to ignite the mother of all wars? If the answer is yes or even perhaps, century twenty-one could morph into a dark age for all mankind.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 30, 2007.


Paper shredders. Next time his forces surrender to Hamas, first destroy the intelligence files that Hamas and Iran use against everybody else.


Everything Abbas does boosts jihad. He gets Israel to release terrorist prisoners. He calls for outside arms, training, PLO troops, and exiled Fatah leaders to come in. Israel exiled them because of their terrorism. Israeli leaders think they strengthen Abbas against Hamas, which he helps more than he fights. They really strengthen Abbas against Israel, which he fights more than he helps.

I think that the best way to boost Abbas would be to hoist him up a gallows.

Most people are too stupid to see what Abbas and Israel are doing. Some think that Israel's leaders are too stupid to see what Abbas is doing. I think that Israel's leaders are too compromised to care what they are doing.


People usually accept the official version of how government works and official explanations of events. Barry Chamish doesn't. He investigates. He finds that officials are serving personal interests or dubious masters, but putting a good face on it. I recommend his books.

He cites his evidence. Some of his conclusions are judgments based on enough evidence and knowledge of the people involved to posit a theory but not enough to constitute proof. Before one of his speeches, the host pressed him about proofs, and he was candid about which conclusions he had proof for.

He has an entertaining but valid way of arguing by showing how ridiculous, not true to life, are some government explanations or excuses.


Let's review the arithmetic, again. Every day, the IDF raids Gaza. It captures or kills, say, 3 terrorists there. Then it releases hundreds of terrorists, of whom a portion resume terrorism. Even if the IDF eliminated all 3 a day, or 1,100 a year, Hamas, alone, has 13,000 armed men to draw on. Meanwhile, it controls a society that concentrates in recruiting for terrorism.

Small raids are a poor but costly substitute for invading Gaza and disarming all.


The family of the young Israeli Muslim, who shot people in Jerusalem until he was shot dead, deny he initiated the violence. He was, they explained, a quiet fellow. The guards must have concocted a story about his seizing a guard's pistol, in order to justify their having murdered him, they asserted.

Three terrorist organizations claimed to have arranged his attack (8/11). Israeli security films were screened, showing him to have seized the guard's pistol.

The family was defaming the guards.

Arab families express surprise that their offspring attack innocent people. They shouldn't be surprised. Their religion promotes hatred and war. They may think it is in the service of Allah, but nevertheless, their religion basically is intolerant and violent about it. Terrorist recruiters must say to vulnerable Muslim youth, a good Muslim is supposed to fight infidels. Why aren't you doing that? And so, Muslim youth suddenly go on the offensive.


Some Muslims from the Hebron area and Anarchists Against the Wall cut about 30 yards off the security fence, before Israeli troops arrived. The vandals were not arrested (IMRA, 8/11).

Crimes against national security are condoned by the Israeli government, because they are committed by Arabs and leftists, favored by the government. Imagine how harsh the arrests would be if a Jewish community, made to feel insecure by being fenced out of contiguous Jewish areas or fenced onto the low ground and being subjected to gunshots from Muslims in the hills, cut the fence!

The same government and leftists who condone leftist and Arab criminality demand harsh punishment of Jews who do not cooperate in their expulsion from their own homes. The leftist argument is that Israel has a government of law, and the law must be obeyed or else. But the Left disobeys the law.


Abbas assured visiting Members of Congress that he does not intend to share power with Hamas. That reassured them. They think that he is the answer to the problem, Arafat was the problem (Arutz-7, 8/15). He was Arafat's chief aide! Abbas has had negotiations with Hamas for the power-sharing that he told the Congressmen he opposed! Only naifs are reassured by jihadists. Apparently one can tell Members of Congress anything, and they'll believe it.


The British government determines what arms its private companies may sell to what countries. Its criterion for blocking arms sales is whether the arms would destabilize a region or repress human rights. It has stopped sales to various countries, mostly to Israel. It did not state why with any specificity (IMRA, 8/14).

Since the Muslims are the aggressors and are arming as much as they can, any arms sold to Israel help stabilize the region. Arms sales to Israel preserve it from Islamic oppression, including in the Territories. The sale of major weapons such as airplanes, however, bear little relation to human rights in the Territories. Why doesn't Britain allow those sales? Appeasement? Revenge for having fought Britain for independence?


Israel wants UNIFIL to be given more authority in Lebanon. One power would be to inspect towns, where Hizbullah stocks arms, and not just countryside. Another would be to open fire on Hizbullah operatives, not just fire back.

European members of the UNO indicated they would vote against Israel's request. For one thing, it would be unsafe for UNIFIL (IMRA, 8/16).

UNIFIL doesn't want to expand its mandate. Finding and confiscating Hizbullah rockets might prevent war on Israel, but that's no priority for UNIFIL -- firing on Hizbullah would be dangerous. UNIFIL is not in Lebanon to court danger. That might accomplish something.


Manilla is 13 times as densely populated as Gaza, Calcutta,12 times, Cairo, 10 times, and Singapore and Hong Kong are 2 times as dense (Arutz-7, 8/15).

Poor comparison: cities vs. an area that is not all urban. But people have the impression it has an urban density. It doesn't.


"Honor killings" have increased slightly, in Gaza. Since the sentence for those found to have committed them is considerably less than for ordinary murder, some killers falsely call their crimes "honor killings." (IMRA, 8/15).

The Muslim Arab sense of honor is: murder can be healthy, suspicion along justifies it, and deceit is desirable.


Something happened to Anthony Cordesman's perspective. He is a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies. He was a brilliant defender of Israeli security. The last few times he wrote about the subject, he has implicitly worked against Israeli security.

In the August 16 New York Times Op.-Ed., for example, he supports the proposed US arms sale to Gulf States and arms gifts to Egypt and Israel. His arguments are debatable but reasonable. He is too bright to overlook serious points, but does. That suggests he no longer cares about Israel.

He omits the crucial fact that both Egypt and S. Arabia are major enemies and neighbors of Israel, and that no country threatens Egypt. It's a serous omission not to acknowledge the risk to Israel of the arms to Egypt and S. Arabia.

He claims, what I've heard before, that it's the free US arms that keeps Egypt from attacking Israel. He does not explain why that should be so. I think the free US arms keep Egypt capable of attacking Israel. He calls the bribery of Egypt keeping the peace. Some peace, if it requires bribery!


Iran claims its new missile can pierce Israel's Merkava tank armor (IMRA, 8/18).

Offensive measures and defensive measures have leapfrogged over each other since the beginning of warfare. Iran exaggerates its prowess. Is its tank claim true? I would not like to see industrialized countries brought down to the level of non-industrialized ones having less concern for the lives of their own troops and of innocents.


The Revolutionary Guards have become Iran's main army, because it is indoctrinated. It also runs many of Iran's government-owned industries. Now the US indicated that it is about to declare the Guards a terrorist organization. This declaration is intended to discourage some foreign countries from doing business with it. Some of them are expected to balk (IMRA, 8/16).

The Guards were fomenting terrorism in Lebanon for years. It is difficult to imagine why the US waited so long. European countries that do business with it -- are these the ones that liberals criticize Bush for not lowering himself to their level?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, August 30, 2007.

Seems like these days, terrorists get a cut of much of what we buy, from fake pocketbooks to a gallon of gasoline.

This was an op-ed piece by Dana Thomas and it was published August 30, 27 in the New York Times
(www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/opinion/30thomas.html?em&ex= 1188705600&en=32ec0aa01c046b01&ei=5087). Dana Thomas, a correspondent for Newsweek, is the author of Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster.

LUXURY fashion designers are busily putting final touches on the handbags they will present during the spring-summer 2008 women's wear shows, which begin next week in New York City's Bryant Park. To understand the importance of the handbag in fashion today consider this: According to consumer surveys conducted by Coach, the average American woman was buying two new handbags a year in 2000; by 2004, it was more than four. And the average luxury bag retails for 10 to 12 times its production cost.

"There is a kind of an obsession with bags," the designer Miuccia Prada told me. "It's so easy to make money."

Counterfeiters agree. As soon as a handbag hits big, counterfeiters around the globe churn out fake versions by the thousands. And they have no trouble selling them. Shoppers descend on Canal Street in New York, Santee Alley in Los Angeles and flea markets and purse parties around the country to pick up knockoffs for one-tenth the legitimate bag's retail cost, then pass them off as real.

"Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys shop here," a private investigator told me as we toured the counterfeit section of Santee Alley. "Affluent people from Newport Beach." According to a study by the British law firm Davenport Lyons, two-thirds of British consumers are "proud to tell their family and friends" that they bought fake luxury fashion items.

At least 11 percent of the world's clothing is fake, according to 2000 figures from the Global Anti-Counterfeiting Group in Paris. Fashion is easy to copy: counterfeiters buy the real items, take them apart, scan the pieces to make patterns and produce almost-perfect fakes.

Most people think that buying an imitation handbag or wallet is harmless, a victimless crime. But the counterfeiting rackets are run by crime syndicates that also deal in narcotics, weapons, child prostitution, human trafficking and terrorism. Ronald K. Noble, the secretary general of Interpol, told the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that profits from the sale of counterfeit goods have gone to groups associated with Hezbollah, the Shiite terrorist group, paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland and FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Sales of counterfeit T-shirts may have helped finance the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, according to the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. "Profits from counterfeiting are one of the three main sources of income supporting international terrorism," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland.

Most fakes today are produced in China, a good many of them by children. Children are sometimes sold or sent off by their families to work in clandestine factories that produce counterfeit luxury goods. Many in the West consider this an urban myth. But I have seen it myself.

On a warm winter afternoon in Guangzhou, I accompanied Chinese police officers on a factory raid in a decrepit tenement. Inside, we found two dozen children, ages 8 to 13, gluing and sewing together fake luxury-brand handbags. The police confiscated everything, arrested the owner and sent the children out. Some punched their timecards, hoping to still get paid. (The average Chinese factory worker earns about $120 a month; the counterfeit factory worker earns half that or less.) As we made our way back to the police vans, the children threw bottles and cans at us. They were now jobless and, because the factory owner housed them, homeless. It was "Oliver Twist" in the 21st century.

What can we do to stop this? Much like the war on drugs, the effort to protect luxury brands must go after the source: the counterfeit manufacturers. The company that took me on the Chinese raid is one of the only luxury-goods makers that works directly with Chinese authorities to shut down factories, and it has one of the lowest rates of counterfeiting.

Luxury brands also need to teach consumers that the traffic in fake goods has many victims. But most companies refuse to speak publicly about counterfeiting -- some won't even authenticate questionable items for concerned customers -- believing, like Victorians, that acknowledging despicable actions tarnishes their sterling reputations.

So it comes down to us. If we stop knowingly buying fakes, the supply chain will dry up and counterfeiters will go out of business. The crime syndicates will have far less money to finance their illicit activities and their terrorist plots. And the children? They can go home.

To Go To Top

Posted by KAE, August 29, 2007.
This was written by William F. Jasper of the John Birch Society (www.jbs.org).

In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yuri Andropov told me, a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions.

In the quote above, Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, head of the DIE, the KGB's little sister in communist Romania, reveals a conversation he had with chairman Andropov, the Soviet leader.

"We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world," Andropov told Pacepa, "and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe."

Gen. Pacepa, who defected to the United States in 1978, recounted this story in an August 24, 2006 article for National Review entitled "Russian Footprints." "According to Andropov," said Pacepa, "the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch."

Gen. Pacepa explained how this was put into operation:

In the mid 1970s, the KGB ordered my service, the [Romanian] DIE -- along with other East European sister services -- to scour the country for trusted party activists belonging to various Islamic ethnic groups, train them in disinformation and terrorist operations, and infiltrate them into the countries of our "sphere of influence."

Their task was to export a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world.

Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, my DIE had dispatched around 500 such undercover agents to Islamic countries. According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the whole Soviet-bloc intelligence community had sent some 4,000 such agents of influence into the Islamic world.

Likewise, Anatoliy Golitsyn, one of the most important KGB defectors to come to the West, noted in his 1995 book, The Perestroika Deception,

"Under concealed Russian guidance, the Muslims of the former Soviet Union . will seek to cooperate and ally themselves with Muslims in Iran and the Arab states while Russia maintains its open policy of cooperation and partnership with the West. In this way China openly and Russia secretly will jointly attempt to swing the balance of power in their favor in the highly strategic, oil-producing Arab/Iranian areas of the Middle East."

A July 1997 article by Associated Press writer Anthony Shadid provides one measure of the impact of this Soviet KGB (and ongoing Russian FSB) strategy. The AP story, "Marxism Makes Way for Islam", profiles a number of influential Marxist-Muslim intellectuals. It begins with the observation that "on the bookshelf of Adel Hussein sits an odd collection for one of Egypt's leading Islamic thinkers." Titles like Socialist Integration, On Communism, and Planning in the U.S.S.R. by leading Marxists, notes Mr. Shadid, "speak more of class struggle than the hand of God."

Like a surprising number of others across the Arab and Muslim world, Adel Hussein "is a one-time Marxist and nonbeliever who has turned to Islam, part of a new intellectual generation reshaping the religion."

"I benefited from Marx in both theory and practice," Hussein told Shadid, "but now, Islam is my starting point and my framework." That doesn't mean he's abandoned Marx, however. "Hussein, for instance, says his goals have not changed", Shadid reported. "But he now sees Islam, through its ability to persuade and to mobilize, as the best tool."

In other words, Islam for Hussein is a means to an end, and the end is a Marxist world.

Adel Hussein, says AP's Shadid, is representative of a significant number of today's influential imams and mullahs. "In a jarring twist, they are the same thinkers who a generation ago drew the ire of religious Muslims because their Marxist disavowal of God was seen as the biggest threat to Islam", Shadid reported.

"Today, they are often the public face of Islam -- writing in leading Arabic newspapers, speaking at conferences and on television talk shows, enjoying the support of many younger, more political Muslims interested in their attempts to rethink Islam's relationship to democracy, minorities and the West."

Evidence for the existence of an ongoing Soviet/Russian strategic plan to foment and use Islamic extremism is very extensive and goes far to explain the inordinate hatred of Muslim fundamentalists for America and the West.

Not only is al-Qaeda aligned with the Kremlin (see the article "Behind Islamic Terror"), so are the other major "Islamist" terror groups including PLO/al-Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah (see "Who's Who In Terrorism" below). Of course, none of those groups would amount to much if not for the immense assistance they receive from Iran and Syria, regimes that were primary client-state terror sponsors for the Soviets and continue in that role for Russia under Putin.

Putin continues to build Iran's nuclear program and upgrade its long-range missile program, not to mention provide Ahmadinejad's regime with all of the conventional weapons that Tehran and its surrogate terrorists can use. Likewise for the longtime terrorist-sponsoring regime of Bashar al-Asad in Damascus. In January 2005, Putin welcomed President al-Asad to Moscow and forgave 73 percent of the $13.4 billion debt owed by Syria to Moscow. Then, a couple months later, he sold Strelet surface-to-air missiles to Asad and has been showering him with weapons.

Moscow Masterminds

In the 2005 action film Lord of War, Nicolas Cage plays Russian arms dealer Yuri Orlov, whose merchandise -- guns, tanks, grenades, missiles, planes, bombs -- spreads slaughter and genocide across Africa. The fictional Orlov is a portrayal of the real-life Viktor Bout, a "former" KGB officer who has built a global empire with his fleet of Soviet transport planes and helicopters and his unmatched access to a bottomless supply of Soviet armaments. It would be difficult to find a war, civil war, revolution, terrorist organization, dictatorship, coup, or attempted coup in Africa, the Middle East, or Central Asia over the past decade and a half that hasn't been fueled by Bout's deadly merchandise.

Viktor Bout was for years the main arms supplier for the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He subsequently became a major supplier to the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance. While operating a dizzying array of companies and shell companies out of Belgium and the United Arab Emirates, Bout has always maintained a home base and safe haven in Russia.

When the Belgian government issued an international arrest warrant for him in 2002, Bout fled to Moscow. "Asked if Bout was in the country when the arrest warrant was issued, the Russian foreign ministry said no, even though Bout was giving live radio interviews from studios in downtown Moscow," note Douglas Farah and Stephen Braun, authors of Merchant of Death: Money, Guns, Planes, and the Man Who Makes War Possible. "The next day, officials grudgingly acknowledged he might be in Russia but said they had seen no evidence that he had committed any crime, and therefore could not act."

According to Farah and Braun and other investigative reporters, Viktor Bout more recently has been running arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the forces of the radical Islamic Courts Union in Somalia. Bout's status as a private entrepreneur provides protective deniability to his bosses in the Kremlin -- including the top KGB/FSB man himself, Vladimir Putin -- but it is obvious that they are supplying him and protecting him so he can continue stoking the fires of terror and revolution that they have sparked and fed for decades.

Incredibly, Western governments that verbally condemn Bout's sinister blood trade are more than willing to do business with his companies. For instance, the U.S. Defense Department has paid Bout's air transport companies millions of dollars to fly supplies into U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As indispensable as Viktor Bout has been -- and is -- to the Kremlin's ongoing terror strategy, there are others who are even more important.

One of the most important is Yevgeniy Primakov, the former KGB chief in charge of Middle East terrorism during the Cold War. Primakov has been at the pinnacle of Soviet politics for decades: Soviet Politburo member, former Russian Foreign Minister, head of the Russia Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), and Russian prime minister. Now he is Putin's right-hand man as a "private citizen." As head of the Russia Chamber of Commerce, he continues his role directing Russia's client terror states and terrorist groups while on commercial visits throughout the Mideast.

In 2006, Primakov presided at the founding meeting of Russia's new forum for Muslim countries, the "Russia-Islamic World Strategic Vision Group." The new group held its first session in Moscow on March 27-28, attended by delegates from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and 12 additional Muslim states. Putin greeted the delegates. Significantly, the "statesman" who presided at the meeting was Primakov, a renowned Arabist who played a key role in formulating the Soviet Union's ties with the Muslim world during the cold-war era.

Jihadist Hatred for America

Is the ongoing Soviet/Russian propaganda and terror strategy really at the heart of the militant jihadist hatred directed at the United States? The overwhelming evidence would seem to answer resoundingly in the affirmative.

After all, the jihadists should have good reason to view as enemies the regimes in Moscow, Beijing, and the Commonwealth of Independent States that have killed Muslims on a daily basis.

In fact, the Soviet Union murdered over one million Muslim Afghans and made over five million of them refugees. Post-Soviet Russia brutally subjugated Muslim Chechnya, killing tens of thousands of civilians and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless. The Soviet Union persecuted (and present-day Russia continues to persecute) tens of millions of Muslims in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan. The current openly communist government of Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan carried out the Andijan massacre of 2005, slaughtering as many as 5,000 Muslim civilians, with Moscow and Beijing both publicly voicing support for Karimov's action. Communist China has carried out a decades-long ruthless persecution of its Muslim Uighar minority.

Communist regimes have forbidden study of the Q'uran, publicly burned countless copies of this sacred text of Muslims, imprisoned and tortured Muslim believers, and beaten Muslim clerics and then paraded them in public humiliation. Contrast that with the Western countries, where Muslims are granted full political and economic rights, can worship freely, and can obtain a Q'uran at any library or local bookstore. Yes, the jihadists have used our military presence in Iraq to fan the flames of hatred against the United States, but how about the communists?

Do the jihadists hate America more than the non-Muslim communist states because we are uniquely decadent? It is true that Western post-Christian culture, especially as seen in popular fashions and through Hollywood's ubiquitous and depraved lens, is offensive to devout Muslims (as it is to devout Christians).

But Russia is not pristine by comparison. Putin's Russia boasts one of the largest pornography industries in the world, featuring the most hard-core kiddie porn. Russia's mainstream media is much more salacious than its counterparts in the United States.

Russia and the Muslim-populated (but non-Muslim-ruled) countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.) are also notorious for forced prostitution, gambling, and the production, consumption, and export of drugs and alcohol, all of which should earn them condemnation from the militant Muslim faithful. Instead, the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, al-Fatah, and other "Islamic fundamentalists", not only ignore the transgressions of their infidel sponsors in Russia and China and the cries of their persecuted Muslim brothers, but they regularly break bread with and publicly support the atheist persecutors of Islam.

We in the Christian West should not kid ourselves -- as certain "liberals" would have us do -- into accepting the false proposition that Islam is perfectly compatible with our social-political system. It is not (see article "Religion By The Sword"). And we must not succumb to their arguments that we should accept new waves of Muslim immigrants. But neither should we allow ourselves to be further dragged into a military "clash of civilizations" (as we already are in Iraq and Afghanistan) by "Muslim" front men for our so-called allies in Moscow and Beijing.

In his October 11, 2001 news conference, President George W. Bush characterized the new global conflict as "a war against all those who seek to export terror, and a war against those governments that support or shelter them."

Striking the same theme, but with greater specificity, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol declared in a July 21, 2006 article, "Radical Islam Takes On Democracy, that "our focus should be less on Hamas and Hezbollah, and more on their paymasters and real commanders -- Syria and Iran."

But why stop with the middlemen? The real paymasters and commanders aren't in Damascus and Tehran; they're in Moscow and Beijing, as they have been for decades. These paymasters and commanders are also patient strategists. They will not try to engage us in head-on military conflict when they can more easily wear us down by leading us into many "quagmire" conflicts with their surrogates.

Who's Who in Terrorism


For nearly four decades, the PLO has been the largest, wealthiest, and most politically connected terrorist organization in the world . For most of that time, it was held in the firm grip of Yasser Arafat's iron fist. But Arafat was not the fierce, independent actor he posed as; he was completely dependent on the Soviet KGB and its surrogate Warsaw Pact intelligence services for arms, training, logistical support, funds, and direction.

His KGB handlers included Vasali Samoylenko, Vladimir Buljakov, and Soviet "Ambassador" Alexander Soldatov. Arafat's closest friend and head of PLO intelligence, Hani Hassan, was actually an agent of the DIE, the Romanian subsidiary of the KGB.

Former DIE chief General Ion Pacepa reported in a 2003 Wall Street Journal article:

I was given the KGB's "personal file" on Arafat. He was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader.

First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.

During the 1960s and '70s, Arafat and the PLO did not hide their Marxist ideology and openly proclaimed their solidarity with the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Cuba, and every other Marxist dictatorship.

But in recent years, as communist-backed "Islamic fundamentalist" groups like Hamas have gathered more popular support, the PLO leadership has attempted to portray itself as authentically Muslim. It has adopted more religious rhetoric and used Muslim names and symbols, even naming Islam as the official and exclusive religion of Palestine in the 2003 Palestinian constitution. Since Arafat's death in 2004, veteran PLO hand Mahmoud Abbas has tried, unsuccessfully, to fill his shoes.

Hamas swept to power in the 2006 parliamentary elections (winning 76 seats to Fatah's 43), and in June 2007 Hamas' military took control of the Gaza Strip in a series of gun battles through the streets of Gaza's cities that left 120 people dead and hundreds more wounded. Three of the four so-called Quartet of Middle East peace brokers -- the United States, United Nations, and European Union -- announced their backing for Abbas and the PLO and their rejection of Hamas. The remaining member of the quartet, Russia, has been playing both sides. During the last week of July, Mahmoud Abbas visited Putin in Moscow, seeking his endorsement. Putin gave it, but didn't rule out continuing negotiations and relations with Hamas.

"I want to assure you that we will support you as the lawful leader of the Palestinian people," Putin told Abbas at their July 31 meeting.


The Arabic acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, or Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni terrorist organization founded in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. One of Hamas' claims to infamy is its popularization of suicide bombing as a terror weapon, pioneering in recruiting females and children as suicide killers.

Although posing as the ultimate in Islamic fundamentalism, like al-Qaeda it has a curious relationship with Putin's KGB/FSB. According to a March 2006 report by Axis Information and Analysis,

"At present, five of the seven biggest Hamas websites are functioning from the territory of the CIS member-states. Three of these sites use services of the Russian providers.... There are two more smaller but rather well-known websites that are functioning from Russia's territory."

This is especially noteworthy since the Putin regime has clamped down on all media and Internet access by its political opposition and all unapproved parties. Hamas' Internet sites, which have been so essential in building Hamas' stature, recruiting, and propaganda prowess globally, are clearly operating with Putin's approval.

Russia does not include Hamas on its list of terrorist organizations. Not surprisingly, Hamas' political director, Khaled Mashal, has repeatedly affirmed the organization's close friendship with Moscow. Mashal presides over the Hamas "Politburo," which, in name, structure, and function, is much more in line with Marxist-Leninist than Islamist thought. Mashal has led Hamas delegations to Moscow for talks with Putin and has met with Putin and Yevgeniy Primakov, the KGB's top Middle East scholar, at other forums in Khartoum, Tehran, and Ankara. Although Hamas never provided any significant aid to its fellow Muslims who were being slaughtered by the Russians in Chechnya, it did, up until 2004, offer them rhetorical support. Since 2004, though, it has urged the Chechens to "heal the wound" and surrender in the interest of "a strong and integrated Russia."


In Arabic, Hezbollah means "Party of God." But there is little that is godly about the group, which has exploded in size, power, and influence since first coming to Western attention by bombing the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing over 300 Marines. It is supported chiefly and directly by Iran and has adopted the revolutionary theology and ideology of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. It also receives military aid directly and indirectly from Syria and Russia, as manifested by the weapons cases abandoned by Hezbollah after their rocket attacks on Israel last summer. The containers were clearly marked: "Customer: Ministry of Defense of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia."

Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, who has been General Secretary of Hezbollah since 1992, keeps in touch with Moscow through regular communications with Russia's Beirut embassy. This was confirmed in a 2006 interview with Russia's Ambassador to Israel, Mikhail Bogdanov. That is not the only channel by which Moscow and Beirut stay in touch. In a detailed 2005 report by Axis Information and Analysis, entitled Dangerous Liaisons: Covert "Love Affair" Between Hezbollah and Russia, author Michel Ebaz reports:

Hezbollah's special operations unit ("Muntamat al-Jihad al-Islami" -- MJI or "Islamic Jihad Organization") emissaries have been active in Russia since the middle of the nineties. Residing in Moscow, Imad Hadj Hassan Salame heads this special operations unit. His men were an integral part of Hezbollah's international network for smuggling weapons to Lebanon.

Yevgeniy Primakov's appointment in 1996 as Russia's Foreign Minister was a critical step in propelling the Hezbollah-KGB relationship forward. As the KGB's most experienced hand in Middle East terrorism matters, he was the perfect choice for insuring a smooth transition when the KGB transformed into the FSB. His official meetings in the 1990s with Lebanon's political leaders also provided him (and his assistant, Viktor Pasovaluk) with opportunities to meet secretly with representatives of Hezbollah. In the 2005 elections, Hezbollah and its allies in the Resistance and Development Bloc won 35 seats (27 percent) of the Lebanese parliament.

Contact KAE by email at kew1@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, August 29, 2007.

This is a book review by Ruth Andrew Ellenson of Ruth R. Wisse's book Jews and Power (Nextbook/Schocken). It was published August 26, 2007 in The Los Angeles Times. Ruth Wisse is a professor at Harvard. Ruth Andrew Ellenson received the National Jewish Book Award for her anthology The Modern Jewish Girl's Guide to Guilt.

Wisse's book has a clear message: For Jews, morality without strength leads to disaster, and today that strength is in Israel

In Jerusalem this summer, to mark the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, the city's pale gold limestone walls are covered with banners depicting an abstract outline of the Old City and the number 40 displayed triumphantly by its side. In that war, Israel gained nearly all of the territory, including the West Bank and Gaza, that has been at the center of so much turmoil -- and also claimed the entirety of Jerusalem.

At night, the Old City's entrance at Jaffa Gate -- which leads to many of the holiest sites in Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- is illuminated in lights showing the same logo. See it as triumph or tragedy, it is an indisputable declaration of Jewish power that glows like a flame over Jerusalem as darkness descends.

Questions and complexities of Jewish power -- in regard to Israel but also throughout history -- are explored in Harvard professor Ruth R. Wisse's challenging, erudite and penetrating book, "Jews and Power."

It is a book with a clear message. For Jews, morality without strength leads to disastrous consequences, and today that strength is based in Israel. This is a book, fiercely argued and compellingly written, with an agenda: to demonstrate why Israel is essential for Jewish survival and even for the survival of democracy. Wisse asserts that to believe otherwise is an act of naivetÚ. She argues that when Jews place pleasing others above their own well-being, they set themselves up to be history's whipping boy. Whatever good intentions might lie at the heart of such behavior, it is ultimately an act of self-sabotage.

Wisse's assertion is direct -- are questions of moral empathy and cultural survival more important than saving your children's lives?

As a perfect example of this quandary, Wisse opens with an anecdote about a small Jewish boy being harassed by Nazis. He is taken inside by his mother, who tells her child, bruised and beaten, not to fight back but to be a better man -- "za a mentsh" she tells her son in Yiddish, the language spoken by most Eastern European Jews for hundreds of years until it was all but wiped out in the Holocaust.

The boy's story was told in postwar intellectual circles with pride, as an example of how seriously Jews took "the injunction to be fully human" -- to place one's good behavior over one's strength. And in Judaism the idea of tikkun olam, the healing of the world, is a central tenet of faith. But Wisse sees folly in this philosophy, and does not mince words in her stern warning to those who believe otherwise.

"The obligation to be decent is complicated for Jews by the knowledge that other societies feel driven to eliminate them from the world," she asserts.

"Those who aspire to be decent human beings would be morally obtuse to the point of wickedness were they to retell [this] story without considering its outcome ... That little boy in Warsaw could not have done his mother's bidding, because becoming fully human presupposed staying alive."

It's a bit of a jolt, but a refreshing one, to see an academic -- as a group, scholars often pride themselves on seeing every perspective as valid -- take such an emphatic stance. Wisse shows no fear in these pages in saying exactly what she thinks, and you can't help but be impressed with her chutzpah, even if you totally disagree with her.

While praising the bravery of Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president who signed the Camp David accords, she disputes the good will of his motives. "It was not out of regret for having killed too many Jews," she writes, "but with the realization that he could not kill enough to defeat them."

It is that perceived deep hatred of Jews that informs many of Wisse's arguments. She even sees the ramifications of this hatred in Jewish achievement. Of the 12 Jews who have received the Nobel Prize in literature, only two wrote in Jewish languages: S.Y. Agnon (Hebrew) and Isaac Bashevis Singer (Yiddish). The others wrote in languages including English, French and Turkish. Until Israel was founded, Jews' chief power was in their resilience and adaptability in other countries -- not really a power at all -- and in the fervent hope that such achievements would make their worth irrefutable to the powers that be. Tell that to Paul Heyse, a German Jew who won that Nobel Prize in 1910.

"This pride in sheer survival demonstrates how the tolerance of political weakness could cross the moral line into veneration of political weakness," Wisse observes. And, she notes, the odds only get worse from there. "An estimated 13 million Jews worldwide, about 4.5 million fewer than in 1939, try to win tolerance from more than 250 million Arabs, who have ties to more than 1 billion Muslims."

According to Wisse, this is the crux of the debate among Jews over Israel. Whether to be "menschen" this time. Whether, upon being beaten up, to fight back. Herein lies the challenge of the book: What is the moral responsibility when those who have been victims gain power?

Wisse would no doubt see this as exactly the type of question, while nobly intended, that has brought Jews so much tsoris ("trouble" in Yiddish) in the first place. And she does a convincing job in arguing that it is an act of hubris for any Jew to believe that Israel's security is not inexorably linked to his or her own. Yet to witness what is done in the West Bank and Gaza in the name of that security is to doubt the morality of such a stance, just as it is to see a suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv cafÚ. There is nothing amoral about having power, but how do Jews exercise power morally once they have it?

"Jews and Power" makes no claim for objectivity, but it is an elucidating book. It will cause liberals to question their self-consciousness about Israel, since Wisse's argument about Jewish apologism challenges liberal ideas of victimhood. For conservatives, the book offers an intellectual understanding of what otherwise might seem to be only tribalistic loyalties.

To have power may be transformative to the spirit of Judaism, so much of which has been defined by exile, but where those changes lead is still a question that burns as brightly as the lights that hang this summer over the Old City's walls in Jerusalem.

Contact Koira at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, August 29, 2007.


The Bush administration has determined that -- in order to serve its perceived goals in the Middle East -- a Fatah-led Palestinian state should be established in Judea and Samaria. To that end, the US government has communicated to Israel the need to withdraw its presence from Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, and is committed to providing aid and military training to Fatah.

This US policy is predicated on the myth that Fatah is 'a moderate' entity that can be relied upon; it is willfully ignorant of all the evidence to the contrary:

  • That Mahmoud Abbas was a deputy of Arafat, participated in terrorist supporting activities, and continues Arafat policies to this day.
  • That Farouk Qaddoumi, who is to the far right of Fatah politically and totally rejects concepts of peace with Israel, currently controls the Fatah Central Committee and seeks even greater control within the party.
  • That Abbas, as PA president, has been in league with and fostered support for terrorist entities such as Hamas. The culmination of a long Fatah history of cooperation with Hamas was the unity government. While that government disintegrated, there is solid evidence of a rapprochement being established now.
  • That the Fatah charter to this day calls for the destruction of Israel via armed resistance, and that the PLO charter calling for Israel 's destruction was never actually amended in spite of the pretense that it had been.
  • That after the Bush Administration supplied arms, ammunition and intelligence to Fatah this past year, under the specious premise that it would fight Hamas, it was forced to watch helplessly as Fatah surrendered its entire American arsenal in Gaza to Hamas.
  • That the PA, even under the Abbas aegis, pumps out inciteful material -- in its textbooks and via its media -- that is anti-Semitic, denies the legitimacy of Israel and praises jihad.
  • That Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, which the US Justice Department determined in 2002 was a terrorist organization, remains a part of Fatah. Members see Abbas as their leader and Abbas serves to protect this group, even incorporating its members into PA security forces.

In the course of providing assistance and support to the PA run by Fatah, the US requires no quid pro quo and makes no demands: with regard to such matters as cessation of incitement, commitment to take out Hamas, or disbanding of/or total disassociation from Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

The strengthening of Fatah and efforts to bring about a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria in reality serve to undermine the security of Israel (and also Jordan) and bring further instability to the entire area, including Iraq. Support for the terrorist-allied Fatah gives comfort to radical fiercely anti-Zionist and anti-American forces in the region; as was clearly the case when Israel left Gaza two years ago, a pullout from Judea and Samaria would provide terrorists with control of further territory from which to operate. This is neither in the best interests of Israel nor of the United States. The Bush policy is myopic and wrong-headed.

Approaches to stopping the Bush policy 1) The US Congress remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel and dedicated to helping Israel when called upon to do so. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed criticism of the Bush administration's continuing coddling of Abbas, especially in light of the collapse of the US initiative to bolster Abbas only six months ago, which resulted in the strengthening of Hamas. And the administration remains accountable to the Congress, especially to its operational subcommittees. However, because the government of Israel hesitates to challenge the Palestinian policies of the Bush administration, many members of Congress remain passive in their opposition to these policies; the truism about not wanting to be more Catholic than the pope applies here. Congresspersons are more likely to respond with vigorous opposition to the Bush policies if:

  • they have solid, cutting-edge information on the issues;
  • they hear from Israelis who are prepared to counter their government's passivity;
  • and they are encouraged by their constituents to act.

2) Opinion-makers who have influence with the White House must also be approached. They too require solid, cutting-edge information on the issues and an opportunity to hear from concerned and knowledgeable Israelis.

3) Attempts must be made to alter US public opinion, which will in its turn have an effect on the White House, on Congress, and on opinion-makers. This should be done via providing cutting-edge information to key members of the press.

All efforts must focus on the ways in which current policy is detrimental to US goals and best interests.

Proposed Actions by our organization

1. Garnering of information.

  • Drawing upon the services of top-notch, Arabic-speaking journalists and investigators, we will compile cutting-edge, solid documentation regarding the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist entity.
  • As Hamas intentions remain a key to understanding the Palestinian situation, we will, from our satellite office in Sderot, monitor Hamas broadcasts coming from Gaza.

2. Sharing of this and other information.

  • Utilizing a variety of channels, we will share acquired information with key Congressional staffers, key members of the press, and key opinion makers.
  • To enhance efforts at disseminating the information, we will generate a website that will contain a wealth of information about the Palestinian Authority/Fatah -- both background and current, and put out a timely Internet newsletter in concise format.
  • On a regular basis we will bring to Washington DC Israeli experts on the issues -- on the PA textbooks, on matters of security, etc. and hold briefings on Capital Hill.
  • Additionally, we will hold press conferences to share significant information with journalists.

The Center for Near East Policy Research has considerable expertise in these matters.

3. Applying appropriate pressure upon Congresspersons.

We will mobilize the tens of thousands of American citizens who live in Israel -- and in particular in Judea and Samaria -- to reach out to staffers of their own Congresspersons as well as members of Congressional Middle East Subcommittees, to ask that they override Bush's coddling of the Fatah. What they will communicate is that helping Fatah is counterproductive to US interests and would only serve to facilitate an anti-American and ant-Semitic Islamist entity.

This effort will be generated via Internet communication and town meetings.

Americans in Israel will, in turn, be encouraged to generate support for this effort in their original communities, among family, friends and synagogues.

Budget: September 15-December 15, 2007

Three professional Arab-speaking journalists/investigators to monitor the PA media $25,000

Investigators to monitor Hamas broadcasts $ 2,000

Expenses -- stipend, travel, PR costs, etc. -- for bringing experts to Washington DC to do briefings for staffers of the Congress and for the media at the National Press Club -- in October, November and December $30,000

Writers/editors/translators to produce material based on information that has been secured, for Washington briefings and the Internet update $15,000

Technical expert to put up website and supervise the Internet newsletter $ 6,000.

Administrative costs to the Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd. $ 5,000

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency
(www.israelbehindthenews.com). He is with The Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd in Jerusalem.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 29, 2007.

And so, Olmert and Abbas met in Jerusalem yesterday.

The rumors following that meeting flew fast and furious, and if one were to believe them one might be reduced to a state of rage. According to some sources Olmert agreed to share control of the Temple Mount, or, to give that control to the Palestinians, and that he concurred with the need to withdraw to the pre-67 lines. According to al-Jazeera, a document regarding these agreements was drawn up. Both sides denied this. There is talk about Olmert considering a request for PA control of three cities -- Ramallah, Nablus (Shechem) and Jenin, and for granting of "amnesty" to more wanted men. It is impossible to attest to the accuracy of all of these reports.

What seems likely is that nothing in terms of the core issues was finalized and that, as claimed, only broad outlines -- principles -- were discussed. That doesn't mean Olmert wouldn't give away control of the Temple Mount, it just means he may not have had the opportunity to do so yet.

(As to those "good will" gestures, undoubtedly there was talk about reducing checkpoints, freeing more prisoners, granting amnesty to others, etc. On the spot, unilaterally, Olmert would not have been in a position to do much more than say he would take these matters under advisement.)


This continues to be my take:

Olmert can do us a great deal of damage. He is setting unacceptable precedents and generating security risks. Additionally, just giving legitimacy to a terrorist entity is most unwise. And so his efforts towards establishing a Palestinian state at our border should be fought in every way possible; this is not a time for complacency.

But at the end of the day I do not believe establishing a Palestinian state now is possible, whatever the intentions of Bush or Abbas or Olmert. Once again, the reasons why:

There is no civic entity within the PA areas that can serve as the infrastructure for a state. They simply don't have their act together. The areas are without law and order, and are not under the control of the security forces/police. Fayyad admitted just days ago that as much as they want control of the cities of Ramallah, Jenin and Nablus, they are not ready to take them over yet.

Abbas is incredibly weak, even within his own party. Farouk Qaddoumi, who is a right-winger opposed to peace with Israel, controls the Central Committee of Fatah and is bucking Abbas. Fatah itself is mind-blowing corrupt. There is no dynamic industry or entrepreneurship.


But more significant than any of this is Hamas. Hamas control of Gaza presents the first problem. Is the PA the administrative authority for all Palestinians within Judea and Samara and also Gaza or not? Would a Palestinian state disenfranchise all those who live in Gaza? The quandary this situation poses has no easy solution.

In any event, anyone who imagines that Hamas members are going to sit quietly and let Abbas negotiate peace with Israel had better think again. At the very least, they will generate terrorism and unrest that sabotages all serious negotiations. But I think they're going to do a good deal more: I think they're intending to co-opt Abbas and Fatah.

There are two ways in which this can happen: through negotiations or violence. And Abbas is most assuredly aware of this. Hamas already has cells in Judea and Samaria and is eager to further weaken and then take down Fatah. The way out for Abbas is through reinstating the unity government.

Just today, the Arabic daily Asharq Alawsat, cited by Israel Radio, announced that Hamas leaders have offered Fatah control of PA institutions and bases in the Gaza Strip. In return, they want the unity government and the PA parliament reinstated, and the PLO reformed (which undoubtedly means more control for Hamas). Hamas leaders declined to acknowledge this, however. And so, they're not quite there yet, but they're edging closer.

Hamas actually launched a website for the national unity coalition government this week.


For a clearer picture of what's happening with Hamas, see "How strong has Hamas become?" by Nick Francona of the Washington Institute:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188197180384&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Abbas was in Amman today and, with regard to Bush's proposed November conference, told King Abdullah, "If we go to a conference without clarity on a solution and without a declaration of principles within the framework of a work plan, I don't think that the conference will be beneficial."

Interesting. No slowly working things through until the PA is ready. He wants instant state. Or could he possible want to shift the blame for things not working?


Well, it happened, as it was bound to: Regretfully, three Palestinian children got in the line of fire when Israel was shooting at the site of a Kassam rocket launcher, and were killed. The Palestinians, of course, use this to full PR advantage and forge fictions about Israel deliberately shooting at groups of innocent children.

The Israeli response is simple: It serves our fight not a bit to hit children and we try exceedingly hard not to. As one source put it, "the army makes every effort -- sometimes beyond proportion -- so as not to hurt civilians." However, "a Kassam launcher area is a battle zone, it is their territory, and they should make sure that no child or youth approaches the area."

Of course, this is not what happens. "In many cases, upon investigating the incidents, we find that civilians were killed because the terror organizations sent them to the battle zone, because the terrorists were staying among civilians or carrying out a certain activity that endangered the civilians."

What the IDF source admitted is that a risk is being taken with the lives of Israeli children every time a rocket launcher is not targeted for fear of hitting Palestinian civilians: that launcher, within minutes, might send another Kassam into Sderot.


Moshe Ya'alon, former chief of staff and now with the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, has written an article,"Misinterpreting the Mideast," that appeared in the LA Times. In it he examines the four mistaken assumptions that diplomats and emissaries (notably Rice and Blair) bring to their work in this region, misconceptions that stand in the way of their making progress towards achieving regional peace:

"Primary among them is the idea that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite for stability in the Mideast. The truth is that the region is riven by clashes that have nothing to do with Israel" -- Sunni-Shia, nationalist-Islamist, etc.

"The second misconception is that Israeli territorial concessions are the key to progress. The reality is that an ascendant jihadist Islam believes that it is leading the battle against Israel and the rest of the West. Given this dynamic, Israeli territorial or other concessions simply fill the jihadists' sails, reinforcing their belief that Israel and the West are weak and can be militarily defeated."

There is then the misconception that "the Occupation" stands in the way of an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. "In the West, the term usually means the territories Israel conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967..."

However, "the heart of the problem is that many Palestinians -- Fatah and Hamas, in particular -- and even some Israeli Arabs use 'Occupation' to refer to all Israel. They do not recognize the Jewish people's right to an independent state, a right affirmed again and again in the international arena."

The forth misconception is that "the Palestinians want -- and have the ability -- to establish a state that will live in peace alongside Israel. But they are not being clear-eyed.

"...A corollary of this...is the belief that economic development can neutralize extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism, thus clearing the way toward peace and security."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-yaalon26aug26,0,123089.story? coll=la-opinion-rightrail

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ken Timmerman, August 29, 2007.

Honor Killing will sweep away many misconceptions Americans have been lead to believe about our security, and about our enemies.

Israeli intelligence picks up the departure of a mysterious cargo ship from Iran, while half-way across the world, a Muslim-American girl is found dead in suburban Maryland.

The two events appeared to be worlds apart. But they were not.

Major Danny Wilkens, the U.S. government's top Iran analyst, becomes convinced that the cargo ship is part of an Iranian scheme to kill millions of Americans. But incompetent bureaucrats and a broken CIA force him to go outside the system, where he puts his career and even his marriage on the line in order to stop its relentless trajectory toward America.

FBI Special Agent Michael Brannigan is perplexed by the "honor killing" of a Muslim girl. But it's only when his investigation is shut down by G-girl Joanna Greary that he discovers a sordid underworld of steamy sex, corrupt government officials, and local Muslim leaders who have exploited America's loose immigration laws for terror.

In this fast-paced Washington novel of spies, faith, betrayal, and lust, New York Times best-selling author Kenneth R. Timmerman tells a story so chilling that it had to be kept out of the newspapers.

  • Is there really a spy for the terrorists who has access to the highest reaches of the United States government, including the White House?

  • Have our intelligence agencies become so bureaucratic and corrupt they can no longer act when a clear and present danger appears?

  • Is Iran's master-terrorist at work today, probing our weaknesses?

  • Is the American Muslim community giving shelter to deadly enemies?

Timmerman takes us from underground hide-outs in Iran to beach-side bars in the British Virgin Islands, from the port of Maracaibo to a shoot-out in Dubai. He brings us smooth Mossad operators, CIA bumblers and a Persian beauty named Aryana, who uses a computer company in California as a front for clandestine operations inside Iran. As the Iranians get ever closer to our shores, readers are in for a surprising climax that may have many of them down on their knees.

Prominent Middle East analyst, author, and former U.S. government official with more than two decades of experience in the underworld of terror, Kenneth R Timmerman has shared bunkers with Muslim terrorists under hostile fire, worked with freedom fighters from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and been held hostage in a war zone. Some of his former contacts have been gunned down by Iranian government hit squads.

His most recent work of non-fiction is Shadow Warriors: Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender, from Crown Forum. His first novel, The Wren Hunt, was published in 1982 and acclaimed by the author of The Alexandria Quartet, Lawrence Durrell.

In 2006, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize for his work on Iran by the former deputy prime minister of Sweden, Per Ahlmark.

Contact Ken Timmerman by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net and visit the website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, August 29, 2007.

Amidst continuing diplomatic efforts to form a separate state for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon weighs in with words of warning against the initiative. President Shimon Peres, as well, foresaw the dangers of such a state nearly 30 years ago (see below.).

Yaalon, writing in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend, notes "four main misconceptions that diplomats bring with them to Israel." Primary among them is the prevalent theory that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite for stability in the Mideast.

The truth is, Yaalon writes, that the region is "driven by clashes that have nothing to do with Israel. For instance, the Jewish state plays no role in the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, between Persians and Arabs or between Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists."

Interestingly, Yoram Ettinger, an expert on U.S.-Israel relations, recently released a paper
(www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123346) negating this theory as well. The former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy brings proofs from recent history showing that general Arab antipathy to Israel predates, and is irrelevant to, issues relating to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria.

Yaalon lists three other mistakes spurring on the pro-Palestinian state diplomats:

Misconception 1: Israeli territorial concessions are felt to be the key to progress -- when in fact such concessions simply fill the sails of ascendant jihadist Islam, which believes it is leading the battle against Israel and the rest of the West. The concessions, therefore, merely encourage their belief that Israel and the West can be defeated.

Yaalon lists the reults of Israel's unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005: "Concerted terror wars, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, rockets fired at Israeli cities -- [which] made clear that the Mideast's central conflict is not territorial but ideological. And ideology cannot be defeated by concessions."

Misconception 2: It is widely believed that Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria blocks agreement between Israelis and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria -- when in fact, "the heart of the problem is that many Palestinians... and even some Israeli-Arabs use 'Occupation' to refer to all Israel. They do not recognize the Jewish people's right to an independent state, a right affirmed again and again in the international arena."

Misconception 3: Possibly most important, it is felt that the Arabs of Judea and Samaria want and can build a state that will live in peace alongside Israel. But in fact, the Palestinian Authority leaders -- specifically, Yasser Arafat and his deputy Mahmoud Abbas -- never used their powers to improve their subjects' living conditions. "Indeed," ex-Gen. Yaalon marvels, "Palestinian unemployment and poverty are worse today than they were before Arafat and his cronies assumed power in 1994."

A corollary of this last misconception, Yaalon adds, "is the belief that economic development can neutralize extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism, thus clearing the way toward peace and security." David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, had a term for such believers -- including his protÚgÚ and current President of Israel, Shimon Peres: "naive Zionists."

Yaalon notes that those who fit the above description must "demand that the Palestinians explain what they did with the $7 billion in international aid they received over the years... Why did Palestinian mobs destroy the Erez industrial zone, where Palestinians worked and ran businesses for decades, on the Gaza border? Why do they attack safe roads linking Gaza and the West Bank? Why is the Palestinian economy in shambles?"

In fact, Peres himself, in a book he wrote in 1978 (Tomorrow is Now, Keter Publishers, Jerusalem; page 232), accurately outlined the dangers of a Palestinian state:

"The establishment of such a [Palestinian] state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,800 men under arms) into Judea and Samaria; this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other [military] equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have problems in preserving day-to-day security, which may drive the country into war, or undermine the morale of its citizens. In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel's existence, to impede the freedom of action of the Israeli air-force in the skies over Israel, and to cause bloodshed among the population in areas adjacent to the frontier-line."

Yaalon concludes his article with this advice for Western governments and their emissaries: Instead of pressuring Israel, they must "try to persuade the Palestinian leaders to commit to a long-term strategy premised on educational, political and economic reforms that would lead to the establishment of a civil society that cherishes life, not death; values human rights and freedom; and develops a middle class, not a corrupt, rich elite..."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, August 29, 2007.
This was written by Gareth Porter and it appeared yesterday in IPS News
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051 Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

WASHINGTON, Aug 28 (IPS) -- Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.

Wilkerson, then a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, recalled in an interview with IPS that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, Wilkerson says,

"The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy -- Iran is the enemy."

Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilise the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."

The warning against an invasion of Iraq was "pervasive" in Israeli communications with the administration, Wilkerson recalls. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens.

Wilkerson notes that the main point of their communications was not that the United States should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran.

The Israeli advice against using military force against Iraq was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration was beginning serious planning for an attack on Iraq. Journalist Bob Woodward revealed in "Plan of Attack" that on Dec. 1, 2001, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld had ordered the Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks to come up with the first formal briefing on a new war plan for Iraq on Dec. 4. That started a period of intense discussions of war planning between Rumsfeld and Franks.

Soon after Israeli officials got wind of that planning, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked for a meeting with Bush primarily to discuss U.S. intentions to invade Iraq. In the weeks preceding Sharon's meeting with Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, a procession of Israeli officials conveyed the message to the Bush administration that Iran represented a greater threat, according to a Washington Post report on the eve of the meeting.

Israeli Defence Minister Fouad Ben-Eliezer, who was visiting Washington with Sharon, revealed the essence of the strategic differences between Tel Aviv and Washington over military force. He was quoted by the Post as saying, "Today, everybody is busy with Iraq. Iraq is a problem...But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq."

Sharon never revealed publicly what he said to Bush in the Feb. 7 meeting. But Yossi Alpher, a former adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, wrote in an article in the Forward last January that Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq, according to a knowledgeable source. Alpher wrote that Sharon also assured Bush that Israel would not "push one way or another" regarding his plan to take down Saddam Hussein.

Alpher noted that Washington did not want public support by Israel and in fact requested that Israel refrain from openly supporting the invasion in order to avoid an automatic negative reaction from Iraq's Arab neighbours.

After that meeting, the Sharon government generally remained silent on the issue of an invasion of Iraq. A notable exception, however, was a statement on Aug. 16, 2002 by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Hussein] more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of weapons of mass destruction."

As late as October 2002, however, there were still signs of continuing Israeli grumbling about the Bush administration's obsession with taking over Iraq. Both the Israeli Defence Forces' chief of staff and its chief of military intelligence made public statements that month implicitly dismissing the Bush administration's position that Saddam Hussein's alleged quest for nuclear weapons made him the main threat. Both officials suggested that Israel's military advantage over Iraq had continued to increase over the decade since the Gulf War as Iraq had grown weaker.

The Israeli chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Farkash, said Iraq had not deployed any missiles that could strike Israel directly and challenged the Bush administration's argument that Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons within a relatively short time. He gave an interview to Israeli television in which he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq could not have nuclear weapons in less than four years. He insisted that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq.

Israeli strategists generally believed that taking down the Hussein regime could further upset an Iran-Iraq power balance that had already tilted in favour of Iran after the U.S. defeat of Hussein's army in the 1991 Gulf War. By 1996, however, neoconservatives with ties to the Likud Party were beginning to argue for a more aggressive joint U.S.-Israeli strategy aimed at a "rollback" of all of Israel's enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Hussein and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there.

That was the thrust of the 1996 report of a task force led by Richard Perle for the right-wing Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies and aimed at the Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

But most strategists in the Israeli government and the Likud Party -- including Sharon himself -- did not share that viewpoint. Despite agreement between neoconservatives and Israeli officials on many issues, the dominant Israeli strategic judgment on the issue of invading Iraq diverged from that of U.S. neoconservatives because of differing political-military interests.

Israel was more concerned with the relative military threat posed by Iran and Iraq, whereas neoconservatives in the Bush administration were focused on regime change in Iraq as a low-cost way of leveraging more ambitious changes in the region. From the neoconservative perspective, the very military weakness of Hussein's Iraq made it the logical target for the use of U.S. military power.

Contact Koira at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, August 29, 2007.

This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) and it appeared on the IMRA website today. Contact Dr. Lerner by email at imra@netvision.net.il and visit the website -- http://www.imra.org.il

IMRA asked the following question this morning to an "Israeli Government Official":

If Prime Minister Olmert develops some form of understanding of principles with PA head Mahmoud Abbas before the international conference will the Government vote on it before the international conference?

The "Israeli Government Official", returned shortly thereafter with the following reply:

"There is no such plan at this point to bring it before an additional forum for further discussion."

Contact Barbara Sommer by email at sommer_1_98@worldnet.at.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, August 29, 2007.

This article is called "No confusion, just silence from Lutheran group." It was written Dexter Van Zile and it appeared in The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle
www.kcjc.com/articles/2007/08/24/opinion/opinion/ b.kcjc.opinion.silence.lutharan.group.prt Dexter Van Zile is a Christian media analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

BOSTON -- When the General Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America met in Chicago earlier this month, it had an opportunity. It had an opportunity to express outrage over the failure of the Palestinians to take advantage of Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and show the world just how responsible they could be when Israel gave them something they've been demanding for decades -- territory of their own.

Like virtually every other mainline church in the United States, ELCA has been telling the world that Palestinian violence and suffering is caused by the Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Under this logic, Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip should have been met with a reduction of violence against Israel and an improvement in Palestinian well-being.

The fact is rocket attacks against Israel increased after the August 2005 withdrawal. So did the suffering. In June 2007, two months before ELCA's Churchwide Assembly, the Gaza Strip was the scene of an orgy of violence during which Hamas murdered members of Fatah in the street -- in front of their wives and children. When Hamas declared sovereignty over the Gaza Strip, it reaffirmed its commitment to Israel's destruction.

How did ELCA's Churchwide Assembly respond to the events in the Gaza Strip? With a robust condemnation of Palestinian violence? With a ringing expression of disappointment over the failure of Palestinian leaders to take advantage of the opportunity given to them?


Instead, ELCA's Churchwide Assembly passed a "memorial" (resolution) that called on Lutherans to consider going out of their way to buy goods from Palestinian suppliers and to explore the feasibility of "refusing to buy products produced in Israeli settlements."

In other words, two months after Hamas and Fatah gunmen battled it out on the streets and rooftops in Gaza, ELCA's Churchwide Assembly laid the groundwork for a boycott of Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

Kaufen Nicht Bei Juden! ("Don't Buy From Jews!) has been replaced with a Kaufen Nicht Bei Settlers! (Don't Buy From Settlers!) -- on a provisional basis, of course. (Remember, the memorial only called for "exploration of the feasibility.")

Exactly who is supposed to conduct this "exploration" is pretty unclear; John Brooks, director of ELCA's News Service, declared: "We don't have a committee looking into anything. It is simply a statement of possibilities."

The likely result is that the legion of hardcore anti-Israel activists in ELCA and in other mainline churches will create a list of products manufactured by Jewish settlers in the West Bank and call on well-meaning Christians to boycott these products. These activists will use the memorial passed by ELCA's General Assembly as their mandate.

In short, ELCA's so-called peace activists have been rewarded for their obsession with Israel's misdeeds, their failure to call attention to Palestinian violence and their refusal to acknowledge growing levels of anti-Semitism in the Middle East.

A mainline Protestant denomination has made it clear, yet again, that Jewish sovereignty and the force used to defend it is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict -- not the Arab policy of rendering the Middle East Judenrein.

No clarifications from ELCA's News Service or admonitions from Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson can change this reality. The language of the memorial gives them nothing to hide behind.

The memorial includes not one word that would lead extremists in the Middle East to think ELCA objects in any way to the escalating campaign of violence, intimidation and defamation they have perpetrated against Israel since the denomination's Churchwide Assembly passed its "Peace Not Walls" memorial in 2005.

There is not one word of criticism of Hamas's ongoing campaign of intimidation in the Gaza Strip. ELCA, which has spent decades decrying Palestinian suffering that it blames on Israel, remained silent when this suffering could not be blamed on Israel.

Rev. Bruce D. MacLaughlin from ELCA's Northeastern Pennsylvania Synod expressed doubt over the resolution, declaring: "I fear that the language we have right now confuses the Jewish community about our support for them, and it sounds like we're speaking out of two sides of our mouth."

The real question is not what ELCA's Churchwide Assembly is saying to the Jewish community, but what it has to say to extremists in the Middle East who call for Israel's destruction.

On this issue, there is only silence.

Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel
(www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 29, 2007.


The State estimates that it already has cost about $4 billion to evacuate from Gaza. Costs continue rising. None of the families ruined by that action has received the permanent housing promised by the government (Arutz-7, 8/10).

The human toll was great. National security deteriorated.


A Dutch organization helps people who cast off Islam. The founder was attacked by a Muslim youth. A Dutch legislator wants to ban the Koran for inspiring such attacks and Muslim immigration for providing the attackers. He denies that a significant wing of Islam is moderate. "...sections of the Koran 'call on Muslims to oppress, persecute or kill Christians, Jews, dissidents and non-believers, to beat and rape women and to establish an Islamic state by force.'" He wrote, "'Ban this wretched book like 'Mein Kampf' is banned! Send a signal to Jami's attackers and other Islamic radicals that the Koran cannot be used in the Netherlands as an inspiration or an excuse for violence.'"

In response, a Dutch attorney filed a complaint for insulting a sector of the population, which there is a criminal offense (Arutz-7, 8/10).

As I wrote, in some countries it is a crime to warn the country of its greatest current peril, however truthful one is. Why don't prosecutors apply the same law to Islamists, who regularly denounce other sectors of the population?


UNIFIL is authorized to patrol northward from the Israeli border up to the Litani R. in Lebanon. The river is only 10 miles from the border. Hizbullah rockets fly further. Hizbullah is buying land just north of the river, and rebuilding its bases there, beyond reach of UNIFIL. Hizbullah then brings in Shiites to displace the Christian and Druze villagers. It bars entry to people it doesn't want. Besides thus preparing for renewed war, Hizbullah is setting up a state within a state, preparatory to taking over Lebanon (IMRA, 8/12).


Anticipating foreign sanctions on imports of refined gasoline, Iran imposed rationing. Rationing failed to reduce consumption. Instead it led to a black market in gasoline, profiteering, riots, and looting. The government does not allow the media to discuss rationing, though it propagandizes for it. It discusses the potential benefit of rationing and not the suffering it causes (IMRA, 8/27).


If students want to study Arabic, let their schools offer courses in it! There is no need for a separate school for it. Such a school is likely to become a madrassa. Its first proposed principal defended a prospective student who wore a t-shirt advocating "intifada." The proposed principal lamely excused the student as just wanting to improve New York. That phony excuse revealed the proposed principal either as too ignorant of Arabic to run such a school, or, more likely, as already getting into the jihad that the school is feared would promote.

The fear is given credence by the school's advisory board having several Muslim clergymen on it. The ACLU did not recognize the church-state separation issue there, but one can imagine it suing a history school that had several Christian pastors on the advisory board (Daniel Pipes & Alicia Colon, NY Sun, 8/15, p.4).

Mayor Bloomberg got mayoral control over the school system. This is how irresponsibly he acquits himself of that jurisdiction. He got taken n by the usual jihadist pretense at being moderate. He is incompetent at this, out of his depth.


Iran's Pres. Admadinejad said that the world's sole salvation would come from Islam (IMRA, 5/14).

He heads a band of murderers, torturers, and oppressors, bankrupting his country. From such, salvation? They need salvation now.


One recently praised the US for helping Abu Dhabi prosper. He praised Israel for certain successes (IMRA, 5/14).

He did not venture to suggest that the Muslims stop considering Israel an enemy.


China and Russia held war games with some formerly Soviet, Central Asian countries, supposedly for anti-terrorism. There were foreign observers, but the US was barred. This means the issue was not anti-terrorism but that China and Russia are working together, again, in a new Cold War. They are spending billions of dollars preparing for war, instead of curing the world's ills (8/14).

Too bad our liberals don't see that China and Russia fuel and instigate strife.


The Irish civil strife seems to have been resolved. Some people suggest that the Arab-Israel strife be resolved similarly, by negotiating with the terrorists there. The Irish solution is not a model for Israel. The differences are many and telling.

The Irish conflict primarily was nationalist and territorial, but the Arab-Israel conflict primarily is religious. The Catholic Church did not support the IRA, but Islamic clergymen foment jihad. The IRA did not want to overthrow Britain, but the PLO wants to overthrow Israel. The IRA does not propose to chase the Protestants out of Ireland, but the PLO wants to chase the Jews first from the Territories and then from Israel. The IRA renounced its arms (though it may be holding back on surrendering them, in which case the issue is not resolved). The PLO and Hamas would not renounce their arms. The PLO and Hamas foster a death cult, whereas the IRA does not have suicide attacks (IMRA, 8/14).

The jihadists are religious fanatics. The IRA is not. Besides, Israel did negotiate, but the Muslims believe in breaking agreements and do. People make up ill-fitting analogies.


He is running in the Democratic primaries for the presidency. He wants the US to negotiate with Iran and N. Korea and find them face-saving ways to renounce nuclear weapons. He wants to negotiate with China and Russia to get peace and stability. He proposes US membership in the Intl. Criminal Court, although that court may well sue Americans and Israelis out of bias. He wants the US to get the Arabs to make peace with Israel, thereby depriving "the jihadists of their most effective propaganda tool." (The Koran is that tool.) Richardson thinks that means strengthening P.A. moderates. To reconcile with Muslims, he would close Guantanamo prison. The US should fight poverty, he says, because poverty is the basis of much terrorism. A Princeton economist retorted that poverty is found not the basis for the terrorist attacks (Ari Lamm, NY Sun, 8/15, p.6).

N. Korea and Iran must have the world's craziest and most fanatical rulers. They would not renounce nuclear weapons, which give N. Korea influence and would give Iran an ability to conquer the world. Russia creates instability. I would try talking with Putin about bigger threats to him and to us in common, but he seems mired in the failed themes of the past. We have tried to negotiate with China, and got nowhere. Hankering after the Intl. Criminal Court must reflect the anti-Americanism of the radicals among the Democrats. Guantanamo is not the problem but the result of Islamic problems. The Arabs don't want peace with Israel. Someone who does not know the cause of terrorism is unfit to be President. I shudder when my friends suggest he is the best that the Democrats have to offer. I find him totally naive.


Britain and Italy want to help Hamas "develop" (Arutz-7, 8/14).

Can't restrain themselves and their egos, thinking they can tutor Hamas (which hates them). Hamas studies them and devises tactics. The Europeans don't. Therefore, Hamas will manipulate the Europeans, not the reverse. Besides, the Europeans are so eager to seem to be world leaders and peacemakers where the US cannot get warring parties to make peace, that they do not penalize or withhold recognition, approval, and aid for long.


Anti-Zionist propaganda spreads like wildfire. How?

(Muslims, among others, review almost every piece of news, and distort it so everything Israel does seems wrong and everything someone else does wrong seems to be "the" Jews' fault. They also review history, turning upside down the story of Zionism and jihad. They minimize crimes against the Jews and make the Arabs seem the victims of Zionism that actually benefited them. They fabricate a story of Palestinian nationalism parallel to the true story of Jewish nationalism, to deprive the Jewish people of sympathy and of justice. Theft of Jewish history.)

For some time, the Arabs claimed that the formation of Israel was a catastrophe for them. Recently, the Israeli Far Left, especially Ilan Pappe, a Communist of Jewish ancestry who poses as an historian, took up the cry. Other leftists, as well as the less influential neo-Nazi web sites, publicized it. Israel's Education Minister made it part of the Israeli Arab curriculum. Thus her self-destructive multi-culturalism fosters divisiveness, not multicultural assimilation but Intifada. And from those leftists, the cry resonates among others.

The claim would make Israel seem to have been founded on injustice and cruelty. The implication is that Israel should be dissolved in favor of the Arabs.

Going further, people who deny the claim are called catastrophe-deniers, as if on a par with Holocaust deniers. This gives some patina of legitimacy to Holocaust denial and some impugning of its critics.

The claim is false, as is anti-Zionist propaganda in general. The Arabs had usurped the Jewish homeland. Large numbers immigrated to take jobs Zionism created. The UNO proposed a separate state for both peoples (though Jordan already was a Palestinian Arab state). The Arabs refused. They wanted it all and they wanted to exterminate the Jews. They made war. They lost and ran. Why feel sorry for greedy, genocidal bigots? (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/16).

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, August 29, 2007.

A policeman trying to stop an Arab tractor engaged in illegal Temple Mount excavations was assaulted -- and the police chief who arrived on the scene arrested no one.

Officials of the Moslem Waqf (religious body) on the Temple Mount are digging there illegally, likely destroying precious artifacts from as early as the First Temple period. So say eyewitnesses and representatives of the Committee for the Prevention of the Destruction of Temple Mount Antiquities.

Gideon Charlap, a top Jerusalem architect and Temple Mount expert, told Arutz-7 what he saw when he visited the Temple Mount on Tuesday: "The Arabs there are digging a deep north-to-south trench, up to a meter [1.1 yards] deep. It is being dug in the area that served during Holy Temple times as the Ezrat Nashim [the area known as the Women's Courtyard, though it was not reserved only for women -ed.]. The trench passes through three east-to-west walls, according to my calculations -- walls that probably served as separations for the Temple's offices and the like. This means that the destruction is tremendous..."

"At one point during the digging," Charlap continued, "a policeman -- apparently a Druze -- tried to stop the work from going on, and actually entered the cabin of the tractor. A struggle ensued, and when the Arabs finally pushed him out, he actually stood in the trench and physically blocked the rest of the work!" "But instead of stopping the lawbreakers," Charlap related with incredulity, "he tried to 'calm down' the policeman!"

Charlap said that at that point, the chief officer of the Temple Mount police station, Shai Alali, arrived on the scene. Charlap said he was unable to see how the story developed from there, "because our allotted time was over." Jews are permitted onto the site -- Judaism's most sacred anywhere in the world -- only four or fewer hours a day.

Police Chief Shai Alali was unavailable for comment. Police spokesmen say they will look into the assault and illegal digging.

The digging is taking place just east of the Dome of the Rock.

Millennia of Artifacts -- Down the Drain

Dr. Eilat Mazar, an archaeologist and a leading member of the Committee for the Prevention of the Destruction of Temple Mount Antiquities, spoke with Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine about the desecration. "It is an untenable situation," she said. "Underneath the Temple Mount is a closed area, one that has barely been disturbed since the Destruction of the Second Temple. Anyone can realize that remnants of both the First and Second Temples are there, and can guess what damage is being done by the tractor. The most precious findings are just rolling around there and are available to be found -- and instead they have a tractor there! If I would try to work with a tractor at one of my digs, the Antiquities Authority would stop me immediately! With a tractor, it's impossible to make any type of careful examination of the earth and pieces being dug up."

"We are a public, voluntary body that has taken upon itself to inform and warn the public about what is going on," Mazar said. "The Antiquities Authority acts as if it is fulfilling its responsibility to supervise -- but in fact all they have there is just one man watching but doing nothing. That is not supervision. It's just a deception to say that anyone is overseeing the wanton digging and desecration being carried out there against our greatest national cultural treasure."

Asked if there has been any lull of late in illegal digs on the Temple Mount, Dr. Mazar responded negatively. "They have a clear goal of turning the Temple Mount into a place exclusively for Moslem prayer. In recent years, they have turned two giant structures -- at the Huldah Gate and Solomon's Stables -- into giant mosques, where none ever stood before... It is totally illegal; how can such violations of the law be allowed -- especially in such an important place for Jewish Nation? This is a top archaeological site, and the fact that it's not considered one of the Seven Wonders of the world is our fault, because we don't talk about it enough and certainly don't preserve it enough."

Arutz-7's Uzi Baruch offered, "Perhaps it's because of the politically sensitive nature of the site?"

Mazar answered, "Yes, it's a sensitive spot, but there's a big difference between acting wisely and delicately, on the one hand, and allowing wanton destruction and law-breaking, on the other hand. No good comes of simply turning the other cheek, trying to achieve quiet at any price, and not seeing the future. They want 'quiet now' and they want to appease the Waqf and everyone else -- everyone except for those who are concerned for Jewish culture."

"The Antiquities Authority is responsible for preserving antiquities," says Dr. Mazar, "but it is not doing its job on the Temple Mount. The Prime Minister must take this job upon himself and make sure that the law is observed and that the Temple Mount remains an accessible cultural site not only for Moslems, but also for Jews and Christians."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor at Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 28, 2007.

On December 8, 1983, a child named Dani Katz walked to the street outside his parent's home in the Dania neighborhood of Haifa. He was 14. His parents were Holocaust survivors.

Outside the home, he was kidnapped by a group of Arabs from the Israeli Galilee town of Sakhnin who held jobs in the Dania neighborhood. They took him to a cave near Sakhnin. There they tortured him in the most brutal and horrific way imaginable. They eventually murdered him. After murdering him they sodomized the corpse. They then left him there to rot.

Police unraveled the crime and arrested the five murderers, who confessed and reenacted the crimes. They were tried in Haifa in 1985 and sentenced to life in prison plus 27 years (this to prevent their being released in case of bleeding heart shortening of sentence due to good behavior.) At one point one of the judges, Avraham Beizer (since retired), asked one of perps sarcastically what it felt like "to bang the boy," and later asked whether the sandwich had tasted good. (The murderers were caught in part because they left sandwich remains in the cave.) The perp's lawyer tried to get a mistrial over that.

The lawyer for the accused was far-leftist Avigdor Feldman. Feldman has devoted much of his career to defending terrorists and traitors. He defended Mordecai Vanunu (nuclear spy), Marcus Klinberg (Soviet spy), Tali Fahima (was did jail time for helping her Palestinian terrorist boyfriend plan atrocities), Teddy Katz (Ilan Pappe's student who fabricated the Tantura massacre), and others.

Feldman claimed the confessions of the five were coerced. The court investigated the charge thoroughly and found it to be false. After the conviction, and after a report by two Meretz members of the government criticizing use of confessions in trials, Feldman eventually lobbied the judicial system into giving his clients a new trial, at the order of Aharon Barak, the (now retired) Chief Justice and promoter of anti-democratic judicial activism in Israel. The new trial was held in Tel Aviv District Court. The perps were briefly put back on the street. They were again convicted in the new trial. The new judges noted the long string of lies and contradictions by the accused. Feldman appealed the new conviction to the Supreme Court, and the court rejected it unanimously.

Some have conjectured that the murder was an initiation rite into a terror group.

Some Israeli leftist groups have been rallying support ever since for the murderers (see for example in Hebrew only: http://hagada.org.il/hagada/html/ modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3236 see also anti-Zionist journalist Tom Segev's comments: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml? contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0&itemNo=548288)

In 1982 a female soldier named Dafna Carmon was raped and murdered outside her home Two of the murderers of Dani Katz were also convicted of murdering her. They were also represented in that trial by Feldman.

Some Arab Knesset members had been lobbying for the release of the murderers. The "appeals commission" of the Justice Ministry recently recommended that the five murderers have their sentences "shortened." Shimon Peres as President made it official, which means that they will be released from prison within the next few days.

The article below is called "Peres Reduces Jail Terms of Israeli-Arab Terrorists." It was written by Ezra HaLevi and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva
See also www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/israeln/022699.html

(IsraelNN.com) President Shimon Peres has decided to reduce the jail sentences of five Israeli-Arab terrorists.

Three of the terrorists are serving for the brutal murder of Haifa Jewish teenager Danny Katz in 1983 and two for the rape and murder of IDF soldier Daphna Carmon in 1987. Katz, the son of Holocaust survivors, was kidnapped from near his Haifa home at the age of 15 by Arabs who worked at a nearby supermarket while on his way to visit a friend. He was beaten to death with sticks and then sodomized. He was found dead four days later in the Israeli-Arab village of Sakhnin.

The men were sentenced to life in prison, plus 27 years. They will now be eligible for release in the near future following Peres's commutation.

Peres made the move after meeting with Israeli-Arab MK Taleb a-Sana (Ra'am-Ta'al), who also urged him to grant a pardon to Suleiman al-Abed, who is serving time for the rape and murder of teenage Jewish girl, Chanit Kikus.

Katz Family Livid

Danny Katz's surviving brother Amnon lashed out at the new president Tuesday night, saying: "Peres has not even managed to warm the presidential chair yet and he's already releasing my brother's despicable murderers."

Katz says that his brother's murderers have become a cause celebre in recent years for the extreme-left, who claimed that they confessed to the crime due to police pressure. The murderers were even granted a retrial based on those claims in 1999 -- but were found guilty again.

Mira Katz, Danny's mother, pointed a finger at the media Wednesday morning, asking why there was no outrage at the injustice of releasing the murderers of children. "If they decided to free Yigal Amir, who murdered an old man, the media would not stop yelling about it. So why when they decide to free the murderers of youngsters are the media dead silent?" she told Army Radio.

When taking office in July, Peres pledged he would seek to unite Israel's populace.

Lapid Chides Hard-Left

Yosef (Tommy) Lapid, former Justice Minister and leader of the defunct Shinui party chided the intellectual far-left for making an issue out of the conviction of Katz's murderers. Lapid told Voice of Israel government radio Wednesday that the murderers also were convicted of a previous killing, a fact omitted by the "intellectual left that saw the trial as a stain on the judicial system."

Concerning repeated claims by leftists that the murderers' confession was forced and that there still is doubt concerning their guilt, Lapid maintained that it is unlikely that five different people would admit to a crime they did not commit. The terrorists won five retrials, including one order by the High Court. "No Jew ever received such consideration and mercy." Lapid said.

Olmert Considering Allowing 'Nativity' Terrorists to Return

PA Arab sources following Tuesday's meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas said that the terrorists who took over Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity for 39 days in 2002 may be allowed to return to Judea and Samaria from their exile to Gaza and Europe, upon Abbas's request. The terrorists were responsible for the murder of 15 Israelis.

Three elderly Armenian monks managed to flee the church at the time with the help of the IDF. One of the monks, Narkiss Korasian, described the Islamist terrorists' behavior to reporters: "They stole everything, they opened the doors one by one and stole everything... they stole our prayer books and four crosses... they didn't leave anything." The monks also told of beatings administered to several Christian clergymen held in the church by PLO gunmen.

The terrorists, who were mostly Fatah men, are considered heroes among Muslims in Judea and Samaria and Abbas hopes that winning their return could increase his meager power-base.

The return of the 26 terrorists would take place in October, as a gesture during the Muslim month of Ramadan.

Editor's Note: A reader of the Arutz-Sheva article made this comment:

40. Peres -- the first Israeli spaceman
A man for all seasons. Truely he lives on another planet. Read these and weep. Poor Israel -- why do you let this fool have power???


Sol, London (30/08/07)

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 28, 2007.
This article was written by Youssef Ibrahim and it appeared August 27, 2007 in the New York Sun

A former prime minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, recently declared he was returning home to try to regain power after six years of exile -- in Saudi Arabia.

The day that the monster of Uganda, Idi Amin, was removed from power in 1979, he flew to a country where sanctuary as a Muslim African leader would be guaranteed upon his arrival -- Saudi Arabia.

And in 1970, immediately following the death of an Egyptian dictator, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leadership of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood movement returned home in droves to try to Islamize their native land -- after two decades in Saudi Arabia.

Thus, Saudi Arabia ever expands its fundamentalist cage.

Robert Baer, a 20-year veteran of the CIA and the author of Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, has often described the Saudis as the world's primary financiers of terrorism, the source of much of Al Qaeda's leadership, and an incubating station for radical Islam.

Though such activities have come back to haunt the Saudis and their allies in America -- Islamist terror struck home in 1995, 1996, and 1998 bombings, two American embassies were attacked in Africa, and the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen in the leadup to the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- the Saudi system continues to perpetuate the model.

The reason, according to Mr. Baer and other Middle East analysts, is that Saudi Arabia runs on two currencies: the riyal and Islam.

Neither Saudi society nor its ruling establishment can escape: All of its constituent elements -- from business and charity to religious instruction, law enforcement, and foreign relations -- rattle inside the cage of the country's fundamentalist obsessions: The Saudi flag contains a Koranic verse. The Saudi monarch wraps his authority in Islam as "the custodian of Mecca and Medina." Saudi foreign aid is based on building fundamentalist madrassas and mosques, supporting such fundamentalist groups as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and spreading Koranic instruction worldwide.

Arab and Muslim expatriate workers who have lived and worked in Saudi Arabia -- easily numbering 50 million over the last three decades -- return imbued with a model of militancy that duplicates an Osama bin Laden-style path toward jihad against their home societies.

This vicious cycle mattered little when oil was cheap and the Saudis were a mere curiosity. But Saudi Arabia's power grew as it was transformed into a prime energy source in the 1970s, a huge financial influence in the 1980s, and an immense lobbying presence in the 1990s.

By the late '90s, there were full-size mirror images of Saudi Arabia's stilted brand of Islam in Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, the Philippines, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Kosovo, as well as among Muslim communities in Europe, Australia, and America. More mirror images are in the making.

In one of his many interviews since leaving the CIA, Mr. Baer gave an interesting analysis of the elements that make for the creation and exportation of this model, describing Saudi Arabia as both hapless and evil.

"They feel humiliated by colonialism, by the United States, by Israel -- call it what you want. They feel they are citizens or subjects of a country that has never fought a war, and yet spends so much money on defense. They're humiliated that they don't take the Israelis on, because their army is worthless. They sit around and they read the Koran. And they get on these Islamic Web sites, and they watch Al-Jazeera. And they go to the mosque."

In other words, the Saudis do little except rattle around within the cage of their own fundamentalism.

This deep confusion is reflected throughout the ruling family, which contains both princes who are Westernized -- in such vulgar aspects as drinking, womanizing, gambling, and wearing diamond-studded Rolex watches -- and others who leave a mosque only to enter a charity that nurtures madrassas turning out little bin Ladens.

Their schizophrenia is exemplified in such global personalities as Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a multibillionaire businessman who simultaneously invests his billions in America while funding both the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is the American chapter of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood.

In the end, the Saudis are just rattling around in their cage. A society with no social project except to produce more Muslims, deeper Muslims, better Muslims, ends up as one that produces Muslim fanatics and terrorists.

Now, with oil prices having moved north of $70 dollar a barrel, a lot more trouble will be coming our way out of the Saudi cage.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, August 28, 2007.

This was written by Barak Ravid and it appeared August 23, 2007 in Haaretz.

The U.S. security coordinator for the Palestinian Authority is checking whether Israel is upholding its agreement to stop pursuing Fatah militants in the West Bank, Haaretz has learned.

A senior Western diplomat said that officers from Keith W. Dayton's team have been meeting with Palestinian security officials in several West Bank cities.

"This is part of the activity to help the Palestinian security forces institute law and order," the diplomat said.

On Tuesday, a group of Canadian officers visited Nablus, which is considered home to the largest concentration of wanted Fatah militants. The officers met with some Palestinian security officials there.

Israel has agreed to stop pursuing 178 activists of Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Some of the activists are suspected of shooting attacks and working with Hezbollah to organize terror attacks on Israel.

The team is expected to draft an opinion on the Palestinians' request to expand the amnesty list.

The Palestinian security officials told the officers that the wanted men are staying at the security forces' headquarters, in keeping with the agreement with Israel. They said special committees are examining how to place them in the Palestinian police or other security forces.

The agreement was reached about a month ago at the conclusion of talks between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. A joint Israeli-Palestinian team is meeting to monitor the agreement's implementation.

Under the agreement, Israel said it would not work to capture the 178 activists unless it had clear evidence that they were involved in terror attacks.

In exchange, the Fatah activists agreed to hand in their weapons and spend their days at the security branches' headquarters. Israel said activists who maintain this behavior for three months would receive further alleviations, including greater freedom of movement within the West Bank.

Dayton's officers also are discussing the Palestinians' equipment and training needs. The U.S. intends to increase its aid for Abbas' forces in the West Bank, especially the Presidential Guard and National Security, sources told Haaretz.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, August 28, 2007.

The way the Israeli Jews are behaving, you'd think it was an Arab country and the Jews have no rights and get no respect or consideration from the Arab rulers. So all they can do is wail when their precious antiquities are destroyed by the Arabs, who don't want any reminders that the history of the country is almost all Jewish history. When it wasn't Jewish, it wasn't a country -- I mean that literally. After the Jews were defeated by the Romans back some 2000 years, there was not an independent state in the Land of Israel UNTIL the Jews returned in large numbers in modern times.

What is wrong with this generation of Israelis? When will they take control of their country and their Holy Sites? When the relics have been pulverized?

How foolish can Olmert and the Secularists-In-Control be? Even if they don't appreciate that it is Jewish history being destroyed, I'd think they'd have respect for antiquities that belonged to any ethnic group. At the very least, they ought to see the Temple Mount as a major "tourist attraction," one that isn't available anywhere else. Isn't Livni the linguistically-challenged always going on about making Israel more of a tourist attraction? These jerks don't care about the foundations of their peoplehood and they are just plain dumb about how to attract people to Israel.

This was written by Etgar Lefkovits and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188197171632&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

A group of Israeli archeologists on Monday renewed their blistering condemnation of the Antiquities Authority for authorizing Muslim officials to carry out a dig on Jerusalem's Temple Mount with tractors and other heavy equipment as part of infrastructure work to repair faulty electrical lines on the ancient compound.

Israeli archeologists slammed the Antiquities Authority for permitting this trench to be dug to repair electrical lines on the Temple Mount.

Israeli archeologists slammed the Antiquities Authority for permitting this trench to be dug to repair electrical lines on the Temple Mount.

The work started last month on the northern section of the Temple Mount in the area of the outer courts of the ancient Jewish Temples with the approval of the Israel Police and the state-run Antiquities Authority, Israeli and Islamic officials said. Independent Israeli archeologists said that the work left a 100-meter-long and roughly 1-1.5 meter deep trench, and has damaged the site.

"This is a barbaric action on the most sensitive place in archeology of the Jewish nation," said Bar-Ilan University archeologist Dr. Gabriel Barkai, a member of the Committee Against the Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount.

Barkai said that work carried out at the site on Monday -- which eyewitnesses say was done with an Antiquties Authority official present -- was the most damaging to date.

"If this was done with the Antiquities Authority supervision it is even worse, because the crime was done before our very eyes," he added.

The non-partisan group of Israeli archeologists and intellectuals from across the political spectrum has previously lambasted Israel's chief archeological body for permitting the work at the site but Monday's damage prompted them to issue their harshest criticism of the state-run archeological body to date.

"It is outrageous that the Antiquities Authority is taking part in an archeological crime by pretending they are supervising the site while they are in fact witnessing the crime as it takes place," said group spokeswoman Dr. Eilat Mazar, a leading Temple Mount expert.

Antiquities Authority spokeswoman Dalit Menzin declined to comment on the issue.

According to decades-old regulations in place at the Temple Mount, Israel maintains overall security control at the site, while the Wakf, or Islamic Trust, is charged with day- to-day administration of the ancient compound. Jerusalem police have said that in coordination with the Antiquities Authority they had given Islamic officials approval for the work.

Wakf director Azzam Khatib said that the work followed an electrical shortage in the al Aksa Mosque.

The Antiquities Authority, which by law is charged with supervising Israel's archeological sites, has in the past been criticized by the apolitical group of archeologists for overlooking large-scale Islamic construction on the site which resulted in archeological damage because of the political sensitivities involved.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 28, 2007.


Abbas is rigging the next election against Hamas. He will combine the vote in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Presumably, Fatah's larger majority in Judea-Samaria would cover Hamas' smaller majority in Gaza. This assumes that Fatah would retain its majority in Judea-Samaria. Since Fatah has not reformed, its corruption and lack of services continue to erode its popularity. Hamas' brutality cost it some support in Gaza, but it has restored order and provided more services. Services are popular.

Abbas may be setting his party up to lose in Judea-Samaria. He would be outsmarting himself.


Benjamin Netanyahu tried various tricks to maneuver his primary rival, Moshe Feiglin, out of eligibility. He did keep Feiglin from attending Netanyahu's eventual victory speech, where the defeated candidate usually endorses the victor. Netanyahu said he wouldn't consort with Feiglin and "his ilk." He wants a court's help in expelling Feiglin from the Party.

Netanyahu said he wants to bring "moderates" into the party. He did not define "moderates." He, himself is appeasement minded towards the genocidal Muslims. That is extremist, to me.

I think that Netanyahu shows an ominous, undemocratic tendency, which is very Israeli. Considering that Netanyahu betrayed both Israel and Jonathan Pollard at Wye, where he agreed to territorial concessions to the Muslims and dropped his insistence on getting Pollard freed for it, Netanyahu can be harmful for Israel. Barry Chamish explains that he is a tool of the US and that Peres had Rabin murdered. He used that information not to get justice but to blackmail Peres into throwing the election to Netanyahu. Ironically, had he revealed the murder plot, he would have defeated Peres legitimately. Like Sharon, however, he is not firm against jihad, and no nationalist.


Supposedly pro-Israel, a man I know suggests that the US force the two sides to make peace. He who hates the Saudi-loving Bush regime would expect it to play fair with Israel? It would demand concessions that give jihad a leg up. The US can get agreements signed, but can't make the Arabs honor them. He "understands" objections to Israel from the Arabs, who'd been living there 2,000 years. The Arab invasion came about 1,300 years ago, where Jews had been living for 2,000 years. The Muslim Arabs squeezed non-Arabs, non-Muslims out.


In Ramallah, businessmen and academicians have formed a lobbying group they hope becomes a political party. Their party would offer an alternative to Fatah and Hamas, which focus on war. The new group cares about the economy, culture, music, and sports. The only political issue it addressed was unity of the two parts of the P.A., now split between Fatah and Hamas (IMRA, 8/12).

This group did not repudiate jihad. How could it? Its members are Muslims. But the group sounds more pragmatic. If it built up the P.A. economy, it would be more popular and have more money for jihad. That is my nightmare: a democratically driven and more prosperous jihad.


A right-wing activist, Prof. Hillel Weiss, told the Israeli colonel in charge of expelling Weiss' family from their house in Hebron that he hopes the colonel's family drops dead. It was not a tasteful way to put it, but the professor had the right to condemn the colonel. Americans call that free speech.

Apparently Israelis don't. The media and Defense Min. Barak want Weiss prosecuted. The head of his university is investigating whether to fire him (although he did not do anything untoward on campus or as an employee). His problem is not what he did or said, but that he is a right-winger. Israeli left-wingers don't get into trouble for doing likewise or worse.

Leftist Israeli professors and Arabs praise terrorist murder of Jews, dismantle parts of the security fence, promote boycott of Israel, and even attack Israeli soldiers. Some of the Arabs call for the destruction of Israel and engage in espionage. All that, without being denounced by the media, Defense Min. Barak, and heads of universities. Universities hire and award tenure to people who lack credentials of scholarship, but are leftist (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/11).


The ACLU draws a clear line between government and religion, except for Islam. It defended the U. of Michigan for installing footbaths in men's rooms, for Muslims to bathe in before prayer. There can be some accommodation with a religion so as not to exclude its members from participation. But ACLU gave as its primary reason for approval that the footbaths were secular, because non-Muslims could use them. As if that is just what the non-Muslims were waiting for! CAIR called objections to the footbaths "Islamophobia." It always does. Nonsense! (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/14 from Wall St. J..) Accommodating only Islam, an imperialistic religion, helps it fasten its creeping grip on our society.


It isn't only US pressure that keeps foreigners from investing in Iran's oil fields. Iran increases the risk to investors by destabilizing the region. Then it offers low returns to potential high-risk investors.

Some foreign observers think that low foreign investment, high inflation, and domestic gasoline subsidies that exceed revenues will enable moderates to win Parliament. Not likely. Elections are rigged by the mullahs to keep moderates out, and in any case, Parliament is subservient to non-elected mullahs. It is unlikely that the regime will fall before it acquires nuclear weapons.

Suppose the regime does fall. Would it be replaced by something better than what replaced the Soviet regime? The Russian people did not question the ideology that failed. It blamed disloyal officials and outside forces for bringing down the regime. The people still like Stalin and like Putin, who is restoring an imperialist foreign policy and a fascist domestic one.

The West should strive to replace the Iranian regime with one that understands what was wrong with theocracy (IMRA, 8/13 from Caroline Glick).


The last time Israel turned security for Area B, the P.A.-run area in the Territories, over to P.A. security forces, members of P.A. security forces ended up driving cars stolen from Israel. More than 32,000 cars were stolen from Israel in 1997. Israel is trying it again (Sorry, lost source). Hold on to your cars!


Britain's defeated, residual force in Basra is under siege. Its military chief claims Britain's mission was a success. His mission was to enable Iraqis to run their city. After Saddam lost, about a hundred thousand Iraqi men came to the city, unimpeded by British forces, sizeable at the time. They organized themselves into Islamist militias, again unimpeded by British forces. They took over the city, running death squads, beating unveiled women, extorting from businesses, and usurping power at universities and hospitals, still unimpeded by British forces. Some allies, the British are! Pretending not to notice, Britain returned most of its troops, imperiling the rest. Now the city is run by Iraqis, the wrong Iraqis!

Israel thinks that Fatah and Egypt are its allies against Hamas. But with money from Israel, Fatah paid Hamas' troops. It is negotiating another unity government with Hamas, hosted by Egypt, which lets weapons into Gaza for Hamas (IMRA, 8/11 from Caroline Glick). Reality is difficult for rulers to grasp.


Just before the Likud vote for party head, Hillel Halkin commented about the two contenders, the favored Netanyahu and the challenger, Moshe Feiglin. I thought it was misleading. Bear in mind his constant appeasement towards the Muslims, when weighing his judgment.

He is correct in stating that "Moshe Feiglin has no real roots in Likud and joined it only a few years ago with the open intention of staging a hostile takeover. I find that misleading, because Likud has shifted towards appeasement, and Feiglin is trying to save the country by giving it a true party opposed to appeasement and the other corruption in the political system. He may have no roots in that party, but Netanyahu (and Sharon) and others betrayed it.

As Halkin puts it, "Mr. Feiglin's view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict make Mr. Netanyahu look like an extreme dove. (I object to that new, politically correct term for the conflict, making it seem narrower and the Arabs seem the underdog in what really is the Arab-Israel conflict and jihad.). Netanyahu is a dove in office but a hawk in a campaign. It's an old political trick. Halkin should not wield a politician's tricks against his readers.

One of the characteristics of a hatchet job is an overly-extreme sounding summary of someone's program, without furnishing quotes, details, or evidence. Thus, Halkin writes that Feiglin's "views are rooted in Jewish religious belief and in a religious perspective, according to which the entire biblical land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people by a divine decree that must be implemented by any and all means." By "all means?" Feiglin has not recommended genocide. The Muslims have and do. That is by "all means." Halkin's secularist approach of accommodation to Muslim demands has been tried for decades, and failed.

Feiglin belongs, according to Halkin, in the National Religious Party or National Union Party, whose voters mostly are Orthodox, but he states that those parties are too small for Feiglin. Well of course they are. One can't save Israel from them. But neither are they sufficiently nationalist. Both sell out for Cabinet posts and both approve of appeasement. Appeasement is folly, as we should have learned from experience with the Nazis, Communists, and Muslims. The very firmness of Feiglin is needed to save us from the infirmity of people such as Halkin, who keep wanting to give in the Muslims, who use concessions as a basis for conquering enemies. Whether there are faults to Feiglin, I don't know -- can't tell from Halkin's generalities about him, which are condemnatory without being specific. Halkin gives himself away by condemning the religious Right as being a danger to the republic. I think Halkin is a danger.

"Bigotry and religious fanaticism are M. Feiglin's natural elements." What bigotry? None cited. I think that's libel and that Feiglin is no more fanatical than secularists, as Halkin is about ceding territory to the Arabs.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 28, 2007.

This essay was written by Gail Tenzer.

The problem we are currently experiencing in Israel comes as a result of confusion in the minds of many Israelis, particularly those who were raised on Herzl's secular socialistic movement, as opposed to adhering to the Torah and Jewish Law.

Israel was never meant to be a secular country just like any other. It was created as a homeland for the Jews. Our first challenge, therefore, is to define what it means to be a Jew. Then, we have to ask why the Jews were entitled to settle this particular piece of land as opposed to any other anywhere else in the world? In fact, prior to bringing Jews rescued from the Holocaust back to Israel, some secular Zionist leaders were entertaining establishing a new homeland in somewhere in South America or Africa (and I would recommend that current seculars should reconsider those places as a new homeland for themselves!)

OK! So, now for the definition of a Jew! This is crucial! Although it is true that when dealing with discrimination, we don't define ourselves! Others do! However, as a people, within the context of a Jewish State, we must define ourselves. What do I mean? In Europe during the 1920s people were generally non-religious and by the time the Nazis came into power, many born Jews had become so secular, that they no longer considered themselves to be Jews at all. In some instances, the assimilation was so great that after a number of generations many people had no idea that they had Jewish roots. They certainly didn't define themselves as Jews. According to the Nazis, however, if somewhere in a person's past, a great-great-grandmother was Jewish, they were expropriated, forced to wear a yellow Star of David and taken away to a concentration camp to be exterminated with the rest of the Jews.

Unfortunately, to this day, when someone applies to get a visa to visit Saudi Arabia, he has to fill out a form giving a genealogical history his ancestors proving that there are no Jews in the applicant's background. Apparently, we are defined as Jews, particularly by those who hate us and wish to exterminate us. On the other hand, using the same methods employed by the Saudis, it would be very problematic for us to define those born into other faiths as Jews on the basis of ancestry and as a result accord them the right of return, since we would be forced to accept most people whose last names end in ez from Spain and Latin America, for example, into Israel as Jews even though they were born for generations as Catholics for centuries since the Inquisition. So, the problem here is not to define who is or who isn't a Jew when it comes to racial, ethnic, national or religious prejudice, but rather a problem for all humanity to keep up the guard against the sort of radical xenophobia which leads to genocide, such as we are currently seeing in Darfur based on the religious intolerance of the invading Arabs

Despite religious persecution, pogroms and finally the Holocaust, we clung to our Torah, customs and our desire to one day return to our Promised Land, where we finally could feel safe. In 1948, after the Nazis had succeeded in murdering 6 million of us, the State of Israel was reestablished by a UN Charter as a "homeland for the Jews"! To this day, Jews in the Diaspora still repeat daily: "Next year, in Jerusalem!" During all our years in exile, the Torah served as a constant reminder. And we passed this on to our children from one generation to another -- that some day we would return to our beloved homeland: Israel!

The Torah gives us the deed to this land we call Israel -- not just any piece of land, but this particular piece of land. While attending university, I had problems with some of my political science professors who insisted that we Jews based our claims to the land on "Jewish Mythology!" This implies that the Torah is fiction, and thus, by natural deduction, our claim to the land also must be deemed fiction. There is an inherent danger in such an argument, and our enemies are using this argument well on the world stage to delegitimize us and ultimately once again attempt to run us off our land, the land G-d gave to us.

The danger of turning the State of Israel into a secular nation rather than a theocracy, according to G-d's will in the Torah and His law, is that this kind of argument necessarily leads to an erroneous but convincing conclusion -- that the Arabs are right, and that we Jews came from Europe as alien invaders to occupy land that rightfully belongs to them. Unfortunately, it is precisely our own secular leaders, by denying the Torah and its validity -- thus denying the very document that gives us the Deed to the Land -- that are making the best case for our enemies! In essence, in doing so, the current Israeli leadership is in fact aiding and abetting the enemy -- anywhere else, considered to be an act of Treason. Under no circumstances can Israel be a secular pluralistic country like the U.S.

So, this brings us back to the necessity of defining who is a Jew and who can legitimately claim to be a deed holder of the land. Seculars who deny the Torah are denying the Deed to the land and should not be allowed citizenship. By renouncing the Torah, they have renounced the Title and the Deed! Only those who accept the legitimacy of the Torah should be accorded citizenship and all the privileges that it entails: the right to vote and the right to hold office. Furthermore, it is quite obvious by the behavior of the secular population towards Israel's Jewish population, that they are indeed enemies of the Jews almost to the same extent as the rest of our enemies. As such, they are also enemies of the State of the Jewish people: the Land of Israel (so named by G-d in the Torah, when he gave us the land)!

In this world, everybody knows that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot make an argument against being Jewish and simultaneously lay claim to Jewish lands, all the while, denying the very document that gives you title to that land.

As far as democracy is concerned, the laws of the Torah and democracy are not incompatible as is the case with Islam, which means to submit. The world is quite prepared to accept that not every democracy in the world has to be a U.S. style Democracy. Unfortunately, at this point, Israel apparently no longer can be considered to be a democracy. Many Israeli citizens feel that they have had their freedom of speech or written expression suppressed. Some have spent time in jail for merely saying something against a powerful politician. Given other circumstances, however, Israel, can be a democratic theocracy. In fact, although it isn't apparent, the Laws of the U.S. are based upon the Laws of Moses, which are the Laws of the Torah. So, if the U.S. can be a democracy under these laws, so can Israel. The difference, however, lies in the fact that in Israel, in order to maintain the integrity of the State as a Homeland for the Jews, all citizens must by definition be Jews. This is precisely the problem we have with the current secular leadership who are in fact behaving like authoritarian rulers rather than democratic leaders and who have made it very plain that under no circumstances do they want the State to maintain its Jewish character, nor, apparently do they personally want to be considered as Jews! They want the State of Israel, the State the world established for the Jewish people as a homeland, to lose its Jewish identity and become a nation like any other nation-state.

Well, there are a number of reasons why this cannot be! It is unrealistic to believe that Israel would continue to be a homeland for the Jews so they could return from wherever they may be fleeing persecution, and from wherever they may be driven out of next, if the State loses its Jewishness! If everyone gets the right to vote, given the existing enemy citizenry that never assimilated into Israeli society, who unfortunately are in office within the Israeli government despite the fact that instead of protecting the State of Israel they are sworn to destroy it -- without the necessity of fighting any wars, within a few generations, Israel would cease to exist altogether, unless in name only! The unassimilated populations would eventually take over the political system demographically and that would be the end of Israel.

Coming back to the issue of democracy vs. theocracy, the world has accepted the fact that both Saudi Arabia and Iran are theocracies! Furthermore, the experience in Iraq has led American politicians to realize that if democracies can be established in Muslim countries at all, they will be different than democracies as we know them in the West. Furthermore, the concept of the nation-state is a relatively new political system and currently is being challenged by regional treaties etc. -- seemingly morphing into something other than a nation-state. I don't know what the new entity will be called or how exactly we will define it, but national sovereignty with well-defined borders seem to be melting away to create some sort of new political animal which embraces a number of cultures, languages, religions, currencies and giving way to regional rule. Countries seem to be giving up their sovereignty and adopting rules imposed by external regional entities in the name of trade. As a political scientist and an economist, I don't believe that this is prudent or that anything good will come out of the experiment. I believe that in the final analysis, we will find that regional rule and the surrender of sovereignty to various regional trade agreements will ultimately lead to more asymmetrical wars amongst factions that are not national in nature, but perhaps ethnic, ideological or shared interests, such as what we are experiencing with terror groups, war lords that are either involved in narco-traffic, illegal weapons trade, etc.!

Most of the nation-states in the Middle East are relatively new in terms of world history and as such are still attempting to develop politically. The current Israeli government is based upon a perverse parliamentary system which has to rule by consensus, forming coalitions that are always falling apart. Elections are held to vote in a political party and not an individual. The "insiders" get to pick the leaders. This has led to an oligarchy of self-serving lifetime elites who mutually protect each other -- every last one of them having participated in some corruption or another. So, under the circumstances, it is very difficult to say whether at present Israel can be considered to still be a democracy at all.

This brings us to a very disturbing question: if Israel is neither a democracy and nor Jewish, and as such, is no longer a homeland for the Jews, and if it has lost all references to anything remotely connected to the Torah, then what is it? What has it become? And, why does it still exist? If it is no longer a homeland for the Jews, and the current administration wants to change the right of return for Jews, why does it exist? What is its raison d'etre? Once the world starts thinking in this direction, we are in grave danger, indeed! Because what follows is: Absolutely, the Arabs are right! These are invaders from Europe, refugees from Hitler, who invaded this land, occupied it and ....! You know the rest!

Well, I think we have had enough of these corrupt secular politicians. They would, in fact, do better and appreciate life more if they would move to a European country of their choice, to Australia, or even to the U.S. One thing is certain! They have absolutely no business being in Israel. The moment they deny the Torah and deny being Jewish, they need to leave! They are "The Enemy Within" (Michael Savage)! They have no feeling for the Jewish people, their plight or an appreciation of Jewish history. In fact, they go so far as to accept revisionist history and teach it at our most prestigious universities corrupting the truth with their lies, shamelessly. They have denied their own Jewishness and it is their problem to live with whatever others in the world want to define them as. But, they have denied their Jewishness and that should deny them the right to being citizens of a Jewish State, much less the power to lead it. They cannot change the very nature of what the world intended in creating the State of Israel to begin with.

Israel was created by G-d first, on the basis of the Torah -- and on the basis of His Law. It is a theocracy whether these people like it or not -- and they have no right to change it. There are lands in Israel that Jews all over the world bought and paid for with their hard earned money so as to assure that were they ever put in a position where they would have to return, they would have a home to return to. These lands are private property, which were only entrusted to the State for administrative purposes. Giving someone the right to manage your store does not give him the right to sell it or give it away! That's stealing! And for that they should have to pay. No Prime Minister, President or whatever head of state we happen to have can give an inch of land away in any negotiations in return for any consideration. These lands are not theirs for the giving! By virtue of their office they cannot give away what they don't rightfully own. Just try to do this in the U.S. and you'll see how men will come out with their weapons and shoot at the first trespasser!

So, if this is G-d's land promised to the Jewish people, then G-d's Law supercedes State Law and Jews are obligated to refuse to carry out any orders that go against G-d's laws! Am Yisrael Chai!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, August 27, 2007.

The NCYI ad below calling on everyone to call the White House daily for Jonathan Pollard for the next few weeks during the period leading up to the Jewish High Holy Days, is going into about 20 American national, regional and community Jewish papers, this coming weekend (Aug 31st). Copies of the flyer have also been sent to Jewish Day Schools, Rabbis, community leaders.

Jonathan Pollard needs your help!

Please recirculate, reprint, repost the flyer. Get your family, friends, colleagues and organizations involved! Let's flood the White House with phone calls during this critical time!

Tel: 202-456-1414
Tel: 202-456-1111

The National Council of Young Israel urges everyone to participate in the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim, the good deed of redeeming a captive. Thank you!

Rabbi Pesach Lerner
Executive Vice President
National Council of Young Israel
111 John Street -- Suite 450
New York, NY 10038

COLOR NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard:

    JPEG -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607.jpg

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org /2007/082607.pdf

BLACK AND WHITE NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607a.pdf

Please call the White House for Pollard Today!

15 days to Rosh HaShana

Please call the White House now!

Tell President Bush to free Jonathan Pollard now!

Send him home to Israel for Rosh HaShana!

Telephone number:
1- 202-456-1414

From Israel add your long-distance service provider code to the start of the USA number for example: 0121-202-456-1111 (Israeli codes: 001, 012, 013, 014, 018, etc)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bethany Blankley, August 27, 2007.

22% of the meeting funded by American taxpayers

New York and Geneva -- The UN today launched an anti-American and an anti-Jewish extravaganza on the first day of the Preparatory Committee Meeting for a 2009 UN anti-racism conference (PrepCom). The model is the infamous anti-racism conference held in Durban, South Africa, which ended three days before 9/11. Najat Al-Hajjaji, the representative of Libya was declared the Chairperson of the PrepCom. To add to the spectacle of a Libyan Chair of a human rights meeting, Cuba was acclaimed as a Vice-Chair and the PrepCom's Rapporteur. Iran and Pakistan were elected to serve on the organizing committee's inner circle, the Bureau.

Anne Bayefsky, Editor of EYEontheUN, called the opening session of the UN meeting "a slap in the face to every state and non-governmental organization that really cares about equality and non-discrimination. American tax dollars funded 22% of this morning's meeting, chaired by Libya, and guided by Cuba, Iran and Pakistan, which also used the opportunity to undermine the ongoing fight to stop terrorism."

Today, the Libyan Chairperson's opening remarks focused on the response to 9-11 as giving rise to "increased intolerance" and objected to the war on terrorism being used as "a pretext by some states." Egypt, on behalf of the African Group, lost no time in introducing "the continued occupation of Palestine" onto the agenda of Durban II, while lambasting the Danish cartoons as "incitement to racism" and denouncing "the defamation of religion." (The UN's "defamation of religion" resolutions are notorious for making mention only of Islam.)

Iran -- a leading member of the UN planning committee -- lectured the world about terrorism and human rights. The diatribe included: "the pretext of a so-called war against terror, reflects the visible rise of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia throughout the world especially against Muslims. ...The visible rise of Islamophobia with its most visible upsurge in the western countries, the reinterpretation and unlawful extension of the prohibition of visible signs of religion and culture in schools, the growing debate in some countries including at the level of political leaders that headscarf is antisocial and the selective profiling of people with an allegedly Islamic appearance."

Syria, another state sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department, and at the forefront of attempting to redefine anti-semitism and denying the hatred of Jews, makes clear the controlling factions' Durban II agenda: "The events of 9/11 opened the doors to new forms of racism and racial discrimination. See how countries were invaded and destroyed on the pretext of war on terrorism and other pretexts. ...This surge in racism adopted new forms: Islamophobia and against Semitic people. Durban Review Conference is an opportunity for us to face this surge."

Cuba, on behalf of the so-called "Non Aligned Movement," took immediate aim at the war on terrorism as a racist exercise: "the passing of anti-terrorist legislation that provide broad spaces to arbitrariness and the exercise of public authority on discriminatory and xenophobic basis, continue to be a matter of our concern."

South Africa's representative argued, "It is important to contextualize the world since 9-11 as there have been dynamic changes. ...The Review Conference should identify contemporary scourges of racism, e.g. racial profiling in the fight against terrorism; incitement to religious hatred."

Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, proclaimed Muslims to be the central victim of racism today, with Israel as the appropriate focal point for Durban II. "The most disturbing phenomenon is the intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia. It is regrettable that the world media has allowed defamation and blasphemy in this form. ... The conference should move the spotlight on the continued plight of the Palestinian People and non-recognition of their inalienable right to self-determination."

Bangladesh decried the protection for "freedom of expression to the detriment of other freedoms, like religion," and objected to "Muslims portrayed in violence and terrorism in political discourse and media," and the "upsurge in Islamophobia in recent years."

And this was only the opening morning of the first preparatory session. The original vision of the United Nations was "the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small" -- a far cry from the pretense of equality championed by the UN of the 21st century.

"Equality will not be achieved by portraying the Jew or American as the global enemy of human rights," Bayefsky said.

For more information please go to "Durban Watch" at EYEontheUN.org.

EYEontheUN is the only independent UN accountability organization headquartered in New York dedicated to making transparent the UN's record on its fundamental promise -- to identify, condemn, and protect against human rights violations and confront and respond to threats to international peace and security. Bayefsky, Editor of EYEontheUN, is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

Bethany Blankley is with the Hudson Institute. Contact her at bblankley@hudsonny.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Ranjit Singh, August 27, 2007.

I don't know how much India's booming economy is benefiting the common man, but on the societal front, our governments have surely failed him.

A victim to crimes of all kinds -- quarrels and riots on petty issues, rapes, kidnappings for ransom and increasing incidents of terrorism -- a common Indian is now a scared lot. If crimes, conflicts, suppression of human rights and terrorism continue unabated, India would be branded as a failed state on Societal front.

Just a few days ago, on August 25th, a twin blast in Hydrabad (at Gowkul Chat Bhandar and Lumbini Park), killed 42 and injured and injured 54. Next day, police claimed to have found 19 unexploded time bombs. Though the police have not made it known how, without arresting any one, they found out 19 bombs, yet, thanks to them, the cops have saved Hydrabad from the Mumbai Bomb Blasts of 1993.

Just last month, we heard the last chapter of 1993 Blasts verdict with actor Sanjay Dutt's conviction of six years rigorous imprisonment. But most probably in this Hydrabad episode, we will not hear of any conviction even after 14 years. I am predicting this as I hear the police pointing its fingers, as usual, to somebody in Bangladesh and the Pakistan's ISI. On the higher level, the politicians are busy instigating, resorting either to blame game or hate speeches. No body is pondering as to how a few people from outside, not well-versed with our geography and locations, can perform a bloodbath, without the support of a fifth column lying scattered in towns and villages.


Terrorism is a proxy war and like any war, their army cannot advance without their hired and well-financed fifth column. And they have advanced very much in India.

The associated Press dispatch dated August 25 counted 9 major bombings in India, with 1993 Mumbai Bomb blasts as first. This, however, does not include recurring killings in J&K, attack on our Parliament, ULFA and Naxalite activities.

Another report by Shankar Raghuraman(TNN dated August 27,07) tells us that "barring war-torn Iraq", India is the top most loser in human lives in terrorist attacks. Iraq lost 3,280 lives, we, Indians have lost 3,674 lives. I am sure the journalist has not included loss of human lives due to Kashmiri, ULFA, Naxalites and Khalistani terrorism. The following paragraph by the same journalist in TOI is worth pondering.

"..when we looked in detail, at the worldwide numbers, we found India not only had the highest number of deaths after Iraq, but also the highest number of terror-related incidents and the injured among all the countries (again barring Iraq) -- more than all the war zones around the globe."

I will request my readers to pause and read this paragraph again and ponder.


Is it not unfortunate? It is happening in a country that boasts of the Budhha, Nanak, viveka and the Gandhian non-violence.

India is a lesson in governance. Ideology is good but better than that is the legislation that reflects that ideology. Still better than legislation is its implementation but the best is implementation with justice and without profiling. Unfortunately, we have stopped at Ideology. This is our biggest weakness.


It is high time for the Indians to think and decide if they would like to continue with status quo or mend the situation. And if correction to ensure a life with freedom is our goal, then we will have to ensure that both the governments and the people do their duty at their respective levels.

We have been watching the governments' reactions and responses to the bloodbaths done with impunity. They point their fingers to foreign hands to avoid politically sensitive actions. Simultaneously, they resort to the culture of financial support to the victims and their kins to lessen mass anger. The governments should be compelled to unearth and eliminate the terrorists' fifth column, who could possibly the loose coalitions of petty criminals, rioters and hate mongers. It is time our intelligence shall watch those living beyond means and reach the dens of the killers. The governments need to make the persons entrusted with the job of protecting the people answerable for such incidents, with ministers and bureaucrats no exception.

On the peoples' front, especially the NRIs in America, we have starting seeing a heartening posture by the Muslim community leaders to come forward and condemn killings. But as I have been always suggesting, condemnation strategy by community leaders and the suspicion -- strategy by the governments will not work; they have not worked so far. The terrorists don't listen to them and even if they listen, they don't care for them. They are carrying forward their own agenda, with the active support -- paid or voluntary -- of their agents. The NRI leaders shall write back home, to their friends, relatives and religious leaders of mandirs and masjids, not to shelter the fifth column, rather expose them. And we shall not take it as profiling, as the terrorists across the border may be Muslims but their fifth columns in India will definitely be a religious mix, consisting of petty criminals, youth looking for quick bucks and their likes.

By not doing so, we will be destroying the secular fabric of our society and help the communal forces to widen the already existing divide between communities.

The need of the hour is a joint action by the people and governments to unearth the fifth columns of terrorists, as this seems to be the only route to put a halt to their evil design.

Ranjit Singh


1. "Prominent Indian-American Muslims Condemn Hyderabad Bomb Blasts"
August 25, 2007
Contact person: Dr. Shaik Ubaid. Tel: (516) 567-0783

Prominent Muslim Indian-American leaders, many of them hailing from the historic city of Hyderabad in India, condemned the twin bomb blasts in Hyderabad on Saturday August 25 as cowardly crimes against humanity.

The leaders of the Indian diaspora in the US expressed their heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims. They demanded a thorough and transparent investigation from the Indian national and the state governments and apprehension of those who were involved in the bombings. They appealed to the Indians of all faiths to stay united and foil the evil designs of the perpetrators of bombings who wish to polarize the city and country. They announced that as always they will be joining hands with leaders of other religious communities, leftist groups, human rights organizations and other members of broad-based Indian American coalitions to show their solidarity with their Indian counterparts and to protect the pluralist ethos of India.

According to the preliminary newsreports, in two near-simultaneous terror attacks, at least 36 people were killed and more than 50 injured in explosions at a crowded park and a popular eating joint. Twenty-six people died and 22 wounded when an explosion ripped through Gokul Chat Shop at Kothi locality at around 7.30 p.m., Andhra Pradesh Home Minister, K Jana Reddy, told reporters here. Six people, most of them from outside the State, were killed and 13 injured in another blast five minutes earlier in an open air auditorium in Lumbini Park near the State Secretariat in the heart of the city when a laser show was on, he said.

Manzoor Ghori, Chairman, Indian Muslim Relief and Charities
Dr. Shakhir Mukhi, President, American Federation of Muslims of Indian Origin
Dr. Javed Akhtar, President, American Muslims Physicians of Indian Origin
Dr. Khursheed Mallick, Indian Muslim Education Foundation of North America
Saeed Patel, National coordinator, NRIs for a Secular and Harmonious India
Habeeb Ahmed, Human Rights Commisioner, Nassau County, Long Island, NY
Syed Azmathullah Quadri, Founding Chairman, ImanNet
Dr. Syed Sohail Ahmed, Islamic Medical Association of North America
Dr. Shaik Ubaid, Indian American Coalition for Pluralism

2. "IMC-USA condemns the multiple bomb blasts in Hyderabad, India"
Date: 8/26/2007 1:31:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
To: betterindia@aol.com

NRI Muslims condemns the multiple bomb blasts and appeals to all communities for calm.

Indian Muslim Council-USA (IMC-USA) (http://www.imc-usa.com), an advocacy group dedicated towards safeguarding India's pluralist and tolerant ethos, condemns the multiple bomb blasts in Hyderabad, A.P. and appeals to all communities to be calm and work together to dissect the source of such terror and remove this scourge of violence within India

"Violence serves no cause, no religion and no community. Such barbaric acts only serve the agenda of anti-socials, fascists and extremists" Rasheed Ahmed, President of IMC-USA stated. He further added that "at times like these, the foremost need is to attend to the victims while urging the government to intensify efforts to identify the real perpetrators. It is a travesty of justice, that time and again such barbaric acts get politicized and in the process innocent people get victimized, while the real perpetrators of such terrorist activities stay at large."

Rahmat Baig, Vice-President of IMC-USA stated that "it is tragic that such barbaric acts are occurring with a regularity. Only the time and place changes. We have been focusing on foreign sources and agents for a while without much success. We urge the government to investigate domestic sources as well in the light of revelation about Nanded and Malegaon blasts and incidents involving a number of fake-encounters."

IMC-USA urges the State and Central Government to do its best to tend to the victims and their families. IMC-USA also hopes that a transparent and broad based investigation will be conducted to find the criminals and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Zeeshan Farees
E-Mail: info@imc-usa.org

Think-Israel Editor's Note:

This is an excerpt from:
"Hyderabad Muslims irked by police visits to madrassas in wake of jihad bombings"
Jihad Watch
August 31, 2007

In the wake of the jihad attacks that killed 30 people in Hyderabad, Muslims are irked once again -- but not by Muslims perpetrating such attacks. No, what has really upset them are police visits to madrassas. "Hyderabad cops visit madrassas, kick off a row," from IBNLive (thanks to all who sent this in):

New Delhi/ Hyderabad: The Hyderabad police have ruffled feathers by visiting madrassas while investigating the August 25 twin bomb blasts in the city.

Sources tell CNN-IBN the police are searching for a man called named Mujibur Rahman but authorities refused to comment if he is a suspect in their investigation. [...]

"Madrassas is an educational institution; it is open to all. Raiding a madrassas in the dead of night will send wrong signals and create communal frenzy," Moulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, general secretary of the Deeni Madarsa Board, told the Deccan Chronicle newspaper.

Wrong signal? Where should they look for clues to the bombing, then? In Hindu temples? And what about this "communal frenzy"? Is that a threat?

Ranjit Singh is Managing Editor of Better India. Contact him by mail at betterindia@aol.com or visit the webiste: www.betterindiausa.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Ha'ivri, August 27, 2007.

Ha'Aretz means "the Land" -- emphasis on "the."

In Hebrew, we call our country Ha'Aretz, which means "the Land." There is a specific emphasis on "the" because, for us, it is the only land.

The Jewish People are commanded to observe 613 commandments of the Torah. Since many of them (more than half) can only be carried out in the Land of Israel, a Jew living outside of "the Land" can not possibly observe our faith in its fullness. In other words, living in Israel under our own government is part of our religion.

After the death of Moshe, the seven nations of Cana'an who dwelt in the land were conquered by Yehoshua and his army, and the first Jewish State in Israel was born. From that moment onwards, our people lived in an independent Jewish state. Our King Solomon built the holy Temple in Jerusalem, which was the center of our religious and cultural life for nearly a thousand years. The first Temple stood on the Temple Mount in our capital city Jerusalem for nearly 500 years, until it was overrun by the Babylonians, who slaughtered many and exiled most of the survivors.

Our people were marched away in chains to foreign lands in the north, and there they "sat on the rivers of Babylon and cried while they remembered Jerusalem." (Psalm 137) But they did not forget and they did not give up hope. Two and a half thousand years ago, the first Zionists rose up and returned to our land, but they faced many challenges. They were predominantly poor, the land was burnt and overrun, and newcomers had settled in parts of the land. The returnees did the best that they could and rebuilt the Temple on the Mount that was named for it in Jerusalem.

The Second Temple stood for over 400 years, until it was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 CE. Even after the destruction, though, throughout history, there has always been a Jewish presence in the land, even if at times the land was scarcely populated.

Most of those who survived the destruction of the Second Temple were once again exiled, and from that time on the Jewish people wandered the four corners of the earth, never forgetting our homeland and never giving up hope to return and re-establish our independent country on our land. From that time, Jewish people -- wherever they were -- prayed three times a day to HaShem to return us to our land. Over those many long and painful years, the Jewish people remained scattered and persecuted. Expelled and made refugees, running from place to place, they we were unable to regather together as a single, unified nation.

However, that all started to change about one hundred years ago. From that moment, the historical miracle of the regathering of the Jewish people in our historic homeland began. After nearly 2,000 years of exile, spread out all over the world, the Jewish people began to return to our land. Jews from Yemen to India, America to Morocco, Europe to Australia -- literally from the four corners of the globe -- gathered together in the Land of Israel. Our independent Jewish State was reborn.

Between the beginnings of the Roman exile until today, various armies and peoples have passed though our land. At any given point in history, the country has been controlled by the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, the British and French Crusaders, the Ottoman Turks, the British (again), and only finally back to us. Naturally, with each passing nation and army, the make up of the general populace changed and was molded in accordance with the character of whichever marauding power was in control.

Over the course of history, many Jews were killed, forcibly removed (or left of their own accord), whilst others stayed put. The demographics shifted along with the sands of time.

One thing, however, remains certain: since our last exile in the year 70 CE until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 there was no independent state on this land. There were no independent kings or governments beyond those who were representatives of foreign rulers (i.e., the Ottoman Turks or the British Mandate). There never was a Palestinian state or king or government or even people, for that matter. The "Palestinian" idea only came into being less than a hundred years ago, as a local response by Arab squatters to Zionism, the return of the Jews -- the rightful owners of the land.

Gaza and the "West Bank" of the Jordan River are part of our historic homeland and were liberated by the Jewish army (the IDF) as a result of the assault by neighboring Arab countries upon the Jewish State as it existed at the time, within its "pre-1967 borders." Had Egypt, Syria and Jordan not attacked Israel in June of 1967, the "West Bank" would still be occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Gaza would still be controlled by Egypt and the Golan Heights would be in Syrian hands. But at the time -- giddy with power and convinced of certain victory -- the Arab nations all thought otherwise. They were sure that the power was in their hands to "drive the Jews into the sea" and bring an end to the Zionist dream. Baruch HaShem, they were wrong. They went to war and lost. And you know what happens when you go to war and lose? To put it quite bluntly: you lose.

If the Arabs would have won, how many Jews do you think would be living today in Arab-controlled "Palestine"? Today, there are many Arab residents of the Jewish-controlled cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and many more. Contrast that with the fact that Jews are forbidden outright to live in any lands controlled by the Arab "Palestinian Authority."

Those Jews who choose to do so are subject to all kinds of international and domestic pressures, and are often forcibly removed from those areas simply because they are Jews, whilst the government and international community coin terms such as "Disengagement" to whitewash what is a policy of anti-Jewish ethnic cleansing. Do you know that Jews are not even allowed to pass through many Arab-controlled areas? Now let the Arabs complain about apartheid against them.

Our deed to the Land of Israel is the Torah itself. The incredible historical phenomenon of the regathering of our people and the rebirth of our language and culture -- all in line with the promises of the Torah and the visions of the prophets -- prove the Divine nature of our faith.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 27, 2007.

Though I no longer believe that we should, after the fact, go defend ourselves and explain, and explain and discuss and discuss what people like Christiane Amanpour and media outlet such a CNN will never want to accept, understand or correct, here is Maurice Ostroff's (Herzliya, Israel) PR-Hasbarah open letter to Christiane Amanpour after viewing her CNN "God's Warriors" despicably distorted Series.

With kind regards,


Dear Christiane Amanpour

Your mammoth three-part documentary "God's Warriors" is certainly a magnum opus. And while I admire the sheer professionalism of your presentation, I do hope you will accept the following comments in the constructive manner intended.

Please correct me if I err, but the program creates the impression that you do not see Islamic fundamentalist violence as more serious a threat than enthusiastic, or even zealous, devotion to Judaism or Christianity.

This impression is confirmed by your responses to comments posted on CNN web site. For example in response to Regina Bowling of Charleston, who said she believes we are watching the gathering up of energy worldwide in the form of religious intolerance for the "perfect storm" of global holy war, you replied that you don't see right now the potential for global holy war. This despite 9/11, the London bombings and attempted bombings and other glaring incidents including the world-wide violence that erupted in the Danish Cartoon episode.

The program also creates the impression that you believe there is no difference between God's Jewish, Muslim and Christian Warriors and that the Moral Majority and Evangelists are as dangerous as Islamic Fundamentalists. This was confirmed when you replied to Ms. Bowling that as long as people believe that only their holy book [Koran, Torah or Bible] or only their holy word matters and is relevant, then there will be no solution. (Words in parenthesis are mine).

It was disappointing to find in a purportedly objective program that you injected your own views, demonstrating occasional lack of knowledge. For example when an Israeli settler said God says Jews must live in Hebron, you interjected that the West Bank was designated by the UN to be the largest part of an Arab state. Not only is this statement factually incorrect, it is out of context. May I ask whether you are aware that all Arab states rejected UN partition resolution 181 and that the West Bank was included in the area designated for encouragement of Jewish settlement by the Balfour Declaration and even endorsed in article 6 of the British mandate.

In retrospect I hope you will agree that the use of the very few isolated incidents of Jewish terror attempts over the past 15 years, created the erroneous impression that a religious Jewish terror movement exists on a par with the violent worldwide jihadist phenomenon of indiscriminate death and destruction. Objectivity would require that you draw attention to the enormous difference between Islamic states which encourage terror and Israel which acts vigorously against attempts to engage in terror and where those very few Jews who did make attempts have been severely punished.

The relevance of God's Warriors to the so-called Jewish lobby in the USA is flimsy indeed. It is difficult to accept your objectivity when you allow Jimmy Carter and Professor Mearsheimer to promote their controversial books that have been criticized by experts for blatant inaccuracies, without offering a balanced viewpoint from someone like Alan Dershowitz.

Surely you, of all people know that the Jewish Lobby is but one of dozens of diverse influential lobbies, including the ACLU and the very powerful, well-funded Arab lobbies that are part of the Washington scene.

Your repeated references to settlements as illegal are open to valid criticism. Obviously the most reliable sources from whom to seek clarification are the persons who played key roles in drafting the relevant resolution 242, namely British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon, American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg and US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Eugene Rostow. All have agreed that settlements are legal. In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon stated: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial."

Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations concurred that the Jewish right of settlement in the territories is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there.

What must deeply concern everyone interested in maintaining Western democracy is the danger that this widely advertised documentary diverts attention from the real threat of Jihad, by equating it with non-violent religious movements.

Sorely missing from the entire series is any mention of the basic motivator of Islamic violence, the incitement to hatred emanating from state media as well as openly from mosques, not only in Arab countries but under the noses of European and British governments. As human beings, can we be unperturbed by the indoctrination of infants to become suicidal Warriors as shown in an interview with a three-and-a-half year old girl broadcast on Iqra? (See video clip at http://tinyurl.com/kz5of)

It is sad that in your documentary which could serve to create a genuine better understanding of the violence generated by religious zealotry, the authoritative voices of many experts in the field were omitted.

Among the many who would have added authoritative insight into the subject are Brigitte Gabriel, who lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and who has issued an Urgent Warning to the West, Professor Salim Mansur the Muslim writer and Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario, Steven Emerson the internationally recognized expert on militant Islamic terrorism and national security and Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the Islamic law specialist and professor of Religion at San Diego State University.

I attach for your information copies of articles by the late Eugene Rostow*.

Your considered response would be appreciated.

Maurice Ostroff
Tel. +972 9 9595 261
http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com and http://tinyurl.com/vnk9y

* Read Professor Rostow's articles on the Jewish settlements here.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Professors for a Strong Israel, August 27, 2007.

This statement issued: August 26, 2007
Contact Benjamin Svetitsky at bqs@julian.tau.ac.il or phone 050-551 8940

Following the unsurprising failure of the "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria, and the expulsion of the Jewish residents from their homes, some decision makers in Israel are beginning to voice doubts about these moves. Professors for a Strong Israel reminds the public that the expulsion was always a combination of folly and injustice.

Are we now seeing an awakening in the judicial system? Judge David Gadol has ruled that the Disengagement Law is no longer enforceable, and that people cannot be prevented from returning to Homesh by this law. This is a step in the right direction. We congratulate the judge, and we conclude from his ruling that actions by the army and police to prevent the return to Homesh are illegal.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 27, 2007.

Avi Dichter, Minister of Public Security, today said on Army Radio that Egypt's failure to stop the flow of weapons into Gaza is tantamount to support for Hamas.

"Any rational person -- Israel or Palestinian -- who witnesses the Egyptians' failure to act against arms smuggling can see that it is in their interest to strengthen Hamas."

Well, good morning!

Good to see a bit of honesty in this regard. For too long Egypt as a "moderate" state has been part of the prevailing myth here. There have been voices speaking out -- most notably Yuval Steinitz, who constantly declares that Egypt is not to be trusted -- but they have not been given the credence they deserve.

When Condoleezza Rice shoved the Rafah agreement down our throats after the "disengagement," Steinitz warned that this was trouble because Egypt wouldn't carry its weight in the deal once we stopped monitoring the border: Egypt was supposed to stop smuggling of weapons into Gaza from its side of the Egypt-Gaza border. To that end, 750 Egyptian forces were permitted along the Philadelphi Route in what had been a demilitarized zone according to our peace treaty with Egypt.

Now we begin to face the obvious: that it was for naught, an exercise in foolishness at best. If they wanted to stop the smuggling they could (Dichter says their intelligence is as good as ours in this area), and, in fact, they have slowed down efforts, which, Israeli officials say, is a major reason why Hamas has been able to bring in so much in the way of weapons and explosives.


I had mentioned recently reports that Netanyahu was talking to Lieberman about running on a joint list in the next election. That may have seemed a good idea to Netanyahu, but as it turns out Lieberman was less than enthusiastic about it. There are ideological differences between the parties, he says, that would make joining forces impossible.


Olmert and Abbas are due to meet again tomorrow, in Jerusalem. As Olmert persists in his dangerous and foolish policy built on air, what is there for me to say here? Comments after the meeting.


According to the London-based paper, Asharq Al-Awsat, cited today in Haaretz, Israeli Arabs are attempting to mediate between Fatah and Hamas. The Israeli Arabs mentioned are with the Islamic Movement in Israel -- as its name implies, a radical group that regularly foments anti-Israel sentiment; the irony is that its members are Israeli citizens.

Hamas is said to be considering initiatives that propose turning back security compounds and civil institutions in Gaza to Fatah, as a necessary precursor to reestablishing relations with Fatah.


Defense Minister Barak, appearing for the first time since he took office before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that there are signs of tensions with Syria fading.

But MK Effi Eitam (NU) warned -- with considerable justification -- that we shouldn't be taken in by the calm.

For Barak also testified that Hezbollah has more weapons now than it did before the war last summer.

So what does it mean that Syria is "quiet" if it is sending weapons to Hezbollah at an accelerated rate? That weapons build-up is by way of preparations for renewed conflict.

Our preparations for conflict, according to Barak, include: an active anti-rocket and missile system; an improvement in the IDF's maneuvering ability; an increase in the army's stamina regarding inventory and provisions; an increase in the number of training exercises using live ammunition; and the military's "long arm" -- its ability to operate deep within enemy territory.

There is no doubt but that we will be in better shape when war comes again than we were last time. Whether these preparations are sufficient I am not able to say. What I do know is that the readiness to operate deep within enemy territory -- which was lacking last summer -- is critically important.

As to Gaza, Barak indicated that he will give the IDF free reign to do preventative strikes. This too is an improvement over what was happening before, but still falls short of the major operation in Gaza that would require the approval of the political echelon.


Hizb ut-Tahrir ("party of freedom"), an Islamist organization in Judea and Samaria, is currently recruiting thousands of people who have become disillusioned with both Hamas and Fatah. This group was originally founded in the 50s, but was dormant for some time; it has revived in recent years with a shift in the political situation. Dedicated to fostering loyalty to Islam and to the re-establishment of the Caliphate -- a unified religious state in the Muslim world if not beyond -- it advances an ideology that calls for the overthrow of Arab governments and the elimination of Israel, in order to prepare for that caliphate. Banned in many countries, it has (wouldn't you know it!) a strong and active presence in Britain.

Israeli intelligence considers the group a cause for genuine concern. Col. Eitan Azani, deputy director of the Institute of Counter-Terrorism, says. "This is the factory that produces, at the end of the day, the jihadis that operate in global terrorism."


Yesterday I wrote about a conference under the auspices of the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which is about to be held in Brussels and which echoes Durban. It is not, I indicated, the only cause for concern.

Let me here return to Durban and preparations under way for a Durban II conference to be held in 2009. It is a follow up to the horrendous conference held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. A week long series of planning meetings has now begun in Geneva to set the agenda for that 2009 conference, which is being dubbed an "anti-racism" conference. The meetings are chaired by Libya; the committee of 20 nations participating includes Cuba and Iran.

Is it necessary to say more? Guess who they're going to decide the "racist" is?

The governments of both Israel and the US are sending only low-level observers; activities at the conference will be carefully monitored.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, August 27, 2007.

Isn't it rather curious the only nation asked to give up anything tangible in any Middle East peace negotiations is Israel? Israel's land mass is about two tenths of one percent the size of its surrounding mostly hostile Islamic Middle East neighbors, yet Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, and the eastern part of her capital Jerusalem remain on the table. Furthermore, Israel is asked to give so-called Palestinian Arabs a right of return to Israel, yet no Islamic Middle East regime offers a similar right to Jews evicted from their lands. The Quartet of presumably fair minded neutral parties, the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations, expected to facilitate in any civil peace process, has yet to mention the aforementioned obvious disparity of treatment, and is more than willing to negotiate with Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, an abominable unrepentant Holocaust revisionist, indeed publishing a thesis in 1984 asserting Zionists collaborated with Nazis in the horrific genocide so the world would give Jews their homeland out of guilt, questioned whether gas chambers were used, and suggested the number of Jewish victims was but a fraction of what is documented. When the cards are so stacked against the beleaguered Jewish State, when intangible crumbs would be offered to her in any negotiations, recognition and peace, neither of which worth the paper they would be written on, indeed terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbullah would never accede to such basic commitments, she would be worse than a fool to participate in such disrespectful folly.

Let's get real! For starters, Israel must put herself in a strong position when dealing with her rough disingenuous neighbors. For one, Iran's perilously delusional president AhMADinejad declares Israel should be wiped off the map, in effect declaring war against the Jewish State. U.S. President Bush's preemptive invasion of 'Sadist' Hussein's Iraq has set the recent precedent for invading a sovereign nation believed to be a threat to other nations. No doubt, Shiite Iran boasts weapons of mass destruction and is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, a much more likely threat than Hussein's Iraq to Middle Eastern mostly Sunni nations, and of course a dire threat to Israel based on rhetoric alone. It would be justifiable for Israel to overtly prepare to attack her sworn Persian enemy nation, yet a more prescient strategy would be to direct her war calculations and verbal assaults selectively on the government of Iran as well as its Revolutionary Guard, concurrently fomenting an exploited Western leaning youth culture, through a versatile Mossad, to take to the streets and bring down AhMADinejad and those contemptuous mullahs pulling most of the policy strings within their troubled regime. Israel could supply weaponry to revolutionary forces, much like Iran supplies weaponry to Hamas and Hizbullah. Without a doubt, Israel must not appear weak to her adversaries, thus feisty threatening rhetoric directed at Iranian leaders, active pursuit of a policy to in fact eliminate them from power, coupled with a few menacing Israeli warplanes soaring close to Iranian territory would certainly bolster her image, sending more than a few chills down a few heretofore swaggering Muslim spines.

No doubt, the enemy of my enemy can sometimes be a temporary friend of convenience. Israel should engage with Middle Eastern Sunni nations, including Saudi Arabia, and build a common defense against the mad fundamentalist Shiite Persians, leaders of the dysfunctional Middle East's most dangerous regime. Perhaps the House of Saud would consider forcing a significant reduction in the per barrel price of oil, thus wrecking havoc to Iran's economy. AhMAdinejad and his crew must be stopped now before they become a nuclear power! Israel must lead the charge!

Once Israel so asserts herself she will no longer be disrespected, she will no longer be expected to give and give with no tangible quid pro quo. Her point of view will be a lead talking point in any so-called peace negotiations. Ceding her land for peace, ceding her heritage for peace, will no longer be assumed, indeed will no longer be part of any negotiated package when nations attempt to stabilize, in fact civilize the Middle East. Terms like intifada will be perceived as describing criminal behavior, thus be unacceptable in any substantive discourse. No longer will apologists clutter rational mindsets with excuses for the despicable mutated act of homicide/suicide martyrdom. A strengthened confident Israel will no longer be viewed as an occupier of poor Palestinian waifs once she asserts her unwillingness to surrender her sovereign territory, justifiably secured in 1967 in the process of defending herself against aggressive Arabs attempting to annihilate her. Israel will point to Gaza, note its chaotic state, will condemn its so-called Hamas government for failing to subdue murderers from launching rockets into Israel on a daily basis with impunity, will decry her mistake of abandoning that enclave, and will emphatically declare 'Never Again'! When Israeli leaders at last reinvent their own self-deprecating states of mind, begin to defend the essential character of the nation they were elected to steward, and demand respect from other nations, the Jewish State will shine as a beacon of strength, hope, and prosperity for this emerging third millennium.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 27, 2007.


They came to an Israeli Army base in the guise of Jews. After singing with some soldiers, they talked about Jesus having been a Jew. Upon realizing that they were missionaries under false pretenses, the soldiers escorted them off the base.

In Netanya, Jews have organized and go door-to-door, successfully revealing to naïve Jews that they had been visited by missionaries misleading them about their intentions. Recently, several missionaries attacked the Jewish truth squads physically. Their violence undermines their purported ideology (Arutz-7, 8/2).

The sect should have been identified, so not all Christian groups are blamed for what that one does. It would be one matter if it stated its doctrine frankly. But it misrepresents itself and misleads about its doctrine being part of Judaism. Deceit does not engender trust but suspicion about the doctrine itself.


P.A. Police in Jenin apprehended and destroyed illegal fireworks, drugs, and 15 cars. IMRA remarked that the cars probably were stolen from Israel. In this campaign against crime, the police should have returned the cars (IMRA, 8/5).


The government is expelling Jews who moved into the old market place of Hebron. It offers them a deal, but they won't make deals with the government, after it tricked them the last time, to get them to leave. Now the government is moving the brutal Yassem police force to remove them violently (Arutz-7, 8/5).

The government cheats Jews as much as the Muslims cheat the government.


"The family of slain Hebron region IDF commander Dror Weinberg" went to see the state-supported play "'Hevron', which is being performed at the HaBima-Cameri theater in Tel Aviv..." "'The way they portray the settlers is exactly like the (way the) Nazis used to try to portray the Jews. They portray them as completely fanatical and without any sense of humanity, while creating emotional sympathy for Arab murderers.'"

The message of the play is that serving there is unethical. Its ad suggests that the tiny Jewish settlement imprisons the Arab majority. That is imaginary (Arutz-7, 8/5). I remember a study finding that private theatres attract audiences, but publicly supported ones hardly do. The government wastes taxes that way, and subsidizes propaganda. Get government out of the arts!


An Iraqi living in the US was not allowed to board an airplane in the US until he covered his t-shirt, because that t-shirt had Arabic writing on it, although its message was innocuous (Joseph Goldstein, NY Sun, 8/10).

A civil rights suit was launched. The media reported, it but some of the parties involved, especially the defendants, do not much state their version of what happened. Therefore, it is not clear who said and did what.

I favor strong, purposeful measures against terrorism, Islamism, and Islam. This was not such a measure but counter-productive. It gives color to the Muslim claim of Islamophobia, although this hysterical airport reaction is minor and rare.

The measure could not accomplish anything. It violated the passenger's civil rights. High time to develop a comprehensive war strategy.


An Israeli Arab youth attacked a security guard. In the ensuing gunfight, ten people were wounded, and the assailant was killed. "Mustafa Al Barghouthi, the secretary-general of the Palestinian national initiative, condemned the killing. "This incident just confirms the enormity of Israeli crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians." Responsibility was claimed by supposedly moderate Fatah and by the PFLP and Islamic Jihad (IMRA, 8/10 & 11). "Moderate" Fatah?

I conclude the opposite. This incident is an example of the enormity of Islamic instigation against the Jewish people. I praise the killing and condemn the aggressor. To the Muslims, justice is whatever helps Islam, by whatever means. What a warped sense of justice and in behalf of a murderous cult! If there were "Zionist propaganda," it would mock the condemnation of self-defense.


I thought it was pie in the sky, and it may well be, but Defense Min. Barak thinks a defense against incoming rockets can be put into operation in 18 months. It would cost $30,000 to destroy each rocket. To reduce costs, the system calculates and responds only if the rocket would strike a built-up area (IMRA, 8/9). Farmers in the field, beware!

Barak refuses to distribute gas masks against Syrian poison gas, lest Syria think that means Israel plans aggression (IMRA, 8/13). How many defensive measures will he put off, for that reason? Without gas masks, Israelis invite Syrian attack, based on Syria's new strategy of bombarding the home front.


Secretary-Gen. Ban is pleased with UNIFIL's "success" in Lebanon. Israel is, too, and wants to extend its mandate to patrol in towns. One sign of its success is that now the Lebanese Army patrols southern Lebanon (IMRA, 8/8).

Leaders often won't admit a project failed until everybody knows it did. PM Olmert pretends it succeeded, because his regime sacrificed victory to get it started. It failed because Hizbullah rearmed and set up rocket-launchers in towns that UNIFIL doesn't, the Lebanese Army won't, patrol. Everybody looks the other way, and mistake this period of Hizbullah military build-up for peace.


Hamas has started a navy, though it lacks gunboats for now. It does have some ships. No doubt it is thinking up ways of attacking Israeli ships, perhaps from shore, or ways of attacking Israel by sea (IMRA, 8/9).

Why doesn't Israel destroy the shore bases before they become difficult to beat?


Syria has been emplacing hundreds of heavy rockets, more advanced than Hizbullah's, along the Golan. They would be used to thwart any IDF advance, and could reach Tel Aviv. Syria wants to force Israel to accept its terms.

For this kind of warfare, Syria has retrained all its units. It can initiate this war without going into an offensive formation, which procedure would give advance notice. Thus, it could start a war by surprise. Iran is trying to persuade Syria that Israel intends to start a war soon, and is itself persuaded that the US intends to attack Iran soon (IMRA, 8/9). The USSR falsely persuaded Syria, before.


Responding to Peace Now petition, the Olmert regime has ordered a couple more storefront houses of Jews from their homes. A border patrol officer ordered his busload of soldiers (not under his command) to disperse the protestors. (No freedom of assembly in Israel.) The soldiers refused and threw him off the bus. Maariv reports that not 30 troops refused to assist the expulsion but hundreds refused. A movement of support is being organized. It quotes Ariel Sharon's 1994 letter urging refusal of orders to expel Jews from Hebron (Arutz-7, 8/9).

I hope this is the beginning of a popular movement to stop anti-Jewish measures in Israel and to overthrow the regime before it gets Israel destroyed.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, August 27, 2007.

Please call the White House for Pollard Today!

15 days to Rosh HaShana

It's Monday August 27,2007 BH 13th of Ellul. There are 15 days to Rosh HaShana.

Please call the White House now!

Tell President Bush to free Jonathan Pollard now!

Send him home to Israel for Rosh HaShana!

Telephone number:
1- 202-456-1414

From Israel add your long-distance service provider code to the start of the USA number for example: 0121-202-456-1111 (Israeli codes: 001, 012, 013, 014, 018, etc)

Your calls put Pollard on the map!

The Pollard Call-In Campaign spear-headed by the National Council of Young Israel last Spring put Pollard on the map in the White House. His name now appears on the list of subjects that all the White House phone operators are given to record the number of calls. Now, with G-d's help and massive participation in the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim, let's get Pollard out of there, and home for the High Holidays! Amain!

Please call now!

The National Council of Young Israel ad and flyers for recirculation and reprinting to encourage participation in this urgent intiative are available from the J4JP web site. Please click on the link below for the format of your choice:

COLOR NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard:

    JPEG -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607.jpg

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org /2007/082607.pdf

BLACK AND WHITE NCYI FLYER: Urgent High Holiday Call-In Campaign for Pollard

    PDF -- http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/082607a.pdf

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com. And visit the website: http://www.JonathanPollard.org
RSS: http://www.JonathanPollard.org/rss.htm

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 27, 2007.

This was posted by Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017904.php).

The "blasphemous ball," May 2006 version. The balls were intended as a gift to Afghan cildren

I predicted that this ball would cause trouble in May 2006, although the one pictured in the May 2006 story differs slightly from the one pictured in this BBC story: the Israeli flag pictured near the Saudi flag on the May 2006 ball seems to have been removed. But that, as this story shows, has not calmed hair-trigger tempers.

This is by Alastair Leithead for the BBC

A demonstration has been held in south- east Afghanistan accusing US troops of insulting Islam after they distributed footballs bearing the name of Allah.

The balls showed the Saudi Arabian flag which features the Koranic declaration of faith.

The US military said the idea had been to give something for Afghan children to enjoy and they did not realise it would cause offence.

The footballs were dropped from a helicopter in Khost province.

Some displayed flags from countries all over the world, including Saudi Arabia, which features the shahada, one of the five pillars of Islam -- the declaration of faith.

The words, which include the name of Allah, are revered, and Muslims are very sensitive about where and how they can be used.

As Charles at LGF says (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26818_ The_Dreaded_Balls_of_Blasphemy&only):

"Sensitive," in this case, being defined as "prone to murderous rage."

To show how sensitive they are to this extreme sensitivity, the BBC sensitively blurs the offensive segment of the ball in their photograph.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, August 27, 2007.

The Geneva Accords are being elevated to government policy

Eight months after the US invasion of Iraq and the announcement of the Roadmap, Yossi Beilin, the Oslo architect, and Abed Rabbo, launched their peace proposal after two and one-half years of work. It was to be known as the Geneva Accords. It was sub-titled Draft Permanent Status Agreement. Haaretz reported

The plan, dubbed the Geneva Accord in tribute to the funding and support supplied by the Swiss Foreign Ministry, offers itself as a decisive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the plan drawn up by former U.S. president Bill Clinton after the breakdown in the July 2000 talks between former prime minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat.

Fifty-eight former presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and other global leaders, among them former presidents Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union and F.W. de Klerk of South Africa, issued a statement expressing "strong support" for the plan. Other world leaders who voiced their backing included King Hassan III of Morocco, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Clinton.

Bush reacted by saying it "is productive, so long as they adhere to the principles [to] fight off terror, that there must be security, and there must be the emergence of a Palestinian state that is democratic and free." In other words, he stuck with the Roadmap. Others like Jimmy Carter, Colin Powel, Kofi Annan and the EU jumped right in.

Ministers, right-wing MKs lambaste colleagues for attending Geneva ceremony

MK Yuli Edelstein (Yisrael b'Aliyah) even submitted a complaint to the Knesset's Ethics Committee against those MKs who attended the ceremony. According to Edelstein, legislators Haim Oron, Roman Bronfman, Avraham Burg, Yuli Tamir and Amram Mitzna all contravened Knesset regulations by attending the ceremony.

National Union lawmaker Uri Ariel said that the Geneva Accord is worse than the Oslo Accords for Israel. According to Ariel, the actions of the left-wing MKs could be seriously damaging for Israel and its citizens. He called on Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein to set up a commission of inquiry to look into their actions.

The head of the settler lobby group in the Knesset, MK Yehiel Hazan (Likud), said that those behind the Geneva Accord "should be stopped by all legal means, before their wicked plan to sell off the Land of Israel." Hazan added that the agreement is "the piracy of people who are not living in reality."

These Accords were fully analyzed by the JCSS. Its assessment is worth reading now. Essentially the Accords built on the Taba talks and attempted to bridge the gaps. One was Barak's refusal to cede sovereignty of the Temple Mount. In the Geneva document Israel renounces the symbol of sovereignty over the Temple Mount. In addition, the Geneva document does not mention the right of return. This was so because after two and a half years the negotiators couldn't agree on a compromise.

Opposition in Israel was so strong that the Accords disappeared from sight. The Accords are now being resurrected in the form of an agreed set of principles. No surprise there. Shimon Peres, who was behind both the Oslo Accords and the Geneva Accords is now President of Israel.

If you want to know what such principles will contain just read the Geneva Accords. In effect the Geneva Accords are now being elevated to government policy.

Already we are told that Israel intends to cede sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

You will recall that after Arafat walked out on Camp David and Barak's overly generous offer, talks continued at Taba. The Intifadah which Arafat launched ended the process temporarily. But it was felt by the left and by the diplomats in general that the gaps preventing agreement could be bridged. So Beilin, under the auspices of the EU and Shimon Peres continued discussions leading up to the Geneva Accords.

Back then, Charles Krauthammer called them the Geneva Sellout.

[..] The Israeli side, however, is led by Yossi Beilin, a man whose political standing in his own country is so low that he failed to make it into Parliament. After helping bring his Labor Party to ruin, Beilin abandoned it for the far-left Meretz Party, which then did so badly in the last election that Beilin is now a private citizen.

There is a reason why he is one of Israel's most reviled and discredited politicians. He was the principal ideologue and architect behind the "peace" foisted on Israel in 1993. Those Oslo agreements have brought a decade of the worst terror in all Israeli history.

Now he is at it again. And Secretary of State Colin Powell has written a letter to Beilin and Rabbo expressing appreciation for their effort, and is now planning to meet with them.

This is scandalous. Israel is a democracy, and this agreement was negotiated in defiance of the democratically (and overwhelmingly) elected government of Israel. If a private U.S. citizen negotiated a treaty on his own, he could go to jail under the Logan Act. If an Israeli does it, he gets a pat on the back from the secretary of state.

Moreover, this "peace" is entirely hallucinatory. It is written as if Oslo never happened. The Palestinian side repeats solemn pledges to recognize Israel, renounce terror, end anti-Israel incitement, etc. -- all promised in Oslo. These promises are today such a dead letter that the Palestinian side is openly bargaining these chits again, as if the Israelis have forgotten that in return for these pledges 10 years ago, Israel recognized the PLO, brought it out of Tunisian exile, established a Palestinian Authority, permitted it an army with 50,000 guns and invited the world to donate billions to this new Authority.

Arafat pocketed every Israeli concession, turned his territory into an armed camp and then launched a vicious terror war that has lasted more than three years and killed more than 1,000 Israelis. It is Lucy and the football all over again, and the same chorus of delusionals who so applauded Oslo -- Jimmy Carter, Sandy Berger, Tom Friedman -- is applauding again. This time, however, the Israeli surrender is so breathtaking it makes Oslo look rational.

A Palestinian state, of course. Evacuating every Jewish settlement in new Palestine, of course. Redividing Jerusalem, of course. But that is not enough. Beilin gives up the ultimate symbol of the Jewish connection and claim to the land, the center of the Jewish state for 1,000 years before the Roman destruction, the subject of Jewish longing in poetry and prayer for the 2,000 years since -- the Temple Mount. And Beilin doesn't just give it up to, say, some neutral international authority. He gives it to sovereign Palestine. Jews will visit at Arab sufferance.

Not satisfied with having given up Israel's soul, Beilin gives up the body too. He not only returns Israel to its 1967 borders, arbitrary and indefensible, but he does so without any serious security safeguards.

Palestine promises to acquire and buy no more weapons than specified in some treaty annex. This is a joke. Oslo had similarly detailed limitations on Palestinian weaponry, and nobody even pretended to enforce them. Last year, a massive illegal boatload came in from Iran on the Karine A. What did the world do about it? Nothing.

Today, however, Israel still has control over Palestine's borders. Under Beilin, this ends. Palestine will be free to acquire as much lethal weaponry as it wants.

And on the critical question that even the most dovish Israelis insist on -- that the Palestinians not have the right to flood Israel with Arab refugees -- the agreement is utterly ambiguous. Third parties (including among others the irredeemably hostile Syria and its puppet Lebanon) are to suggest exactly how many Palestinians are to return to Israel, and the basis for the number Israel will be required to accept will be the mathematical average!

This is not a peace treaty, this is a suicide note -- by a private citizen on behalf of a country that has utterly rejected him politically. That it should get any encouragement from the United States or from its secretary of state is a disgrace.

Krauthammer was right then. He is even more right now.

In '05, Ariel Sharon warned us of painful concessions to come. In my article, "Painful Concessions", I warned,

[..] There is a progression of events here that cannot be ignored and such events are all related.

First Arafat rejected Barak's offer at Camp David. At Taba additional concessions were offered but went nowhere. Behind the scene negotiations continued among the interested parties.

As a result of which the Saudi Plan was "released" through the NYT in the winter of '02 and endorsed by the Arab League shortly thereafter. In July of '02, Bush recognized the creation of Palestine for the first time. During the entire year, Israeli negotiators traveled to the US many times to negotiate details of the final plan and how to implement it.

This all culminated in the release of the Roadmap in the spring of 2003, just after the invasion of Iraq, which was not unrelated. One might argue that Israel would not agree to the Plan unless and until Iraq was neutered. So perhaps it is not fanciful to suggest, as Condi and others do, that Iraq was invaded to protect Israel. Finally, the Geneva Accords were signed in early '03. They served to be a little more specific then the Saudi Plan.

The "peace process" is like an enormous ship traveling with great momentum to a predetermined destination. Nothing Israel can do will stop it or alter its course. While Israel continues to debate the details, the ship continues, inexorably.

So long as Israel travels the Roadmap it will not be able to avoid its destination. Nor can Israel get off the Roadmap. That is not to say that Israelis would not accept an end of conflict agreement along the lines of the Geneva Accords and the Saudi Plan when the time comes so long as it includes "normalization" and no return of refugees.

Then, all they will have to worry about is whether the Arabs can be trusted.

For me that's a no-brainer.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, August 27, 2007.

Engage, moderate, and split -- that's the mantra for Middle East policy of the wrong-headed in many foreign ministries, newspaper editorial offices, universities, and other places where the rapidly growing international bad-ideas industry is centered.

Yet nothing could seem more self-evident than these propositions. What could possibly be wrong with engaging radical forces, persuading them to change their ways, and breaking up their alliances?

I'm glad you asked. Here is how these apparently obviously correct ideas are dangerous and even disastrous.

1. Engagement. Doesn't one need to talk to enemies? How else can you get them to change? Well, it depends on whom, how, and when. Here are some of the problems of just having a cozy little chat with Iran, Syria, or Hamas for example.

First, what about history? If the past record shows that such efforts have failed it indicates that more such attempts are misguided and that other methods are needed. For example, the U.S. government sent numerous high-level delegations to Syria between 2001 and 2005 only to find that it was repeatedly lied to. This campaign only stopped when Syria's government murdered former Lebanese Prime Minister (and most popular politician) Rafik Hariri.

As for Iran, Britain, France, and Germany spent three years engaged in diplomatic dialogue about Iran's nuclear program during which Tehran lied, broke promises, and did not fulfill commitments, all along working full speed ahead to get atomic bombs. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just announced a new timetable. Wow, that should scare Tehran! And of course this, too, will be flouted to be replaced no doubt by still another deal until the day Iran gets nukes.

Second, there is the momentum of engagement. In order to enter into and sustain engagement, the Western party feels obligated -- and its radical interlocutor will keep pressing -- to provide proof of its good intentions in the form of concessions. Naturally, the radical side will give nothing since it will play the role of aggrieved party doing the democracies a favor by deigning to talk to them. As the process goes on, the Western side gives more and more while getting nothing in return. And at the end, there is no real agreement or change. The radical side doesn't have to shout out, "Sucker!" but it might as well do so.

Equally, to keep talks going the Western partner feels constrained from taking tough action which might lead the radical party to walk out. If, for example, Hamas continues to commit terrorism, this would not be allowed to stop the flow of money or bring tougher sanctions since that would make them angry. Of course, if any action is taken, you can guess who will be blamed for the breakdown. This has been the story of many such engagements, for example the 1990s' Israeli-Palestinian Oslo peace process.

Finally, there is how the radical side takes the engagement process as a victory, a sign that the extremists are winning and that the West is frightened and ineffective. This is precisely what the radical side's leaders say in Arabic or Persian to their colleagues and people. Meanwhile, the democratic side's credibility plummets and deterrence crashes, sparking more extremism and aggression.

2. Why is moderating the radical forces also doomed to failure? The basic answer is that they do not want to become moderate and why should they? This misconceived model is based on the view that Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and radical Islamists generally are reluctant militants, forced to be so by misunderstanding (the West or Israel isn't really so horrible and means them no harm) or a lack of alternatives.

In fact, the radicals take their stance based on a blend of true belief -- a deeply felt ideology based on a powerful world view -- and ambition. This is their route to power, money, and glory; to act in a contrary manner is to be a loathsome traitor. They are not, to say the least, easily persuaded, especially by people they hate and seek to destroy.

Moreover, they think they are winning, an idea enforced by many experiences and often by the eagerness of the West to engage them in the first place. Only if they believe they are losing -- after the imposition of tough sanctions and other measures -- might they consider revising their strategies and tactics. And even the massive armed force used in Iraq shows that this is not so likely.

Finally, even if someone wants to become moderate there is the little consideration of being murdered by one's colleagues. Sunni moderates in Iraq cannot make a deal because it is difficult to engage in politics when you are dead.

3. Splitting. Let's examine the Syria-Iran relationship. From Iran, Syria gets:

--Lots of money.
--A partner who shares its radicalism and wish to overturn the existing Arab regimes, drive out Western influence, and destroy Israel.
--Islamic cover for a regime ruled by non-Muslims.
--An ally with parallel interests in terms of anti-Americanism, fighting Israel, supporting Hizballah in Lebanon, and Hamas among the Palestinians.
--Iran pays the bill for these groups so Syria gets a free ride.
--Tehran provides strategic depth, protecting Syria against any Western or Israeli attack.

To believe that Syria would desert this arrangement for a dependence on the mistrusted West and abandonment of its most valuable asset -- using an alleged imperialist-Zionist threat as excuse for the regime's failures and rationale for its survival -- is foolish. And parallel arguments could be provided, given space, for Iran's need to ally with Syria which, for instance, gives it a boost over the Persian/Arab (Syria is Arab) and Shia/Sunni (Syria is majority Sunni) barriers blocking Iran's ambitions to become the region's leading power.

Engagement, moderation, and splitting sure sounds like a good strategy. But it is a very very bad one.

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, August 2007). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 26, 2007.

This exchange took place before CNN's airing of Warriors of God. David Wilder is the spokesman of the Hebron Jewish Community. Jonathan Klein is President of CNN/USA.

David Wilder writes:

Following the screening of the CNN production "Warriors of G-d", including a 2 hour segment dealing with Judaism and Israel, I think it appropriate to post the following two letters, between myself and Mr. Jonathan Klein, President of CNN/USA. The two letter are, I think, self-explanatory. I must note that, following my 'revelation,' I notified a number of people who had, like myself, agreed to participate one way or another, with CNN. Some of them immediately ceased all contact with CNN and refused to take part in the program. Others decided to continue.

Each person can draw their own conclusions.

David Wilder

From: Hebron [mailto:hebron@hebron.org.il]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:44 PM
To: 'public.information@cnn.com'
Subject: Cnn production of Religion and politics -- produced by Andy Segal
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Klein,

A couple of months ago I was approached by one of your Israeli correspondents about participating in a program produced by CNN, dealing with politics and religion in Judaism. He introduced me to Mr. Andy Segal, who is producing the program, and we had several lengthy conversations, first by phone, and later in person, here in Hebron, in Israel. Our conversations were quite open and frank -- I saw no reason to hide my suspicions about cooperating with CNN -- the network's reputation concerning Israel is less than positive. We discussed this at great length, and at one point Andy requested to center the program around Hebron and the Hebron Jewish community.

Following much thought and conversations with colleagues of mine, I decided to refuse Andy's request, but did agree to participate in a more minor role in the program, basing our response to each request on its own merits.

A couple of weeks ago Andy again made contact and we spoke of several possibilities. He was interested in speaking to a family which had experienced terror first-hand, and had chosen to remain in Hebron, despite their loss and the dangers involved. I decided to try to assist and introduced him to Mrs. Tzippy Shlissel, whose father, Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan, was killed by terrorists in Hebron some eight and a half years ago. He met with her three times: first an introductory meeting, followed by an in-depth interview, and followed, earlier today, by a filmed interview and filming of the family, home, etc.

So far so good.


When we first discussed this project I asked Andy who was responsible for writing the script. He told me that he would be working on it, but there would be others involved. To the best of my recollection, my impression was that he was 'in charge' and for the most part, would determine the outlook of the script and would be 'on top' of the entire project.

This afternoon, that illusion shattered when he mentioned to me that in a few months, the chief international CNN correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, would be coming to Israel and would probably also want to speak with Mrs. Shlissel. Almost in shock, I asked him what her role is in this project. He told me that she is the narrator. I asked if she would have anything to do with writing the script and was told that "I will write the first draft." "Will she have anything to do with writing the final draft?" "Yes."

I then told Andy that had I known she was involved with this project I would not have had anything at all to do with it.

I am personally familiar with Christiane Amanpour. A number of years ago (about 10 years ago) she interviewed me. I had the dubious pleasure to have her yell and scream at me on camera. She obviously wanted me to scream back, so as to show her viewers 'an extremist from Hebron' exploding on camera. I refused to play into her hands and answered all her questions with a relaxed, calm smile on my face. However, I never forgot the interview. I haven't been yelled at, on camera, by too many journalists.

How can CNN produce an 'objective program' about Israel and religious settlers, when one of the prime elements of the program is known to be vehemently 'anti-Israel' and certainly 'anti-settlers,' so to speak? Her reputation is so blatantly prejudiced. For example:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/ blog/2006/03/from-terrorism-to-trash-collection_28.html


So when people ask: "Why did the Palestinian people elect a terrorist group?" The answer is because they see them as a lifeline.

Each time I go to the Palestinian territory of Gaza, I am shocked by the reality on the ground. On a recent visit, I passed through a short tunnel from the First World in Israel and emerged into the Third World that is Gaza. The poverty there is among the worst in the world.

Hamas officials told me they did not expect to win the election as overwhelmingly as they did. They say their main priority now is to meet the demands of the people for a better life.

But that may be impossible, because Israel and the United States refuse to deal with Hamas and have already cut funding to the new Palestinian government.

Posted By Christiane Amanpour,
CNN Correspondent: 11:03 AM ET


A woman who justifies and backs Hamas is going to deal 'fairly' with Jews in Hebron, or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria? She is going to present us as 'religious nuts and fanatics' who are endangering world peace. She is certainly not going to present anything that could be considered positive concerning us, our lifestyles or our beliefs. She is certainly not going to present a balanced, objective program dealing with religious Jews and Eretz Yisrael.

I basically told Andy that I was out -- and wouldn't have anything more to do with the project. I put a rather large degree of trust in Andy -- I believed that he had the possibility to present an object, balanced program. However, I cannot have any trust whatsoever in Christiane Amanpour, whose reputation stands before her.

Andy Segal told me that you are responsible for this project, that you initiated it. Without being presumptuous, I think it fair to demand that Christiane Amanpour be removed from this project. I cannot imagine that such a biased person could have anything to do with a project dealing with religion and politics in Israel. The results are a foregone conclusion, even before the cameras start rolling. The question is whether the program you are producing is to be an interesting objective account of religion and politics in Israel, or another CNN-produced Israel (settler)-bashing?

I await your reply and hope, very much, to learn that Ms. Amanpour will no longer have anything to do with this project.

David Wilder
The Jewish Community of Hebron

From: Klein, Jon [mailto: Jon.Klein@turner.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:41 PM
To: hebron@hebron.org.il
Subject: Response to your email dated January 30, 2007
February 13, 2007

Mr. David Wilder
The Jewish Community of Hebron
February 12, 2007

Dear Mr. Wilder,

Let me begin by thanking you for your comments. I am sorry that the Jewish Community of Hebron has chosen not to be represented in our documentary. Our mission is to produce a program that goes far beyond what is normally seen in daily news broadcasts so that our viewers can better understand the people who risk their lives -- and their children's -- to live on land they believe is their birthright: Jerusalem and the West Bank. Our goal is not to find fault or fix blame -- but to simply understand. To that end, I believe that you are missing a prime opportunity to be heard, not only in the United States, but in 180 countries around the world, and I would ask you to reconsider.

Regardless of your decision, I stand by CNN's reputation as a fair and impartial source of information. On conflicts as heated and long-standing as that between Israel and the Palestinians it is not surprising that "both sides" are at times unhappy with our reporting. We often hear that we are biased towards the other side, and that may be the surest indication of our impartiality.

Christiane Amanpour is one of our most talented and prominent international correspondents, and she is supported by a team of our strongest producers. In fact Andy Segal, our senior producer, is one of the best. As you probably have discovered, Andy comes to the table prepared. He is fair, honorable and ethical -- a journalist who takes his work very seriously. He has produced a number of award-winning documentaries. Andy and his team are researching, producing and writing this documentary, and you can be assured that his reporting will shape the final program. As a spokesman for a prominent organization, I am sure you appreciate the need for others input before you represent the positions and views of Hebron's Jewish community. The same is true at CNN -- not only will Ms. Amanpour have input, but so will editors and executives, to insure journalist standards and practices are met. In the end a program like this will be fully vetted and sourced.

I can honestly say that if you decide not to contribute to this program -- perhaps the fullest exploration of this issue ever seen on western television -- you may regret missing the opportunity to let millions of viewers understand your story. I hope you will reconsider your decision, but if not, you can be assured the program will meet the highest standards of journalism.

Jon Klein

Jon Klein
President, CNN U.S.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), August 26, 2007.

This is a August 10, 2005 New York Sun Editorial

The links between Saudi Arabia and the September 11 terrorist attacks are not something we'd expect the desert kingdom to be trumpeting, but it has done just that by appointing one of its princes, Turki al-Faisal, as its new ambassador to Washington. It's an odd choice, to say the least. Save for diplomatic immunity, one could just as easily make an argument that Riyadh's newest envoy should, on arrival at Dulles Airport, be brought in for questioning by the authorities. Here's a brief resume:

Prince Turki served as head of Saudi intelligence from 1977 until 10 days before September 11, 2001. As such, he was Riyadh's main contact with the Taliban in Afghanistan -- and thereby also with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He admits to having met Mr. bin Laden a few times, according to "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001," a Pulitzer-winning book by the Washington Post's Steve Coll. Mr. Coll writes that while the Saudis deny Mr. bin Laden was ever a Saudi agent, "it seems clear that bin Laden did have a substantial relationship with Saudi intelligence."

The Saudi intelligence services, under the prince, also oversaw the funding of "radical Islamists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere," Mr. Coll reports. One such Islamist was Abdullah Azzam, who "preached stridently against the United States" and helped found the terrorist group Hamas.

The prince was named in a civil lawsuit filed in 2002 by September 11 families seeking $1 trillion from alleged financiers of Al Qaeda. The lawsuit notes that the testimony of a senior Taliban official who defected, Mullah Kakshar, "implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator" of money transfers from wealthy Saudis, "in support of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and international terrorism."

The lawsuit also alleges that the prince was party to a 1998 agreement between the Saudis and the Taliban. In the alleged deal, the Saudis promised not to seek Mr. bin Laden's extradition or the closing of his terrorist training camps and would provide the Taliban with oil and financial assistance, in exchange for Mr. bin Laden promising not to try to overthrow the Saudi monarchy.

The prince, in his role as head of intelligence, the lawsuit suggests, "was in a position to know the threat posed by bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the extremist and violent perversion of jihad and hatred that the Saudi religious schools were fomenting in young people."

The prince denied the allegations against him. But that denial has never been adjudicated by a jury. Prince Turki successfully persuaded Judge Richard Casey to dismiss the claims against him because they stem from his alleged actions when he was acting for the Saudi government, so he cannot be held accountable for them in an American court. One of the lawyers for the September 11 families, Michael Elsner, told The New York Sun that a letter has been filed with the court asking permission to appeal the dismissal.

It may well be that Prince Turki was simply acting on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, but that only raises the bigger question of America's relations with the kingdom. The knowledge that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis and that Saudi money and religious instruction helped finance and inspire the terrorists has already put the relationship between the kingdom and America in a precarious spot.

Recent reports indicate that links between Saudi Arabia and terrorism continue to this day. The Sunday Telegraph reported this week that Saudi officials admitted that two senior Al Qaeda operatives in the kingdom -- both of whom are now reportedly dead -- "made money transfers and used coded text messages to communicate with suspected terrorists in Britain before last month's terrorist attacks in London." The Telegraph reported that one of the terrorists, Abdel Karim al-Mejati, was alleged to have been behind last year's terrorist attacks at Madrid. The Telegraph also reported last week that two men arrested for the July 21 attempted bombings at London were also linked to Riyadh. Hussain Osman called the kingdom on his cell phone just before he was arrested. Muktar Said Ibrahim, according to friends cited by the Telegraph, traveled to the kingdom for a few months in 2003 for a "training course."

On American soil the Saudis are propagating a "totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence," according to an 89-page Freedom House report released in January. It was based on the study of more than 200 documents distributed in American mosques by the Saudi government. Muslims are reminded that it is a religious obligation to hate Christians and Jews. They are told that they must behave as on a mission behind enemy lines while living in the lands of unbelievers. They must make money and acquire knowledge to use either for jihad against the infidels or to proselytize them. Textbooks, Freedom House reported, also "propagate a Nazi-like hatred for Jews" and "avow that the Muslim's duty is to eliminate the state of Israel."

There are no signs that the princes in Riyadh are ending their support for radical Islamists and terrorism -- let alone granting women equality, introducing democracy, and all the other reforms President Bush is demanding from other repressive countries. Prince Turki's own resume reads like a checklist of the many faults Americans find in the Saudi monarchy. That the prince is the most suitable candidate the Saudis can offer for ambassador is but another reminder of why the kingdom is a prime candidate for regime change.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 26, 2007.

So many articles regarding our current situation come to my attention that, as interesting and informative as many are, it would be impossible for me to recommend them all without causing my readers severe overload. Yet some are of such critical importance -- provide a perspective that is so enlightening or historically relevant -- that they beg for attention. Such a piece is one just written by Dr. Joel Fishman, who is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Fishman addresses "The Big Lie and the Media War Against Israel: From Inversion of the Truth to the Inversion of Reality."

In his introduction, he explains:

From the 1960s, inversion of truth and reality has been one the most favored propaganda methods of Israel's adversaries. One of its most frequent expressions has been the accusation that the Jewish people, victims of the Nazis, have now become the new Nazis, aggressors and oppressors of the Palestinian Arabs. Contemporary observers have identified this method and described it as an "inversion of reality," an "intellectual confidence trick," "reversing moral responsibility," or "twisted logic." Because Israel's enemies have, for nearly half a century, repeated such libels without being challenged, they have gradually gained credence. Since inversion of reality constitutes the basic principle of current anti-Israeli propaganda, it is important to understand what it is and how it works. This propaganda method is a product of Nazi Germany. It is totalitarian both in its methods, particularly the use of the paranoiac myth, and in the absolute solution it advocates. It totally denies all of Israel's claims and leaves no room for introspection and compromise.

The piece that follows is sophisticated and worthy of attention. Please note the direct line from Nazi propaganda methods to the methods of Palestinians and other anti-Israel elements today. The process as described is frightening, and essentially anti-Semitic at its core. Fishman cites, for example, an article by Belfast journalist Leo McKinstry, who says, in part:

"In a remarkable inversion of reality, Israel has become a pariah state because of its determination to defend itself. A grotesque double standard now operates, where murderous Arab terrorists are hailed as 'freedom fighters' yet Israeli security forces are treated as fascistic thugs. No nation has been more demonized than Israel. One recent survey across Europe revealed that Israel is now regarded as 'the greatest threat' to world peace, an utter absurdity given that Israel is actually the only democratic, free society in the Middle East. But such a finding reflects the strength of the hysterical anti-Israeli propaganda that fills the airwaves of Europe. No matter how much this anti-Israeli feeling is dressed up as support for Palestine, it is in fact profoundly anti-Semitic...."

Read the full article at
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID= 1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=1704&TTL= The_Big_Lie_and_the_Media_War_Against_Israel:_ From_Inversion_of_the_Truth_to_Inversion_of_Reality

All of this is extraordinarily relevant today as we see growing anti-Israel attitudes within/actions emanating from the international community (about which more below). Fishman makes the point in his introduction that "Because Israel's enemies have, for nearly half a century, repeated such libels without being challenged, they have gradually gained credence." Without being challenged!

It falls to all of us now to do the challenging in every venue that is possible, with great conviction and drawing on solid factual information.


The European Parliament is scheduled to host this week, at its Brussels facility, a conference organized by the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Now, it would be pertinent to begin by asking why the UN has such a committee. There is no parallel, for example, no committee on the rights of the Kurdish people, even though they are a real people whose rights have been trampled.

But UN bias in this regard is old hat. The question here must be why the European Parliament is involved. Polish members of the European Parliament have declared intent to boycott the conference. One member, Bronisęaw Geremek, has written, "I saw the material prepared by the organizers... Although there is no official statement that Israel must be pushed down to the sea there, the choice of subjects and the attitude towards the problems shows that it will be a biased, conflict generating conference. Actually we can call it anti-Israeli."

Another, Konrad Szymanski, said, "[The] UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People is a platform for activity of various extremists. According to the most of them Israel should disappear."

NGO-Monitor in Jerusalem says this conference will be a rehash of the Durban Conference of 2001, which saw unprecedented levels of anti-Zionist rhetoric. (Fishman writes that "Durban became the scene of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli speeches and agitation of a ferocity unknown since the 1930s.")

The time for complacency is past. This particular conference may be one of the most egregious, but it is hardly the only cause for concern.


With regard to the terrorist infiltration over the fence in northern Gaza yesterday, the IDF is now saying that the Palestinians have learned our defense systems. This is NOT good news, although hardly surprising. They've figured out how to best manipulate our defenses, and more of what happened yesterday can be expected.

I do not consider the comment of the Commander of the Northern Gaza Brigade of the IDF to be comforting: "...our operational response is currently good." I.e., at the moment we can handle them. Nor would it be sufficient, as proposed, to add sensors to enhance the 9-ft high reinforced concrete wall, built at the time of "disengagement." My response to this is the same as my response was yesterday to the matter of maximizing Arrow defense against incoming missiles. It's not just defense we need here -- not simply an ability to respond to infiltrators. We need an offensive action, big time, that will weaken the whole terrorist infrastructure.

Last night the IDF arrested two Palestinians who are believed to have helped those who came over the fence. And today the authorities have in custody six Palestinian youths who were also trying to climb over the fence. They are being interrogated because of the possibility that they were being sent to gather information for another planned attack; these boys were unarmed.


The Deputy Chief of Shin Bet (Israeli security) reported to the Cabinet today that Hamas leaders from headquarters abroad -- which means Mashaal and company sitting in Damascus -- have given instructions for Hamas cells in Judea and Samaria to execute a major attack with massive casualties inside Israel. Hamas is frustrated at not having been able to achieve international legitimacy and is having difficulty running Gaza; all of this plays into their inclination to step up terrorism.

As might have been expected, in recent weeks smuggling of arms and explosives into Gaza has grown considerably. Since Hamas took over, 40 tons of explosives has entered Gaza, which represents a full half of all the explosives brought in since the "disengagement" almost two years ago. The number of Kassam attacks is increasing, as is the number of shooting attacks.

What is also of considerable significance is that an increasing amount of explosives and weaponry is being smuggled into Judea and Samaria since Hamas took over Gaza. (This report was not explicit but it is my understanding that material goes from the Sinai via the Negev.)

So, with everything else, I must ask these pertinent questions once again:

When will Olmert finally give the go-ahead for the major military action in Gaza that the IDF so wants to initiate to stop what's building there?

How can Olmert or Bush even think about establishing a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria when there are Hamas cells there, with increasing amounts of weapons and explosives, and with Abbas either unable or unwilling to take out Hamas in this instance any more than he took out Hamas in Gaza? The notion of a militant Hamas there in Gaza and a "moderate" Fatah here in Judea and Samaria is unmitigated nonsense. Hamas is planning to overtake Abbas in Judea and Samaria.


The answer to the second question is provided by Ephraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad, writing in The Jerusalem Post on Friday. He doesn't sanction the approach being taken, he describes it:

"The powers-that-be...are now embarked on a major diplomatic and strategic endeavor the like of which has never been attempted in living history. It is an effort to craft the principles of a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with the full knowledge that these principles, if agreed, cannot be translated into action-orientated implementation in the immediate future.

"The political logic behind this initiative is that the clear political horizon that each and every Palestinian will be able to read and absorb will be so encouraging and attractive as to convince him/her to disavow any future use of force -- terror -- as an instrument in the struggle for statehood. Extremist Muslim groups will be marginalized and defeated by centralist-moderate forces that will assume effective control of Palestinian destiny."

Does he anticipate that this will work? Indeed he does not. For this plan to succeed, Hamas would have to be marginalized and refrain from acting as a spoiler, and al-Qaida would have to be similarly quiescent. What is more, at the end of the day, Abbas and Fayyad would have to demonstrate a real, tangible possibility of creating "a viable, strong and powerful West Bank entity -- security-wise, politically and economically -- that will overshadow all its adversaries."

In their dreams, will this happen! And yet Olmert and Bush and company continue to dream on.


Iran has announced that it has begun production of a 2,000 pound smart bomb -- Qased, or Messenger -- that can be delivered by its aging F-4 and F-5 fighter jets in actions against its enemies. Iranian Defense Minister Muhammad Najjar said that very few nations in the world possess this sophisticated technology of guided weaponry.

Clearly, this is not good news, but not as dire as it may sound at first blush. There is some question as to whether this is a legitimate announcement, as exaggerations from Tehran about its capabilities are not unusual; details regarding this bomb are not known. And, even if it is legitimate, it has been pointed out that this development is less serious than a new missile program would be because the delivery system has a limited range. The F-4 and F-5 fighter jets were provided by the US to Shah Pahlavi, who was ousted in 1979.

Israel's position is that this is unsettling because it is indicative of Iran's military build-up and expansionist policies.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, August 26, 2007.

(IsraelNN.com) Half of the IDF's young combat officers are religious Jews, according to statistics published as the lead story Sunday in Ma'ariv, Israel's second largest daily newspaper. The report also says that about 40% of the cadets of the most recent Officer Course in BAHAD 1, the IDF's officer training school, were religious (this number refers to all officers, as opposed to just combat officers). "This says something very good about the sons of the religious Zionist movement," opines the writer of the piece, senior correspondent Ben Caspit. "They are becoming the IDF's backbone. Their presence in the army is several times larger than it is in the general population."

"They give their entire soul"

"Any way we look at it," he says, "it's about education." It is clear, he states, that "the religious Zionist movement's educational institutions continue to disseminate values, Zionism, Judaism and mission orientation. The religious youth is mission-oriented. [It sets out to] conquer the hilltops. Then to conquer the military service and the officership."

The entry of the religious Zionists into the officer corps began after the Yom Kippur War, says Caspit, when Major Generals Yair Naveh and El'azar Stern entered service. "It continues with the pre-military academies, which send a sizeable percentage of their graduates to the Officers' Course." The "Hesder" yeshivas, he says -- the seminaries that combine religious study with a shortened army service -- do not contribute many officers.

"They do everything willingly, with their entire soul," Caspit says of the religious Zionist soldiers. Alongside them one finds, he claims, many youths from the socialist-agricultural moshav and kibbutz movements, as well as soldiers from new-immigrant and lower-income families who see the military as a chance for upward social mobility.

However, what Caspit refers to as "the First Israel" -- the middle and upper classes -- is no longer very visible among the officers. More and more of its sons either actively evade service, or opt for what he calls "a gray evasion" -- the employment of various tricks to serve less time, serve closer to home, and without endangering themselves. "They find all the ways in the world to fool the system, to see the IDF as some foreign element which is meant to curtail their personal advancement, independent thought, private ambition and other legitimate aspirations of 21st century man." Caspit sees this trend as a worrying one and calls for urgent action to raise the motivation of non-religious Israelis to serve and excel. He does not specify what this action might be.

Socio-political ramifications

Religious Zionists have often noted, in the course of political debates, that their youth plays a disproportionate role in the IDF, but secular Israelis have usually denied this. The article by Caspit, who is one of Israel's top journalists and the author of several books, including biographies of Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, can be seen as admission by a secular Israeli that the religious Zionists have been right on this subject.

The statistics are important for Israeli society because the IDF is seen as the nation's backbone and its pride. Since the State of Israel was founded it has had five native-born Prime Ministers, four of whom were from the military: Yitzchak Rabin, Netanyahu, Barak and Ariel Sharon. Rabin and Barak both served as IDF Chiefs of Staff, Sharon was a Major General and Netanyahu had been an officer in an elite unit that was commanded by his brother, Yoni, a military hero who was killed in the rescue of passengers from a hijacked Air France jet in Uganda in 1976. Thus, traditionally, service as combat officers goes hand in hand with leadership potential.

Another reason these statistics are significant is that many religious soldiers have been refusing orders to evict Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If half of the IDF's new officers are religious, this means that the refusal movement could indeed have a deep deterrent impact on the IDF and government when and if it decides to attempt additional pullouts from territory, as the movement's leaders claim.

Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-Sheva. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, August 26, 2007.

This is a news item from Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) A fictional book about a secular women's return to Jewish faith is topping the bestseller list in Israel. The book Mikimi (Revive Me) is written by Noa Yaron-Dayan a secular broadcaster on Army Radio, and a television star on Channel 2 who left behind the lights and glitter of the media world a decade ago to become an observant Jew.

In her debut novel, she uses her life story as the base for this fictional account of a sharp-tongued, hip television presenter who finds herself being attracted to the Jewish way of life. The protagonist, Alma, disconnects from her party life, from Tel Aviv, from the media world and begins the journey within.

Alma and her secular partner, inadvertently find themselves attending the Jewish revival classes given by a follower of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav. This near-accidental encounter becomes a process of discovery that intensifies as the book unfolds -- the discovery of a brand-new spiritual world, through which everyday becomes transcendent and meaningful. But the transition to her new life is not a smooth one -- as she examines her doubts and weighs her choices every single day.

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yosef Rabin, August 26, 2007.

Setting the agenda!

The time has come to stop the madness and go on the offensive. It is time for the Jews to set the agenda when it comes to Arab -Israel issues. We must demand that the US recognize the Jewish Peoples eternal right to Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, including Har Habayit (Temple Mount). We must also insist that the transfer of Arabs from the Land of Israel is the true way to peace.

Starting Monday, August 27th we will begin a calling campaign to 4 major Jewish organizations, the Orthodox Union, Aguudas Yisrael and Young Israel and Religious Zionist of America.

When you dial say,

I demand that the Jewish leadership start pressuring the US government to

1, Recognize the legality of all Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem

2, Call for the transfer of Arabs from the Land of Israel

We must set the agenda now!

OU National Headquarters
Eleven Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Fax 212-564-9058

OU Washington, DC
800 Eighth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Nathan Diament
Tel: 202-513-6484
Fax: 202-289-8936

Agudas Yisrael Office
42 Broadway
New York, NY 10004-1617
Phone: (212) 797-9000

National Council of Young Israel Office
111 John Street, Suite 450
New York, NY 10038
fax: 212-727-9526

Religious Zionist of America Office
7 Penn Plaza, Suite 205
New York, NY 10001
Telephone (212) 465-9234
Fax (212) 465-9246

Contact Yosef Rabin at yosefrabin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 26, 2007.

One of the more bizarre controversies over the past few weeks has been over whether or not the Anti-Defamation League, under the helm of Abraham Fox, should denounce the "genocide" of Armenians by Turkey during World War I.

At first the ADL was reluctant to denounce the "genocide," but it was coming under enormous media pressure
(see /www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/ projo_20070815_bostom.2545880.html) for "hypocrisy" when denouncing Holocaust Deniers and their ilk while refusing to take a clear "moral position" on the mass deaths of Armenians during WWI.

It started with a billboard campaign by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to combat bigotry and celebrate diversity ("No Place for Hate"). That sparked bitter resentment in Watertown, Mass., a Boston suburb whose 8,000 Armenian-Americans make up nearly 25 percent of the population. Local Armenians did not object to the initiative, but claimed that the ADL and its director, Abraham Fox, denied the ugly legacy of the World War I era Armenian "genocide."

A gaggle of Jewish assimilationist liberals then chimed in as an amen chorus, denouncing the ADL for "hypocrisy." Some suggested the ADL was being pusillanimous because Israel does not want to upset Turkey. The rest of the mainstream media joined. Finally the ADL capitulated and issued a statement denouncing the "genocide" of the Armenians. Turkey itself phoned Shimon Peres and asked that Israel persuade the Jewish SWAT teams attacking Turkey over Armenians to cool it. The ADL fired the regional director who had triggered the mess
(www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2007/08/ adl-and-the-armenian-genocide-regional-d/). Ugly comments about Jews being indifferent to the "genocide" of others filled the web.

The problem is that all those people are demanding that Jews take a "clear moral" position on a matter that is not morally clear.

Yes, hundreds of thousands of Armenians died during WWI, mostly from starvation.

Was that a Holocaust? It certainly was nothing like the Holocaust either in terms of the dimensions nor in terms of the actual behavior of the Turks, often bad but not uniformly so (there were also serious Turkish efforts to provide relief aid to the Armenians).

Since so much pseudo-history has been written about the mass deaths of the Armenians, I am reprinting here in full the first-rate and indeed the seminal piece on the fate of the Armenians, which appeared a couple of years back in Commentary Magazine. Those who believe they know what happened are invited to read it in full and find some surprises (a bit long but worth the read!). It's called "The First Genocide of the Twentieth Century?" and can be found at

The following article by Prof. Guenter Lewy appeared in the Dec. 2005 edition of Commentary Magazine, a journal published by the American Jewish Committee since 1945.

The term "genocide," coined in 1944 by the Polish-Jewish émigré lawyer Raphael Lemkin, was meant to describe Hitler's then-ongoing campaign to exterminate the Jews of Europe. But Lemkin's interest in this most heinous of crimes, what he and others would define as the planned effort to destroy an entire people or ethnic group, long predated the rise of the Nazis.

Raphael Lemkin

The atrocities that first drew him to the issue emerged from a different world war and a different context. They were the vicious actions not of Germans against Jews in the early 1940's but of Ottoman Turks against Turkey's Armenian minority in 1915-16.

Today, however, the Armenian case remains controversial in a way that the Holocaust, outside the fevered confines of the Arab world, does not. Like every one of its predecessors since the rise of modern Turkey, the current government in Ankara vehemently rejects the charge of genocide, and has exerted strong diplomatic pressure against any attempt by outsiders to place the events of World War I in a class with Hitler's Final Solution. In this, the Turks have been seconded not just by pro- Turkish apologists but by a number of respected historians, including, most notably, Bernard Lewis, the dean of American Orientalists and an expert on Turkey.

Against this view is the great tide of world opinion, from the official proclamations of various governments and religious bodies to the declared consensus of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Indeed, so strong is sentiment on this question that even now, nearly a century after the fact, the issue continues to color Turkey's dealings with other nations. On September 29, the European parliament in Strasbourg adopted a resolution demanding that, as a condition of admission to the European Union, Turkey acknowledge the mass killing of its Armenians during World War I as an instance of genocide. And even beyond the issue of what happened in 1915-16 and its relevance to Turkey's political situation today, the Armenian case continues to occupy a place of precedence in the litany of all subsequent instances of mass murder and "ethnic cleansing," including most recently the killings in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda in the 1990's and those in Sudan today.

No one, it should be stressed, disputes the extent of Armenian suffering at the hands of the Turks.

With little or no notice, the Ottoman government forced Armenian men, women, and children to leave their historic communities; during the subsequent harrowing trek over mountains and through deserts, large numbers of them died of starvation and disease, or were murdered. Although the absence of good statistics on the size of the pre-war Armenian population in Turkey makes it impossible to establish the true extent of the loss of life, reliable estimates put the number of deaths at more than 650,000, or around 40 percent of a total Armenian population of 1.75 million.

The historical question at issue is premeditation that is, whether the Turkish regime intentionally organized the annihilation of its Armenian minority. According to the Genocide Convention of 1948, such an intent to destroy a group is a necessary condition of genocide; most other definitions of this crime of crimes similarly insist upon the centrality of malicious intent. Hence the crucial problem to be addressed is not the huge loss of life in and of itself but rather whether the Turkish government deliberately sought the deaths that we know to have occurred.

The Armenians have lived in the southern Caucasus, between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, since ancient times. In the early 4th century c.e., they were the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion. Much of their long history, however, has been spent under foreign rule. The last independent Armenian state (before the present-day, post-Soviet Republic of Armenia) fell in 1375, and by the early 16th century most Armenians were subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Under the millet system instituted by Sultan Mohammed II (1451-1481), they enjoyed religious, cultural, and social autonomy as a "loyal community," a status that lasted well into the 19th century.

Though large numbers of Armenians settled in Constantinople and in other Ottoman towns, where they prospered as merchants, bankers, and artisans, the majority continued to live as peasants in eastern Anatolia. During the autocratic rule of Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909), the lot of the Armenians deteriorated, and nationalistic sentiment began to emerge. In June 1890, Armenian students in the Russian-controlled area of the Caucasus organized the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Demanding the political and economic emancipation of Turkish Armenia, the Dashnaks (as they were known) waged guerrilla warfare against Turkish army units, gendarmerie posts, and Kurdish villages involved in attacks on Armenians. They operated from bases in the Caucasus and Persia and took advantage of eastern Anatolia's mountainous terrain.

When, in 1908, the nationalist, modernizing movement known as the Young Turks seized power in Constantinople in a bloodless coup, the Dashnaks declared an end to their fighting. But the truce did not last. With Turkey's entry into World War I on the side of Germany and against Russia, the Armenians' traditional ally, the Dashnaks resumed their armed resistance. By April 1915, Armenian guerrilla activities had picked up momentum. Roads and communication lines were cut. Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador in Constantinople, reported to Washington on May 25 that nobody put the Armenian guerrillas "at less than 10,000, and 25,000 is probably closer to the truth." Meanwhile, the Russian branch of the Dashnaks was organizing volunteers to fight the Turks on the Caucasus front.

Most of these volunteers -- numbering 15,000, according to one Armenian source -- were themselves Russian subjects, exempt from military service, but some of them were Turkish Armenians who had crossed the border to join the volunteer units. Offers of help also poured in from the Armenian diaspora, from as far away as Western Europe and the U.S. In March 1915, the Dashnak organization in Sofia, Bulgaria, proposed to land 20,000 volunteers on the Turkish coast in the Armenian stronghold of Cilicia. That same month, the Boston-based Armenian National Defense Committee of America informed the British foreign secretary that it was making "preparations for the purpose of sending volunteers to Cilicia, where a large section of the Armenian population will unfurl the banner of insurrection against Turkish rule." It was hoped that the British and French governments would supply them with ammunition and artillery.

Antranik Toros Ozanian

Turkish fears of an internal revolt were exacerbated the following month by an uprising that took place in the city of Van. Close to the Russian border and in the heartland of historic Armenia, Van had long been a center of nationalist agitation. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish governor reported that 4,000 Armenian fighters had opened fire on the police stations, burned down Muslim houses, and barricaded themselves in the Armenian quarter. About 15,000 refugees from the countryside eventually joined the now-besieged rebels. Less than a month later, the insurgents were saved by the advancing Russian army, forcing the Turkish garrison to retreat. Whether the Van uprising was a rebellion designed and timed to facilitate the advance of the Russians or a defensive action aimed at preventing the already planned deportation of the Armenian community remains one of the points of fierce contention in the historiography of the time. [48] Commentary December 2005 When not tying down Turkish army units, the Dashnaks were of significant help to the Russian army itself (leaving aside the 150,000 Armenian subjects of the czar who served in its ranks). Deeply familiar with the rugged mountains of eastern Anatolia, the Armenian volunteers were invaluable scouts and guides. In one famous episode, the legendary Armenian military leader Andranik Ozanian met with General Mishlayevsky, commander of the czar's forces in the Caucasus, late in the summer of 1914, pointing out the routes through which the Russian army could advance on Turkey.

Thus, as the Turks saw it, the Armenian people the world over had thrown in their lot with the Allied cause and were arrayed against them in a fateful struggle. Having come to consider the Armenians a fifth column, the Ottoman regime decided to take decisive measures to put an end to their treasonable actions. As Morgenthau reported to Washington in July 1915: "[B]ecause Armenian volunteers, many of them Russian subjects, have joined the Russian army in the Caucasus and because some have been implicated in armed revolutionary movements and others have been helpful to Russians in their invasion of the Van district, terrible vengeance is being taken." In the eyes of the Young Turks, however, the issue was not so much vengeance as national survival in a situation of extreme danger caused by serious military setbacks. The British had taken Basra in Mesopotamia and were moving toward Baghdad. The Allies had launched their assaults on the Dardanelles. Fearing the fall of the capital, the Turks were making preparations to evacuate the sultan and the treasury from Constantinople. Meanwhile, Russian troops were advancing into eastern Anatolia, and Armenian guerrillas were active in the rear of the Turkish army, threatening the very lifelines of the empire. Even if only a limited number of Armenians had actually taken up arms, the authorities in Constantinople understood themselves to be dealing with a population of traitors.

Boghos Nubar

Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the war and at the Paris peace conference in 1919, the Armenians would make no bones about their contribution to the Allied victory. To the contrary: Boghos Nubar, the head of the Armenian delegation, asserted in late October 1918 that his people had in fact been belligerents, fighting alongside the Allies on all fronts; in particular, he wrote to the French foreign minister, 150,000 Armenians had fought in the Russian army and had held the front in the Caucasus after the Russians dropped out of the war in 1917. As Nubar would tell the peace conference on March 8, 1919, the Turks had devastated the Armenians "in retaliation for our unflagging devotion to the cause of the Allies." By means of such rhetoric Nubar was obviously hoping to win the support of the peace conference for an independent Armenia. But, the essential facts were correct as he stated them: the Armenians had indeed supported the Allies in a variety of ways. Ignoring warnings from many quarters, large numbers of them had fought the Turks, and the government, with its back to the wall, reacted resolutely and viciously. Although none of this can serve to justify what the Turks did to them, it provides indispensable historical context for the human catastrophe that ensued.

There is no denying the dimensions of that catastrophe. The harsher methods employed by the Young Turks included the killing of Armenian notables in Constantinople and the eastern provinces. As for Armenian civilians, perhaps as many as 1 million were turned out of their homes. On a journey through the most inhospitable terrain, they routinely lacked shelter and food and were often subjected to the murderous violence of their government-provided escorts and the Kurdish tribesmen who occupied the route southward to Ottoman-controlled Syria. Massive numbers died along the way. Can we account for this tragedy without the hypothesis of a genocidal plan on the part of the Young Turks? Most authors supporting the Armenian cause answer in the negative. They cite foreign diplomats on the scene who, in the face of the large number of deaths, concluded that so terrible a loss of life could only be an intended outcome of the deportations. And yet such a conclusion once again ignores the immediate backdrop against which this horrific episode must be seen.

If one of the main causes of the Armenian disaster was starvation, the Armenians were hardly alone in experiencing such deprivation. Severe food shortages were endemic to Turkey at the time. The military mobilization of large numbers of peasants in 1914, as well as the reckless requisitioning of their horses, oxen, and carriages, had made it impossible to bring in the harvest and left many fields untilled for the following year's crop. In the spring of 1915, Ambassador Morgenthau told Washington that the empire's whole domestic situation was "deplorable," with "thousands of the populace ... daily dying of starvation." In the late [49] The First Genocide of the 20th Century? spring and summer of 1915, the Ottoman provinces of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria were devastated by a plague of locusts, creating famine conditions. To exacerbate matters, Allied warships had blockaded the coast of Syria and Lebanon, thus preventing the import of food from Egypt.

Moreover, the food that was available in Turkey often could not be distributed. The country's few existing one-track railroads were overburdened, and shortages of coal and wood frequently rendered locomotives unusable. A crucial tunnel on the line toward Syria -- the famous Baghdad railway -- remained unfinished until late in the war. The resulting scarcities afflicted even the Turkish army, whose troops, as one German officer reported, received a maximum of one third of their allotted rations. In circumstances where soldiers in the Turkish army were dying of undernourishment, it is not so surprising that little if any food was made available to the deported Armenians. Indeed, the mistreatment of common Turkish soldiers, the subject of many comments by contemporaries, makes an instructive comparison with the wretched lot of the Armenians. Although "provisions and clothing had been confiscated to supply the army," wrote an American missionary in Van, "the soldiers profited very little by this. They were poorly fed and poorly clothed when fed or clothed at all." The Danish missionary Maria Jacobsen noted in her diary on February 7, 1915: "The officers are filling their pockets, while the soldiers die of starvation, lack of hygiene, and illness."

Many had neither boots nor socks, and were dressed in rags. The treatment of Turkish soldiers who were wounded or sick was especially appalling. Those who managed to reach hospitals -- many never did -- perished in large numbers because of unsanitary conditions and a lack of basic supplies. Patients shared beds or simply lay next to each other on the floor in facilities that often lacked running water and electricity. Typhus, cholera, dysentery, and other infectious diseases spread rapidly. As Maria Jacobsen noted on May 24, 1916, a cholera outbreak in the city of Malatia was killing 100 soldiers a day. "The army there," she wrote, "will soon be wiped out without a war." The Turks experienced some 244,000 combat deaths during World War I. As against this, some 68,000 soldiers died of their wounds and almost a half-million of disease -- a ratio of non-combat to combat deaths almost certainly unmatched by any of the other warring nations. This terrible toll obviously does not excuse the treatment of the Armenians, but neither can it be simply ignored in any assessment of the general conditions against which they met their fate. Many of the Turkish deaths could have been prevented by better sanitary conditions and medical care. A government so callous about the suffering of its own soldiers was hardly about to show concern for the terrible human misery that would result from deporting a minority population rightly or wrongly suspected of treason. One of the problems bedeviling the Armenian side in this controversy is that no authentic documentary evidence exists to prove the culpability of the central government of Turkey for the massacre of 1915-16. In the face of this lack, Armenians have relied upon materials of questionable authenticity like The Memoirs of Naim Bey by Aram Andonian. The English edition of this book, first published in 1920, offers in evidence 30 alleged telegrams by Talaat Pasha, Turkey's minister of the interior, some of which order the killing of all Armenians irrespective of sex or age. But the book is considered a forgery not only by Turkish historians but by practically every Western student of Ottoman history.

Similarly unreliable are the verdicts of Turkish military tribunals that in 1919-20 found the top leadership of the Young Turk regime, together with a special-forces outfit called Teskilat-i Mahsusa, responsible for the massacres of the Armenians. These trials suffered from serious deficiencies of due process; more importantly, all of the original trial documents are lost, leaving nothing but copies of some documents that were printed in the government gazette and the press.

It is true that no written record of Hitler's order for the Final Solution of the "Jewish question" has been found, either. But the major elements of the decision-making process leading up to the annihilation of the Jews of Europe can be reconstructed from events, court testimony, and a rich store of authentic documents. It is doubtful that the Nuremberg trials would ever have achieved their tremendous significance in authenticating the crimes of the Nazi regime if they had had to rely on a few copies instead of on the thousands of original documents preserved in archives. Barring the unlikely discovery of sensational new documents in the Turkish archives, it is safe to say that no similar evidence exists for the tragic events of 1915-16. At the same time, a number of facts about the deportations argue against the thesis that they constituted a premeditated program for exterminating the Armenians of Turkey. For one thing, the large [50] Commentary December 2005 Armenian communities of Constantinople, Smyrna, and Aleppo were spared deportation and, apart from tribulations that also afflicted the Muslim populations of these cities, survived the war largely intact. This would be analogous to Hitler's failing to include the Jews of Berlin, Cologne, and Munich in the Final Solution. Moreover, the trek on foot that took so many lives was imposed only on the Armenians of eastern and central Anatolia, a part of the country that had no railroads. Elsewhere, and despite the fact that the one-spur Baghdad line was overburdened with the transport of troops and supplies, Armenian deportees were allowed to purchase rail tickets and were thus spared at least some of the trials of the deportation process. If, as is often alleged, the intent was to subject the exiles to a forced march until they died of exhaustion, why was this punishment not imposed on all? Similar variation can be found in the fortunes of other parts of the Armenian population. While many of the exiles were left to fend for themselves and often died of starvation, others were given food here and there. Some gendarmes accompanying the convoys sold their charges to Kurds who pillaged and murdered them, but other gendarmes were protective. In some places all Armenians, irrespective of creed, were sent away, while in others Protestant and Catholic (as opposed to Gregorian) Armenians were exempted. Many of the deportees succumbed to the harsh conditions in their places of resettlement, but others were able to survive by making themselves useful as artisans or traders. In some locations, not even conversion to Islam could purchase exemption from deportation; in others, large numbers of Armenians were allowed, or forced, to convert and were saved. All of these differences, of both treatment and outcome, are difficult to reconcile with a premeditated program of total annihilation. How, then, to explain the events of 1915-16? What accounts for the enormous loss of life? The documentary evidence suggests that the Ottoman government wanted to arrange an orderly process of deportation, even a relatively humane one, to gauge by the many decrees commanding protection and compassionate treatment of the deportees. But, leaving aside the justice of the expulsion order itself, the deportation and resettlement of the Armenians took place, as we have seen, at a time of great insecurity and dislocation throughout the country and in conditions of widespread suffering and deprivation among Turkish civilians and military personnel. The job of relocating several hundred thousand people in a short span of time and over a highly primitive system of transportation was simply beyond the ability of the Turkish bureaucracy. Many observers on the scene, indeed, saw the tragedy in this light, constantly citing the incompetence and inefficiency of the Ottoman bureaucracy. "The lack of proper transportation facilities," wrote the American consul in Mersina in September 1915, "is the most important factor in causing the misery." The German consul in Aleppo told his ambassador around the same time that the majority of Armenian exiles were starving to death because the Turks were "incapable of solving the organizational task of mass feeding." A lengthy memorandum on the Armenian question drawn up in 1916 by Alexander von Hoesch, an official in the German embassy, pointed to a basic lack of accountability: some local officials had sought to alleviate the hardships of the exiles, but others were extremely hostile to the Armenians and, in defiance of Constantinople, had abandoned them to the violence of Kurds or Circassians.

Today, the stakes in this historical controversy remain high, and both sides continue to use heavyhanded tactics to advance their views. The Turkish government regularly threatens retaliation against anyone calling into question its own version of events, a threat made good most recently by its cancellation of an order for a $149-million French spy satellite after the French national assembly declared in 2001 that the killing of the Armenians during World War I was a case of genocide. For their part, the Armenians have also played hardball. When Bernard Lewis, in a 1994 letter to Le Monde, questioned on scholarly grounds the existence of a plan of extermination on the part of the Ottoman government, a French-Armenian organization brought suit and a French court convicted Lewis of causing "grievous prejudice to truthful memory." But there are also more hopeful signs, at least on the academic front. In the last several years, a number of conferences have brought together Turkish and Armenian scholars willing to discuss the events of 1915-16 without a political agenda. Turkish historical scholarship has shown signs of a post-nationalist phase, while some scholars on the Armenian side, too, now engage in research free of propagandistic rhetoric.

Needless to say, such efforts have brought down accusations of betrayal, even treason, upon the heads of the offending historians; it would be foolish to expect genuine reconciliation any time soon. [51] The First Genocide of the 20th Century? All of which raises deeply troubling questions, not least about the role played by the Notion of genocide itself in perpetuating the almost century-old impasse between Turks and Armenians. For, once this charge is on the table, any sort of mutually acceptable resolution becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve. As the Turkish historian Selim Deringil has written, both sides need to "step back from the was-it-genocide-or-not dialogue of the deaf" and instead seek a "common project of knowledge." If, then, we were to follow this advice, how best should we judge the Armenian tragedy? The primary intent of the deportation order was undoubtedly not to eradicate an entire people but to deny support to the Armenian guerrilla bands and to remove the Armenians from war zones and other strategic locations. For the Ottomans, painful experience with other Christian minorities during the Balkan wars (1912-13) had created extreme sensitivity to rebellion and territorial loss. Talaat Pasha, the minister of the interior, is supposed to have told the cabinet in 1915, "We have to create a Turkish bloc, free of foreign elements, which in the future will never again give the Europeans the opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey." Ambassador Morgenthau reported being told on several occasions by Enver Pasha, the Turkish minister of war, that the government had to act forcefully against any community, however small, that was bent upon independence and was acting directly against the interests of the empire. For the human disaster subsequently endured by its Armenian population, the Ottoman regime certainly bears its due measure of responsibility, just as it does for general corruption, bungling misrule, and indifference to the suffering of its own population during World War I. And one can go further: with the benefit of hindsight, it is also possible to question whether the severity of the threat posed by Armenian revolutionaries justified the drastic remedy of even partial deportation. The Canadian researcher Gwynne Dyer may have put the case most appropriately in writing that, although Turkish allegations of wholesale disloyalty, treason, and revolt on the part of the Ottoman Armenians were "wholly true as far as Armenian sentiment went," they were "only partly true in terms of overt acts, and totally insufficient as a justification for what was done" to the Armenians. If both Armenians and Turks could accept this appraisal, even as a starting point for further discussion, they would reach an important milestone toward settling one of modern history's most bitter and longstanding conflicts. [52]

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph's Rant, August 26, 2007.

My last article spoke about the Saudi Arabian involvement with the Carter Center for Peace. The previous article spoke about the British Government funding of various left wing Israeli leftist organizations. With the rising anti Israel sentiment and also growing Anti Semitic attacks around the world one does not have to look around very long to realize the answers lie with the Unholy Alliance between the Israeli and Left Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom.

The tentacles of this alliance is worldwide and is spreading. The best way that the Saudi Government can spread their anti Israel fundamentalist opinion and hate is to spread their economic influence around the world in ways to influence public opinion such as universities where future leaders are sowed, and also foundations such as the Carter Center of Peace. Why have there been so many calls for boycotts and university actions? Well I am willing to bet that there is a Saudi money trail somewhere involved. That is my opinion. A wild opinion maybe not there are many instances where Saudi money is donated to universities and former people of power. These are links to three examples of Saudi donations.


Is it possible that the source of these boycott calls may have Saudi involvement somehow? Not sure don't have proof but it would be a interesting fact to investigate. If there was no Saudi money floating around would there be less Anti Israel incitement. By the Arabs no but by the rest of the world I am sure.

The British governmental funding of Israeli Leftist organizations is also increasing the anti Israel activity around the world and increasing the legitimacy of Anti Semitism in the eyes of Anti Semites both in the UK and around the world. The Israeli Leftist also bear responsibility because they some receive foreign funding and are the tools for those foreign governments meddling in internal Israeli affairs.

It is up to the Jewish community and the Israeli people to expose this meddling, and also to investigate funding of the Saudi government to influence the world against Israel and expose it.

Contact Ralph by email at stargate_time@yahoo.com. And visit his website:

This article is archived at:
http://ralphsrant1.blogspot.com/2007/08/unholy-alliance- saudi-arabia-united.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 26, 2007.
Check this out and see why I've always liked this guy -- NOT! I call my accompanying art-photo Political Prezzz. It was not part of the original article. This was written by Israel Insider Staff and it appeared today in Israel Insider

A new ad campaign of a right-leaning Israeli organization is celebrating the prophetic powers of Israel's new president. Does this augur the birth of a messianic era of peace between former rival with right-wing lions lying down with left-leaning lambs? Or are they wolves in sheep's wool?

The campaign by The Jerusalem Summit lauds Peres' predictive powers of thirty years ago, when he foresaw and warned of the dangers of a Palestinian State. After a teaser with bold headlines of "Shimon Peres Prophet," the link leads to the following statement and quotation.

"The following is a chillingly accurate prediction made three decades ago, by none other than Shimon Peres, the nation's newly elected president. In it he foresaw, in precise detail, the dire perils that would result if Israel were to embark on precisely the policy he himself championed and which continues to advocate with passion:"

'The establishment of such a [Palestinian] state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,800 men under arms) into Judea and Samaria; this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other [military] equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have problems in preserving day-to-day security, which may drive the country into war, or undermine the morale of its citizens. In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel's existence, to impede the freedom of action of the Israeli air-force in the skies over Israel, and to cause bloodshed among the population. In areas adjacent to the frontier-line.' -- Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now, Jerusalem: Keter, 1978, p. 232."

The ad continues with "Questions and Quandaries for the Concerned Citizen":

  • The citizens of Israel, indeed the Jewish people as a whole, deserve, indeed should demand, an explanation for this dramatic shift in Peres's position -- from total opposition to a Palestinian state to total support for it. Of course one is entitles to change one's mind and Peres may indeed have had a change of mind. However one cannot but wonder:

  • Why any rational individual would wish to change his/her mind from a position which proved to be so well-founded to one that proved to be so unfounded?

  • What could have possibly induced Peres to endorse a policy which he previously rejected as too perilous to the security of the nation -- especially as all the perils he predicted did in fact materialize?

  • Why would any responsible leader urge his people downs a path that he himself warned was disastrous -- especially as all the disasters he warned of did indeed occur?

  • How can such conduct be reconciled with a genuine concern for the nation interest?

  • And if it cannot, what conclusion should be drawn?"

The Office of the President has not yet responded with a public comment on the annointment of the prophetic Peres.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDar), August 26, 2007.

This was written by Shmuley Boteach and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188128148432&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Boteach is about to launch 'The Jewish Values Network,' dedicated to the dissemination of Jewish values in the mainstream media (http://www.shmuley.com).

Last week I spent time at the Christian Broadcasting Network headquarters in Virginia with Pat Robertson, who, amid some understandable disagreements on important issues, is not only a friend but, I believe, one of the best friends Israel has in the entire United States.

In discussing the US presidential race, we focused on Rudy Giuliani, who is extremely popular in the Jewish community for his stalwart support of Israel and hard line on Islamic fundamentalism -- but somewhat less so among Evangelicals, given his two divorces. Indeed, many Christians have written to me that they cannot vote for Rudy for president because of their wish to uphold family values. They wish for me to concur.

I cannot.

In looking at how the two communities approach a candidate like Giuliani, we can discern important differences between Judaism and Christianity.

When Rudy, as mayor of New York, announced his separation from his wife, Donna Hanover, at a hastily summoned press conference without first informing her, I wrote a column stating that, as a child of divorce, I had to protest the way the announcement was handled.

Couples sometimes have to split up. But decisions as to the future of a marriage should be taken between husband and wife in concert, and with the children being informed before anyone else.

And yet, my criticism of Rudy's actions as a husband had no bearing on my strong endorsement of his leadership as mayor. Here is why.

JUDAISM BELIEVES two things. First, that people are flawed, and that what is important, therefore, is struggle rather than perfection (hence, the name Israel which translates as "he who wrestles with God").

My Christian brothers and sisters believe that because people are sinful they must therefore accept the grace of Christ for salvation. But Jews believe that because people are imperfect they must therefore define their own righteousness by their willingness to struggle to do the right thing amid a predilection for doing otherwise. Inevitably, we will sometimes come up short. But wrestle we must.

Second, Judaism believes that we flawed people must still devote ourselves to the public good and that the idea that our mistakes should keep us from positions of leadership is not only ludicrous, but deeply sinful.

Should a philanthropist who cheats on his wife not feed the poor? Should a woman who is mean to her cleaning lady not be a doctor who can heal the sick? Yes, it would be wonderful if we were all more consistent. But we must strive to do good in one area even when we fall short in others.

WHEREAS CHRISTIANITY focuses on personal salvation, Judaism focuses instead on world redemption. In Judaism, the question of personal righteousness is always subordinate to that of communal improvement. In Judaism our goodness is defined not by faith, meditation and reflection, but by good deeds. The focus is on the community rather than on ourselves.

The contribution one makes to the lives of others is much more important than how perfect one is in one's own life.

My Christian brothers and sisters, amid their stellar record of charity and social services throughout the world, are still often fixated on the question of whether or not they are going to heaven. In Judaism such questions, rarely, if ever, come up. The real question is: Have you left the world in a better condition than you found it?

The Talmud relates the famous story of how, as Rabbi Yochanan lay on his death bed, he cried out, "I don't know where I am going (to heaven or hell)." Now, how could such a righteous man not be sure as to whether he had earned a place in eternity? The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that his confusion was due to having never once focused on himself. What he focused on throughout his life was on doing good deeds for others, and not whether he had become personally righteous in the process.

THE OTHER reason that the Jewish community has no real issue with Giuliani's divorces are the biblical heroes to whom we look up. Christians venerate Jesus, who is portrayed as perfect in the New Testament. When Christians ask, "What would Jesus do?" they are holding up a model of flawlessness which they seek to emulate.

But in the Hebrew Bible our heroes are righteous men rather than perfect gods. They struggled to the do the right thing, but being men, they did not always succeed. Abraham is faulted for his parenting with regard to Ishmael. Jacob favored Joseph over his other children. Moses, the greatest of prophets, is punished with not being allowed to enter the promised land because he failed to sanctify God to the Jewish people at a critical moment in their history.

Indeed, the fact that these men were not perfect is what makes them the perfect model for emulation. Like us, they struggled to do the right thing amid an inclination do otherwise. And it was in the context of their herculean efforts to act righteously when it didn't always come naturally to them that they became role models.

FEW IN the Jewish community believe that Bill Clinton's personal failures made him unqualified for the public position of president. His betrayal, with Monica Lewinsky, of his marriage did not mean that he could not do a great deal of good for the country. On the contrary, the principal Jewish criticism of Clinton was that he did nothing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, when, as the most powerful man in the world, there were many remedies available to him to stop the indiscriminate slaughter of defenseless Africans.

Finally, my Christian brothers and sisters define a hypocrite as someone who says one thing and practices another. But Judaism argues that this is not hypocrisy, but inconsistency. The hypocrite is he who says something and does not believe it even as he says it.

Few of us, thankfully, are in that category. What we are, however, is inconsistent, believing strongly in family values, but not always being strong enough to live in accordance with those values.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, August 26, 2007.

A policewoman filmed hitting an Arab at an IDF checkpoint last week was immediately suspended. The move has engendered disbelief amongst Jewish rights activists who have been trying for over a year and a half to suspend dozens of Israeli policemen filmed beating Jewish youths at the destruction of the Jewish town of Amona. Israeli Police Maj.-Gen. Mickey Levy, who was filmed beating Land of Israel activist Nadia Matar, was promoted in February to serve as next Deputy Commissioner of the Israeli Police Force.

Absurd Justice. A civilian court has ordered an army officer to personally pay compensation. Lieutenant Tzvi Koretzky served two months in a military prison for the "negligent killing" of 16-year-old Mohammed Ali Zayd in October 2002. (Another example of the stupidity of the self-hating legal system! How many Jewish victims of Arab terror got compensation from Arab thugs?)

Minister: Justice System Biased. Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann supported the right's contention that the justice system in Israel persecutes people who are not perceived as leftist enough. (It is a well-known fact that Israel's legal system, established during the Labour party dominance, is used to harass and persecute any opposition, especially from Zionists!)

Pathetic Solution of Ugly Government!

The Ministry of Education has decided to enable the children of Sderot to study in 'safety' by conducting all classes in the schools' bomb shelters.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Israel would not need "a dramatic increase in USA aid" if the US and Russia stopped making money by supplying Muslim countries with weapons. So called aid is just a balancing act, to keep the business going. Please, stop doing Jews a 'favour'!

UN Envoy: More Gestures to Abbas. The UN's Mideast envoy Michael Williams said he welcomes Israel's recent release of 250 Palestinian prisoners and the transfer of frozen funds to Mr. Abbas. But, he expressed concern that Israel has not taken further steps. (Ha, it is never enough! How many "gestures" Abbas has made toward peace with Israel? "Useless Nothing" at its best!)

Abbas Condemns Israeli Military Action in Gaza. The PA President Mahmoud Abbas condemned Israeli military escalation in Gaza Strip, saying the recent attacks raise doubts about the Israeli government's peace intentions. The peace process, which the international community tries to revive, can not make any progress (like it is now) if the current Israeli policies and procedures continue, warned the statement. (No condemnation of rocket attacks from Gaza. Should Jews doubt PA 'peace intentions'? Only the delusional Olmert government does!)

Ashkelon Gets Panic Button. The Home Front Command is allocating more than $100 million for the installation of a "panic button" system in pre-school nurseries and schools to make it easier to alert authorities in the event of a rocket attack on Ashkelon. Oil and gas pipelines and a giant electricity generating station are located in the port city. (Wouldn't the money be better spent by removing the threat of rocket attacks from Gaza permanently?)

Syria Gets First Shipment of Russian SA-22's. According to Russian press reports, Moscow has begun delivering advanced SA-22 anti-aircraft missile systems to Syria. Damascus is to get between 34 and 50 of the systems, in a deal worth $900 million.

Even Vikings Said Sorry. MORE than 1200 years ago, hordes of bloodthirsty Viking raiders descended on Ireland, pillaging monasteries and massacring the inhabitants. Danish Culture Minister Brian Mikkelson, who was in Dublin to participate in celebrations marking the arrival of a replica Norse longboat, apologised for the destruction: "In Denmark we are certainly proud of this ship, but we are not proud of the damages to the people of Ireland that followed in the footsteps of the Vikings." (There is no rush of apologies from the Vatican to Jews for the Inquisition and the on going anti-Jewish slur, nor regrets from UK, Spain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Austria, Russia etc for conducting pogroms, deportation of Jews and participation in Holocaust.)

Quote of the Week:

"How much of the (rotten) fish did you eat?" "About half the portion," "The first bite was the restaurant's fault, but the second bite was your fault!" -- Rabbi Riskin about 'Peace process'.

Gaza's Public Workers Paid to Stay Home. Gaza's public employees are getting paid on one condition: Stay home. Such is the irony of life in the Gaza Strip now that Hamas militants are firmly in charge. A rival pro-Western government in the West Bank is delivering salaries to most of Gaza's civil servants as long as they don't work. (UN's money 'well spent'.)

Israel Enduring High-tech Brain-drain. As a result of government cuts to research and development, more then 25,000 Israeli high-tech workers have moved to the United States during the last seven years. The same budget cuts have resulted in 10 billion of lost export revenue. (There are funds for fake anti-terror policies that do not work, but not for the future of Israel!)

Aksa Martyrs Brigades will not Honour Agreements with Israel. Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, announced it would no longer honour understandings reached with Israel, and called on its members to carry weapons. (It was expected. It did not last long, like any agreement before it!)

Pass to self-Destruction. Israel's Cabinet extends the option of National Service to Arab Israelis. The Education Minister cut National Service options for Jewish girls. (The un-Jewish government made decision to train a "fifth column" to undermine and destroy Israel!) The budget that Education Minister Yuli Tamir intends to take away from female National Service volunteers who teach Zionism and Judaism in Israeli schools will be transferred to National Service programs in the Arab sector.

Arabs Say 'No!' to Olmert's National Service Idea. Leaders of the Arab Israeli public said "la!" ("No!", not the first time) to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's initiative to have Arab youths perform national service. "The rights of the Arab public are not conditional on giving military services that serve the occupation". (Clearly, Arabs have never considered themselves as citizens of State of Israel, more as enemies of the state! Olmert's proposal just exposed another level of stupidity and blindness of Israel's politicians!)

"Palestine: Partition and Propaganda"
by David Singer

US President George Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stubbornly and foolishly continue to push for the creation of an independent Palestinian State between Israel and Jordan, as Hamas and Fatah turn the proposed site for such a state -- Gaza and the West Bank -- into battlegrounds of blood, misery and privation for the Arab populations caught in their deadly crossfire.

The 70th anniversary of the Peel Commission Report, released on 7 July 1937, presents a unique and impartial insight into understanding what the so-called "Palestinian problem" was -- and still is today -- really about.

The Peel Commission recognised that there was an insoluble conflict in Palestine between the Arabs and Jews, necessitating the partition of Palestine into two independent sovereign states. There was no mention of a third interested party -- the "Palestinians" or "the Palestinian people" -- who also deserved a separate state. This "people" was the subsequent creation of skilful Arab propaganda in the 1950's and '60's in response to Israel's creation in 1948. The Peel Commission Report succinctly summed up the nature of the conflict in the following words:

"An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State."

In 1937, there was no independent state called Jordan. It was then called Trans-Jordan, and it comprised 77% of the territory administered by Great Britain under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine -- the operation of which was specifically the subject of inquiry and consideration by the Peel Commission. The right of Jews to settle in Trans-Jordan pursuant to the Mandate had been "postponed or withheld" by Britain with the consent of the League of Nations from 16 September 1922, thus restricting the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national homeland in only the remaining 23% of Palestine. (The right of Arabs to settle the West bank of the Jordan River was not "postponed or withheld". On the contrary, Arabs were encouraged by the British administration to do so!)

Contact the Ceders at ceder524@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 26, 2007.

Remember how often we warned here that the "Security Wall" would not provide security unless Israel also exercised military control over the territory on the OTHER side of the wall?

The Pestilinians have a new high-tech breakthrough that makes the "Security Wall" completely ineffective. It is called a ladder!

This article is called "Gaza Terrorists, One Fatah, Cross Security Wall With Ropes," and was written by Ezra HaLevi. It appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) Arab terrorists from Gaza successfully crossed over the Gaza security wall, causing nearby Jewish towns to be put under curfew until the armed men were killed.Sunday morning, 12 more infiltrators were caught -- though young and unarmed.

At least one of the three terrorists who infiltrated Saturday was a member of Fatah; all were wearing IDF uniforms and were heavily armed.

The three took advantage of heavy fog to use a rope and ladder to cross the much-touted security fence, which is being replicated in Judea and Samaria due to its purported effectiveness. To date dozens of Arab terrorists have crossed under the fence, through tunnels, including the terrorists who kidnapped Cpl. Gilad Shalit last year at Kerem Shalom.

IDF Golani Brigade soldiers spotted the men and engaged two of them, killing them both. One IDF soldier was lightly injured in the fighting.

Local Jewish residents of the western Negev towns of Netiv HaAsara, Nahal Oz and Yad Mordechai spent Sabbath morning locked in their homes due to the infiltration.

Golani soldiers then combed the Gaza side of the fence, killing two other Arab terrorists in a shootout. It was reported that two men who had been manning an escape vehicle were arrested. It is unclear whether the men were Israeli-Arabs or PA Arabs that infiltrated earlier and returned to the area with a vehicle.

'Sophisticated' Rope and Ladder

Northern Gaza Region IDF Commander Gen. Moni Katz told Yediot Acharonot that the terrorists had managed to get past the security fence using a "sophisticated device" and were on their way to a vehicle driven by two other terrorists, who escaped back into Gaza during the gunfight. Katz did not elaborate on the nature of the device that allowed the terrorists to enter through the fence.

It has been speculated that the means by which the terrorists breached the wall were not at all sophisticated, consisting of ropes, pulleys and ladders, according to photos published in the major newspapers Sunday. But due to the government's heavy investment in the construction of an identical fence across Judea and Samaria the facts are being kept under wraps.

Katz said the men were armed with assault rifles, several clips of ammunition, hand grenades and bulletproof vests. He admitted that due to the weather and the terrorists' method of crossing over the fence, "Until the moment they opened fire we did not know it was an infiltration."

Fatah and Hamas?

Army Radio reported that the attempted attack was sponsored by Hamas to cause the Erez Crossing to be closed, to sabotage the exit from Gaza of a number of Fatah-affiliated university students.

The Popular Resistance Committee, a joint Hizbullah-style group made up of members of Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad, said its members carried out the infiltration.

At least one Fatah terrorist was involved in the attack, though he was reported to have escaped back to Gaza.

Islamic Jihad Terrorist Killed

Border Police killed an Islamic Jihad terrorist attempting to carry out a suicide bombing and arrested two others near PA-controlled Tul Karem Saturday. The name of the dead terrorist was Tarek Melahem. Zadik Ouda, a senior Islamic Jihad terrorist, opened fire at the soldiers, who returned fire, wounding him. He was apprehended and arrested. A border police officer was wounded during the fighting.

In Jenin, IDF soldiers and Border Police killed another senior Islamic Jihad terrorist, Ala Abu al-Said and his deputy Mustafa Atik Saturday. A third, unnamed terrorist was also killed in the gun battle.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Jock Falkson, August 26, 2007.

In its first comprehensive documentary on the terrorist phenomenon in the Middle East, CNN decided to cover the 3 major religions -- Jewish, Christian and Muslim.

CNN's first presentation of God's Warriors which aired Wednesday, August 23, focused on the Jewish contribution. It turned out to be a pitiful search for virtually nonexistent Jewish terrorists. Amanpour and her researchers could only find this handful:

  • Yigal Amir who killed Rabin;
  • Dr. Goldstein who killed 29 Muslim worshippers;
  • Another who served 7 years in an Israeli prison (whose name I missed).
  • The blowing up of Bassam Shaka, the mayor of Nablus in 1980.
  • Rabbi Kahane, who killed no one;
  • And some nonentities who gave a lot of Israeli soldiers a bad time for carrying out orders to evacuate them from certain settlements. The 'rebels' used sticks and stones but killed no one.

One must perhaps admire the gall of CNN in equating that pitiful number of Israelis which Amanpour has managed to dredge up with the uncounted thousands of Palestinian Arabs who undoubtedly qualify as terrorists for killing innocent Israeli civilians.

Nor should we forget the hundreds of accomplices who plan, aid, abet, harbor and transport the murdering killers of our civilians. Or the millions of Muslims who glorify the killers. And the millions more who pray for Allah to exterminate Israel's Jews and wipe the Jewish state off the map."

The Aipac Illusion

Another of God's Jewish Warriors, according to CNN, is AIPAC*, the well known pro-Israel lobby. Amanpour is there to provide examples of the intense power of this organization which all Congressmen, she says, must obey, including the President. (*American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)

While I do not take exception to the fact that Aipac has powerful friends on Capitol Hill, it is simply not true that Israel gets its way on account of Aipac's "notorious" power over the President and Congress.

Entirely missing from the CNN allegation is the fact that the people of Israel and the USA hold many important and significant values in common. It should surprise no one that these underscore natural bonds of friendship.

  • Like the fact that both share love of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Nor do we glorify death. A majority of Muslims on the other hand love death and pursue Jihad with the fervor of zealots.
  • Like secular education, technological progress, the never ending search for innovation, a free economy and a free press. The lack of these values have resulted in centuries of Muslim backwardness.
  • Like disrespect for women's human rights and respect for "honor killings" and clitoridectomies.
  • Islam cares not for government of the people by the people. What they want is a Caliphate dominated by Shariah law.
  • Muslim states do not permit universal suffrage in the few states which permit limited voting.
  • Our two states respect and practice religious tolerance, whereas Islam respects no other religion and wants nothing less than world domination.
  • We respect and practice monogamy; Islam permits and practices bigamy, even child marriage.
  • Nor do Muslim states have regard for equality before the law. Neither for women, Jews and other infidels.
  • Nor do our two nations admire the inhuman punishments of stoning, decapitating, limb cutting and flogging.
  • Nor do the US and Israel favor preaching and teaching hatred, and revenge by terrorist methods.
  • (I have undoubtedly overlooked other common values.)

Considering the many qualities both the US and Israel hold dear, why should anyone wonder at the friendship which has grown up between the two nations?

Why Does The US Arm Israel's Enemies?

AS to CNN's allegation that the power which Aipac has exercised which has resulted in US endangerment, the facts lead to quite opposite conclusions. That Congressmen and Presidents fear the power of Aipac, as the CNN documentary alleges, represents nothing more than shallow thinking. Some examples:

  • The US has, since 1979, armed Saudi Arabia with military might far beyond its real needs. The total military aid supplied to date is over $40bn. Plus $25 bn non military aid. And still continues annually, to aid one of the richest nations on earth!

  • Who was the enemy in 1979? Little ole Israel, with whom the Saudis have never even signed the cease fire of 1948. Did the US tremble at Aipac's ire? Or Israel's displeasure? Fuggetaboutit.

  • The US continues to arm the Saudis and Egyptians with the most advanced aircraft and military equipment, forcing Israel to buy ever improved weaponry which will hopefully give us an edge should the Saudis, Egyptians and other Arab states decide to attack us again.

  • The US has been arming Egypt with about $3bn annually since 1975. Who is Egypt's enemy? Little ole Israel, that's who. And Aipac's overwhelming power as portrayed by CCN's documentary matters to the US Congress and its Presidents little more than a camel's excretion.

Self-interest Above All

Did Aipac use its very best endeavors to prevent the Saudi and Egyptian rearming? You can bet they did. But overriding all else is the fact that the US looks to its own interests first. When the interests of our two nations converge, the champagne glasses clink. When they diverge the US doesn't give a fig for Aipac. Understandably, the US serves its own interests first. It matters little where the chips fall.

US self interest always trumps Aipac and while Israel may be disappointed, she is seldom if ever surprised. One can hardly credit that CCN was not aware of this.

Jock (Joshua) L. Falkson is a former South African advertising executive, now living in Israel. Contact him at falkson@013.net and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 25, 2007.


when does their lease expire in Geneva and in NYC?

And the Taxpayer is as usual taken to the cleaners to fund this Travesty called UN ......

How much lower can the UN sink beneath its own weight of hypocrisy, oil for food scams, corruption, etc?

This is simply another in a long list of reasons why we should have NOTHING to do with the UN....

What next? The Taliban on the panel!?

As Goebbels said.....

The charges and accusations (racism, e.g.) have to be constant, they have to be endlessly repeated, and (as per Goebbels) fact-truth-logic (or even the practice of the accusation by the accuser) do not matter with propaganda. Goebbels said that the only thing that matters is that the propaganda be effective and that the "stupid masses" believe it......

It's because the world is changing fast, good is becoming evil, evil is becoming good, and the grand plan played by Islamics around the globe has the world postured and practically convinced the West is the "racist", if not "Satan" himself. Our collective dhimmitude is allowing the table to turn. What "was", "is" no more.

Iran on anti-racism committee

Islamic Republic selected by UN for 'leading position' to plan anti-racism conference

This was written by Yaakov Lappin and it was published in Ynet News

Islamic Republic selected by UN for 'leading position' to plan anti-racism conference

Despite its numerous calls for Israel's destruction, and repeated denials of the Holocaust, Iran has been selected by the United Nations for a leading position in a committee that will plan the 2009 UN World Conference against Racism.

The planning committee, which will meet for the first time in Geneva on August 27, will be made up of an inner circle of 20 UN member-states, to be headed by Libya.

The decision to include Iran in the committee has been slammed by UN watchdogs. "As a UN spokesperson against racism, Iran will invert totally the message and mission of the United Nations," Anne Bayefsky, senior editor of the New York-based Eye on the UN, said in a press release.

"Iran is now poised to wrap itself in a UN flag as a lead agent of the next global conference against racism, Durban II," she added, referring to the 2001 UN conference on racism held in Durban, South Africa, which saw unprecedented levels of anti-Zionist rhetoric and calls for Israel's destruction.

Speaking to Ynetnews, Bayefsky said that "the leading exponents of anti-Semitism, whether directed at Jews individually or the Jewish people and its state generally, continue to be provided a global platform at the UN. This is but one example of a broader phenomenon."

"Eye on the UN has found that in 2006 the UN system as a whole directed the most condemnations for human rights abuses against specific states -- first towards Israel and fourth towards the United States. Iran was lower down on the list of UN human rights concerns," Bayefsky said, adding: "And yet the US taxpayer continues to pay a quarter of the bill for activities which demonize Americans and Israelis on a global scale."

A spokesperson for the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed to Ynetnews that "Iran is one of 20 States who are members of the bureau of the Preparatory Committee," but added that "Iran does not occupy a leading role."

When asked how a state which openly denies the Holocaust could find itself in such a role, the spokesperson said: "The Preparatory Committee is an inter-governmental body, meaning States were chosen freely to sit on the Prep-Com. It is the Member-States who decide."

'UN body hijacked again'

Bayefsky explained that the structure of the UN's Human Rights Council has effectively been taken over by the countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), allowing Iran and Libya access to key roles.

"The states were selected by the UN Human Rights Council and the Council is controlled by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The majority of seats on the Council are held by the African and Asian regional groups and the OIC has a majority of seats on each of these groups. Western states do not have the votes to block this outrage and it is another example of the hijacking that has occurred of the UN's lead human rights agency," she said.

Reacting to the statements of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of the Geneva-Based UN Watch organization, said that the UN had failed to explain how Iran had ended up on the planning council.

"I think they are basically dodging the question," Neuer said. "To ask why Iran should be a member, and then to be answered that Iran is a member, is not an answer," he added.

"This conference is turning into a wolf in sheep's clothing. The United Nations' government and diplomats do not think the way regular people think. They treat every country equally and do not use common sense principles. That attitude is contrary to the UN charter, which says members who act contrary to the charter's principles of supporting peace should be expelled," Neuer explained.

"According many diplomats, this will be a fiasco in the making. And it should be noted there are African states that care about legitimate issues concerning racism and want those to be addressed. It's a shame that the Islamic states are intending on subverting this conference as they have done with the Human Rights Council and numerous other UN bodies," Neuer added.

"The High commissioner (Louise Arbour) has to speak truth to power. The high commissioner should express her concern that once again a leading human rights entity at the UN is being headed by Libya with Iran in a leadership position, whatever the UN may say. It undermines any last vestige of moral credibility," he said.

'Israel's options limited'

Asked what his advice would be for Israel on how to deal with the conference, Neuer said: "There is a limited amount of options for Israel. The analogy is to the UN General Assembly, where the numbers speak for themselves, and there is not much Israel can do to prevent certain resolutions."

"The key thing is to work on Western states like Canada and the Europeans. Israel has to be vigilant, has to closely monitor diplomatic developments, and needs to engage with its Western friends and to make sure that the Europeans stand firm and refuse to appease the extremists," Neuer added.

According to Bayefsky, "Israel needs to point continually to the dangerous role played by the UN in undermining the welfare of the Jewish state and its people. The veil of legitimacy of the organization as a leader in human rights protection must be lifted."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 25, 2007.

Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

Early today two terrorists -- intent on a major "martyrdom" operation -- managed to infiltrate into Israel from northern Gaza but were shot and killed before they got far. The sort of infiltration they achieved was highly unusual, as there is a fortified fence across the area. Almost certainly with assistance from one or more persons on the other side, they utilized sophisticated equipment and relied upon a heavy fog in the area to help them slip through. Dressed as IDF soldiers, they were carrying explosives and a variety of weapons. It is believed they were headed for a Negev town.

I never receive news like this without a prayer of gratitude that what might have been was averted. Incidents such as this one keep us mindful: They're out there, they're still trying to get us.


Looking northward with regard to defense, Israel is expanding the deployment of its Arrow missiles. Anticipating that the next war -- whether with Syria or Iran -- will involve a huge onslaught of missiles, the Air Force has decided to place the Arrow -- which is capable of intercepting all of the operational ballistic missiles in Iran and Syria -- in a larger number of locations.

A newer Arrow -- the Arrow 3 -- is currently under development; this missile intercepts incoming missiles at a higher altitude than the current missile. Additionally, a new, advanced version of the Patriot, which takes out lower altitude missiles, is to be put in place to serve as a third layer of defense.

Additionally, the Defense Ministry recently made inquiries to the Pentagon regarding two American-made missile defense systems -- the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) and the Aegis. Reportedly, there is heightened coordination -- with exercises being held -- between our forces and US forces in preparation for the possibility that the US might transfer equipment to Israel.

My (layperson's) take: This preparation is, in one respect, reassuring -- we would be remiss if defense weren't being prepared to the maximum. But we'd be sorely mistaken in imagining that with this in place we are "protected." The key lies in offensive capability, about which, of course, nothing is being said. May it be as thoroughly prepared as our defenses.


Returning to the political front...

Binyamin Netanyahu, head of Likud, has reportedly approached Avigdor Lieberman, who heads Yisrael Beitenu, about running jointly in the next election. Netanyahu, eager to unify right-wing forces and looking to strengthen Likud with the Russian immigrant population here, has offered to save slots for Yisrael Beitenu on the Likud list. Lieberman was at one time associated with Likud. No agreements have been reached yet.

Sources close to Netanyahu say that he is not willing to save slots on the Likud list for those who bolted from Likud for Kadima and are now thinking of returning. These individuals would have to take their chances in the Likud primary. There is considerable ambivalence within Likud about taking back those who walked away in favor of Kadima: suffice it to say they are neither respected nor trusted.


From Arab news sources comes the report that Abbas definitely does not intend to run again for PA president when his term is over in less than two years. Abbas is embroiled in heightened tensions with Farouk Qaddoumi; he currently controls Fatah's Central Committee, which is rejecting Abbas's moves. Put simply, Abbas grows more and more impotent.

Qaddoumi is most definitely not a "moderate" -- he declined to come to PA controlled areas with the signing of the Oslo Accords, preferring to stay in Tunis because he was against any peace treaty with Israel. His control within Fatah is a sign of things to come.

With this comes indication that Salam Fayyad is being promoted by the US as a replacement for Abbas -- but resented by many within Fatah precisely because he is the "US candidate."


Meanwhile, regarding Hamas...

According to a London-based Arabic newspaper, al-Sharq al-Awsat, cited by YNet, Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for Haniyeh, has resigned his position because of his feeling that it was a mistake for Hamas to take over Gaza. He believes that Hamas should be making moves toward reconciliation with Fatah.

And Mashaal today told CNN that Shalit is alive and well and that his release is being negotiated with Israel via Egypt.

While according to Israel Radio, Islamic Jihad's military wing has announced that all of its activities, including launching of Kassams, will be coordinated with Hamas.


The UN Security Council voted on Friday to extend the mandate of UNIFIL for another year, but had declined to expand the mandate of this international force of 13,600. It is supposed to assist the Lebanese army in deploying in the south of Lebanon to create a buffer zone free of Hezbollah forces, and has many restrictions placed upon it.

Token recognition was given to Israeli concerns, with added clauses calling for the immediate release of kidnapped IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev without pre-set conditions, as well as condemnation of terror attacks against UNIFIL troops operating in the area. Without teeth, such clauses are totally meaningless. Do the terrorists attacking UNIFIL troops care if the UN has condemned them? They likely take it as a point of pride.

As Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman pointed out, the flow of weapons from Syria continues and there is still a Hezbollah presence in the south.

This is a joke. And yet our foreign minister -- who helped promoted this force in the first place last year as a way to resolve matters via "diplomacy" -- praised the action to extend the mandate.

What makes this all more revolting is that this past week the UN special envoy to the Middle East, Michael Williams, was here and urged Israel to take "further steps" to strengthen Abbas. He thought we should start with more prisoner releases.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, August 25, 2007.

On the anti-Semitic laws and curriculum of the PA.

Imagine, if you would, that a nascent nation-state, somewhere in the world, was in formation, and that it had taken on these features:

* Its new constitution would not allow for any juridical status for Judaism. Jews would not even be allowed to live in the country.
* Selling land to a Jew would be a capital crime.
* The new school system would inculcate children to make war on the Jews.
* Those who murdered Jews would become the national heroes of the new country.
* Their designated head of state earned his Ph.D. on the thesis that six million Jews were not really murdered during World War II, and that the Zionists were actually allies of the Nazis.

The reaction to such a news item would be an outcry from Jewish groups that monitor and react to anti-Semitism as a matter of policy. Yet, we have seen no outcry from these groups in the case of the proposed Palestinian state, even though it possesses all six characteristics listed above.

Others have expressed their deep concern about the anti-Semitism of the nascent Palestinian entity. Four years ago, this reporter covered a briefing for a visiting United States congressional delegation provided by the Vatican representative to Israel. Archbishop Pietro Sambi warned US lawmakers that the new Palestinian Authority's approved state constitution, funded by USAID, provided no juridical status for any religion other than Islam in the emerging Palestinian Arab entity.

The Papal Nuncio also warned that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had adopted Shariah law. Islamic nations that have adopted Shariah have mandated the absolute supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims as matter of law.

Archbishop Sambi provided our news agency with the PA constitution, with the hope that Jewish groups that monitor anti-Semitism would object to the US-funded Palestinian state constitution. It never happened.

Archbishop Sambi initiated a study of the new PA textbooks, which the Vatican determined to be anti-Semitic in nature. And so, at the recommendation of Archbishop Sambi, the Italian government pulled its money out of the Palestinian Ministry of Education's textbook project.

This past May, Dr. Arnon Groiss, a researcher at the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, made a presentation for European diplomats in Brussels showing how PA textbooks, instead of educating for peace with Israel, promote the violent struggle for liberation against Israel. From these textbooks, Groiss showed that the PA curriculum teaches the following fundamentals:

* Jews are foreigners and have no rights in Palestine.
* The Jews have a dubious, and even murderous, character.
* Israel is an illegitimate usurper that occupied Palestine in 1948 and 1967.
* Israel is the source of all kinds of evil done to the Palestinians.
* Peace with Israel based on reconciliation is not to be sought. A violent struggle for liberation is encouraged instead.
* The exact area to be liberated is never restricted to the West Bank and Gaza alone.
* Jihad and martyrdom are glorified, and terrorist activities against Israel are implicitly encouraged.
* The West is imperialist, aspires to world hegemony, directs a cultural attack against Islam and supports Israel.

The list of accusations against Israel appearing in the new Palestinian Authority schoolbooks includes more than 25 items, including the following:

* Israel contributes to Palestinian social ills and family violence.
* Israel causes the increase of drug abuse cases in Palestinian society.
* Israel pollutes the Palestinian environment.
* Israel usurps Muslim and Christian holy places.
* Israel strives to obliterate the Palestinian national identity and heritage.

This reporter asked spokespeople of the Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defense Minister if they would ask a new Palestinian state to cancel its anti-Semitic curriculum. The spokespeople for the Israeli government provided a clear answer: "This is not on the agenda."

The spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked for the question in writing three weeks ago, confirmed that it was received, and will not respond.

Questions were then posed to Jewish organizations who monitor anti-Semitism -- the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, B'nai Brith, the Anti-Defamation League, the Religious Action Center of the UAHC, the World Jewish Congress, the Institute for Public Affairs of the OU, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Each group was asked if they would request that the American and Israeli governments condition aid to the Palestinian Authority on the nullification of the anti-Semitic constitution and curriculum of the Palestinian Authority.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center responded. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Director of the Wiesenthal Center, wrote: "You have raised an issue that was supposedly addressed during the Oslo process and unfortunately no Israeli government or US administration held the Palestinian leadership accountable. The current questions you raised are important enough that we will urge that the Global Forum on Antisemitism take it up...."

Archbishop Sambi, now the Papal Nuncio in Washington, who has not been afraid to take a clear stand on the issue of official Palestinian anti-Semitism, should be asked to join that forum.

As for the other groups, they should break their silence on this critical issue.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, August 25, 2007.

This come from the website of Yoni the Blogger
-- http://www.yonitheblogger.com/

A former Arab MK accused of spying for Hizbullah during the Second Lebanon War last summer praised the guerrilla group Friday, saying it is now stronger than ever.

Azmi Bishara, a once prominent Arab Knesset leader who has been on the run since June, made the comments during a tour of south Lebanon border villages, where he visited the graves of Lebanese war victims and met with their families.

"Everybody envies the Lebanese for their resistance (Hizbullah) and its leadership, but I envy the resistance for its people," said Bishara, according to comments carried by the state-run National News Agency.

Bishara also condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanese civilians during the fighting last year.

"The massacres that were carried out by Israel were not a coincidence but were a strategic policy to frighten people," he said.

He praised Hizbullah for its performance during the 34-day war last summer, which was triggered by Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross border guerrilla raid.

"I am convinced that Israel has become incapable of attacking Lebanon again, and that is a very big achievement for the resistance," he said.

"Hizbullah has rearmed itself in the last year and perhaps is now stronger than ever," he added, according to the NNA. He did not elaborate.

Bishara left Israel in early June after being grilled twice by investigators and later resigned his Parliament seat. Police said he would be arrested immediately if he returns to Israel on charges of espionage for Hizbullah.

Both he and Hizbullah have denied the accusations. He has said he is a victim of political persecution.

Bishara has antagonized many Jewish Israelis over the years by meeting with some of Israel's bitterest enemies, including the leaders of Syria and Hizbullah. A Christian from the town of Nazareth who joined parliament in 1996, he frequently speaks out in favor of Palestinian rights.

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 25, 2007.

This appeared today in World Net Daily

Preacher says CBS 'caved' to demands of Islamic organization

A CBS television station in Tampa, Fla., has announced it is taking the ongoing "Live Prayer with Bill Keller" program, on the airwaves since 2003, off after the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations complained of the religious views Keller expressed.

CAIR-Tampa issued a statement that "WTOG-TV (CS44) dropped 'Live Prayer' after the station and its parent company CBS received a letter from and had discussions with the Islamic civil rights and advocacy group."

"It's clear what happened. CAIR pressured CBS in New York to take us off. I have always dealt with the issues of the day from a biblical worldview on my program," Keller told WND. "[The Bible] calls Islam a false religion. They took great offense. CBS caved."

Keller, who has been involved in controversy before, said the last show on the old station will be on Friday, Aug. 31, and the following Monday he will launch a morning program on a competing station.

"We already had our new morning show in the works," he said.

WTOG station manager Laura Caruso told the St. Petersburg Times the decision to end Keller's contract was a mutual decision and had nothing to do with complaints from individuals.

But CAIR's leaders "say both local and network representatives assured them that the program would no longer air on the station after Sept. 11," according to the Times report.

And Keller told WND he didn't go willingly.

"I'm saying nothing now that I haven't been saying for five years," said Keller. "Ultimately, it was pressure by CAIR that intimidated these people into taking me off the air. It was not mutually agreeable. They told me they were taking me off the air, period."

CAIR said it had asked earlier this month that CBS remove Keller's nightly talk show. CAIR-Tampa Executive Director Ahmed Bedier had told CBS chief Tom Kane as well as WTOG that he objected to the programming.

"In the hate-filled program, 'Live Prayer with Bill Keller,' Islam and Muslims are referred to in the most vicious and bigoted of terms. For example on May 2, 2007, host Bill Keller said: 'Islam is a 1,400-year-old lie from the pits of hell. It's leading a billion peoples [sic] to hell ... those who follow this false religion will die and be lost for all eternity.' On the same program, he also said, 'The false religion of Islam is about hate, lies and death,'" the letter said.

"It is our belief that anti-Islamic rhetoric like that used in 'Live Prayer with Bill Keller' is exactly the type of language that is likely to incite hate crimes against the American Muslim community," the letter said.

When the cancellation was announced, Bedier said, "While we strongly support freedom of speech and religion, the public airwaves should not be used to promote hatred and bigotry. We commend WTOG-TV and CBS for rejecting any association with those who would demonize a minority group."

Keller told WND that his new show, Live Prayer AM on WTTA (Ch. 38), will be in a slightly different format, with a few more guests.

"But I will still be dealing with the news and events from a biblical worldview," he said. "That will remain the same."

He began broadcasting on WTOG on March 3, 2003, and has done more than 1,170 shows so far, paying the station several hundred thousand dollars a year for the airtime used, he told WND.

In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, a CAIR spokesman claimed credit for the removal of the program.

"They really based their decision upon our letter," Ramzy Kilic, CAIR's civil rights coordinator, told the newspaper. "They really did not know that Bill Keller was involved with this kind of anti-Muslim rhetoric."

Keller, since beginning his Live Prayer Internet ministry in 1999, has criticized Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses as well as Scientologists.

Earlier this year he earned the wrath of Americans United for Separation of Church and State when he wrote in a devotional that a vote for Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate for president who is a Mormon, is a vote for Satan.

The activist group asked the Internal Revenue Service to begin investigating Keller for possible tax law violations.

At that point, Keller laughed off the claims. "Let them come after me for making a spiritual statement about Mitt Romney. I would love that," he said.

As WND reported earlier, while some evangelical Christians were defending the presidential candidacy of Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, Keller took a step in the other direction.

"If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" he wrote in a daily devotional sent to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers on May 11.

Sharpton, the Democratic Party activist and former presidential candidate, had been widely condemned for singling out Romney's faith as an issue in the campaign.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," he said.

Keller also said Romney wasn't a target; he was trying to expose the Mormon church, saying when LDS members talk of God and Jesus they are not talking about the God and Jesus of Christianity.

Keller was a businessman convicted of insider trading in 1989, a crime for which he served more than two years in federal prison. After getting out, he received a degree in biblical studies from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and has been in full-time ministry ever since. He estimates he and his volunteers in the ministry have responded to more than 60 million e-mail prayer requests and helped introduce 190,000 people to Christ.

Participants in a Times blog had a range of responses to the news that the television show was being dropped.

"All I can say is ... Go Bill, tell it like it is ... God bless you," said Michele.

"When did Bill Keller and the rest of our country lose the right to free speech," Added "G." "Each night he is just speaking what God, the God of the Bible says. Bill is not afraid to stand up for Jesus. Jesus says, 'I am the way, the truth and the life.'"

"More Truth," added, "Poor, poor abused Muslims. The abuse they've had all because of the Billy Graham Organization attacking America on 9/11/01/ Muslims are so peaceful in the way they threaten to kill infidels." "JM4" had this to say: "CBS yielding to demands of a supposed 'civil rights organization' isn't surprising. It is surprising that there is no acknowledgement that CAIR is a federal unindicted co-conspirator in a terror related case in TX. Journalism at its finest! HA!"

The writer was referring to evidence at the trial of the Texas-based Islamic charity Holy Land Foundation and five of its former organizers, who are accused of supporting Hamas. Prosecutors named the Council on American-Islamic Relations an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

"LOVE EVERYONE" added this: "In the name of Christanity, (sic) Jews are bad, God only lives in the south where he told them blacks should be slaves and hatred was okay. Christianity has killed more people than any other religion on earth. I choose to beleive (sic) in GOD not US Christianity."

One exile is when they remove us from our land, but the spiritual exile is much more difficult; it is exile that takes place when the connection between the Nation and its land is forgotten.

We all know what exile is. Exile is what happens to a person who was kicked off his land. But this is not the worst exile. It is possible to exile a nation from its land by force, but if the nation aspires to return, sets up days of mourning in memory of the exile, remembers each centimeter of its land, remembers its history in that land, remains faithful to the holy sites and its Forefathers burial ground and educates each generation from generation to generation to remember the land under any conditions, then this exile is never complete because the connection between the nation and its land was never entirely severed.

Memory, education and longing -- all three are the methods to defend from the full force of the exile effect and they might preserve a nation until such time when it is possible to stop the exile and begin returning from it.

If so, what is full exile? Full exile takes place when the linkage between the land and the nation is forgotten. If there is no memory of previous ownership, if there is no desire to return, if children are not told stories about the land, then the exile the enemy wished to impose on the nation, the disconnect between the nation and its land receives its full force. If a nation forgot the fact that it was exiled, then it is true exile.

From the idea of the nation's collective memory loss comes the birth of true exile, stems surprising conclusion: A nation can be in exile even when it is living on its land. Like a person who suffers memory loss while he is sitting at home, a nation can lose its memory totally and in such a way that is cannot remember it arrived home.

To remember Rachel

This is Israel's situation today. The memory that remained in our collective conscious for two thousand years has gone through gradual erosion process and already cannot block the exile surge. Take for instance Rachel's tomb. From the Jewish Nation's emotional point of view there is no second to Rachel's tomb. Rachel's biblical life story; the description of the Prophet Jeremiah of her cry for her children being exiled and God's promise that they will still return to their borders; the generation after generation who visited her tomb and the magnificent burial estate Moshe Montefiore built for her in 1841 -- all are different expressions of the manner that kept us remembering Rachel's Tomb, in the Bethlehem olive orchards during the exile years. If you could, visit Rachel's Tomb today. Monstrosity of complicated walls; gun posts, gates and chains were built around it, as they were going to stop the invaders. The place has turned ugly. If you actually succeed in entering the place, the guards will not let you walk around freely because, they say, of the danger that lurks everywhere, even inside the maze of the high walls.

Take your children to Rachel's Tomb. Try teaching them about our Foremother Rachel while you enter with them into this big jail fortress. You will not succeed because you will not be able to pass on to them the sense of value of the place. It is too ugly, too military, to frightening, for it to have any kind of attraction, physical or emotional.

Only those who remember Rachel Tomb as it was could experience the emotional linkage to the place. If current conditions continue, the next generation will not remember Rachel Tomb and the exile from it will be stronger then it ever was during the last two thousand years. The way they exiled us from the physical Rachel Tomb, so Rachel Tomb is removed from our souls.

The exile phenomenon exists everywhere, not only in Rachel's Tomb. Joseph Tomb in Shchem has been lost after it was destroyed by the Arabs and was neglected by Israel. Hebron, our Forefathers domicile and burial, more often than not, is on the verge of destruction. Temple Mount, the place of the two Jewish Temples, is systematically castrated from its history (not to speak about its future value). Judea and Samaria, the heart of the biblical land, are disconnected by a winding wall that hurts the land and partitions between our past and our legacy. It seems that the forces of exile spitefully attack the places where our collective memory is the strongest.

Intellectual Exile

Physical exile is one thing but intellectual exile, the memory disconnection is the final exile guillotine. The compelled forgetfulness infrastructure was laid during decades. The Jewish Nation historical linkage to its land was systematically wiped from the consciousness. At school many Jewish children learn to despise the Bible. They provide them with revisionist and anti Zionist version of history and the stories that could bring about the emotional linkage to places suck as Rachel Tomb are no longer taught. New jargon fills the void that is left in the young heads: Occupation, Palestine, peace and post Zionism. Our history is being wiped out and with it our connection to our land.

This is not the first time there are attempts to cut off the memory of the Land of Israel among Jews. Prior of course were the two big exiles that took place when the Babylonians and Romans pillaged Jerusalem and sloughed the nation.

Another event however clearly reflects what takes place today: the Jewish king Yerav'am ben Nevat was a villain who ruled the northern tribes during Israel's divided kingdom (10th century BC). He wanted to cause his subjects to forget King David dynasty that ruled in Jerusalem at that time. For that purpose, and as an alternative to the temple in Jerusalem, he built two pagan temples and guided his nation to go pray there. But the nation insisted to go on visiting the real temple. Yerav'am built manned barriers in order to stop his subjects from going up to Jerusalem and hoped that aggressive obstruction will cause them to forget the Temple. Two hundred years passed before this "separation fence" was removed but then it was too late; the nation indeed forgot!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, August 24, 2007.

This comes from AP at
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1187779152826&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A charter school has been ordered to temporarily suspend Hebrew classes while officials try to determine whether teachers are advocating the Jewish faith.

Broward Schools Superintendent James Notter sent a letter to officials at the Ben Gamla Charter School in Hollywood on Wednesday advising them to halt Hebrew classes until the school board could further examine the curriculum.

"If it comes up in the course of conversation, that is one thing but if it comes to promoting religion or proselytizing, we don't want it to happen," said Keith Bromery, a spokesman for the Broward schools.

Ben Gamla is in its first week of operation as the country's first Hebrew-language charter school, but school founder Peter Deutsch, a former Democratic congressman, said he told teachers Thursday to halt the classes. He said he shared Notter's aim to ensure religion doesn't enter a publicly funded school.

"His goal and my goal are really exactly the same," Deutsch said.

The ban on Hebrew will extend at least until Sept. 11, when the board next meets. Until then, time that would have been spent on language instruction will be used teaching Israeli geography and Jewish history and culture.

Deutsch said he believes the school has every right to continue Hebrew classes, but decided to stop them to ease concerns. Both he and school board member Eleanor Sobel, in whose district Ben Gamla is located, have described their efforts as "bending over backwards" for one another.

Ben Gamla presented its curriculum to the board for a third time Tuesday, but Sobel said it still had religious overtones.

"We're going into the fourth round now and maybe that's what it takes to get it right," she said.

Ben Gamla, which has about 400 students in kindergarten through eighth grades, has generated controversy since it was proposed. Students follow state curriculum, but also were to take a Hebrew language course, and one of their core subjects -- math or physical education, for example -- was to be taught bilingually as well.

School officials ran into tough opposition at Broward County School Board meetings when proposing Hebrew textbooks that included passages criticized as being too religious. Even the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federation of Broward County have expressed church-state separation issues.

Ben Gamla hopes to expand further in South Florida and to open schools in New York and Los Angeles. It takes its name from a Jewish high priest, serves kosher food, and its director is a rabbi. Without Hebrew classes, though, Deutsch said its most central component is missing.

"It is kind of crazy -- the only Hebrew-English charter school in America doesn't teach Hebrew," he said.

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 24, 2007.

This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) and it appeared on the IMRA website yesterday. Contact Dr. Lerner by email at imra@netvision.net.il and visit the website -- http://www.imra.org.il

Q17. As the Palestinian and Israeli prepare to engage in direct negotiations that would reach to a final solution to establish a Palestinian state, to what extent do you support or oppose each of the following:

2. Any land swap between both sides to reach a final settlement
Strongly support 10.8 Somewhat support 27.2
Somewhat oppose 25.0 Strongly oppose 36.4
No answer 0.6

3. Declaring parts of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian State
Strongly support 11.4 Somewhat support 19.0
Somewhat oppose 24.7 Strongly oppose 42.5
No answer 2.4

4. Allowing Israel to keep control of major settlement blocs inside the West Bank in exchange for equal Israeli land
Strongly support 3.8 Somewhat support 13.6
Somewhat oppose 25.0 Strongly oppose 56.9
No answer 0.7

Jerusalem Media & Communications Center poll of a representative sample of 1,199 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and Gaza Strip carried out 16-20 August 2007.


That's not what the domestic and foreign withdrawal supporters keep on asserting the Palestinians will go for.

President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, PM Olmert, FM Livni, Tony Blair, etc. are all confident, based on the handful of English speaking Palestinians they may have actually talked with, that a workable deal could be reached based on the very same ideas so clearly rejected by the Palestinian street.

There are two responses to this reality: One is to commission polls with cooked questions to try to force more favorable results. The other is to take the omniscient approach and assert that it doesn't matter what the street thinks because they don't know what is good for them and will ultimately embrace a deal based on elements that they now reject.

This is playing with fire.

Because it means creating a sovereign Palestinian state, with everything that sovereignty means, with a built in set of grievances for a return to conflagration.

On the other hand:

Main reason behind feeling of concern
25% The economic hardship
28% The absence of security for my family
27% The internal power struggle
03% The Israeli occupation
03% Family problems
13% I have no concerns

Near East Consulting poll of representative sample of adult Palestinians
11-14 August, 2007

Contrary to what the politicians say, the Israeli "occupation" is hardly the top concern of the Palestinian street.

What does this mean?

That the pressure for a sovereign Palestinian state relying on a house-of-cards arrangement is external and top down.

Creative forms of autonomy remain the most viable "solution" for the foreseeable future.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 24, 2007.
David Bedein wrote this:

Dear Naomi

CNN is thrilled if people from Israel write nasty letters TO CNN -- they will share that with their Arab and lefty viewers, and then they will write letters.

As a former CNN radio corresondent in Israel, and as someone who has accompanied numerous CNN crews on a per diem basis over the past 20 years, I can attest to the fact that what bothers and hurts CNN would be to hit them where it hurts the most -- with their advertisers. You may quote what I am saying to anyone. Please ask those who viewed and taped the program to determine who the advertisers are. I suggest that one advertiser be targeted. That will drive them crazy at CNN more than anything else. You can use and apply this methodology to almost any media outlet hit then in the pocket book with their advertisers.

Brachot Rabot


CAMERA has thoughtfully provided an action list of sponsors.

CALL CNN and leave a comment: 404-827-1500

Submit a comment on CNN's "report an error" form:

WRITE TO A SPONSOR whose ad ran during the "God's Jewish Warriors" episodes. Tell the company that you are disappointed that their product or service was associated with "God's Jewish Warriors," a program that bashed Israel and unfairly smeared pro-Israel American Christians and Jews as disloyal Americans. Express concern that they tarnished their reputation for integrity by sponsoring such a show and encourage them to redirect their advertising dollars to more journalistically professional networks. Urge them to speak to CNN about the program's lack of standards.

Remember, be polite! They likely didn't choose which exact show their ad would appear in, but they can certainly chastise CNN for putting their ad in a shoddy show that angered their customers!

Partial List of SPONSORS:

Submit a comment on their Corporate Responsibility "Contact Us" form:
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/social/contact_us.htm Or call (408) 765-8080 and ask to speak to CEO
Paul Otellini

Submit a comment on their website:
Or call and ask for Chairman Tom James or
President/COO Chet Helck:
727-567-1000 or 800-248-8863

(Orkin Pest Control is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rollins, Inc.)
Gary W. Rollins, CEO, President and COO
Rollins, Inc., 2170 Piedmont Rd., NE, Atlanta, GA 30324
tel: 404-888-2000 Ask to speak to Gary Rollins
(If unable to speak to, or leave a message for Gary Rollins, you can leave a message on their "Business Abuse Hotline," since their advertising department harmed Orkin's reputation by allowing its ad to run on "God's Jewish Warriors.") Business Abuse Hotline: 1-800-241-5689
I don't have an email for Rollins, but you may get his attention by writing to:

Call Michael Dan, CEO for Brinks Company
Telephone: 804.289.9600
Email: info@BrinksCompany.com

Call CEO Philip Schoonover: 804-527-4000

Other sponsors included:

Direct TV
Verizon Wireless
HSBC direct.com
Centrum Silver

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 24, 2007.

This was written by Tsafrir Ronen August 22, 2007 and it appeared in Arutz7
http://www.inn.co.il:80/News/News.aspx/165801. I translated it from the Hebrew.

Wrong terminology should not be used! Our duty is to use accurate terminology! Enough of using the name Palestinians. Neither today nor ever has there been a nation or authentic people with such a name. If indeed there were, then, let us be honest, there would be no Eretz Yisrael -- the Land of Israel.

With this preface, we must admit that we are not only engaged in a military war with tanks, guns, cannons, and rockets but also in a psychological war to maintain our identity -- the Jewish Identity with our ancient Homeland, the Land of Israel.

Two thousand years ago, the Romans, in their attempt to severe our ties to our Land, tried to rob us of our identity by changing the name "Eretz Yisrael" to "Palestine." They renamed Jerusalem "Aelia Capitolina," a name that disappeared during the 1,300 years of the Islamo-Arab occupation of our Land, Eretz Yisrael. In fact, the Arabs were the ones to neglect using the Roman name of "Palestine." During their occupation, the Land had no name, and it was known as the southern part of what is today Syria.

It is important to realize that at the beginning of the Arab occupation, 2.5 million people lived in the Land of Israel, which was considered to be the most densely populated area in the ancient world. In 1850, toward the end of the Ottoman Empire, only 250,000 people resided in our Land, which had been ravaged and made desolate for the 2,000 years as it waited for us to return.

That was the Arabs only affiliation -- their only identification -- with this "territory." To us, Jews, it has been our national home for centuries.

History has recorded the duplicitous tactics employed by the British during their Mandate here. Instead of facilitating the creation of the Jewish homeland with which they had been charged, Churchill appropriated 78% of that land and set up an Arab entity called "Trans-Jordan" -- known as "eastern Palestine." This was in direct contradiction to the wishes of the League of Nations, which in 1922 had unanimously assigned through the Mandate for Palestine that both sides of the Jordan River be used for the establishment of a viable Jewish state that included the Gaza Strip, Judea, and Samaria and what is today Jordan.

It should be made abundantly clear that in the establishment of Trans-Jordan, Churchill had acted illegally and against the wishes of the League of Nations as well as against the wishes and trust of his own British government.

In 1921, the British created the position of Mufti of Jerusalem. They appointed the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini to this position, and he was the most prominent Arab figure in Palestine during the Mandatory period. The British also promoted the Arabs to create their false identity! Later on, this Jew hating Mufti joined Hitler in his attempt via the "Final Solution" to destroy Zionism.

Therefore, Arutz 7, please stop using this propaganda name our enemy invented! Please stop using our enemy propaganda terminology!

Make a habit of NOT using the names Palestine or Palestinians, as it will continue bringing about our demise that is already underway!

There are NO "Palestinians"! They are ARABS, some live in the Arabs countries and fights us from there, and some live in Eretz Yisrael and fight us from within, on our Land! Their language is Arabic, their religion is Islam, and they belong to the Arab world. They are living in Eretz Yisrael, NOT in Palestine, simply because, once upon a time, they conquered the land. If you/we continue to march on the path of their propaganda, you/we will end up believing that you/we reside in Palestine; that is, you are occupying their land and from Palestine you/we will be expelled.

If indeed it is the country of the "Palestinians," then YOU, JEWS, have no place in this country. We already know that in their countries the Arabs practice Judenrein, the German term that means "clean of Jews," and Christianrein, "clean of Christians"! This is exactly what they want.

For that matter, they keep using the word "Occupation"! A Nation cannot be an occupier of its own land, only an occupier of someone else's land. The Nation of Israel cannot be the occupier of Eretz Yisrael in the same way that the French nation cannot be the occupier of France. France is the French people's land the same way that Eretz Yisrael is the Jewish Nation's land!

It is OUR Land! If you go on calling the land Eretz Yisrael, you will continue living here for an eternity because it is the Land of the Nation of Israel! End of story!

Become the pioneers of this change of terminology effort and become the Israeli media! Call them by their name: Arabs! Call them Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria, or call them Arabs who live in Eretz Yisrael. This way it will be crystal clear to the world that they are the intruders, the invaders, the occupiers! It will be crystal clear to the world that it is NOT their Land!

Using the enemy propaganda word "Palestinians," make them RIGHT: YOU inhabit their land, Palestine! You are not legitimate here; you are the invaders and the occupiers of someone else's land. This is exactly what they want the world to think, and many, including Jews, have already bought into the falsehood and lies! ENOUGH of the enemy's cancerous propaganda eating our nation and country alive.

Also refrain from using the word Left/Leftists. From here on, we must call them DEFEATISTS! There are DEFEATISTS, and there are NATIONALISTS/PATRIOTS! We must stop using the term "Right Wing Activist"; this is a politically manipulated term.

We are ALL the people of Eretz Yisrael. Yes, we are the people of Eretz Yisrael, and the defeatists think it is the Land that belongs to our enemy! Call them DEFEATISTS because the enemy's propaganda and their psychological war affected them and defeated them! They were convinced that Israel should now be called Palestine the same way that the Romans called it 2,000 years ago when they conquered the land and expelled and dispersed us! We cannot allow another expulsion of Jews from their homeland!


Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, August 24, 2007.

This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared today in Jewish World Review
www.jewishworldreview.com Caroline 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.

As the cliche goes, "A conservative is a liberal whose been mugged by reality." Like most cliches, this one exposes a larger truth. Namely, people often base their views on their fantasies of how the world should be than on the reality of how the world actually is.

Following this line, the September 11, 2001 attacks can be seen as a large-scale mugging. After the attacks, the same American people that had ignored the threat of totalitarian Islam since the Iranian revolution first categorized the US as the Great Satan back in 1979, acknowledged the danger and recognized it was at war. The overwhelming majority of Americans supported President George W. Bush when he said that the US would fight to destroy all global terror organizations and take down the regimes that sponsor them.

But even before the fires were put out in Lower Manhattan, voices from two quarters were already claiming that the US should stay in Dreamland.

First, there were the radical leftists like Susan Sontag and Michael Moore who wrapped themselves in the banner of the human rights of the wretched of the Earth. They claimed that al Qaida was simply giving Americans their comeuppance for dominating the world through McDonalds and Levis.

Next there were people like former presidents Carter and Bush's national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, assorted university professors, and CIA analysts who wrapped themselves in the banner of realism. They claimed that American support for Israel is what brought the Islamic world to hate the country and kill thousands of its citizens by flying hijacked airplanes into buildings.

In both cases, the fantasists ignored completely Osama bin Laden's declarations that his goal is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. They disregarded the political and cultural milieus marked by inexhaustible envy towards the West and the US that gave rise to al Qaida and its sister organizations. Rather than acknowledge the reality of real war with real enemies, both camps of fantasists argued that instead of slaying these twin dragons, the US should appease them by serving them Israel for lunch.

These voices were relegated to the margins of public debate until the lead up to the 2004 presidential elections. Ahead of those elections, backed by George Soros's financial muscle, the fantasists had an enormous impact of the debate in the Democratic Party. Politicians who until then had supported the war generally and in Iraq particularly clamored to decry it.

This week, two leftist institutions -- the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine -- published a survey of conservative, moderate, and liberal foreign policy experts. The results of the survey show clearly that while still a minority, the fantasists are far from marginal today.

14 percent of those surveyed believe that Israel is the US's least helpful ally. While unfortunate, this is far from the survey's most troubling result.

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group's report, which was released last December recommended that the administration sell Israel off in order to buy Iranian, Syrian and Saudi cooperation in Iraq that could pave the way to an orderly American retreat from the country. ▄ber fantasists James Baker and Lee Hamilton asserted that if the US forces Israel to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem to the Palestinians, all will be well with Iraq. 88 percent of the foreign policy experts surveyed agreed with them.

53 percent of the experts, (38% of the conservatives, 59% of the moderates and 59% of the liberals), believe that the US should recognize Hamas. 47 percent, (29% of the conservatives, 49% of the moderates and 61% of the liberals), believe that the US should recognize Hizbullah.

As for Iran, 68 percent of the survey's participants think that the Iranian threat can be contained through negotiations. Only 10 percent think that the US should attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Indeed, a significant minority is of the opinion that the world stands to benefit from a nuclear-armed Iran. A quarter of the conservatives, 29% of the moderates and 41% of the liberal experts claimed that Iran will behave more responsibly if it acquires nuclear capabilities. Only 32 percent think that Iran will attack Israel with nuclear bombs. Only 24 percent think it likely that Iran would transfer nuclear devices to terrorists.

A brief look at recent statements by Iran's leaders and its terrorist vassals suffice to show how cut off these views are from reality. Last Saturday, Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei said, "America and its followers are stuck in a whirlpool and they sink deeper as time passes. A dangerous future is predicted for them."

Wednesday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signaled that Iran will share its nuclear know-how with others saying, "If nuclear energy is something good, all nations should enjoy it on the basis of law."

In an interview with Britain's Independent, Iraqi Shiite terror boss Muqtada al Sadr admitted that his group trains with Hizbullah. Sadr said, We have formal links with Hizbullah. We copy Hizbullah in the way they fight and their tactics, we teach each other and we are getting better through this."

On the occasion of the one-year anniversary of last year's war against Israel, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah told Iranian television that Hizbullah acts at Teheran's pleasure.

"I am a lowly soldier of the Imam Khamenei. Hizbullah youths acted on behalf of the Imam Khomeini and sent their blessings to the Iranian people," Nasrallah said.

On August 6, Osama Hamdan, Hamas's representative in Lebanon told al Kawthar television that Hamas is preparing for war not because expects Israel to attack, "but because the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity [Israel] off the face of the Earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out."

Although President Bush insistently rejects the fantasists approach to world affairs, his current policies towards Iran and Israel reflect their views. Indeed the administration's policies towards both countries read like a page out of the Baker-Hamilton playbook.

The administration maintains its slavish devotion to negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons program in spite of the fact that the diplomatic track failed demonstrably three years ago. It recently expanded its diplomatic offensive to include conducting direct talks with the Iranians on Iraq. Iran has responded to America's conciliatory stance by expanding its uranium enrichment activities and escalating attacks in Iraq.

As to Israel, the Americans are pressuring Israel to conduct negotiations with Fatah towards an Israeli surrender of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. Such withdrawals would foment the rise of yet another base for global jihad run by Iran's Palestinian proxies in the center of the shriveled Jewish state.

To advance this aim, the US pressured Israel to pardon some 178 Fatah terror fugitives and is now pressuring it to pardon another hundred. This is despite the fact that this week the Fatah terrorists announced they would renew their attacks on Israel.

The Americans have pledged to renew training of Fatah's Force 17 militia. This week the New York Sun published an interview with Abu Yusuf, a Force 17 commander who admitted that previous US training sessions enabled Fatah to murder Israelis more effectively.

Other Fatah leaders told the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh this week that Fatah forces are openly cooperating with Hamas cells in Judea and Samaria.

If the Americans want to know what will happen if their foreign policy fantasists take charge of their affairs, they have only to cast a glance at what is happening in Israel today. Because in Israel, the fantasists are firmly in charge of policy. With the twin goals of fostering peace and enhancing Israel's international standing, Israel's fantasist leaders are driving the country to the outer reaches of La La Land.

In the name of peace, the Olmert government is conducting semi-secret negotiations with Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas. According to press reports Olmert and his colleagues are offering Abbas 92 percent of Judea and Samaria, the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, and land in the Negev which will connect Gaza to Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Furthermore, according to press reports, the Olmert government is willing to accept Israeli responsibility for the fate of the Arabs who left Israel in 1948 and for their descendants. What this means in the real world is that Israel is seeking to extend Iran's control over Gaza to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and then to fill these Iranian enclaves with hostile foreign Arabs.

In the interests of enhancing Israel's international cache, Israel is courting the UN which in the Olmert government's fantasy world is Israel's friend. To foster good relations, Sunday the government endorsed the extension of UNIFIL's mandate in south Lebanon despite the fact that UNIFIL's 13,000 soldiers did nothing to prevent Hizbullah's rearmament and reassertion of control over Lebanon's border with Israel over the past year.

On November 29, the government is planning to have Israel's parliamentarians reenact the General Assembly's decision to partition the Land of Israel on November 29, 1947 and so promote the fiction that Israel owes its existence to the UN. The government has asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to preside over the session.

In the real world, the UN is a hostile institution controlled by tyrannies that works actively to delegitimize Israel's right to exist. To this end, next week, the UN will convene two anti-Israel forums in Europe. First, the European Parliament will host an anti-Israel hate fest sponsored by the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

Second, in Geneva, the UN will convene the first planning session for its second anti-racism conference scheduled to take place in 2009. That the conference will be a reenactment of the anti-Semitic orgy of hatred which took place in Durban, South Africa in 2001 is made clear by the fact that Libya is chairing the planning session. Iran, Cuba and Pakistan are all members of the planning committee.

Fantasies are alluring. Peddling them can even get you elected. But the majority of Americans who reject fantasy as a basis for making real world decisions should take heed of Israel's example.

That example shows that despite the fantasists fervent efforts to smother it, reality never goes away. Sooner or later, it mugs you. Sometimes, all it does is pick your pocket. But the longer you ignore it, the more dangerous it becomes.

Contact Koira at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 24, 2007.


Treason and duplicity abide in the Israeli and US governments, seldom exposed. We need people to publicize inside information. In Israel, most of the media, being co-conspirators with the leftist regimes or fearing them, would ignore it.

Right-wingers suspect that the alacrity with which Olmert caves in to US and Arab demands that he just had rejected is due to US pressure. Bush's motive is said to be get an Arab-Israel treaty, to secure an honored place in history. Over-eager, he is likely to accept anything, not a legitimate reconciliation. After he leaves office, the agreement would collapse. It has to. Where then, will be his place in history? At the time of signing, he will be glorified. A few years later, historians would realize he paved the way for the next war on Israel.

The State Dept. motive is to please the Arabs and rescind Jewish sovereignty.


In the past, left-wingers declared they would refuse military orders to expel Arabs from illegally built houses and commit violence against those sent to enforce the orders. They also called on Israelis to refuse to fight in Lebanon and in the Territories. Now that Israel expels Jews from houses it (improperly) calls illegal, and some good Jews refuse military orders to expel Jews from them, left-wingers become self-righteously patriotic about it. They declare that refusals to obey orders are anti-democratic and must be punished.

The Jews pay for their land but the Arabs often do not. Peace Now seeks more evictions and destruction of Jewish houses in Hebron. It does not urge similar action against the thousands of illegal Arab houses in Israel and the Territories.


When deciding whether Jewish religion, Jewish secularism, or Arab Islam is the more violent, take into account that the Arab Muslims celebrate weddings by firing guns into the air, and religious Jews have the lowest crime rates.


Assessing Muslims as if we were central to their development, someone told me today that the US radicalized them. For many decades, Islamists were preaching and setting up radical mosques and madrassas. Has that no effect, only the US has? How do we radicalize them? I was told it is because we support dictators. We have supported dictators elsewhere, but that didn't radicalize those nations. People make up explanations without foundation.


Yiftah Shapir suggests that Israel not oppose the additional US arms for S. Arabia. He said that in the past, S. Arabia did not send serious forces against Israel, it would not want to antagonize the US, it needs stability there for its oil market, and Israeli objection would anger the US.

Dr. Aaron Lerner finds it shortsighted not to factor in the Saudis. Omitting them when weighing the balance of power helps Israel make concessions to the Arabs. The Saudi air force now trains with Egypt's (IMRA, 8/7).

In the past, S. Arabia could not field serious forces. Now it can. It is a significant factor, when added to other enemy forces. S. Arabia probably feels it can mend fences with the US, after displeasing it. On the other hand, destroying Israel would not displease the State Dept.. Factor that in!

S. Arabia is itself unstable and engenders instability in many parts of the world. Mr. Shapir's rationale is deficient. A wise country prepares for the worst.


Thirty Kfir Brigade counter-terrorism experts refused their unit's orders to help evacuate Jews from the (otherwise empty) former Hebron wholesale market for what they consider a political move. They proudly protect Jews, not expel Jews. Peace Now called the refusal political (meaning ideological?). "Major General Shamni stated that 'this phenomenon endangers the foundations on which the IDF operates, being the people's army in a democratic state, which is obligated to carry out any mission given to it'". (IMRA, 8/6.) Not perfidious missions!

Two Jewish families were forcibly expelled by Israel police from their homes in the former market. The police were brutal, but youths threw rocks at them. One police tactic was to pull down the panties of female protestors. Policy is supposed to be to have female police to handle female protestors.

A difference between this struggle and that of a year ago is that now youths keep coming back and struggling again. They do not give up (Arutz-7, 8/7).

I can't urge others to risk jail to preserve our homeland and nationality. However, it would be more proper for those soldiers to shoot Olmert, Peres, Barak, and Livni, than to brutally (they do it brutally, there) chase Jews out of their homes in Hebron. Since most power is in the hands of an antisemitic cabal, a small act of insurrection would be a green light for major persecution. Israel really needs a coup to restore Jewish control. Peres emphatically does not identify as a Jew (except for politics). He distinguishes between Jews and Israelis.


The government explained to P.A. businessmen how to make use of the Israeli Port of Ashdod, through which they ship goods. In past years, the Peres Peace Center sponsored such seminars (IMRA, 8/7).

This is the first time I heard of the Peres Peace Center doing something other than funneling money to Peres' fellow conspirators in the Rabin assassination.


Near Hadera, Israel, are 12,000 cows. Their manure releases methane gas, the premier greenhouse effect chemical. The Hefer Valley Cooperative Society, interested in conservation, has started a factory that converts the manure into electricity before the methane can be released. Plant operation uses less than a quarter of the electricity produced.

The example is going to be emulated elsewhere in Israel (Arutz-7, 8/8).

New York is running short of electricity, and as Democrats seek to tax it more, he City needs to utilize its own resources. I've often thought of New York City's organic garbage and sewage more as a gold mine than a cess pit. Our mayors did not think to exploit it. After writing that, I came across an entrepreneur who has begun creating fuel from garbage, which he calls a true "New York fuel."


Some Christian converts to Islam in Egypt want to return to the faith of their birth. The Islamic penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, but to Islam is nil. The Egyptian courts refuse notions of freedom of religion and democracy, in this (IMRA, 8/8). In Christendom, apostasy carries no penalty.

An American told me, today, that Islam is tolerant and Christianity is not. He spoke in slogans, myths, and false labels. People don't know our enemy.


Defense Min. Barak thinks that withdrawal depends on (pie-in-the-sky) rocket defense. IMRA points out that it also means turning a broad swath of Israel into a shooting gallery not only for rockets but also for Muslims armed with rifles and RPGs (IMRA, 8/8). It also means forfeiting the core of the Jewish homeland, strategic depth, strategic highlands, and water to diehard enemies of the Jews.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, August 24, 2007.

Finally after years of being warned by the SHABBAK, Israel's notorious secret police, of the existence of a Jewish underground, it has finally been uncovered.

This was written by Gil Ronen and it appeared today in Arutz Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) The Ministry of Education has decided to enable the children of Sderot to study in safety by conducting all classes in the schools' bomb shelters. The decision, reports NRG, was reached in an emergency discussion convened Monday by the director of the Ministry's Southern District, Amira Chaim, with the local supervisors and security officers of Sderot.

The town in Israel's Negev Desert is prey to daily shelling by Islamist terrorist gangs operating in nearby Gaza. Although the shelling began about seven years ago, it became much more intense after the 2005 Israeli self-destruction of Jewish communities in Gaza and military pullout (the Disengagement). While inaccurate, the rockets -- usually referred to as "Kassams" -- are an effective anti-civilian terror weapon and have caused fatalities, injuries and extensive damage in Sderot and other communities in the Gaza Perimeter.

A special Ministry of Education budget, estimated at hundreds of thousands of shekels, will be devoted to turning the shelters into classrooms by installing air conditioners, ventilation devices, acoustic ceilings, lighting, carpets and steel doors in all of them.

"The District Director has already asked me to order the air conditioners immediately," Miriam Sasi, the director of education in Sderot municipality, told NRG Thursday. "My estimate is that it will be possible to finish the refurbishing by the beginning of the new school year," she said.

Sasi heads the special team created by the ministry for carrying out the project. The team also includes the Security Officer of Educational Facilities, Yehuda Ben-Maman, and Tzion Suissa, Sderot Municipality's Maintenance Officer, who have begun preparing the shelters for their new use. Sasi vehemently opposes the idea of busing Sderot's children to schools outside the range of Gaza rockets. She admits, however, that the plan will mean that school laboratories and computer classes will suffer, but says it will save lives: "I do not want to think what will happen if a Kassam falls near hundreds of kids who are waiting for a bus to take them to out-of-town studies."

Sderot Mayor Eli Moyale concurs: "Transporting thousands of children to another town is madness. How can you run an education system like that. It's not happening anywhere else in the world and there is no reason for it to happen in Sderot."

Minister of Education Yuli Tamir is scheduled to visit Sderot Friday and talk to representatives of the parents of Sderot's school children. She will present them with the alternatives for protection of their children, including busing. The possibility that the IDF take whatever action necessary in order to silence the Kassams will not be on the agenda, however.

The parents have four core demands regarding any solution:

  • Defense Minister Ehud Barak has to sign a document approving the opening of the school year.

  • The government has to deliver signed promises regarding the construction of new schools.

  • Parents who want to send their child to a school outside Sderot will receive permission to do so.

  • Children studying in Sderot will be eligible for busing to and from school.

The initial reader talkback items to the news suggest some of the problems the shelter plan entails: one says the solution is good for the short term, but asks what will become of children with respiratory problems, for example.

Another talkback, written by a Sderot high school student, says the plan is shameful. "Why is it that only now, after seven years' suffering, did Madam Minister remember that we have bomb shelters?" he asks, and suggests that all of Israel's schoolchildren begin studying in shelters as a sign of solidarity with Sderot. A third reader mentions the danger of radon poisoning.

Minister Tamir said Thursday that the High Court ruling with regard to the fortification of the schools makes it impossible to let the children begin the school year in the schools as they are now. The IDF's Home Front Command had instructed the ministry to let the school year begin as scheduled, and to make do with the "sheltered space" concept of protection, which involves running to a relatively safe part of the school when the missile siren sounds. The High Court, however, ruled that the "sheltered spaces" are an unacceptable solution. Fortifying the schools in a way that satisfies the High Court's demand will take close to a year, Tamir said.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, August 24, 2007.

This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared yesterday in World Net Daily
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57288. Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, is known for his regular interviews with Mideast terror leaders and his popular segments on America's top radio programs.

JERUSALEM -- A CNN special series airing this week entitled "God's Warriors" -- produced and anchored by the network's chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour -- is "one of the most grossly distorted programs" ever aired on mainstream American television, according to a media watchdog report.

"God's Warriors" takes up six prime-time hours on CNN this week, airing in three parts at 9 p.m. EST. It started Tuesday and concludes tonight.

The first part of the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," compared Jewish and Christian "radicals" to Muslim supporters of suicide terror, presented anti-Israel commentators with no counterbalance, falsely labeled the West Bank as Palestinian land, and minimized Jewish rights to the Temple Mount -- Judaism's holiest site, the critics said.

During Tuesday's program, Amanpour also conducted a friendly interview about Israel with former President Jimmy Carter, whose most recent book, "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid," criticized the Jewish state's treatment of Palestinians. The book was slammed for a series of falsehoods and was widely labeled anti-Israeli by multiple media critics.

"[The CNN series] is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing 'martyrdom,' or suicide-murder. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns under way across the globe," stated the report by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Amanpour's CNN documentary "God's Warriors" describes itself as focusing on religious fundamentalism among Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Tuesday's segment started off comparing "Jewish terrorists" to that of Muslims, specifically focusing on the few instances of violence or attempted violence by religiously motivated Jews against Muslims. It told the story of Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Israeli physician who killed 29 Arabs in the West Bank city of Hebron in 1994. Goldstein's actions were widely condemned by Israelis and worldwide Jewry. The organization he was a part of was outlawed in Israel.

States the CAMERA report: "While in reality Jewish 'terrorism' is virtually non-existent, the program magnifies at length the few instances of [Jewish] violence" comparing it to "violent jihadist Muslim campaigns" when indeed there is no such comparison "either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought."

Amanpour: Martyrdom 'quite noble'

While discussing Islamic suicide attacks, Amanpour painted "martyrdom" as "quite noble."

"To the West, martyrdom has a really bad connotation because of suicide bombers who call themselves martyrs," Amanpour stated. "Really, martyrdom is actually something that historically was quite noble, because it was about standing up and rejecting tyranny, rejecting injustice and rejecting oppression and, if necessary, dying for that."

Amanpour's feature moved on to interviews with critics of Israel without providing pro-Israeli voices.

The feature repeatedly falsely referred to the West Bank as "Palestinian territory."

"It is also Palestinian land. The West Bank -- it's west of the Jordan River -- was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state," stated Amanpour.

The West Bank contains some of Judaism's holiest sites and biblical Jewish cities, including Hebron, home to the oldest Jewish community in the world. The territory was recaptured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War after Jordan, which controlled the West Bank, ignored Israeli advice to stay out of the conflict.

The U.N. labels the West Bank as "disputed," not Palestinian territory.

'Pro-Israel lobbies against U.S. interests'

Several guests, including former Sen. Charles Percy and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, who co-authored Carter's book on Israel, state in Amanpour's documentary pro-Israel lobbies in Washington force American lawmakers to support Jewish expansion in the West Bank and promote causes contrary to U.S. interests.

Carter is interviewed claiming no American politician could survive politically while calling for cuts in aid to Israel unless the Jewish state ceases expanding West Bank Jewish communities.

"There's no way that a member of Congress would ever vote for that and hope to be re-elected," stated Carter.

Contradicting Carter's sentiments, CAMERA notes critics of Israel's West Bank policies have thrived politically, including Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd and Reps. James Trafficante, Dana Rohrabacher, Nick Smith, Fortney Pete Stark, Neil Abercrombie, David E. Bonior, John Conyers Jr, John D. Dingell, Earl F. Hilliard, Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Jim Moran, David R. Obey, Ron Paul and Nick J. Rahall II, among others.

Amanpour suggests West Bank settlements are the cause of Arab anger.

"The Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Arab world," she says.

Multiple guests describe West Bank settlements as being the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But CAMERA points out multiple Arab wars and acts of violence were waged against Israel long before the settlements were first established in 1967.

"The Arab world was just as anti-Israel (actually more so) before the settlements were built," stated the CAMERA report.

Documentary misrepresents Ronald Reagan

Amanpour claims all U.S. presidents since 1967, including Ronald Reagan, deemed Israeli settlements "illegal."

But U.S. policy did not deem settlements illegal.

Amanpour quoted Reagan as stating, "the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements."

But the documentary failed to produce the rest of Reagan's quotes, in which the late president stated West Bank settlements are not illegal.

"As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there -- they're not illegal," stated Reagan.

Amanpour minimizes Jewish rights to Temple Mount

Amanpour moves on to holy sites in Jerusalem, where she minimizes Jewish rights to the Temple Mount -- Judaism's holiest site -- and exaggerates Islamic claims, critics said. Muslims say the Mount it is their third holiest site.

"It was from here [the Temple Mount], according to Muslim scripture, that the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven around the year 630. But Hebrew scripture puts the ancient Jewish Temple in the same location, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70."

The Quran doesn't once mention Jerusalem. Islamic tradition states Mohammed took a journey in a single night from "a sacred mosque" -- believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia -- to "the farthest mosque" and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque later became associated with the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

The Jewish Temple is described throughout biblical sources as the center of religious Jewish worship. The Temple Mount compound has remained a focal point for Jewish services over the millennia. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition. Jews worldwide pray facing toward the Western Wall, a portion of an outer courtyard of the Temple left intact.

Amanpour interviews the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who offers an Islamic perspective on the importance of the Temple Mount and Al Aqsa Mosque to Muslims, but no Jewish religious figure is presented to discuss the paramount religious importance of the Mount to Jews, noted CAMERA.

Amanpour's feature also claimed a visit to the Temple Mount by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2000 instigated the Palestinian intifada which began that year, even though multiple intifada planners and Palestinian leaders admitted the violence was pre-planned and that Sharon's visit was used as an excuse.

The intifada was launched after Arafat returned from U.S.-mediated peace talks at the Camp David presidential retreat during which the Palestinian leader turned down an Israeli offer of a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

"Whoever thinks the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong...This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations," admitted Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Al-Faluji to an Egyptian daily newspaper.

Arafat himself spoke of planning the intifada months before Sharon's visit, as did Marwan Barghouti, a jailed Palestinian parliament member and one of the chief architects of the intifada.

Multiple senior terror leaders involved in intifada admitted during numerous WND interviews Sharon's visit to the Mount did not spark the intifada.

The CAMERA report concludes: "Whether wittingly or not, Amanpour's program, with its reliance on pejorative labeling, generalities, testimonials, and a stacked lineup of guests, is a perfect illustration of classical propaganda techniques. Unfortunately propaganda is the opposite of journalism, the profession Amanpour is supposed to practice."

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, August 23, 2007.

This essay was written by Joseph Rosenberger and it appeared today in the American Thinker

The current political squabbles in America between the liberal, socialist left and the moral capitalist conservative right are merely a skirmish line on the edge of two colliding civilizations. The combatants are not the free market, individual centric conservatives and libertarians vs. the Nanny State, socialist plantation liberal straw bosses. Not at all!

The Elephant in the room is Islamofacism -- and President Bush and his brilliant General Pratreus, at the head of the greatest Army of our lifetime, are decisively engaged. What is at stake dwarfs the '08 elections topics of single payer medical care, unfunded social security, or our billions of dollars held by China and Saudi Arabia, for economic blackmail.

Life as we know it -- the profound blessings of the Age of Enlightenment and the spectacular technological progress in the arts and sciences that resulted -- is, absent a courageous defense, doomed to be devoured in the maws of a barbarian Islamofacism if President Bush's war leadership fails. Militant Islam means to convert, enslave, or exterminate the infidel non-Muslim world, depending on the degree of resistance encountered. The Koran demands it, and militant Islamists are implementing it wherever they have the critical mass to enforce it. Secular pluralism and a democratically established Rule of Law will not survive, absent protectors that exercise lethal force to defend it. This should be the litmus test of who should be our next president, and no other.

Islamofacism will be stopped by one of two ways, if it is stopped.

The first possibility is secularly pragmatic and essentially Darwinian. The society -- Islamofacism or Western Civilization -- will prevail depending upon who imposes its will on its neighbors sufficient to expand its borders, increase its population, and accumulate treasure. This follows the tectonic civilization shift thesis of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Society .

The rise and fall of one society or another reflects the simple equation of warfare, biology, and technology development. For example, Islamofascists, reproducing rapidly, brainwashing young boys with the militant texts of the Koran, raising battalions of kamikaze homicide bombers, cutting off hands and heads to maintain discipline and tribal cohesion, are overcoming a complacent West, spoiled, secular and imploding with negative birth rates. In fact, Islamists are reaching a tipping point in Europe, for example, nearing a critical mass in Spain, France, and Great Britain.

We'll know for sure that the game's over when they burn down the idolatrous art museums in Paris. That Islam condemns half its population (females) to abject servitude and shows profoundly little ability to advance the frontiers of science and technology suggests an approaching dark age if left unchecked.

The alternative, brighter future depends upon supplying General Petraeus with what he needs, funding the Surge all the way.

The other scenario finds its roots in Judaism, already old a thousand years before Mohammed went into his desert caves. God declares in Psalm 137:5

"If I forget you, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget its skill!" This is the biblically-centered world view that abides by the ancient narratives, prophesies, and hopes. Everything depends on the choices of the righteous, and the mercy of God.

In this scenario, the Land of Israel and the descendents of Jacob -- the Jews -- drive the future. Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. It is as plain as the green line -- the boundary of lush forests that illustrate the moral, civilized border of Israel, with the Islamist ineptitude of the West Bank. On one side, a flourishing earth; a barren mistreated desert on the other. The West must cast its lot with Israel.

The more noteworthy characteristics of this world view include the resilient, compassionate and just Rule of Law, grounded in a correct interpretation of the Torah, upon which Western Civilization based its legal system.

This scenario also includes the hope of the Messiah, one who will provide profound leadership and usher in an age of genuine peace. This is the same Messiah famously predicted by Jesus of Nazareth, coming when the Gospel of the Kingdom is preached to the ends of the earth. It is the same declaration, according to Chassidic Judaic history, repeated by the Messiah to Rabbi Israel, the Ba'al Shem Tov, in the 18th century during his soul ascent into the heavens during prayer. The Messiah said He would come with the Holy Torah would be proclaimed throughout the earth, essentially quoting Jesus, 1800 years later. In this scenario, folks, it ain't over until the Messiah says it's over -- and we must teach the world that essential, Godly morality. Would it be the Jews who rise to the occasion -- the Light unto the Nations.

While Jews and Christians hope for the advent of the Messiah (may He come quickly in our day) the civilization-loving pragmatist must give no quarter to Islamofascist barbarians. We must also support Israel -- and the moral compass Israel symbolizes. The skeptic may not put much stock in the latter, but it very well may speed things up!

Contact Koira at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Front Page Magazine, August 23, 2007.
This was written by Kenneth R. Timmerman and it appeared today in Front Page Magazine
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7F121344 -6BE8-4BF0-A865-DFBEA243A594). Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum: 2005).

Over the past week, with Iranian shells raining down on Iraqi villages in Kurdish areas along the border zone in the north, Iran's leaders have engaged the United States in a high stakes game that has gone virtually unreported in the elite media.

Iran has massed thousands of troops along its northwestern border in preparation for a ground assault against Iranian Kurdish fighters who have sought refuge in the rugged Qanbil mountains in northwestern Iraq.

On Tuesday, villagers found leaflets bearing the official Islamic Republic of Iran logo, ordering them to leave the area or face the consequences.

"Our enemies, mainly the Americans, are trying to plant security hurdles in our country (Iran)," the leaflets said. "They achieve this through using agents in the areas of Qandil and Khanira inside the Kurdish region. 'The authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran will work on cleansing this area."

Hundreds of Iraqis from the villages of Qandoul and Qal'at Diza, close to the Iranian border in the province of Sulaymanyah, fled as a result of the Iranian shelling, according to wire service accounts.

Should Iran be allowed to carry out its planned attack, it would amount to an overt aggression against its neighbor. But the potential damage is far worse, because of the deep U.S. engagement in Iraq.

A successful Iranian attack against opposition Kurds from the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (known as PJAK) based in Iraq, will strike a triple blow against America.

Not only will the Iranians have violated Iraq's sovereignty, guaranteed until now by the United States; they will have shown that despite the presence of 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the United States "can do nothing" against Iran, as the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, liked to say.

Even worse: if the United States sits this one out, we will send a terrible message to Iranian opponents of the regime in Tehran that despite all our calls for "freedom" and "democracy" in Iran, we will not intervene to prevent them from being massacred, even when we have the opportunity and the forces in place to save them from certain death.

And yet, unless Congress and the White House react immediately, that is precisely what is going to happen.

An Iranian victory in northern Iraq will have far-reaching consequences, and will further embolden president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is engaged in political, military, and intelligence hardball with the United States on multiple fronts, including inside Iraq.

Just last week, U.S. forces arrested another "high-priority" Iranian Revolutionary Guards officer in Baghdad, and accused him of funneling aid to Iraqi insurgents.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver announced the arrest on August 15, and said that coalition forces "will continue their focused operations against unhelpful Iranian influence interfering in Iraq."

An unnamed U.S. official said that the Iranian Guardsman was responsible for smuggling explosively-formed penetrators, Katyusha rockets and other weapons into Iraq, and "had direct ties to senior militant leaders and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force."

Another U.S. military spokesman. Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, told reporters in Iraq on Aug. 14 that Iran had recently provided 240 mm long-range rockets to insurgents in Iraq for attacks on U.S. forces.

"The 240 mm rocket is a large-caliber projectile that has been provided to militia extremists groups in the past along with a range of other weapons from Iranian sources," Bergner said.

Similar Iranian-made rockets I examined last summer in Haifa and in other northern Israel towns and cities had been fired against Israeli civilian targets by Hezbollah with warheads containing thousands of miniature ball-bearings, designed to kill and maim.

On May 25, PKK guerillas in Turkey derailed a train bound for Syria from Iran, ostensibly carrying construction materials. When prosecutors went through the wreckage they found an Iranian-made rocket launcher and 300 rockets bound for Hezbollah in Syria, according to Turkish press reports.

There is no way those weapons could have transited Turkey on the Turkish national railroad without someone in the Turkish government knowing what was going on.

Iran is banking on its secret "entente" with Turkey -- to supply Hezbollah through Syria, and to smash the bases of each other's opposition Kurds in Iraq -- to deter the United States from any military intervention in northern Iraq.

The Turks have been threatening for months to go after the PKK, who have tens of thousands of fighters training in camps inside Iraq, along the Turkish border.

And so the Iranians have spread the rumor, which until now has been accepted at face value, that its own Kurdish dissidents (PJAK) are actually the Iranian branch of the PKK, which the U.S. has designated as an international terrorist organization.

The State Department took Turkey's insistence that PJAK was allied with the PKK seriously enough that it refused to meet earlier this month with visiting PJAK leader, Rahman Haj Ahmadi, despite his open support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq and his identification with U.S. goals in the region.

Both the PKK and PJAK have training camps in the Qanbil mountain range in northern Iraq. But because of the difficult geography, and their different needs, they inhabit "different sides of the mountains," Rahman Ahmadi told me in Washington.

"The PKK doesn't need us," he said. "They have tens of thousands of fighters, and hundreds of thousands of sympathizers."

But Ahmadi acknowledges that PJAK and the PKK cooperate to a certain degree, if only to prevent clashes between their own fighters.

"The president of the Iraqi Kurdish Regional government, Massoud Barzani, also has an agreement with the PKK," he told me. "Does that make Barzani a supporter of the PKK?"

This is not the first time the Turks have played us in Iraq. In 2003, on a flimsy pretext of domestic opposition, they successfully prevented the 4th Infantry Division from crossing Turkey to join coalition forces that liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

We can sit by and allow Iran to violate Iraq's sovereignty, defy the U.S. military, and smash a significant Iranian opposition group on the slim pretext that Iran is "merely" seeking to punish its own rebels, just as Turkey.

Or we can extend protection to the Iranian Kurds who have established training camps in the rugged mountains of northeastern Iraq, and inflict a double blow on Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Clearly, the Iranians believe they can thumb their noses at the U.S. military. For more than a week, they have conducted intermittent shelling of Iraqi Kurdish villages in the general vicinity of suspected PJAK bases.

My Iranian sources tell me that the Iranians are hoping to expel PJAK from the area and replace them with Ansar al-Islam, the precursor group to al Qaeda in Iraq,

"They want to send Saad Bin Laden, who is currently in Iran under Iranian government protection, into a new base inside Iraq," one source told me.

Saad Bin Laden is Osama Bin Laden's eldest son, who is widely viewed as the heir to his terrorist empire, should his father die. He was given refuge in Iran shortly after al Qaeda evacuated its bases in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks.

PJAK is a natural ally of the United States. They seek to unite Iranians to overthrow the dictatorship of the clergy in Iran, and to work together to build a future secular democracy.

We don't have to provide them weapons, or money, or training. But if we allow Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops to attack PJAK inside Iraq with impunity, we may as well pack up and leave -- not just Iraq, but the entire region. Because we will have no credibility left.

If instead, if we seize this opportunity to smash an Iranian Revolutionary Guards offensive with massive force, we could send a message that will make Iran's leaders think twice before messing with us again.

It's about time we made Iran's leaders pay a price for killing Americans and undermining America's allies. Here is a terrific opportunity to get that job done.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ezra HaLevi, August 23, 2007.

Left-wing extremists and PA Arabs destroyed thousands of grape vines belonging to local Jews in Samaria Wednesday.

Some one hundred Arabs and leftists, along with dozens of Arab TV crews certified by various news agencies, marched to a Jewish vineyard near the town of Dolev, northwest of Jerusalem, and proceed to systematically uproot and destroy thousands of young grapevines. The PA- appointed mayor of Ramallah took part in the march.

Though the police and army had been forewarned that the Arabs and leftists were planning a provocation, security forces arrived only after most of the vineyard had already been uprooted.

uprooted vines

The vineyard's owner, Shlomi Cohen told Arutz-7 that 5,000 vines were uprooted by the vandals, who arrived Wednesday at noon. "They also burned pipes, irrigation equipment and sprinklers -- after fifteen minutes everything was charred."

Cohen said that he was informed Tuesday evening that a group planned to destroy the vineyard. "We informed the army. I enlisted everyone I could, including the municipality and local security officers, but for some unclear reason the IDF did not arrive on time."

One of the fires set by the rioters

When the IDF did arrive, Cohen said, more than half the vineyard was already destroyed. "The army chased the vandals away, but did not arrest any of them," he said. "They didn't do anything to them. They just said [the police] would come investigate and that I could file a complaint, but in the meantime there have been no arrests." A view of Nachalei Tal, the area near the community of Nerya where the vines were uprooted

Cohen has been growing grapes in Dolev for 12 years. The land on which the vineyards are planted is state land assigned to the community for agricultural purposes by the World Zionist Federation's Settlement Division. Cohen and his family have already replanted the uprooted vines that were able to be reused.

Another one of Cohen's older vineyards; the grapes are purchased to make fine Israeli wines

Although the 15th of the Hebrew month of Av (July 30) was the last day that fruit trees and vineyards could be planted before the Shemittah (sabbatical) year, the Cohens were permitted to return the roots to the ground from where they were uprooted.

The IDF Civil Administration said it viewed the incident as "severe" and said it had "conveyed a strong message about the incident to the governor of Ramallah." The Civil Administration noted that the governor took part in the march, but argued that he "also worked to calm the situation and involve police."

Police have yet to respond to questions about the incident faxed to the spokesman's office.

MK Uri Ariel (National Union-NRP) has asked to convene the Knesset's Internal Affairs committee to address the police's failure to protect the farmer's vineyard from the rioters.

"What happened to the swift response we get from the police every time they are called to act against the national camp," asked Ariel. "Why is the same swiftness not used against left-wing lawbreakers?"

The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) issued a statement on the incident, saying that given the prior warning of the expected riot, "[the council] views the security forces' inaction very severely...The culprits must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -- whether they are Arabs, foreigners or left-wing extremists."

The phenomenon of left-wing extremists, from both Israel, Europe and the United States, destroying Jewish vineyards and orchards in Judea and Samaria, though widespread, has rarely been covered by Israel's state-run media and has never appeared in foreign news agency reports.

Go to http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122107 for Arutz-7's coverage of a recent destruction of vineyards in Gush Etzion and go to
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122339 for another incident in which local Jewish activists from Yesha communities successfully prevented an uprooting.

Ezra HaLevi writes for Arutz-Sheva, where this essay appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 23, 2007.

Oh, about those po' Palestinian children who get killed in firefights when the terrorists fire rockets at Israel. It seems that a lot of them get hurt and killed when they run over to dance around rocket crews setting up to fire into Israel (often hit back by Israel within second), and also when they collect pieces of Kassam rockets that fall "short" inside the Gaza Strip.

This is entitled "Abbas: IDF operations prevent progress in peace talks" and it was written by Yuval Azoulay, Yoav Stern and Mijal Grinberg, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies.

Hamas gunmen gathering on Tuesday in central Gaza for the funeral of six fellow militants who were killed in an IDF operation Monday. (AP)

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' office condemned Israel's military operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank on Wednesday, saying that the strikes make progress in peace talks impossible.

"It is impossible to conduct a peace process, to advance negotiations and to achieve results as long as Israel continues with its policy of military strikes," said Abbas' office in a statement.

The statement said that the IDF operations, which have killed 13 Palestinians since Monday, cast strong doubt on Israel's desire to make peace.

Abbas' office called on the international community and the Quartet of Middle East mediators to intervene regarding these incidents and to halt Israel's military activities.

Earlier Wednesday, IDF troops killed a Hamas militant in an air strike in the Gaza Strip early Wednesday, a day after two children and three militants were killed in similar Gaza strikes.

Hamas identified the militant killed Wednesday as Yehia Habib, a senior field commander in Gaza City. Three other militants were wounded.

Israel said it struck a group of armed men who had approached the border fence with Israel.

The attack took place hours after troops killed a 9-year-old and a 12-year-old as they tried to collect Qassam rocket launchers. The children were killed on Tuesday the afternoon by an IDF tank in the northern Gaza Strip. The two were seen moving in a field near Beit Hanun toward rocket launchers immediately after Qassam rockets had been fired on towns in Israel.

The rockets struck the area near Kibbutz Zikim, south of Ashkelon. There were no injuries or damage.

Soon after the launch, an IDF force identified the source of the rocket fire, surveyed the area, and identified a number of suspicious figures near the launchers. A tank in the area fired a round, which killed the two children. Another child was seriously injured in the incident.

"Children have no business being near Qassam rocket launchers," IDF officers said in a statement last night.

They said it is possible that Islamic Jihad had hired the children to collect the launchers after the launch. This phenomenon had already been observed in other instances, the IDF officers said.

The tank fired at the figures only after they were seen close to the launchers, IDF sources said.

The only reason anyone approaches the launchers after rockets are fired is to collect them or reload them, the sources said, so there was no way to avoid shooting at the people near the launchers.

"If these were children or youths, we regret the use that the terrorist groups are making of them," a statement from the IDF spokesman read Tuesday.

An IDF source said that troops that had carried out the operation identified the figures next to the launchers as militants. "They were handling the launchers and they obviously hadn't come to slide on them," he said. "Every Palestinian, including the militants, knows that anyone who hangs around these launchers is endangering themselves."

According to IDF analysts, Tuesday's rocket attack against Israel was carried out by the Jerusalem Battalions of the Islamic Jihad.

They said that the militants fled as soon as the rockets were launched.

"This is a cynical use of children but we are no longer surprised by anything we see. A 14-year-old child has already fired an RPG rocket against an IDF force, a grandmother aged close to 70 fired a light weapon against a Givati [Brigade] force recently in the Strip."

What were these children doing there anyway? The militants fled immediately after the launch and then sent the children to collect the launchers," one of the sources added.

In another Qassam rocket attack, against the western Negev, one rocket hit a kindergarten in Sderot, causing damage. No injuries were reported because the children are still on summer vacation and the kindergarten was empty. The second Qassam landed in fields.

Palestinian militants have also fired several mortar shells at the western Negev, causing no injuries or damage.

Earlier Tuesday, IDF troops killed three Palestinian militants near the security fence in the southern Gaza Strip, near Khan Yunis.

According to the IDF, the militants were members of Islamic Jihad and were trying to carry out a shooting attack against Israeli targets near the fence. The army said the militants belong to a cell that had carried out such attacks in the past.

The incident began when the vehicle the three were in was spotted and attacked from the air. The three managed to flee, but they were intercepted by an IDF force in the fields.

A fourth militant was injured in the incident.

A spokesman for Islamic Jihad said that the four were on a "jihad-related" activity.

"The blood of our martyrs will be avenged," a statement read.

IDF troops found three sniper rifles in searches of the area following the incident, the army said.

On Monday night, Israel's Channel 2 television reported that six Hamas men killed in an Israeli attack earlier in the day were members of a sniper unit.

The six militants were killed and another was wounded in an IDF rocket strike on a car traveling in the central Gaza Strip.

In an incident in the West Bank city of Nablus early Tuesday, IDF troops shot and killed a Palestinian gunman.

The soldiers operating in the Al-Ein refugee camp saw a Palestinian gunman who fired at them before they returned fire and hit him, the army said.

The militant was identified as 38-year-old Nasser Mabrouk, a member of an offshoot of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, August 23, 2007.

The United States won its preemptive war in Iraq when it toppled targeted enemy 'Sadist' Hussein. Period! However, to date, Uncle Sam's attempt at nation building has failed. These two concepts are distinct and should be treated as such. We note subsequent to the aforementioned victory, nuclear emerging Iran, a regime that rhetorically threatens Israel's very existence, a regime that disrespects Jews worldwide by belittling The Holocaust, and Syria have strengthened a bond that has lasted for decades, based on common enemies; yesterday 'Sadist' Hussein and Israel, today the United States and Israel. We further note Iran is autocratically governed by fundamentalist Islamic Persian Shiites, rulers of a mixed non-Arab Shiite populace, many of which ascribe to fundamentalist Islam, while Syria is autocratically governed by Allawite Arab Shiites, rulers however of a mostly secular Sunni Arab populace. Clearly, the continued United States presence in Iraq, amidst a sectarian bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites, strengthens the resolve of Iran and Syria to strategically merge, arming proxies to fight the perceived 'Western Satin' in that war torn country. Yet, if not for their common Western enemy, these in many respects polar opposite Islamic nations would likely be supporting opposite sides in the Iraq civil war, thus would, in effect, be at each other's throats. Furthermore, Iran and Syria, both enemies of Israel, both profiteering from the extortionist per barrel price of oil, can afford to and do arm Hizbullah and Hamas, terrorist tormentors of the Jewish State. The unintended consequence of Uncle Sam overthrowing archenemy Hussein as well as subduing the archenemy Taliban, both of Sunni ethnicity, Shiite Iran's natural proximate enemies, again coupled with a spike in the price of extracted fossil fuel, a true bonanza for one of the world's primary suppliers of that addictive ever needed source of energy, has made the emerging nuclear power ever bolder, has allowed it to lock talons with its only Middle East ally Syria, in a quest to achieve dominance in that dysfunctional region.

What if the planet's foremost superpower redeployed troops to the north, relocating in ever friendlier non-Arab Kurdistan? No doubt, an ever vigilant Uncle Sam would still remain in position to oversee his oil interests and guard the primacy of his ever vital petrodollar. Indeed, might Hussein have crossed a sacred line in the desert sand, trading Iraqi oil for Euros, disrespecting the greenback, miscalculating the mighty shock and awe reaction insuring his demise? There is absolutely no way the United States, without regard to political party in charge, would abandon the Middle East thus vital interests critical to the functioning of the planet's foremost economic power. Moving north would take American troops mostly out of harm's way, allowing Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, bereft of referees, to duke it out with abandon, causing Iran to more aggressively support the majority Shiite populace, causing Syria perhaps with help from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni regimes to more aggressively support the minority Sunni populace, thus sever the bond between Iran and Syria, hopefully inciting popular mostly youthful revolutions among collective fed up exploited populations, basic services now in chaos, within those potential pressure cookers of discontent, at least in theory. Of course, Middle East oil shipments would be seriously disrupted in this scenario; there is no free lunch for the industrialized West and East. Chemotherapeutic strategies do challenge patients. Yet, is that worse than a formidable metastasizing Iranian Syrian axis-of-evil?

Bursting a pernicious boil, in this case the autocracy of 'Sadist' Hussein, without purging its poisonous residue, in this case via a predictable Shiite Sunni perhaps full blown region wide civil war replete with mutated religiously justified homicide/suicide bombings, in this case with participants, especially Iran, on the verge of developing nuclear weapons but thankfully not quite there, will not cure Earth's perilously blighted anatomy. Would it be better to allow such nations to first build nuclear arsenals then fight this perhaps inevitable war, noting the fallout of that poisonous purging might very well more seriously threaten the health, perhaps kill, the patient, in this case civilized mankind lingering on the sidelines?

Another more sanguine less sanguinary option would be to foment revolution, especially within Iran, by leaning especially on Saudi Arabia as well as other oil rich nations to drop the per barrel price of their prehistoric product. That would send Iran's economy into a tailspin, breed further discontent within its many youthful Western leaning citizens, hopefully lighting a fire that would lead to the overthrow of AhMADinejad and his contemptuous crew of mullahs, that insane bunch of nuclear trigger happy Islamic fanatics who would if they could blow the world asunder for the sake of a delusional twelfth Imam ever ready to swoop down, creating Shiite style Allahland on an infidel bereft Earth. Most importantly, if the United States stays the course in Iraq, even if overall security and stability seem to improve notwithstanding the sacrifice of so many more American lives, the world's less than prescient superpower will remain on a fool's errand, strengthening the bond between two dangerous enemies, bent on becoming nuclear powers and willing to share such weaponry with terrorist proxies worldwide, intending to dominate the Middle East, perhaps Europe, perhaps other regions, or perhaps even blow the planet up. Might a major reassessment be in order?

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 23, 2007.

It's far far too soon to count on anything or to rejoice. But there is at least a small reason to hope.

The Jerusalem Post today came out with an "exclusive": an announcement that at least 10 rebels in the Kadima party are planning to leave before the final Winograd report. According to this news, those members who want to depart feel that their futures will be sealed if they are still with Kadima when the damning Winograd final report appears; they want to situate themselves elsewhere before this happens. Some would return to Likud (and reportedly Netanyahu has spoken to a couple of MKs considering this). Some to Labor. Some would seek places for themselves elsewhere, such as Yisrael Beitenu. The sooner they depart, the greater their value to other parties.

Reportedly some ministers in Olmert's cabinet are among those thinking of leaving.

Predictions until now were that Olmert was safe until after the Winograd report, but the situation may have shifted.

Let's see...


I want to address here briefly anti-Israel positions that have become prominent in two places:

The first involves the three part series on CNN hosted by Christiana Amanpour, "God's Warriors." The first segment, "God's Jewish Warriors" is biased against Israel and erroneous in its information. CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) calls it "one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years." I provide here the link to CAMERA so that you might read more about it:

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet= 14&x_article=1354

The second is a new book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, whose thesis is that US support for Israel is a liability and continues only because of the undue influence of the Israel lobby.

Dore Gold, in a briefing paper -- "Understanding the U.S.-Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Walt-Mearsheimer Claim" -- for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (which he heads) challenges this thesis. Gold explains the ways in which U.S. support for Israel benefits the U.S.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT= 2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID= 1795&TTL=Understanding_the_U.S.-Israel_Alliance:_ An_Israeli_Response_to_the_Walt-Mearsheimer_Claim


Muhammad Dahlan has returned to Ramallah this week after some six weeks away from the area. He will not return to Gaza, where Hamas has let it be known he is not welcome. Speculations vary as to what role, if any, he will now play in the PA/Fatah. Some see him as the direct challenger to Abbas. Others expect that he will try to reform the very corrupt Fatah.

Myself, I never miss an opportunity to remind people that Dahlan is a terrorist and cannot legitimately be seen as a reformer. He ordered the attack on the school bus in Kfar Darom in 2000, and was connected to the Karine-A weapons ship.


Two Kassams have landed in Sderot, one hit a home.

State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss, after doing a tour of Sderot and neighboring areas, declared himself "very worried" about the safety of the children there with the start of school. He says the national government should be doing more to provide protection via bomb shelters and fortified roofs.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 23, 2007.


Tel Aviv technicians built homemade rockets loaded with organic food bought in Sderot, the town that Gazans bombard with explosives. The Israelis fired the rockets into Gaza. The eggs did not break open in flight. The exercise was intended to put a smile on the faces of the embattled Israelis in Sderot (Arutz-7, 8/3).

Why organic? Why not loaded with pesticides and fertilizer, like the Arabs' produce sold in Israel? Why not just fertilizer? It might put more of a smile on Sderot residents' faces.


In the opinion of Guy Bechor, the large-scale IDF presence and maneuvering on the Golan has shown Syria that its bellicose threats do not intimidate Israel. Israel now has a Defense Minister who understands Syria, which now finds the Israeli Army on the Golan, poised not far from Damascus. Syria will have to let start the UNO trial of the Syrian regime in the murder of Lebanese leaders, risking its own downfall, rather than make war to distract from the trial (IMRA, 8/3 from YNET).

Mr. Bechor gave no evidence that Syria has interpreted the IDF maneuvering as determination and that Syria will not instigate war. He reports no Syrian military moves away from the Golan, but Syria has been reported to be sending reserve officers to live on the Syrian side of the Golan, in preparation for war. Then there is the news of the Golan Druse setting up summer camps to teach allegiance to Syria. That means a host of fifth columnists willing to assist Syrian infiltrators, in Syria's planned war of attrition by terrorism.

Bechor overlooks the continued and increasingly loud demands by the Olmert regime to appease the Arabs, including Syria. Among those appeasers is Defense Min. Barak. He understands Syria? He had ordered his troops into a Syrian ambush during the first Lebanon War. It was too foolish not to be sabotage. The same Barak later destroyed Israel's Lebanon ally and had the IDF, which was not losing against Hizbullah, flee from Lebanon, leaving heavy weaponry for Hizbullah. The Arabs must be much encouraged by Barak's ascension to the Defense Ministry instead of prison.


S. Arabia celebrates the end of cheap oil. As energy consumers vie over sources, the price reaches new plateaus. S. Arabia can afford all its own development plans (IMRA, 8/3). The US had 30 years to prepare, but did not.


Israel and the P.A. agreed that a certain 178 Fatah terrorists would turn in their arms, and pledge not to fight against Israel; Israel would stop seeking them out, and if they behaved for three months, would delete them from the wanted list.

Fatah later asked Israel to double the number terrorists in the deal. Israel wouldn't consider doing so, because half the 178 refused to turn in their arms and some refused the pledge. In response to Israel's standing pat, the men who pledged peace in return for amnesty threatened to void the deal to which they had agreed.

The P.A. cites two other terrorist complaints. One is that the P.A. is not reimbursing them enough for weapons costing thousands of dollars. The other is that, if disarmed, they are afraid people would retaliate against them.

Some Israeli politicians dispute the rationale for the deal -- "strengthening" Abbas -- because Abbas has done nothing to reduce terrorism (Arutz-7, 8/2).

Abbas invited the 178 to join his forces and be issued new weapons. Then what do they mean, they are being disarmed and left without protection? No wonder the people are poor, if the men in many families spend thousands of dollars on weapons!

The behavior of the Fatah men shows the bad faith in which Muslims deal, at least with infidels. They bargained for 178, half of them violated the deal. The group threatens to renege if Israel doesn't extend the deal to more men. This demonstrates the futility of negotiating and making deals with Islamists.

It's typical Muslim behavior. After having made a ceasefire agreement with Israel for one part of the P.A., the terrorists threatened to void the agreement unless Israel extended it to the other part of the P.A.. Usually they violated ceasefire agreements, anyway. Fatah and Hamas made a number of ceasefire agreements with each other, and violated them all. Don't trust them!


Hamas is cracking down on its ally in Gaza, Islamic Jihad. The issue is the disarming of militias. Islamic Jihad refuses to disarm, as required by Oslo. Hamas also closed Fatah newspapers in Gaza, for opposing its rule. Hamas turned back government funds Abbas sent it, calling it a bribe. If Hamas had accepted it, then Israel, source of the funds would indirectly be financing Hamas (Arutz-7, 8/2). Hamas is tightening its control. I hope Islamic jihad fights back hard but gets liquidated.


It is not US policy to torture prisoners at Guantanamo (though there was a period of abuse). Britons constantly hear "Interested parties" slander the US about this. Their government does not correct the notion but reinforces it by calling for the prison to be closed. It did not offer an alternative facility. Although all British citizens held there have been released, now Britain is demanding that the US release to it five detainees from Mideastern states who had resided in Britain.

Prisoners have yielded intelligence that the US shared with Britain and helped prevent terrorist attacks in Britain. The government did not publicly thank the US for that.

Other countries, including Britain, tend to be highly critical of the US. Meanwhile, Britain drew down its forces in Iraq so much, that the remaining ones in Basra are under siege, basically defeated (Daniel Johnson, NY Sun, 8/9, Op.-Ed.).

Why should Britain care about probable terrorists who are not British citizens but formerly lived there for a while? It should say, "Good riddance!"


As Jordan keeps constant the public's prices for subsidized commodities and services such as oil, rentals, college education, and water, the government loses more money. The real cost of the subsidized water used to irrigate banana plantations and livestock exceeds the value of the crops. Failing to make modest increases now means having to make drastic increases later. But the government is afraid to, just as it is afraid to fire redundant staff (IMRA, 8/6).

Even authoritarian regimes are constrained, especially when their people are prone to violence. In a sense, the mob is a dictator ruling the government.


PM Olmert is notorious for entering meetings and for stating policy without thinking through the issues. Thinking is very difficult for some people, we should be understanding. But now he has been meeting with Abbas, no note takers or witnesses present. He can claim to have said anything there, without contradiction except by Abbas (who is in the same position). Olmert says he wants to establish P.A. statehood according to the Road Map, but the Map does not require agreement on final status issues before setting up a P.A. state, so any blunder (or sabotage of Israel) by Olmert could have disastrous consequences. Events could get out of control before Israelis realize it (IMRA, 8/6). This was true of the Gaza withdrawal.


Hizbullah intends to capture Israelis traveling abroad. "The most dangerous countries for Israelis currently are Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Somalia." Tourists have been attacked in the Sinai. Non-Arab Muslim parts of Asia are dangerous for Israelis, too. Beware of free excursions, generous gifts, last-minute meetings, and unaccompanied trips (Arutz-7, 8/6).

I think that all Westerners should stay away from there.


Russia is attempting to rehabilitate its navy largely of spy ships. It is re-establishing bases in Syria, as part of its arms deal with Syria. Israel thinks the bases and ships will be used to spy on it (IMRA, 8/6).


Jordan endorsed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, but with some reservations. Islamists call the Convention anti-Islamic and criticized the government for not having more reservations (IMRA, 8/6). Will the feminists come out against Islam?

Have you noticed that the Muslims approve resolutions either with their fingers crossed or with false "interpretations" of them?


A P.A. leader admitted that P.A. police cannot yet maintain order in their cities, and can't repress terrorism (IMRA, 8/6).

Only a short time ago, the P.A. criticized Israel for not turning over to the P.A. security control in all the Arab cities. Why can't they control their own people? Hamas has no forces in Judea-Samaria. The US gave P.A. forces thousands of rifles, training, and money.

Suppose the P.A. could maintain order. Would it repress terrorism? Don't bet on it! The P.A. exists for jihad and graft.


On 8/7, the offices of PM Olmert and Pres. Peres denied media reports that they had a plan to confer statehood on the equivalent of 100% of the land in the P.A.. On 8/7, however, aides of Peres confirmed the plan in process (IMRA).

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 23, 2007.


If we do not lend a FINANCIAL helping hand, the political statement that "Chomesh First" makes will DIE! We cannot afford for the inept Israeli government to win! It will COST US THE COUNTRY!

I am asking you to spread the word requesting help!

"We did not take a foreign land or the property of strangers to us, but rather the Land of our forefathers which had been conquered in the past by enemies with no justice. And we, when we had the opportunity, repossessed the Land of our forefathers." (Letter to Antiochus in Damascus from Simeon Hasmonian)

One picture says a 1,000 words! Returning to Chomesh is the first step towards saving the State of Israel. They are doing this for all of Am Yisrael -- The Nation of Israel.

For the past thirty five days, Chomesh, Samaria has been filled with a zealous Jewish presence. It is one of many communities that were destroyed by Ariel Sharon's shameful, villainous, and despicable government.

Thirty five days of Jewish heroism by Jewish youths living in tents amongst the ruins. From time to time, the police still come to harass them, but they are strong. They believe in the Land of Israel.

Despite the conditions, for the past thirty five days, young men and women, even the pregnant ones, many of whom had been expelled from Chomesh, are residing on the land. They are not afraid of the truth. They are doing what is right. Nothing will stop them.

Thirty five days of babies, children, and women voices can be heard in the hills of Chomesh and beautiful hymns of prayer for the rebuilding of the Land of Israel resonate.

The thousands of soldiers sent to stop the re-establishment of a Jewish presence in Chomesh finally raised their hands in defeat and gave up! The military and the police now understand that the human spirit is stronger than military might!

We salute these heroes! They are saving the dignity of the Nation of Israel and are giving us back the respect that was taken away from us!

Le'hyiot Am Chofshi Be'artzenu! To Be A Free Nation In Our Land!

Your help is vital! Please take an active role in saving Israel!

Please send your donations

by check:
"Central Fund of Israel,"
subject line: "Hilltop Settlers"
PO Box 15743,
Beverly Hills, CA 90209-1743 USA


by credit card:
Secured Donation Form. See in the center of the page at http://ssl.org.il/veyarashta/default.asp

Tax ID number: 13-2992985

To maintain the Chomesh First Project and realize the vision, the following expenses must be met:

EXPENSES SHEET (ALL prices are in NIS (1 NIS is US$ 4.2):

1. Internet ads: 5,000 NIS (US$1,200)
2. Communications devices (when the army tried blocking the cell phones receptions) = 20,000 NIS (US$4,700)
3. Tents. Generators, food supply, water tanks, cooking facility, etc = 100,000 NIS (US$23,800)
4. Rental trucks, pick-up truck, tractors = 50,000 NIS (US$11,900)
5. Rental Donkeys and Mules (can be used at night in the mountains to bring supplies that will last for many days) = 10,000 NIS (US$2,300)
Total = 184,380 NIS (US$43,900)

Transportation budget (separate) bussing @2,500 a bus; up to 100 buses = 250,000 NIS (US$60,000)

Thanks you for your help. Any and all help is welcome!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald Steinberg, August 23, 2007.
For years, the United Nations and the European Union have provided major funding and assistance for radical Palestinian NGOs and their supporters, allowing them to exploit the rhetoric of human rights, "civil society," international law and peace to promote the opposite.

An illustration of the damage that results from this combination is provided by the meeting, scheduled for the European Parliament in Brussels on August 30-31, to be run by the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. This committee is "the main UN forum where all NGOs interested in the Palestine issue can meet."

The title is certainly high-sounding -- International Conference of Civil Society in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace. But, as noted by UN Watch, "the UN's Palestinian Division runs a tightly-controlled operation that accredits only anti-Israel NGOs and speakers. Without altering the virulently anti-Israel nature of their meetings, the organizers instead seek to mask their activities." Moreover, to add credence to their cover, they invite specially approved Israelis -- a select group of radicals who openly espouse hatred of Israel, claiming the license to do so because of their citizenship.

THIS YEAR, for the first time, the exercise is gaining the legitimacy of sponsorship by the European Parliament. Topics include "The situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and civil society response"; "Action by civil society organizations working in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem"; workshops on "Fortieth anniversary of occupation: Building on action taken by civil society"; and "Strengthening campaigns to end occupation, including grassroots campaigns against the wall, rallying around Bil'in" (the site of violent attacks organized by NGOs to provoke Israeli responses).

The speakers list is secret, but in previous years it included Jeff Halper from the EU-funded Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD), allied with Sabeel, a center for Palestinian liberation theology; Raji Sourani from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights; Michael Warschawski of the Alternative Information Center; and Jamal Juma Ja'afreh from the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign.

To their credit, the Polish members of the European Parliament from different parties have announced that they will not participate. Bronis aw Geremek, a Polish MEP, was quoted by the Polish Web site, Europa21, as declaring: "Although there is no official statement that Israel must be pushed down to the sea... the choice of subjects and the attitude toward the problems show that it will be a biased, conflict-generating conference. Actually we can call it anti-Israeli."

MEP Konrad Szymanski stated: "I am astonished that European Parliament allowed such activity to be placed in its building. If there is any activity against the conference, i.e., a petition signed by MEPs, I will be very glad to support it."

THE ISRAELI government, led by the Foreign Ministry, has urged the EU and the UN to cancel sponsorship of such anti-peace activities. And Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik signed a protest letter to European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering, who is from Germany and is expected to be more sensitive to legitimizing propaganda and anti-Israel demonization.

Ambassador the the EU Ran Curiel noted that the committee that uses NGOs "is an anachronistic product of the UN which was created in 1975, in the context of the infamous 'Zionism is racism' resolution revoked in 1991. Since it was founded, this committee has been engaged in one-sided propaganda activities which present only the Palestinian narrative, including the delegitimization of Israel, a UN member state."

But Europe's support for such radical propaganda goes far beyond holding this fringe conference in the Parliament building.

The EU funds numerous NGOs under programs for development assistance to the Palestinians, labeled "Partnership for Peace" or promoting human rights, that are at the forefront of the political war against Israel. The head of the EU-supported ICAHD, for example, speaks in favor of boycotts against Israel and demonizes Israel as an "apartheid state." Halper often appears with Naim Ateek, the head of Sabeel, who frequently invokes anti-Semitic themes, such as referring to "the Israeli government crucifixion system." (Halper and Ateek are on the program for a Sabeel conference scheduled for Boston in October -- more EU tax euros at work.)

AS NGO Monitor reports detail, many additional anti-Israel political NGOs and activities are funded by the government aid and development agencies of Ireland, France, the UK, Belgium, Sweden, etc., as well as non-EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland. BADIL, for example, uses its European funds to oppose compromise on the Palestinian claims to a "right of return" -- one of the major obstacles to progress in peace negotiations.

The central role of these groups -- along with the superpowers such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International -- in the political war against Israel was highlighted in the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference on racism. This was so "successful" that the UN is planning another conference in 2009, and is holding a preparatory committee meeting in Geneva a few days before the session planned for the European Parliament.

Both activities highlight the destructive activities of radical NGOs, and both conferences and the committees that promote them should be cancelled before they do more damage.

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg is the Executive Director of www.ngo-monitor.org, and heads the Program on Conflict Management at Bar Ilan University. This article was published today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1187779135911&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 23, 2007.

Yuli Tamir Goes A-Snipping
9 Elul 5767, 23 August 07 09:58
"Back to Sanity" -- Arutz 7 Analysts (IsraelNN.com)

Hold on to your -- er -- hats!

Before pouncing upon me for posting a tasteless spoof, let me forewarn you that this is NOT a spoof. It is for real, and any nausea you feel should be directed against the actual cause, not your humble messenger.

Nevertheless you can check it all out for yourself. It is there in black and white. Never mind that the Israeli mainstream media has hidden the story for the past 11 years, trying to protect the rep of the Labor Party's daffiest leader..

Israel's Minister of Education, Yael "Yuli" Tamir, has campaigned publicly for the common form of female mutilation in the Third World known as "Clitoridectomy." It means what you think it means. "Yuli" back in 1996 when she launched her campaign was a Professor at Tel Aviv University and had just joined Labor. Previously she had been Shulamit Aloni's sidekick in the "RATZ" party. She was in the news the past few weeks for proposing that Arab students in Israel learn from textbooks that portray Israel's very existence and creation as a "Naqba" or catastrophe.

The "Boston Review" is a left-leaning political and literary quarterly in Boston, the sort "anarchists" read. In its summer 1996 issue it ran Tamir's own article entitled, "Hands Off Clitoridectomy." Its theme was that all those Westerners expressing revulsion at the practice of slicing up female genitalia in certain parts of the world are themselves evil insensitive chauvistic philistine racists. Westerners should stop criticizing and allow the Third World to carry on with its enlightened multicultural clitorectomies.

She rants thus in the article (which appears at


'In discussions about multiculturalism, clitoridectomy is now the trump card, taking over the role once played by cannibalism, slavery, lynchings, or the Indian tradition of Sati: "Is this the kind of tradition you would like to protect?" liberals ask embarrassed multiculturalists, who immediately qualify their cultural pluralism. Clitoridectomy defines the boundary between us and them, between cultures we can tolerate and those we must condemn....

'Furthermore, it seems clear that Western conceptions of female beauty encourage women to undergo a wide range of painful, medically unnecessary, and potentially damaging processes -- extreme diets, depilation, face lifts, fat pumping, silicone implants. Of course, adult women do these things to their own bodies, and, it is said, their decisions are freely made. But would our gut reaction to female circumcision be very different if it were performed on consenting adults? It is not unlikely that girls at the age of 13 or 14, who are considered in traditional societies as adults mature enough to wed and bear children, would "consent" to the mutilation of their bodies if they were convinced that marriage and children were contingent on so doing. Many women who followed the tradition of Sati seemed to do it as a matter of choice....

'But our own culture fosters false beliefs of a similar kind. According to Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, some 75 percent of women aged 18-35 believe that they are fat, whereas only 25 percent are medically overweight.1 Still more heartbreaking is the fact that the majority of the 30,000 women who responded to a Glamour questionnaire preferred losing 10-15 pounds to success in work or in love. So the fostering of such beliefs cannot differentiate their culture from our own and explain our hostility to it....A fulfilling sex life is certainly one good, but there are others. ...

'My purpose, however, is not to justify clitoridectomy, but to expose the roots of the deep hostility to it -- to reveal the smug, unjustified self-satisfaction lurking behind the current condemnation of clitoridectomy. Referring to clitoridectomy, and emphasizing the distance of the practice from our own conventions, allows us to condemn them for what they do to their women, support the struggle of their women against their primitive, inhuman culture, and remain silent on the status of women in our society.'

We have a suggestion for the Olmert government. Remove the worst embarrassment in the cabinet by performing a small procedure of SNIP-SNIP!

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, August 22, 2007.

The World Bank has finished a series of public hearings on a project which will link the Red Sea in the Gulf of Eilat to the depleted and polluted Dead Sea, located between Israel and Jordan. The project, which calls for the digging of a canal between the two bodies of water, has been touted by President Shimon Peres as part of the "Peace Valley" scheme which he believes will bring Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Israel closer together.

But environmental groups and geologists quoted in an Al-Jazeera feature say the plan could damage three unique local ecosystems: the Gulf of Eilat; the Arava Valley between Eilat and the Dead Sea; and the Dead Sea itself.

The opponents of the project say the political motivation of uniting Israel, Jordan and the PA behind one joint project has produced a climate in which the environmental effects of the endeavor are not being properly considered.

Proponents say it will save the Dead Sea. The water level of the Dead Sea is dropping by an average of 1 meter per year. As a result, the unique ecology and the economic development in the Dead Sea region are in serious danger. Environmentalists have distributed a bumper sticker seen on many Israeli cars that reads "Save the Dead Sea."

The World Bank says the $5 billion construction of a water conveyance system bringing salt water from the Red Sea would stabilize the Dead Sea's level and thus preserve tourism, agriculture and mineral extraction in the region.

'The Bank is refusing to listen'

Clive Lipchin, director of research at the Arava institute for environmental studies, said, however, that the Gulf of Eilat "is already overdeveloped with 70 percent coral mortality on the Israeli side."

"For the Arava Valley," he said, "the threat emanates from possible earthquakes which could cause a break in the canal and flood the valley with seawater, destroying agriculture and polluting the groundwater used by Israel and Jordan."

"The most serious problem, about which very little is known," said Lipchin, "is the mixing of the waters -- the Dead Sea with the Red Sea. This is what is unique to the project and has never before been attempted. We simply cannot predict what the outcome will be," he said.

Gidon Bromberg, Israeli director of Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), said: "The Bank is simply refusing to listen to real alternatives that have been put on the table."

One alternative to the plan proposed by environmentalists and local geologists includes channeling the flow of water in the north back to the Jordan River which flows into the Dead Sea. Over the past 50 years, the amount of fresh water the Jordan River has carried into the Dead Sea has decreased from 1.3 billion cubic meters annually, to just 70 -- 100 million cubic meters. This is because Israel, Jordan and Syria now divert 95% of the flow.

As a result, "the culturally and historically important Jordan River has been turned into little more than an open sewage channel," FoEME said.

FoEME's report on rerouting water back to the Jordan River predicts: "There would be a sizeable net environmental gain from rehabilitating the Jordan River and the Dead Sea with no negative environmental implications. This must be compared to the significant risks associated with the RDC [Red-Dead Canal] project.

Dan Zaslavski, a former Israeli water commissioner, estimated that regenerating the flow of the Jordan River from the north to bring water to the Dead Sea will cost no more than $800 million, less than one-sixth of the estimated financial outlay of the RDC project.

Earlier this year, Israel's President Shimon Peres said the "project of the canal, or the peace conduit ... is vital for the preservation of the Dead Sea, but just as much for peace and prosperity in the area."

The World Bank's feasibility study regarding the planned project is expected to begin in September.

In the 1980's and again in the 1990's, Israel considered a canal channeling water from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea, but eventually shelved the plans due to financial doubts. The Red Sea -- Dead Sea alternative now being discussed is considered to be less worthwhile economically.

This appeared in Arutz Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Hugh Fitzgerald, August 22, 2007.

Christiane Amanpour has at least one parent who was part of what one would have hoped to describe as the intelligent secular ancien regime.

They were the people pushed out by Khomeini and his epigones, and therefore, one would have thought, comprehending the nature of Islam. Well, it turns out that not everyone who has fled Iran quite has that necessary understanding.

Some like to pretend that Khomeini is a sport, when the real sport was the Shah and his father, in their de-emphasis on Islam, their emphasis on the pre-Islamic past of Iran, and their willingness to limit the power of the mullahs -- and, above all, to give the non-Muslims of Iran, the Christians, Jews, and Baha'is, reasonable security and even something akin to legal equality.

But Amanpour does not realize that. Nor, in her aggressive climb through the media ranks, has she stopped to study Islam. She has not stopped to find out what happened to the Zoroastrians or what happens to them in Iran today.

She has not stopped to find out why, even in the 20th century, a Jew could be killed for going out in the rain (where a drop might ricochet off him and hit an innocent Muslim with this raindrop of najis-ness, thus contaminating him).

She might, that is, have begun with the history of Islam in Iran and considered the treatment of non-Muslims, and how Shah Abbas II overnight ordered the conversion of all the Jews and Armenians in an Iranian city (possibly Tabriz), and why the real, as opposed to the Iranian exile's dreamy fictional history of Iran, is full of such episodes.

She might have gotten hold of E. J. Browne's work on Persian literature, and studied Hafiz and Sa'adi. She might have read Omar Khayyam, and come to realize just how un-Islamic he was. She might have read the Shahnameh of Firdowsi, and seen how his literary talent was put to work preventing the linguistic and cultural imperialism of the Arabs from successfully coming to damage and then overwhelm the Iranian culture.

She might have done a special program on Islam as a vehicle of Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism, and used Iran as an example of one place where it did not succeed as it did elsewhere.

Oh, there are many things that raw-boned massive Christiane Amanpour might have done, if she had allowed herself the leisure to think, and be something more than one more media star, one more mere reporter incapable of making sense of what she reports on.

But she did none of it.

She clawed and clawed to the top.

She entered into a mariage blanc, a white marriage of grayish convenience, with James Rubin.

She travels, she reports from here, she reports from there. She is like so many of them, with their fabulous salaries, their baseless self-assurance, their inability to convey anything difficult, anything that requires instructing us rather than feeding us visual and verbal pablum.

If you have seen the presentation of those "Christian fundamentalists" (read: Fanatics), then you will observe how carefully the cameramen have captured those flags, and taken shots of hands uplifted in prayer or hallelujahs to make sure the viewer gets the impression of a Nuremberg rally, with these "Christians" heil-hitlering all over the place.

Very carefully done, very artfully and deliberately done.

She, Christiane Amanpour, is of course determined to make this group of Christians look as bad as possible, and then to convince us that they represent a huge number of people, and to do the same, when their time comes, to those wild-eyed fanatical Jews, those "Biblical settlers" who think -- imagine that! -- that the Land of Israel, that gigantic land, practically the size of Connecticut or is it Massachusetts, was given in a Covenant to the Jews. What a terrible thing, what a thing so utterly comparable, is it not, to the view in Islam that the entire world belongs to Muslims, and that they must by right dominate everywhere?

Do you see a little something not quite symmetrical in her view, in her presentation, or that of her crew, so willing to play ball?

Meanwhile, one wonders how she can stand herself.

And why CNN so obviously insults us, in reducing the menace of Islam, the menace that only a fool could ignore, and the full scope of which, based on immutable texts, becomes clearer to the intelligent every day, to something like the non-existent menace from those wild-eyed Nurembergian Christians, with Amanpour as their recording Riefenstahl, or those crazy "West Bank" settlers, in their trailers, choosing to live among a million Arabs -- "Palestinians" -- who of course have every right to be there, because...well, isn't the Middle East the same thing as the Arab World, after all?

Where do those pesky remnants of Jews, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Copts, Maronites, Mandeans, Yazidis, Armenians, and all the others come from? Why don't they go back where they came from? The "Arab World," the "Muslim Arab World" -- now that's more like it. That's just the ticket.

Because, you see, Every Group Has Its Crazies. And those crazies, you see, are exactly alike, in what they want, and how they act, and the size of the demands they make on the rest of us. But exactly.

That's the point of this series. You didn't think there was another point, did you?

This was posted on Jihad Watch

To Go To Top

Posted by Jihad Watch, August 22, 2007.

This essay was posted at

Just as my book Religion of Peace? confronts this very notion. Ms. Amanpour, I am available to provide for you an alternative view.

"CNN explores religious fundamentalism," by David Bauder for AP:

NEW YORK -- Christiane Amanpour's work on the documentary series "God's Warriors" took her directly to intersections of extreme religious and secular thinking.

She watched, fascinated, as demonstrators in San Francisco accused teenagers in the fundamentalist Christian group BattleCry of intolerance in a clash of two cultures that will probably never understand each other.

Understanding is what Amanpour is trying to promote in "God's Warriors," which takes up six prime-time hours on CNN this week. The series on religious fundamentalism among Christians, Muslims and Jews airs in three parts, 9 p.m. EDT Tuesday through Thursday.


"I'm not interested in drumming up false fears, or falsely allaying fears," CNN's chief international correspondent told The Associated Press by phone from France, where she added last-minute touches to the series. "I just want people to know what's going on."

Amanpour traveled extensively over eight months to work on the series. The trips to Amanpour's native Iran are most fascinating. She explored the ancient roots of the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, and talked with one of the country's most accomplished female politicians about how Muslim women are treated.

Another segment tried to explain why so many devout Muslims are willing to give their lives to a cause.

"To the West, martyrdom has a really bad connotation because of suicide bombers who call themselves martyrs," she said. "Really, martyrdom is actually something that historically was quite noble, because it was about standing up and rejecting tyranny, rejecting injustice and rejecting oppression and, if necessary, dying for that."...

This is true in both Christianity and Islam. Amanpour fails to point out, however, that in Islam, but not in Christianity, a martyr is someone who kills for Allah, and is killed in the process (cf. Qur'an 9:111). One might forgive "the West" for getting this "bad connotation" in the face of the Islamic scriptural jihadists use to justify suicide attacks.

"I did come away with a sense that we -- or those people who don't want to see religion in politics and culture -- if we don't look into it and see what is going on, we're in danger of missing it and not be able to react to it properly," she said.

Ain't it the truth, Ms. Amanpour?

Amanpour was one of the last reporters to talk to the Rev. Jerry Falwell. She interviewed him a week before he died about the legacy of the Moral Majority, the organization that thrust evangelical Christians onto the political stage.

The segment on Christians explores BattleCry in some depth, digging at the roots of an organization that fights against some of the cruder elements of popular culture and urges teenagers to be chaste. In noting how girls at some BattleCry events are encouraged to wear long dresses, Amanpour asks the group's leader how it is different from the Taliban.

Well, uh, Ms. Amanpour, one might note the absence of AK-47s, the lack of opposition to the education of girls, the absence of burqas, the absence of divine sanction for wife-beating, and sundry other things. Unless you're too blinded by political correctness to notice, as is evidently the case.

In a non-judgmental way, she visits a family that is home-schooling its children and explores the influence of Evangelicals on the courts.

Homeschooling is evil too? Sheesh. Over 9,000 terror attacks [have been] committed in the name of Islam since 9/11, and Christiane Amanpour is spending her time demonizing homeschoolers.

Posted by Robert Spencer at August 20, 2007 7:27 PM

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, August 22, 2007.

This is another segment of a monograph on Islam and Sharia entitled "Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It". It is written by an author whose pen name is No Sharia. On June 30, 2007, I posted a segment of the monograph -- "Foreign Policy Part B 12.3." No Sharia continues to fill in segments of the monograph. This one is a what if. If Europe wakes up while it still has the strength to confront Islam, this might be the result. It is Section 12.4.1 of the Monograph and is entitled "The Great Civil War in Europe."

The evolving monograph can be found at
http://www.islam-watch.org/NoSharia/Prevent-Europe-Islamization9.htm It is well-worth reading and pondering. No Sharia is well beyond the stage most of us are at -- still arguing about "moderate" Islam versus radical Islam. No Sharia stresses that the "goals of an Arab imperialism [are] aiming at the domination of Europe using islamification as a method."

Islam Watch is a website run by a dedicated group of Ex-Muslims, who have made it their mission to tell "the truth about Islam." They put "Islam under scrutiny by Ex-Muslims."

The Great Civil War in Europe

The conflicts between islamists and other followers of traditional islam, which is the real islam, and non-muslims in various countries in Europe, grew during the first decades of the 21st century. The larger the muslim parts of the populations grew in various countries, the more radicalized (in this case: true to its doctrine) they became. No effective policies prevented that parallel muslim societies became strong in different parts of Europe, and forced the governments to make many concessions and give privileges to islamists. The political development in Europe therefore followed the process described in Part 1. The way in which individual governments made themselves free of the restrictions put on them by EU and its administration, was described in sect.12.3 p.14.

After decades of protests and demonstrations, a number of violent acts against political adversaries including murders of political opponents, developed into frequent physical fights between islamists vs police and private militias, and later into firefights. The frequency of terrorist acts against the general non-muslim population increased. In some countries, this phase E (or ph. 5) of the islamisation process of Europe led to armed insurrections (phase F (also called ph. 6)) which grow organically from the demonstrations, conflicts, fights and terrorist acts. After a period, even heavy weapons were used, and the fights between islamists and the military and other forces soon developed into regular civil wars (phase G (also called ph. 7)).

In the countries where this occurred, city after city were partly (or mostly) destroyed in the fighting. During the conflicts, it was discovered that the concentration of muslims to certain larger cities, and there often to parts of the cities, was a blessing. Few wars have been won by mainly occupying cities -- by static forces -- with few industries and no natural supply of food or other necessary resources. The fighting rapidly became very brutal, and a hundred Fallujahs appeared in Europe. The civil wars in various countries were extremely violent and cruel, and the destruction of the cities severe, when block after block had to be reconquered by the Europeans.

In a few countries where socialists/social democrats and social liberals still held power despite electoral setbacks, the weak reactions of the governments led to the islamists gaining ground. This caused the governments to fall, and conservative/nationalist/classical liberal/libertarian parties took over the political power. However, at that stage these had -- like the French government after Dunkirk in 1940 -- great difficulties to stabilize the military situation, and it could be done only at a great cost in human lives. The larger parts of these countries were taken over by islamists.

But in other countries, the strategic and tactical situation of the islamists generally deteriorated slowly after some months of fighting, and specially when regular European military forces were mobilized and trained. The shortage of heavy weapons and regular military knowledge of the islamists were only two factors. Their strategic and tactical thinking was often inadequate and couldn't compensate for a number of weaknesses of the muslim forces. The solidarity between most European nations was now strong; help was given by a number of countries with better domestic political situations; and in the end also American troops helped to crush the islamists. The American troops were specially helpful in countries where the islamists had nearly taken over the political power because of the weaknesses and mistakes of earlier governments. The help from muslim countries to the islamists was also often prevented to reach them thanks to the American forces surrounding Europe. An iron ring protected Europe against interventions from the outside.

The centers of resistance were systematically attacked and subdued but it took much longer for the European forces to reconquer cities than for the American Marine Corps to conquer Fallujah in 2004. As a matter of fact, the tempo of the fighting, the treatment of prisoners etc hade many more similarities to the fight for Tammerfors in March-April 1918 (during the Finnish civil war) than to Fallujah in 2004. And the worse the atrocities carried out by the islamists became, and the longer the fighting continued, the more radicalized became the European population. As always, civil wars cause the most intense hatred between the parts of the population which fight each other.

Granada II

Soon after the first outbreak of hostilities between the Home Guard plus army units and the islamists, slogans like "Granada II", "Granada, not Palestine" were heard. They became more and more common and were soon incorporated among the goals of many non-muslim political organizations and parties. The people saying e g "Granada, not Palestine" had realized that the European policy regarding PLO and the Palestinian refugees during more than half a century had in reality only led to the preservation of a problem, and not to any kind of solution. No similar destructive so-called peace process could ever be accepted in Europe between muslims and non-muslims.

The European public had at that point of time also understood the islamic policy of "hudna", a method -- a truce for a while -- used when islamists are weak, so they can regain their strength and then again fight for the islamisation of Europe. The socialists/social democrats and social liberals could not explain to the public why such a privilege should be given to islamists when these were weak. Most people understood that it was important to crush them when they had become weak, in order to be able to solve the problem for ever. So these slogans could be heard from the lips of an ever increasing number of Europeans. But other -- less drastic -- solutions were naturally also formulated.

Contributing reasons

A number of factors contributed to the dramatic radicalization of the attitudes of the European electorate. The fact that the dislike by the Europeans of the activities of many muslims had been suppressed by various laws for so long, led to a special intensity in the hatred of the islamists. The contempt and disgust for so many islamist thoughts, actions and rules had hardened during the earlier decades, and suddenly people were allowed to show what they really thought. The large number of terrorist acts during the earlier decades, and the atrocities during the armed insurrections and the civil wars in various countries, had also exhausted the patience of the tolerant European citizens.

The refusal of so many of the so-called mainstream, or moderate, muslims, to accept any kind of responsibility for the muslims following what was said to be another interpretation of islam -- political islam/islamism -- and the general unwillingness of muslims to help the police and intelligence services to identify and find islamists, had revealed the emptiness of the claim that islam basically is a religion of peace and tolerance. Many moderate muslims just felt unable to act against islamists who, regarding so many issues, in reality have the full weight of the islamic doctrine behind them. To be a moderate muslim was in many cases revealed to be just a cultural habit easily discarded if the faith of the person for any reason became stronger. That many muslims didn┤t act as citizens, instead of being passive or active allies of the terrorists, was more damaging to the cause of islam in Europe than anything else.

Most people had during the earlier decades also understood the method to argue that the islamists and many other muslims employ, and how these rules are used in all discussions and dialogues with non-muslims. So e.g. a favorite method like the role of a victim of the brutal actions by non-muslims was no longer credible to Europeans. People understood that these muslims were instead victims of their own often primitive values and their interpretation of the religious doctrine.

The growing understanding that the fight for Islam also -- to a considerable extent -- was a fight for the goals of an Arab imperialism aiming at the domination of Europe using islamification as a method, also mobilized the Europeans.

To Go To Top

Posted by Orde Kittrie, August 22, 2007.

This paper is part of a Syracuse Law Review symposium issue entitled "A Nuclear Iran: The Legal Implications of a Preemptive National Security Strategy." The paper details how the Islamic Republic of Iran has flouted international law with impunity over the last three decades, a trend that has accelerated in recent years and become more dangerous with Iran's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Part I of this paper reviews the history of violent breaches of international law by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The paper specifies which international laws have been violated by these Iranian government actions, reviews the evidence tying Iran to these acts, analyzes the surprisingly weak international reactions to these violations, and concludes that Iran has yet to be meaningfully sanctioned for any of these violations.

Early violations of international law by the Islamic Republic of Iran included the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Teheran and its diplomats in 1979, and the Iranian-directed bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983. In March 1992, Hizbollah, in coordination with the Iranian Embassy, bombed the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, killing twenty-nine. Another flagrant Iranian violation occurred in September 1992, when Iran assassinated four Iranian Kurdish dissidents in Berlin. A German judge ruled that the Berlin killings had been ordered by Iran's top political leadership, which included Iran's then and current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was Iran's President at the time and is currently Iran's third ranking official. In July 1994, at Iran's behest, a truck filled with explosives destroyed the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, killing 85 people. Remarkably, none of these flagrant violations of international law resulted in significant economic or other punishment of Iran.

Iran has in recent years continued flouting international law with impunity. Iranian President Ahmadinejad's repeated urging that Israel be wiped off the map violates both Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention's prohibition of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Yet no sanctions have been imposed.

Iran is currently the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, providing Hizballah and various Palestinian terrorist groups including Hamas with extensive funding, training and weapons. Iran's support for these groups violates several legally binding provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1373. Iran's continued harboring of senior al Qaeda officials also violates Resolution 1373. The Security Council has neither condemned any of these Iranian violations nor imposed any sanctions in response to them.

Part II of this paper examines the Iranian regime's ideology. It notes that while some have argued that President Ahmadinejad's statements calling for the destruction of the United States and Israel are not reflective of the overall Iranian leadership, similar calls have been made by Supreme Leader Khamenei and by Hashemi Rafsanjani, the current third-ranking official.

Part III of this paper details Iran's violations of international laws relating to nuclear nonproliferation and analyzes the international community's hesitant and tepid response to those violations. In August 2002, the IAEA discovered an 18-year pattern of noncompliance by Iran with its obligations to report all its nuclear activities. Over those eighteen years, Iran had built major nuclear facilities without telling the IAEA, and without the IAEA detecting them. Yet the IAEA failed to formally report Iran's non-compliance to the Security Council until February 2006, three-and-a-half years later. Iranian officials have crowed about how the negotiations between it and the West during that time and since have bought Iran time to move forward with its nuclear program.

On December 23, 2006, in Resolution 1737, the Security Council finally sanctioned Iran for its nuclear nonproliferation violations. Three months later, in Resolution 1747 of March 24, 2007, the Security Council responded to Iran's violation of the legally binding requirements of Resolution 1737 by slightly augmenting its sanctions on Iran. The paper finds that Iran's heavy dependence on oil exports and other foreign trade leaves Iran highly vulnerable to strong economic sanctions. Yet the sanctions imposed by Resolutions 1737 and 1747 are, as detailed in this paper, remarkably weak, too weak to coerce Iran into compliance, contain Iran's ability to advance its nuclear weapons program, or deter other states from following Iran's lead.

The Resolution 1737 and 1747 sanctions are so weak because Russia, with support from China, refused to let the resolutions go forward until they were heavily watered down. Indeed, the sanctions' weakness stands in stark contrast to major Russian and Chinese transactions with Iran that were unaffected by the sanctions and thus represent leverage lost. With such weak sanctions and business as usual for the most important Russian and Chinese deals, it is no surprise that Iran has shown no signs of backing down from its nuclear program.

As the paper describes, the international community has learned in recent years that comprehensive sanctions can stop both illicit nuclear weapons programs and terrorism. It was discovered, in the wake of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, that the IAEA's special inspections regime for Iraq, coupled with comprehensive Security Council sanctions, had destroyed Iraq's nuclear weapons program and kept it from restarting. Strong, universally implemented sanctions also induced Libya's government to forsake terrorism and completely and verifiably relinquish its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.

Yet the sanctions contained in Resolutions 1737 and 1747 are far weaker than the sanctions which stopped the Iraqi and Libyan nuclear weapons program. Indeed, the sanctions imposed on Iran by these resolutions are weaker than those the Council had previously imposed in response to many lesser threats to international peace and security. The paper concludes that so long as the international community continues to fail to hold Iran accountable for its violations of international law, Iran will continue to engage in such violations, with increasingly dangerous consequences.

Orde Kittrie is a professor at Arizona State University College of Law in Tempe Arizona. Contact him at orde.kittrie@asu.edu.

This is the abstract of an article published in the Syracuse Law Review, Vol. 57, p. 519, 2007. This abstract is archived at http://ssrn.com/abstract=991043; the site also provides download access to the article itself.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, August 22, 2007.

This was written by Attorney Elyakim Haetzni and it appeared in Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com) August 8, 2007. I featured it on my website as an essay entitled, "Mis-Leading."

Why would a captain willfully run a ship aground?

The American-Israel Strategic Planning Group, with leading members such as Bennett Zimmerman and Yoram Ettinger, has again publicized data contradicting the chilling picture that serves as the Left's rationalization of and excuse for the policy of withdrawals. In general, the picture is exactly the opposite of everything we assumed. There is a sharp decline in Arab birthrates and a constant rise in Jewish birthrates.

In 1995, just 69% of all births within the Green Line were among Jews. In the first four months of this year, they have already reached 75.5% -- a 6.5% increase in 12 years. And one more sensational statistic: in 1969, the average Arab woman in Israel six more children than the average Jewish woman. That gap had shrunk in 2006 to 0.8; that is, less than one child.

In 2006, 15,000 Arabs left Judea and Samaria and 10,500 left Gaza. Today, population growth among the Arabs in Judea and Samaria is less than that among the Jews within the Green Line. And the number of Arabs in Judea and Samaria is not 2.5 million -- as government experts and the Left claim, having just copied false data provided by the Palestinian Authority -- but 1.5 million. One million less.

Logic suggests that this picture, which allays demographic fears, would alter the policy conclusions that required withdrawal and collapse. Yet, this does not occur, because the rule is that the Palestino-Jewish cult doesn't accept good news and it even keeps it from the public through its complete control of the media.

The question is: Why? Why do they knowingly mislead themselves regarding proven facts? Why would a captain willfully run his ship aground?

From demography to the IDF. It was reported in the Internet edition of Maariv on January 29 this year that when then-Chief of Staff Dan Halutz was asked, in an internal IDF consultation, why the ground offensive in the last war was so long in coming, he answered that he did not count on the troops. That is an earthshaking, senstaional item, almost unbelievable; yet, it disappeared from view -- because it was made to disappear.

Similarly, a very unusual article, bordering on the unimaginable, appeared on the Internet. It was by Dr. Boaz Cohen, an historian and researcher who served in a reserve combat unit on the Lebanese border in June 2006, just before the war. He wrote that the IDF clearly relinquished Israeli sovereignty in exchange for "the Hizbullah quiet." They allowed Hizbullah to prepare mine fields and to point guns and rockets at us, as long as it was done within Lebanon's borders -- a ridiculous situation even under international law. Military operations were subject to the overriding concern of "quiet in the Galilee" to the point that the IDF was careful not to cause Hizbullah too many losses, so as not to heat up the front.

The army promoted a codeword: "Zero targets." That is, the soldiers were pulled back from the border so that Hizbullah would not have targets for kidnapping. Border outposts were abandoned and patrols stopped traveling along the border's security road.

In the town of Ghajar, the IDF left an empty position in the hope that a Hizbullah attack would focus on it. And that is, indeed, what happened. 40 Hizbullah fighters overran the outpost and dynamited the pillbox, and in the adjacent outpost they damaged vehicles, including tanks, vandalizing everything, and went on their way. The position was not booby-trapped, artillery was not fired at it, there were no ambushes, and the IDF suffered nine injuries.

No one is asking why this has happened to the army. How has the IDF -- which we knew as aggressive, aware, preempting, proactive -- reached this disgraceful state of passiveness and defeatism, a state of mental retreat?

No one has investigated the possible connection between leftist political ideology and the shoddy performance in the field. Maybe this is how it looks when an army has had its ideals, motivation and faith in the justice of its cause taken way. Maybe this is how it looks when an army is fed a leftist code of ethics and when its Prime Minister is "tired of winning"? Perhaps, in a society whose rulers, elite and media have internalized the messages of the enemy and, in large part, already identify with them, the army too cannot escape the rot. Perhaps, an army indoctrinated to believe that land is not important and is not worth fighting over will abandon outposts and roads within sovereign Israeli territory.

No one is researching those connections because such an investigation may prove that it is impossible to halt the rot at any imaginary green line -- rot has a way of spreading until it destroys the entire organism. An army trained to effectively fight its own citizens, in the name of the holy egoism of the "now," temporary quiet and momentary comfort, will never know how to make distinctions. Why abandon and destroy Netzarim and N'vei Dekalim, but give one's life for Misgav Am and Kfar Giladi?

And from here to the biggest question of all.

Public Security Minister and former General Security Services (GSS) Director Avi Dichter testified before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in February 2004:

"I foresee no change in Gaza as a result of the Disengagement... And I do not identify a possibility of chaos or that the Hamas will begin a process leading to the takeover of Gaza. Hamas... is wary of civil war... The Fatah-Tanzim apparatus is dozens of times bigger than Hamas, which understands that."

Dichter said all of that in his capacity as head of the GSS, that is, as our eyes -- eyes that cannot see -- and everything, literally every word, came out backwards. The Disengagement led to chaos in Gaza and a takeover by Hamas, which was not wary of a civil war and which easily dispersed the Fatah-Tanzim.

Currently, Dichter is an important and central minister in a government involved up to its neck in negotiations and practical preparations to repeat in Judea and Samaria exactly what they did in Gaza. Discussions are underway with the Americans and with Abu Mazen's people to reach, within months, an agreement-in-principle on a Palestinian state in 70-80% of the territory of Judea and Samaria, with historic Jerusalem as its capital, including "cleansing" the territory of Jews and the withdrawal of the IDF. Were Dichter to again appear before the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, it can be assumed that he would again claim that there is no concern of chaos in what he calls "the West Bank," and there is no concern that Hamas would take over, because Fatah-Tanzim is 10 times stronger.

What will they tell the investigative commission that will be appointed when Beit Shean, Afula, Haifa, Hadera, Netanya, Herzliya,Petach Tikva and Tel Aviv are prey to Kassams and Katyushas? What will they say after Hamas does take over and, more so, when the murderers from the Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- after having used up the 100,000-shekel bribe they received for handing in their weapons at the entrance to the police station and receiving it at the exit -- return to terrorism under a new moniker? And how will they explain it when Fatah again collaborates with Hamas? How do they explain that, even now, Abu Mazen is paying thousands of Hamas officials in Gaza, including Ismail Haniyeh himself, from monies tranferred to him by the government of Israel?

What moves those people to take their people, their nation and ultimately themselves down a path that may lead to destruction?

No doubt this question will be investigated. Let it only be before the disaster, not afterwards.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, August 22, 2007.

I'll bet he won't stop electricity anytime soon. Just because the Arabs have declared war on Israel is no reason that Israel has to defend itself, is it? I'll bet if the Arabs keep on shooting at the power plant, he'll send them a message, something like "I mean it, you guys. You hit the plant again and I'll really stop electricity." and when they do it again, he'll say, "this is your last warning." And if Israel does ever stop supplying gas, electricity and material for Kassam bombers to the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank, the traitor organization Peace Now (also written as Appease Now) will yell to the American State Dep't, who will send some 4th rank flunky over to yell at the Olmert government and Israel will begin supplying her enemies all over again.

(IsraelNN.com) Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) has warned Hamas that he will turn off the electric supply from Ashkelon to Gaza if terrorists aim at the city's huge power plant. The Rottenberg generating station supplies 60 percent of Gaza's power, the minister stated.

He pointed out that terrorists previously shot an Israel Electric Company employee while he was carrying out a repair on an electric line to Gaza.

The Infrastructures Minister added that Israel is not involved with the transport of fuel for Gaza generating plants. He explained that the Palestinian Authority (PA) made a contract with the private Dor-Alon energy company to supply fuel and that last week's halt in deliveries was the firm's decision after receiving intelligence reports that a terrorist attack was imminent.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 22, 2007.

This was posted by Robert Spencer on the Jihad Watch website

Audrey Hudson reports in the Washington Times about CAIR's ongoing attempts to be taken off the unindicted co-conspirator list.

CAIR is crying "Islamophobia" at the highest levels now, claiming that the disclosure of the unindicted co-conspirator designation was "the vindictive attempt of the government to smear a group which has been critical of the government's actions in aggressively and selectively prosecuting Muslim groups or persons."

So you see, if the government would just stop prosecuting Muslims, and drop CAIR's unindicted co-conspirator status, everything would be hunky dory -- except for the nettlesome fact that Islamic jihadists would have a more or less free hand.

Isn't it funny how so many of CAIR's initiatives seem to end up with exactly that result -- most notoriously the Flying Imams' suit against air passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

But CAIR is evidently more concerned about the imams' hurt feelings than about the safety of both Muslim and non-Muslim air passengers from Islamic terror attacks on airplanes. If CAIR is truly a moderate group, it is at very least a singularly inept one. These guys are veritable Keystone Moderates.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) says it is suffering from a decline in membership and fundraising and blames the Justice Department for listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving a charity accused of terrorist ties.

CAIR is asking a federal judge to strike it as one of the more than 300 Muslim groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the government's case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which is currently on trial in Dallas.

"The public naming of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator has impeded its ability to collect donations as possible donors either do not want to give to them because they think they are a 'terrorist' organization or are too scared to give to them because of the possible legal ramifications of donating money to a 'terrorist" organization," CAIR said in an amicus curiae brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The brief cites reporting by The Washington Times about the organization's declining membership -- coverage that CAIR had previously denounced as a "hit piece."

The Justice Department shut down the Holy Land Foundation and in 2004 indicted several of its top officers who are accused of raising $36 million from 1995 through 2001 for organizations and persons linked with Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by the Clinton administration in 1995. The foundation raised $12.4 million after the designation that made such fundraising illegal, prosecutors say.

The 42-count federal indictment accused the foundation's officers of conspiracy, providing support to terrorists, money-laundering and income-tax evasion.

On May 29, the Justice Department made public a list naming 307 unindicted co-conspirators -- including CAIR -- in the case now being tried in the Dallas courtroom of U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish.

"The name of CAIR has been smeared by association with a criminal case that ostensibly involves the charitable funding of a 'terrorist' group," said the brief filed last week.

The brief says federal prosecutors had no legitimate governmental interest in publicly releasing the names of CAIR and other unindicted co-conspirators. "Instead, the disclosure is the vindictive attempt of the government to smear a group which has been critical of the government's actions in aggressively and selectively prosecuting Muslim groups or persons," CAIR told the court.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 22, 2007.

This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared in World Net Daily

JERUSALEM -- Newly installed Israeli President Shimon Peres has held a secret meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad at his official residence in Jerusalem, it was disclosed today during an interview with Al Jazeera.

Israeli diplomatic sources told WND during the recent meeting Peres presented Fayad with a plan WND reported Peres quietly drafted for the Jewish state to evacuate and transfer to the Palestinians nearly the entire West Bank and several Arab Israeli cities located within territory that undisputedly is Israel's according to the international community.

The West Bank is strategic territory that runs alongside Jerusalem and is within rocket range of Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport. It is home to many biblical Jewish communities and some of Judaism's holiest sites.

Peres has also presented his initiative to top European Union officials, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to top aides for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the past few weeks, after he took office as Israeli president last month, diplomatic sources in Jerusalem told WND.

The official role of president here is limited largely to ceremonial matters; the president is not allowed to lead foreign policy.

Olmert, Abbas, Fayad and the EU are mulling over the plan, said the diplomatic sources, who stated Olmert agrees with much of the plan's contents.

Peres confirmed he had met with Fayad during an interview with Al-Jazeera slated for broadcast today. The Israeli president also told Al Jazeera he invited Abbas to meet with him.

Peres' plan calls for Israel to hand 97 percent of the West Bank over to Abbas, with Israel retaining a small number of the territory's Jewish communities. In exchange for Israel keeping some land, the Jewish state will give the PA control of Arab Israeli cities north of Tel Aviv which, together with the evacuated West Bank territory, would amount to the equivalent of 100 percent of the West Bank.

Diplomatic sources said aside from aides to Abbas and Olmert, Peres has presented his plan to European Union officials. Top EU diplomats in recent days told the media they want a U.S.-sponsored international conference scheduled for November to lead to negotiations on a final agreement with the Palestinians.

That international conference and talk from the Bush administration the past few weeks has led many here to speculate the U.S. will push in the near future for intense Israeli-Palestinian negotiations leading to a Palestinian state.

With a year and a half left in office, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been urging meetings between Abbas and Olmert to establish a framework for momentum leading to a breakthrough at November's conference. Olmert and Abbas have been meeting bi-monthly in summits brokered by the U.S.

According to Israeli and Palestinian diplomatic sources, the meetings are being used by Olmert and Abbas to draft the outline of a permanent status deal ultimately yielding a Palestinian state scheduled to be aired in public at the November summit.

Israel to give up Temple Mount?

Palestinian negotiators drafting the agreement behind the scenes with Olmert's office have made clear they will not accept any final peace deal with Israel unless the Jewish state forfeits the Temple Mount, said a chief Palestinian negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity.

According to a report in Israel's Yediot Aharonot daily last week, Olmert is willing to discuss joint Israeli-Palestinian control over the Temple Mount complex. The report didn't state the positions of the Palestinian side on the issue.

Asked by WND whether Olmert is willing to forfeit the Temple Mount in an agreement with the Palestinians, David Baker, a spokesman for the prime minister, had no comment.

Already Olmert during the meetings has granted a number of security concessions to Abbas regarding increased Palestinian control of the West Bank.

The Israeli prime minister last month granted amnesty to 178 gunmen from Abbas' Fatah organization who comprise most of the senior leadership of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the declared military wing of Fatah that is responsible for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years.

Olmert reportedly is considering granting amnesty to 206 more Brigades terrorists. According to Palestinian officials, the Israeli Prime Minister already informed the PA that Fatah gunmen are largely immune from Israeli anti-terror raids regardless of whether they are officially on Olmert's amnesty list.

Also, Olmert is strongly considering removing hundreds of Israel Defense Forces roadblocks and checkpoints situated in strategic sites located throughout the West Bank. The IDF sees the checkpoints as crucial in helping stop terrorists, including suicide bombers, from infiltrating Jewish cities.

As well, in a little-reported but major move, Israel last week started allowing armed Palestinian policemen to patrol areas in the West Bank that fall under Israeli security control according to the 1993 Oslo Accords. Security in the territory, referred to as Area B, is supposed to be ensured by the IDF, which still monitors the area but has allowed for an unprecedented stepped-up armed Palestinian security presence there.

In response to the renewed momentum toward a Palestinian state, rabbis for the Yesha Council of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria -- the West Bank -- yesterday slammed the Israeli government for considering major concessions.

The council released a statement expressing "concern at the irresponsible diplomatic moves being made during these days, the main point of which is the consent to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. These moves are founded upon irrelevant considerations of political survival, and are being made in total opposition to the opinion of the defense establishment."

Peres overstepping his boundaries?

When Peres assumed the role of president last month, political analysts and pundits here widely expected him to defy the limits of his office and take a hands-on role in Israeli diplomacy and policy making.

According to Knesset sources, Peres is contemplating even asking lawmakers to officially expand the role of the president to include conducting foreign policy.

During Peres' acceptance speech last month, he called for Israel to retreat from the West Bank. The next day, he called for direct negotiations with Syria, which is hosting top Palestinian terror leaders and supporting the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which last summer launched thousands of rockets into Israeli population centers. Syrian President Bashar Assad warned several times the past few months his country is preparing for war.

Peres, Israel's longest standing Knesset member, was considered the driving force of the 1993 Oslo Accords. The Peres Peace Center, headed by the new president, advocates the division of Jerusalem and Israeli withdrawals from the strategic West Bank and Golan Heights.

Peres repeatedly has come under fire by critics for policies and plans many say would greatly undermine Israel's security if implemented.

An official biography of the elderly statesman released earlier this year, entitled "Shimon Peres," revealed a draft agreement he hammered out with West Germany in 1961 to allow the creation of German military bases on Israeli soil less than two decades after the Holocaust.

The biography also detailed a controversial plan Peres concocted to lease French Guyana from France and create an Israeli colony there at a time when the nine-year-old Israel was desperate for immigrants and struggling to establish itself.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Dann, August 22, 2007.

"Let's make a garden," my 22 year old daughter Ayelet suggested when I during my weekly visit to their little home in Yitzhar, a Jewish community in the Shomron, near the ancient city of Shechem, or Nablus as it's called today.

Nestled in the valley between two mountains, Eval and Grezim, Shechem is the place where Jacob bought property, where Joseph is buried, and where Joshua built an altar and blessed the Jewish people shortly after they entered the Land of Israel, the Promised Land. It's also become a major center for Palestinian terrorism.

"A lovely idea," I replied, bouncing between my two grandsons with chunks of watermelon and love.

Every year in Detroit, where I grew up, my father planted tomato plants in our backyard. As we carefully tended the plants through the hot and humid summer, he taught us that we, too, could in a way be pioneers.

"Now that's a tomato," he exclaimed proudly, holding up a very large one, his redemption of city life and a genetic thread to his Russian peasant roots.

Ayelet led me to a patch of ground with thorny weeds and stones.

"Here," she said handing me a shovel and pickax.

'Where's the earth?' I wondered. But trusting her instincts and hopes I began to dig, prying stones from their earthen womb, until the soil exposed itself, dark and merciful.

Ayelet and her husband, Akiva and my grandsons live on a hilltop. From their place I could see the outskirts of Shechem to the north; to the west, the Mediterranean Sea shimmers on the horizon. In the valley below, the sounds of Arab children and street vendors swirl in the wind.

The Promised Land, I thought, wasn't such an easy bargain as I dug into the unyielding ground.

Turning the earth I suddenly noticed something unusual -- a small cube, a mosaic tile. Trained as a tour guide, I understood that this indicated the presence of someone from either the Second Temple (Roman) period or the Talmudic (Byzantine) period.

At first I thought it was a fluke, but then I found more tiles, hundreds of them. Tile floors are unusual, usually a sign of luxury. Could it mean that someone important lived here?

A few meters away, the rock surface had been chipped away to form a place where water was collected, perhaps a mikve (ritual bath), and nearby the rock had been carved out to form a place where grapes were pressed. Heaps of stones might once have been the walls of homes. A Jewish village, here on this hilltop?

Tomato plants in the midst of an archeological site? I dug more, looking for evidence of life some two thousand years ago. I jug handle turned up, a few bits of pottery, but the mystery of this lost community remained hidden beneath the rubble, if at all.

My grandsons watched me work, too young to help. Leaning against the shovel, I tried to show them how to dig, their tiny limbs straining with the weight of tools too heavy for them to hold.

One day soon they will hold shovels and plows. When I can no longer lift the tools, they will dig, in their home, our land. A promise.

In front of their newly built home, consisting of two old metal shipping containers connected by a roof, Akiva made a small cement porch. While still wet, Ayelet took some of the tiles we'd found and placed them in the floor, spelling out in Hebrew: Baruchim Haba'im -- Blessed are those who enter.

Moshe Dann a former assistant professor of history at the City University of New York is a Jerusalem-based writer and journalist. This article was published August 15, 2007 in The Forwrd.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 22, 2007.

I have returned from a few days in the north, including the Golan. Always when I am there, I am strengthened once again in my absolute conviction that this is ours and under no circumstances should be surrendered to Syria. This would be insanity, but then insanity abounds these days (about which more below).

The only reassuring note I have found is the fierce opposition of the defense establishment to turning over Shaba Farms, which is on the edge of the Golan. In 2000 we withdrew from southern Lebanon to the international line (the Blue Line); the fact that we had done so and were no longer on Lebanese territory was confirmed by the UN after careful assessment. Shaba Farms was considered part of the Golan -- from our perspective part of land we had annexed; from an broadly international perspective, an issue between us and Syria at most. Hezbollah claimed this as Lebanese territory, for this provided the rationale for continuing to attack us: we were "occupiers." But now the UN has had a change of mind and is leaning towards honoring a Lebanese demand for this area; international pressure is being put upon us to withdraw from the area to strengthen the Lebanese government. Secretary General Ki-Moon is sending surveyors to review the lines.

The IDF says that to withdraw would set a precedent that is dangerous for Israel's security.


The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades -- which is Fatah -- is saying they will no longer honor the "truce" that was arranged between Israel and the PA. This initially involved IDF "amnesty" for a list of 178 Brigades people who were on a wanted list: the IDF would no longer go after them, and in return, the people on the list were supposed to turn in their weapons and sign a piece of paper renouncing terrorism. The Palestinians then said there was a second list of 110, and while this hasn't been confirmed by Israel, the broader sense that had begun to emerge was that we were going to be cutting the Brigades slack across the board.

Now, according to the Brigades, two people on the list who were supposed to have been given amnesty -- Iyad Bisharat and Ahmed Abu Jalboush -- were arrested by the IDF. My best information is that Bisharat was on that first list and Abu Jalboush on the second.

At any rate, there was never a moment of doubt in my mind about the fact that if these guys were arrested, there was a reason. We know that they are not honoring their commitment to renounce terrorism. And, indeed, what I've learned at long last from an unofficial source is that they were shooting at the IDF.

What was incredible today is the lengths I went to simply to find out if they had weapons on them when arrested and why they were arrested. Numerous phone calls to the Ministry of Defense got me no where and I was told to be in touch with the Prime Minister's office. But my communication with PMO representative David Baker yielded next to nothing: Security, he reported, had no comment other than to say that "continuous steps will be taken to prevent terror from being perpetrated whenever and wherever possible." Why the stonewalling? Is it not in Israel's best interests from a PR perspective to show that there was reason why these particular Brigades members were arrested?

The answer I have obtained, from an unofficial source, is that this refusal to comment reflects a severe conflict currently on-going between the political echelon and high members of the IDF: Olmert and company, eager to pursue "negotiations" with the PA, would prefer to ignore the "occasional lapse" in the agreement and pretend that all is going marvelously. The IDF is adamant that operations to stop terrorist operations must continue and thus are acting without political sanction. Thus the desire to keep it low key. And thus Defense's insistence on throwing it in the lap of the prime minister's office.

G-d bless our IDF officials, who not only have their heads screwed on properly but are insistent upon acting.

And Olmert and company? Here is a piece of the insanity referred to above. One must ask WHY? If the Palestinians cannot be trusted and will continue to perpetrate terrorists acts, WHY would he cut them slack and move ahead in dealing with the PA? Because he has an agenda and will advance it at all costs. This is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn.

We have hardly seen the last.


The rumors continue to fly fast and furious and there is no way to pin down what is real and what is not: rumors, that is, regarding those purported negotiations going on between Olmert and Abbas. Of late we have "information" from President Shimon Peres that there is an attempt to complete an agreement before the "summit." And there have been reports of Olmert's willingness to compromise on control of Har Habayit.

I spoke with one very well informed individual who confessed that he was also unable to pin down the truth of the various rumors but said that his understanding was that, at most, a very vague, short document was to be the outcome of these "negotiations." Vague, so that each side could claim to have achieved what he wanted. (Makes sense since Abbas demands exceed anything Olmert could deliver.)

Following this would be the inevitable arguments about what was agreed upon. In a nutshell, in spite of how sickening this is, it is exceedingly unlikely that a Palestinian state will evolve from what's going on.

Abbas is so weak and ineffectual, that in the end even someone like Olmert, ready to turn a blind eye, will have to confront certain realities regarding terrorist actions that Abbas cannot control.


This is what Olmert ultimately will not be able to ignore:

According to Khaled Abu Toameh, reporting in the Post in the beginning of the week, high level PA security officials have admitted that they have been unable to block a Hamas presence in Judea and Samaria in spite of their best efforts. Hamas's military arm, Izaddin al-Kassam, has become "very active" in particular in Samaria, near Nablus, where it is creating new cells and attacking IDF patrols.

"We are going after the wrong guys," a PA official said. "We are detaining journalists, university students and low-level political operatives. Meanwhile, Izaddin al-Kassam is establishing secret cells and acquiring more weapons." They are also recruiting Palestinians from Judea and Samaria.

PA security has been unable to secure adequate information on these Hamas operations in spite of serious concerns that what is going on now is the first move towards overthrowing Abbas. A Hamas cell was found in the Bethlehem area that was said to be taking orders directly from Hamas leadership in Syria, but was released because of insufficient evidence.

Additionally, according to Abu Toameh, there are unconfirmed reports that Jabil Rajoub, a close confident of Abbas met with Mashaal in Damascus in an attempt to resolve the Fatah-Hamas rift.


Our undeclared, low-level war with Gaza persists. Rockets are still being launched at us, and we are still taking limited actions inside of Gaza. In one action today, the Air Force struck at a group of armed men in Gaza, killing a high level Hamas commander. Earlier three Islamic Jihad operatives were taken out. Yesterday, in the north of Gaza, Israel targeted a team loading a Kassam rocket. Following this operation, two children were killed. They were seen going into the field right after a rocket had been launched -- they had been sent, as is routinely done by the terrorists, to retrieve the launcher and were killed by an exploding shell.

The response of Abbas was to call Israel's actions "a massacre which cannot be justified. This escalation casts doubt on Israel's real intentions regarding the peace process, which is first of all expressed in halting all violent activities, attacks and assassinations." He said the peace process cannot advance if Israel continues "the occupation regime and its army are fully responsible for the escalation and the shedding of innocent people's blood in order to provoke retaliation and provide the Israeli occupation army with an excuse to commit more crimes."

Note that Abbas is defending Hamas in Gaza, and attacking Israel for taking action against Hamas and other terrorists. Not a word about Hamas needing to stop all rocket launchings. I wonder how Olmert swallows this.


The US State Department is about to begin training security officers for the PA. In spite of everything, they're going to do this.

According to Aaron Klein, writing for the NY Sun, a senior Fatah militant has admitted that if it were not for previous assistance and training provided to PA forces by the US, they would not have been so successful in the Intifada that began in 2000. "I do not think that the operations of the Palestinian resistance would have been so successful and would have killed more than one thousand Israelis since 2000 and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without these trainings," said an officer in Abbas's Presidential Guard. "All the methods and techniques that we studied in these trainings, we applied them against the Israelis."

Olmert, you see, does not have a monopoly on insanity. The US State Department is apparently working according to a philosophy that says, "If it doesn't work, don't abandon it, do more of the same."


Caroline Glick's column in yesterday's Post, "Israel's Reeducation Minister," is enough to make you weep. If you're a Zionist, that is. Glick is writing about Education Minister Yuli Tamir, who is a founding member of Peace Now and is injecting that agenda into the school curricula.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1187502425556 &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Barry Rubin has written a most instructive column, "The Middle East's titanic battle." Radical Islam, he says, has now reached a critical mass and presents a threat to every Arabic speaking country. The battle is, and will be for years to come, between Arab nationalism and Islamism. This, and certainly not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is the central theme at the core of every conflict in the Middle East. The Islamist cause is championed by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. The parties have mutual goals and ideologies, and their cooperation is not likely to be split apart.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1187502416994&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Warren A. Manison, August 22, 2007.

You are probably aware of the controversy surrounding the tenure decision on Nadia Abu El Haj at Columbia/Barnard. El Haj has written one book in which she flatly denies the existence of the ancient Israelite kingdoms, the connection of contemporary Jews to any ancient Jewish people in the near east -- however defined, and even states that Herodian Jerusalem was not Jewish.

Ms. El Haj is entitled to advocate the destruction of the State of Israel. She is not entitled to publish fiction, call it history, and expect to receive tenure.

If you know anyone who is an alumnus of Columbia University, please forward the following to them and appraise them of the upcoming battle at Columbia to grant tenure to an anti-semite Palestinian following on the footsteps of the late Edward Said. Background material can be found at:


Below is the letter I wrote to Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University.

It would also be useful for you to sign the petition against El-Haj's Tenure. You will find it at

From: wmani@juno.com
To: Bollinger@Columbia.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:09:44 -0400
Subject: Proposed tenure status for Nadia Abu El-Haj

President Lee Bollinger
Columbia University
New York, New York

Dear Mr. President:

It is surprising that Columbia University would once again allow itself to be embroiled in a controversy regarding a member of its staff. A number of years ago, it was Edward Said. Today, it is Nadia Abu El-Haj, authoress of a book -- "Facts on the Ground". In both cases, Columbia permitted its name to be used to further the unethical practice of demonizing the only democratic country in the Middle East -- Israel.

May I quote from the Columbia University Faculty Handbook that states, "irreversible damage can result from breach of academic commitment to truth in investigative activities... lack of integrity in conducting basic or clinical investigations involving dishonesty, knowing misrepresentation of data, and/or violation of accepted standards can destroy public trust in the academic community as a whole and in our own institution in particular; it can shatter individual careers; it can undermine sensitive relationships between investigators, students, and the public."

El-Haj has violated these basic principles by writing a book that misrepresents the facts, makes false charges not supported by any evidence on the ground, and surreptitiously quotes unnamed sources for her "information". She has lost any claims of objectivity and honesty and her request for tenure MUST be rejected.

It would take volumes for me to rebut much of what is in her book, but some particularly egregious revisionism cannot go unchallenged.

1) El-Haj flatly denies the existence of the ancient Israelite kingdoms, the connection of contemporary Jews to any ancient Jewish people in the near east -- however defined, and even states that Herodian Jerusalem was not Jewish. She ignores: recordings in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian script referencing the Jewish people: Roman documentation identifying Herod, a Jew, as the King of the Jews installed in Jerusalem; archaeological evidence of King David including his 3,000 year old palace and tomb plus his Psalms in use throughout Christianity and Judaism; and even ignores Koranic references to the early Jewish prophets preceding Muhammad.

2) El-Haj accuses Israel of bulldozer tactics to create a Jewish presence where there never was one. She ignores that archaeologists from all over the world have uncovered troves of evidence of Jewish history; ignores that rough treatment of archeological remains through bulldozers are inimical to any discovery; and, cannot explain how and why Israel would use bulldozers to create a false history. Her distorted picture of Israeli archaeological practice is not simply a matter of confusion over technical terms, but a conscious strategy of ideologically-motivated misrepresentation.

3) Like her counterparts in the Palestinian Authority, she denies the existence of a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. In fact, there are carbon dated artifacts clearly identifiable with the 2nd Temple built in the 6th century B.C. and destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans as recorded by Josephus. She ignores that Jesus Christ walked on the grounds of the Temple; ignores that Jesus was born a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew; and ignores that if Jesus did not exist, therefore, Christianity does not exist and we all know this is not true.

Her zeal to flagrantly demonize and illegitimate the State of Israel has negatively compromised her intellectual ability. To grant her tenure would, in my opinion, be a demeaning reflection on Columbia University and contrary to the Faculty Handbook guidelines quoted above. I ask that you use your influence to prevent this from happening.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 22, 2007.


Human rights organizations have condemned and counted statistically Israel's attacks on cars and houses in the P.A. as attacks on civilians. Of course, we know that Israel has, to the extent of those raids, lliquidated terrorists en route to raids of their own. Do the protestors suppose that the alternative, a full-scale IDF assault and house-by-house disarmament would lessen civilian casualties? It would be more effective and end the war if not the Islamic bellicosity.

Many of the protested attacks result in secondary explosions. The Israeli missiles strike cars ferrying explosives and houses storing them. Were those facilities being used for military purposes, or were they firecrackers for July 4 celebrations?


The P.A., Arabs make demands upon Israel and offer nothing. Israeli leaders demand nothing and offer much. Implication: Israel owes the Arabs something. Actually, the Arabs attempted genocide against the Jews and made war constantly. Morally, the Arabs owe Israel much.

Were the Israeli regime patriotic, wise, and sane, it would explain this. Some world, in which aggressors are thought to have the high moral ground!


Police preventing protestors from staying in houses that the government wanted to expel Jews from in Amona, Judea-Samaria, were so brutal, that they sent hundreds of youths to the hospital for head injuries and other wounds. It would take the Arabs a year to inflict that many casualties. The Israeli police are doing the Arabs' job for them.

Lawsuits for damages are being filed and one was awarded, so far. Police authorities tried to cover up for their brutes. The Left, which includes the major media, hardly protested against the brutality,


Again, rockets fired at Israeli civilians fell short and killed some Arab children in Gaza. There was no comment about it from within the P.A., no admission and no condemnation (Arutz-7, 8/7).

Cold-blooded, that cult of death! Watch for condemnation by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. They care about Arab civilians, don't they?


They have congratulated each other on working to bring down the "great tyranny" the US), and will increase their mutual cooperation (IMRA, 8/9).

Mutual cooperation sounds to me like longer-range missiles and more a-bombs. I think that Iran and N. Korea are two of the most menacing tyrannies on earth, N. Korea being the worse for its own people.


While the Lebanon war still was raging, PM Olmert declared victory. He claimed to have eliminated Hizbullah's infrastructure, changed the face of the Mideast, and shown by example that Israel could withdraw from Judea-Samaria. Within hours, Hizbullah launched its biggest missile barrage of the war.

Apparently, Hizbullah's infrastructure still could deal Israel blows, the Mideast hadn't changed, and the war, a result of a previous Israeli retreat, does not validate further retreat. Even the Israeli media pointed out some of his lies.

That was a year ago. Olmert still is in office and still is lying about that war and embarking upon unrealistic diplomacy. He seems to crave getting his picture taken with Saudi leaders, which is why he doesn't demand that they stop boycotting Israel. He still wants to cede Judea-Samaria and let the Arabs bisect Israel, in order to connect the two parts of the P.A. (which is dangerous and may amount to disconnecting the two parts of Israel!).

Also craving US approval, Olmert seems ready to drop objections to the US sale of weapons Israel cannot defend against, to S. Arabia, subverted by Al Qaida.

Defense Min. Barak (who withdrew the IDF from Lebanon) has further delusions. He proposes to build in three years a system for defending against all types of missiles. It couldn't be done in three years and, indeed, could not defend against thousands of missiles coming at once. But on the basis of that illusion, he proposes to withdraw from Judea-Samaria and the Golan. (Barry Chamish said his withdrawal and his blunders in the first Lebanon war really were designed to embarrass a Likud regime and he like Olmert and Peres wants Israel destroyed.)

The problem is that the regime, with a mere 9% approval rating, does not care what the people think and staves off new elections. The politicians think of their positions are careers, not responsibilities. The leaders are weak and antagonistic to Jewish values and democracy. The public doesn't demand enough of them (IMRA, 8/4 from Natan Sharansky).


The IDF finds some immigrants from Western countries qualified for needed, high-level work. The Army plans now to make use of the recruits' skills, instead of just assigning them to clean bases (IMRA, 8/3).

Years ago, a conservative think tank in Israel had suggested that, among many reforms civilian and military. The study's emphasis then was on making better use of reservist recalls, which are disruptive personally but not very productive nationally. That would apply to the IDF as a whole, not just for Western immigrants.


One children's summer camp for Druse was started on the Golan. More are planned. The camp feature various enemy flags, slogans in behalf of Israel's enemies on every side, the Syrian national anthem, and pledges to help "liberate" the Golan from Israel (IMRA, 8/2) and into Syria, a repressive, poverty-stricken country that itself badly needs to be freed.

Although Israel is accused of ethnically cleansing acquired territory, despite the historical record to the contrary, and despite that being the record of its Arab enemies, here in the Golan was an opportunity to clear out a potential fifth column but Israel failed to do so, by inducement or by force. Now it is paying the price. Why allow camps to prepare people for insurrection?

International law bans removing native populations by force. But international law did not envision the kind of strife and hardship that such populations make, engaging in jihad.


The West is confused and in flux over Muslim dress. Some jurisdictions ban certain Islamic garments, others ban different ones, and still others ban none.

Muslims seek special privileges in the West; they should be denied. But people do have freedom of religion and of expression (though conservative or radical Muslims intimidate women into wearing some garments that stifle their individuality.) Daniel Pipes suggests allowing modesty without excess. The excess has been used, like outlaw masks on the old western frontier, to hide the identity of robbers and terrorists. Terrorists tried to conceal themselves in women's dress, to escape. Garments with only slits open for the eyes impede identification. "Nothing in Islam requires turning females into shapeless, faceless zombies; good sense calls for modesty itself to be modest. The time has come everywhere to ban from public places these hideous, unhealthy, socially divisive, terrorist-enabling, and criminal-friendly garments." (Pipes #789, 8/2.)


One city there had 149 degrees F. in the sun and 127 in the shade (IMRA, 8/4).


"The largest chunk -- one-third -- of the NIF's annual budget goes to more than 20 organizations that claim to promote "civil rights" for Israel's Arab minority."

"But these NGOs use the money to demonize and delegitimize the concept of Jewish sovereignty and equality among the nations. Some, such as Adalah and Mousawa, submit papers to the United Nations accusing Israel of apartheid. They also refer to Zionism as racism, and distribute an alternative constitution for Israel that would abolish the concept of a Jewish state. The NIF is responsible for "empowering" the most radical Israeli Arab voices and giving them the resources to dominate the discussion at the expense of moderate leaders."

"Misguided NIF policies also support radical groups such as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, whose head, Jeff Halper, supports the most virulent boycott promoters, such as Naim Ateek. And after funding Tel Aviv lawyer Shamai Leibowitz -- who supports economic sanctions against Israel and the creation of a bi-national state west of the Jordan River -- NIF officials quietly admitted that they don't endorse his views, but they didn't apologize for this error, and the damage was done."

"For these and other reasons, the time for an open debate on the NIF is long overdue. NIF donors should be able to listen to different Israeli views and decide how best to use their considerable funds."

NIF is trying to revise Israeli society in accordance with its (radical) agenda, regardless of what Israelis want. Donors are starting to question where the money really goes (IMRA, 8/4). They aren't told of the radical agenda. NIF does not donate to protect Jewish rights from the Muslims and the State. It collects money under false pretenses. The same subversive purpose is behind EU subsidies to radical Israeli groups, usually Arab ones. If Israel were patriotic, it would ban the donations as facilitating jihad.


The Security Council expressed "grave concern" about Israeli planes flying over Lebanon to monitor arms smuggling to Hizbullah in preparation for another war by terrorism, just "concern" over that smuggling, and merely "noted" the fighting by Islamists against the government of Lebanon (IMRA, 8/4). Backwards!

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, August 21, 2007.

This was written by Yuval Azoulay, Yoav Stern and Mijal Grinberg and it appeared in Ha'aretz

Hamas gunmen gathering on Tuesday in central Gaza for the funeral of six fellow militants who were killed in an IDF operation Monday. (AP)

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' office condemned Israel's military operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank on Wednesday, saying that the strikes make progress in peace talks impossible.

"It is impossible to conduct a peace process, to advance negotiations and to achieve results as long as Israel continues with its policy of military strikes," said Abbas' office in a statement.

The statement said that the IDF operations, which have killed 13 Palestinians since Monday, cast strong doubt on Israel's desire to make peace.

Abbas' office called on the international community and the Quartet of Middle East mediators to intervene regarding these incidents and to halt Israel's military activities.

Earlier Wednesday, IDF troops killed a Hamas militant in an air strike in the Gaza Strip early Wednesday, a day after two children and three militants were killed in similar Gaza strikes.

Hamas identified the militant killed Wednesday as Yehia Habib, a senior field commander in Gaza City. Three other militants were wounded.

Israel said it struck a group of armed men who had approached the border fence with Israel.

The attack took place hours after troops killed a 9-year-old and a 12-year-old as they tried to collect Qassam rocket launchers. The children were killed on Tuesday the afternoon by an IDF tank in the northern Gaza Strip. The two were seen moving in a field near Beit Hanun toward rocket launchers immediately after Qassam rockets had been fired on towns in Israel.

The rockets struck the area near Kibbutz Zikim, south of Ashkelon. There were no injuries or damage.

Soon after the launch, an IDF force identified the source of the rocket fire, surveyed the area, and identified a number of suspicious figures near the launchers. A tank in the area fired a round, which killed the two children. Another child was seriously injured in the incident.

"Children have no business being near Qassam rocket launchers," IDF officers said in a statement last night.

They said it is possible that Islamic Jihad had hired the children to collect the launchers after the launch. This phenomenon had already been observed in other instances, the IDF officers said.

The tank fired at the figures only after they were seen close to the launchers, IDF sources said.

The only reason anyone approaches the launchers after rockets are fired is to collect them or reload them, the sources said, so there was no way to avoid shooting at the people near the launchers.

"If these were children or youths, we regret the use that the terrorist groups are making of them," a statement from the IDF spokesman read Tuesday.

An IDF source said that troops that had carried out the operation identified the figures next to the launchers as militants. "They were handling the launchers and they obviously hadn't come to slide on them," he said. "Every Palestinian, including the militants, knows that anyone who hangs around these launchers is endangering themselves."

According to IDF analysts, Tuesday's rocket attack against Israel was carried out by the Jerusalem Battalions of the Islamic Jihad.

They said that the militants fled as soon as the rockets were launched.

"This is a cynical use of children but we are no longer surprised by anything we see. A 14-year-old child has already fired an RPG rocket against an IDF force, a grandmother aged close to 70 fired a light weapon against a Givati [Brigade] force recently in the Strip. What were these children doing there anyway? The militants fled immediately after the launch and then sent the children to collect the launchers," one of the sources added.

In another Qassam rocket attack, against the western Negev, one rocket hit a kindergarten in Sderot, causing damage. No injuries were reported because the children are still on summer vacation and the kindergarten was empty. The second Qassam landed in fields.

Palestinian militants have also fired several mortar shells at the western Negev, causing no injuries or damage.

Earlier Tuesday, IDF troops killed three Palestinian militants near the security fence in the southern Gaza Strip, near Khan Yunis.

According to the IDF, the militants were members of Islamic Jihad and were trying to carry out a shooting attack against Israeli targets near the fence. The army said the militants belong to a cell that had carried out such attacks in the past.

The incident began when the vehicle the three were in was spotted and attacked from the air. The three managed to flee, but they were intercepted by an IDF force in the fields.

A fourth militant was injured in the incident.

A spokesman for Islamic Jihad said that the four were on a "jihad-related" activity.

"The blood of our martyrs will be avenged," a statement read.

IDF troops found three sniper rifles in searches of the area following the incident, the army said.

On Monday night, Israel's Channel 2 television reported that six Hamas men killed in an Israeli attack earlier in the day were members of a sniper unit.

The six militants were killed and another was wounded in an IDF rocket strike on a car traveling in the central Gaza Strip.

In an incident in the West Bank city of Nablus early Tuesday, IDF troops shot and killed a Palestinian gunman.

The soldiers operating in the Al-Ein refugee camp saw a Palestinian gunman who fired at them before they returned fire and hit him, the army said.

The militant was identified as 38-year-old Nasser Mabrouk, a member of an offshoot of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 21, 2007.

Journalist Tom Gross brings to our attention the continuing anti-Jewish, anti-Christian bias of the BBC, whose website defends anti-Semitic remarks as "freedom of speech", but immediately removes anything anti-Muslim. And took a week to remove disgusting remarks about Christianity. His article is from
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q= ODNjOTlkYzgxMmU4YTExZGQ3NzA0MDkyMzhhOTYzNGE


BBC forced to remove Jesus "bastard" slur from its website, but anti-Semitic comments remain While regularly censoring criticism of Islamic extremism, the BBC allows highly offensive slurs about Christians and even more so about Jews, to remain on its website for weeks at a time, points out the (London) Daily Mail.

But now, after a campaign by the Daily Mail and its sister newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, "The BBC has been forced to remove statements from its website referring to Jesus as a 'bastard'."

The remarks about Jesus were left as part of a discussion about the death of the Archbishop of Paris.

However, the BBC editors have allowed anti-Semitic comments posted by the same person who wrote the Jesus "bastard" remarks, to remain. Among those still up by him on the BBC's publicly-funded, award-winning website are "The jews in much remembered concentration camps had even better qualitity of freedom that these palestinians have".

The Daily Mail wanted to test whether the BBC would disallow remarks critical of Muslims, while allowing anti-Semitic remarks. So one Daily Mail reader posted: "No one can surpass the Muslims for denial of their role in Terrorism and Suicide bombing." The post was "almost immediately deleted by the BBC," reports the Mail.

The Mail points out that the BBC has, by contrast, allowed "anti-Semitic posts" to remain on its website for over a month now. Among these is: "Zionism is a racist ideology where jews are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud... which allows jews to lie as long as its to non-jews."

Even after the official Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote a polite letter to the BBC pointing out that the comment had been lifted from a notorious 19th Century anti-Semitic text, "The Talmud Unmasked," which is still sold by neo-Nazi booksellers in London, the BBC has refused to remove it, citing freedom of speech.

The Daily Telegraph today runs a lead editorial criticizing the week-long refusal of the BBC to remove the Jesus "bastard" remark and says that the BBC's continuing refusal to make public the independent Balen Report (which is widely rumored to reveal anti-Israel bias verging on anti-Semitism in some BBC Mideast coverage) is "disgraceful". See:

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, August 21, 2007.

This was written by Riazat Butt and appeared in The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/ 0,,2151358,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him.

With the Koran as a main source and drawing on interviews with scholars and historians, the Muslim Jesus explores how Islam honours Christ as a prophet but not as the son of God. According to the Koran the crucifixion was a divine illusion. Instead of dying on the cross, Jesus was rescued by angels and raised to heaven.

TV airing for Islam's story of Christ

Riazat Butt
Saturday August 18, 2007
The Guardian

There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him.

With the Koran as a main source and drawing on interviews with scholars and historians, the Muslim Jesus explores how Islam honours Christ as a prophet but not as the son of God. According to the Koran the crucifixion was a divine illusion. Instead of dying on the cross, Jesus was rescued by angels and raised to heaven.

The one-hour special, commissioned and narrated by Melvyn Bragg, is thought to be the first time the subject has been dealt with on British television. Lord Bragg said: "I was fascinated by the idea ... Jesus was such a prominent figure in Islam but most people don't know that."

He denies the programme will divide communities. Raised as an Anglican, he describes the documentary as thoughtful and well researched. "I hope it will provoke among Muslims the feeling they are included in television."

The director and producer, Irshad Ashraf, said the film was an attempt to shift the focus away from extremism to the spiritual side of Islam. "Jesus is loved and respected by Muslims and he's one of the most important prophets in our religion." Representatives from mainstream Anglican and Catholic organisations were invited to take part in the film, to be broadcast on Sunday, but nobody was available, Mr Ashraf said.

Philip Lewis, the Bishop of Bradford's aide on inter-faith matters, urged believers on both sides to take advantage of a "worthwhile contribution to understanding a complex issue".

However, Patrick Sookhdeo, an Anglican canon and spokesman for the Barnabas Fund, which works with persecuted Christians, accused broadcasters of double standards. Mr Sookhdeo, who was born a Muslim and converted to Christianity in 1969, said: "How would the Muslim community respond if ITV made a programme challenging Muhammad as the last prophet?"

The Koran's denial of Jesus's divinity was "unacceptable". "On the last day the Koran says Jesus will destroy all the crosses. How can we praise that?"

Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel
(www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 21, 2007.

The Nation of Israel has irreconcilable differences with PM Ehud Olmert and FM Tzipora Livni and Co. who must be replaced with a true Zionist government

Israel PM Ehud Olmert and FM Tzipora Livni are a disastrous case of leadership inaptness. More so, they are suffering from a terrible mental disorder even a psychiatrist cannot treat. They are dangerous to ALL Jews and MUST be locked away in a facility, bound in a straight jacket.

The only basis for the State of Israel's existence is the Zionistic vision that reconnects the Jewish people to their country after thousands of years of political independence absence.

Today, the entire government of Israel is post Zionism, post-Judaism, post-nationalism, post-patriotism. They are however, pro-Arabs, pro Arabs state(s) on the Land of Israel, pro-the total annihilation of Israel. Why they are called the government of Israel, only God can tell us; human sense cannot figure this one out.

This article was written by Dr Ron Breiman, who is a past chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel. It was published March 11, 2007 in Ynet News

In the past 15 years, Israeli leaders have replaced Zionist vision with 'two-state vision'

What priorities does the State of Israel need on the brink of its 60th anniversary? The Kadima prime minister indeed claimed that a leader did not have to have an "agenda" (as this is referred to in the media lingo) and that his job is merely to manage (and we can only bemoan such management.)

Yet is it possible to manage without objectives and an agenda? Reality speaks for itself: The absence of vital management components is conspicuous, particularly when this is joined by denying and forgetting the Zionist vision and replacing it with the "two-state vision" in Olmert's and Livni's hollow and repetitive slogan.

The only basis for the State of Israel's existence is the Zionist vision that reconnects the people to its country after thousands of years with the absence of political independence. The way to realizing this vision is through the concentration of the people of Israel in the Land of Israel. Therefore, immigration and absorption are the most important national missions.

It is sad to see the various immigration absorption ministers insulted when they are appointed to this post and watch them pass their time at this important ministry doing nothing and waiting for an opportunity to be promoted to a more senior post, such as foreign minister for example.

True Zionist leadership would have placed the Zionist vision -- immigration, absorption, and settlement at all parts of the country in general and particularly in the Galilee, Samaria, Judea, and the Negev desert -- at the top of the national priority order, rather than the "peace vision," which is unfeasible in our generation or the "two-state vision," which is a recipe for eliminating the Zionist vision.

True Zionist leadership would have turned the Immigration Absorption minister into the most senior and challenging post. True Zionist leadership would have dealt with developing the environment, economy, tourism, and higher education, and would have made sure to spread the population throughout the western Land of Israel not only in the coastal plain.

Government leads Israel to bankruptcy

True Zionist leadership would have advanced settlement activity instead of planning evacuations. There is no message that is more negative to a Jew who considers moving to Israel than the forceful expulsion of Jews in their own country, on the orders of the Israeli government.

In 1937, when the Jewish community in the country was 20 times smaller than it is today, the British Peel Commission proposed that Jewish immigration be limited to 1,000 per month, that is, 12,000 per year. Seventy years later, with a powerful country, military, and economy, Israel makes do with this level of immigration per year and nobody views this as a failure or problem that requires a change in the national priority order. In hedonistic Israel, the phrase "changing priorities" refers to undermining Zionist settlement activity and promoting the vision of the other nationality, the enemy.

In the State's first years, and under a Zionist leadership that knew how to present challenges, set objectives, set a personal example and demand efforts and sacrifice, we witnessed immigration and settlement that turned the newly born country into a wonder and model of admiration.

In the past 15 years, under a leadership that abandoned the Zionist vision and replaced it by the empty gods of "peace," "new Middle East," and the placing of the individual ahead of the collective and arrogance above our roots, Israel distanced not only from the Zionist vision, but also from the slogan of a "country that is fun to live in," and has turned into a subject of ridicule both at home and abroad.

The current government's conduct led Israel to bankruptcy in all areas. The time has come to replace it with a Zionist government that will place true Zionist values at the top of its agenda and be tested according to them.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 21, 2007.

Please share with others...


My malediction came for a reason.

Undoubtedly, the repeated expulsions are the defeat of the Israeli military and the entire Jewish Nation.

I do not want to bring up here deep rooted religious feeling of sin and punishment.

I assume you are familiar with the poet Hayyim Nahman Bialik and his song "If you soul has to know," where he deals with the Jewish strength during the pogroms and claims that the spark that came out from the Jewish study halls (Beit midrash) due to Torah learning is the strength of the Jewish Nation.

The entire IDF strength, the undergrounds and Zionism all came from perseverance under any and all conditions.

I feel a terrible sense of betrayal and slap on the face and the punishment is so very great. The synagogues that were burned in Gush Katif, the bodies of the dead that were removed from their graves, and the study halls, all destroyed and burned by Jews.

I call on the Jews loyal to their uniqueness as a Jewish Nation to establish the loyal Jews' Jewish Histadrut (Federation), a federation that will elect the suitable leadership and will include anyone who wants to be counted in.

After all how it is possible that the holy flock, threatened with a total expulsion by its government, from the President down to the very last villain turning fascism to be their highest moral value, will continue accepting this as if it is decree from above.

After all the entire Golan Heights and YESHA are threatened with expulsion, the religious people with spiritual uprooting and every living creature on this Land is threatened with annihilation. Isn't time the Jewish Nation will define its identity and its spiritual goals and vision and will stick by them?

I call on Moshe Feiglin and everyone who thinks that a party will save him or her from this government to think again. All right, who ever wishes to wrestle within the existing framework, like the MFDAL Party that always says "we will influence from within," I cannot tell he or she not to go on with their battle. Perhaps, at the end, the systems will implode and inner political powers will manage to unite and influence. Actually, I am not talking about political victory; I am talking about the pride not to belong to a framework that wants to destroy you and the RIGHT to pray to G-d (Ha'kadosh Baruch Hoo) without any professed to be national bodies that are nothing but a vermin.

With blessings,
Professor Hillel Weiss

(Distributing this letter is permitted)

The essay below is by Professor Hillel Weiss and was published August 18, 2007. It was translated from the Hebrew by Gail Tenzer.

My freedom is very dear to me. So is my tenure at the University. But there is something even more valuable. I'm only thinking about (Jonathan) Pollard. An entire nation betrayed him with the exception of a few that continue to incessantly fight for him. I am not easily frightened. We have too many examples in history of individuals who have sacrificed their souls for a cause. True freedom is to be subjugated to G-d and all the rest is nonsense.

The Jews and all settlers of the region are threatened by annihilation. Should only one front, either Northern or Southern come under a planned missile attack, it will bring the civilian population of the country to an immediate halt. This halt will shake up the military capabilities of the State of Israel. And what if these attacks were to be coordinated on several fronts simultaneously? And what if new factors were to be added to the overall attack? An attack on one of the fronts is expected momentarily anytime now until it occurs. Israel cannot react because of the self-imposed limitation "not to carry out a pre-emptive strike!" Israel needs to justify any pre-emptive attack, as it did in the second Israeli Lebanese campaign. Meanwhile, for the last year and a half, Israel has unilaterally relinquished her intentions of re-entering the Gaza Strip, and abandoned Sderot and the security road blanketing Gaza despite officially published reports that Hamas' arsenals and military capabilities have grown to supersede the weapons capabilities of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Indeed, the war in Lebanon was a unique opportunity that wasn't properly exploited, counter to the Winograd Commission's opinion. Olmert was absolutely right to start an immediate attack, but he was doomed to fail because his goal was not to win, but rather "consolidate". The upper echelon of the IDF was already rotten. Those who received awards in this war are sacrificial lambs to the Peace process and are paying the price with their lives. Why did Olmert act for "consolidation" -- because his desire to expel Jews, is stronger than any desire for battlefield victory. The YESHA settlers are making the average Israelis nuts more so than the Jews are irritating the Gentiles. As long as the settlers are not eliminated, as long as Jerusalem is not partitioned, and the Temple Mount is not surrendered, as long as the Jews don't stop chanting the "Shema Yisrael, " the Lefties will not be appeased.

If the reader thinks that I'm involved in scaring and terrorizing them, I invite the readers to read my first article which I wrote during Rabin's administration in September 1992, in the "News" publication, where I had a column on the subject of the expected nuclear development and proliferation in the region that would result from the Peace process. Yair Sheleg, a journalist who interviewed me after this article was published, called me "scare mongerer." A year prior to Oslo I wrote another article entitled "I am the Enemy of Peace." In this article I proposed offers be made to the Religious Zionist movement that they nominate a religious candidate for the office of Prime Minister and allow non-religious Jews to join as members of the religious party. From the time those ideas were rejected, in 1996 I worked together with Moshe Feiglin, and I wrote one year prior to the Gaza Disengagement that we may expect 12,000 missiles from Hezbollah in the North and another 12,000 missiles from the Gaza Strip. But what I write here about the threat to Israel is banal, since 1 million Israelis have already acquired European refugee passports that will not help them to leave. They will be suddenly find themselves trapped and won't have a chance to use the passports.

For the time being, the IDF is executing the policies of both the Government and the Prime Minister, despite the fact they are lacking in both standing and/or public approval. The Prime Minister can continue selling all of the Land of Israel and its security without Parliamentary or Governmental approval. Reference is made to habeas corpus (The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action) in the Supreme Court of Israel by me and Moshe Feiglin against Ehud Barak in the year 2000. The policy the IDF is executing today as sub-contractor is to: "Beat up the Jews and Save Russia!" and the responsibility is shared by the IDF commander.

I have publicly apologized for my cursing several times in radio transmissions (Radio 103 and Radio "Kol Chai"). However, another journalist told me: "You already apologized last week! Why are you apologizing again?" Well, my apology doesn't interest them. They want my blood. My colleagues and I are standing fast to defend ourselves against the Lefty Jihad against the Jews and with G-d's help, we will prevail. When I cursed, I did qualify it by saying that "...if they did not do Tshuva..." (or...if they did not repent!) I was accused of being crazy and a psychopath by the Democratic leadership such as Amnon Dankner and the elders of the Religious Kibbutzim, who could not forgive me for my despising them in 1963. I decided to sue them by going first to the Rabbinical courts and then to the Civil Courts, if the court of the Sanhedrin will permit me to do so.

Under the present circumstances, I'm proud to be called "Meshuga." (Crazy in Hebrew) Thus has written Uri Tsvi Greenberg in his song: "He was crazy!" Yes, there are periods that an honest man should be placed in prison.

Because of the darkness of this period, the entire nation of Israel must gather and have an introspective debate to understand how critical the current situation is and what direction its future should take. Even the sale of YESHA and the retreat from the Golan Heights will not be sufficient as long as one Jew continues to exist, or as long as the memory of the State of Israel and the presence of Jews that were in the State of Israel exist. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lybia and Pakistan, together with 70 additional nations of the world with their monotheistic beliefs and modern offshoots are lying in wait for Israel's destruction. But the toughest enemy is right here at home.

Just as we have external enemies that physically threaten the Jewish nation, a spiritual enemy exists in many Western universities as well as in all of the Israeli universities, and he has a strong hold at Bar Ilan University. This enemy threatened Professor Kove with a writ of habeas corpus to the highest judicial court to erase the name of the religious university and its charter. This enemy stated that the university could not be called a religious university because it discriminates by its very name against the recruitment of lecturers that are not religious and the name goes against the principles of a democratic state and the mere fact that a religious university was, is and still remains to this date, contrary to their thinking of academic freedom in their mind. Now, what is the meaning of academic freedom and the value of freedom of speech and the value of democracy? I don't know how the president of the university will satisfy this controversy, which in my opinion succeeded, in destroying the immoral ideas of those who signed the petition against me.

As a result of Rabin's assassination, Bar Ilan University has been turned into a place of threats, blackmail and political terror. A good example of this is the threat made by gangsters connected to the security forces that the university would not benefit from the attendance of thousands of soldiers as students, unless I am fired. I could not explain the terrible damage being done in Western universities during decades past by adopting a curriculum that destroyed human culture. This will be a subject for researchers and writers who survive the upcoming battles. The neo-Marxist powers have taken over the universities and thus have taken over the entire Western Civilization, armies, and courthouses. In the olden days of warfare we used to call it the treason of the intellectuals and to this day, it continues to be fashionable in intellectual circles which cooperate by confusing the codes of thinking in science and knowledge. I met important professors and young lecturers at a meeting in Australia with professors from the US telling us of the threats and terror at the universities made to whoever doesn't subscribe and accept the feminism or post-colonialism beliefs that were developed by an anti-Semite, Eduard Saied. The toxic theories of Michele Fakou have become the basic requirement to be admitted to any discussions in human science. Everything is post. There is no future, no truth! There is discrimination carried out by spiritual terror that translates into material terror in any discussion that concerns teaching. And of course, the universities are inviting and catering to the extreme Left and have seminars with the monstrous groups that are bent on erasing the memory of the Jewish nation.

Since Rabin's assassination, and as a result of it, Bar Ilan was forced to cut the democratic rights of the university Senate, empower the President and appoint committees for hiring new lecturers. It is true there are strong materialistic rewards for surrendering and allowing one's soul to be sold and that this represents thousands of millions of dollars in contributions, in building new institutions, in traveling to international meetings, in sending out news releases to the newspapers. But what happens to the soul. Do you think that all this money will succeed in benefiting the school? In my opinion this strategy, gentlemen, will not succeed!

I don't know how the campaign against me will end. But I have to say that the misbehavior of the Israeli authorities with Pollard and his betrayal put a very high price to pay for the concept of "misiruth nefesh" (self sacrifice for a cause). Pollard is already sitting in jail for 22 years and gave his soul to protect the nation of Israel and was betrayed by her. Now everybody can see the mistakes made by the U.S. in Iraq because they did not listen to the warnings made by Pollard. There is no sin that goes unpunished. Today, because the mighty USA is being squeezed and losing its fight in Iraq, it is very difficult for it to attack Iran. Israel has been cast aside. The nation of Israel is dependent on a very shaky partner. We should learn the lesson that Pollard has taught us after his betrayal. And it wouldn't surprise me if the champion of democracy will eventually be forced to accept a dictatorship.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 21, 2007.

Wait a minute; .... "no longer honor" -- which would imply that they were honoring something until now -- when in fact many of the gunmen didn't even go through the motions of handing in one of their weapons for show.......... so realistically it should read .......... Aksa Martyrs Brigades: We'll honor NO agreements with Israel, and we never did.....

This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1187502437453&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, announced Tuesday it would no longer honor understandings reached with Israel, and called on its members to carry weapons to defend themselves against the IDF.

Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades gunmen march in Nablus. (Photo: AP )

"We call on all our members who handed over their weapons to the Palestinian security forces to report to their commanders so that they can be issued new weapons," said a leaflet distributed in Ramallah.

The group said the decision was made after the IDF arrested two Fatah gunmen who had been given amnesty by Israel in line with understandings reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Israel agreed last month to stop pursuing some 270 Fatah fugitives on condition that they surrender their weapons and sign a pledge to refrain from terrorist activities.

Earlier this week, the PA said Israel had "pardoned" another 110 Fatah fugitives in the West Bank -- a claim that Israel denied.

The latest leaflet is seen as a challenge to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's efforts to dismantle the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and other Fatah-linked armed groups in the West Bank.

According to the group, Israel on Monday night arrested Iyad Bisharat and Ahmed Abu Jalboush, two Fatah gunmen whose names had appeared on the first list of pardoned fugitives.

"We call on all our members to display caution and not to be deceived by the so-called amnesty from Israel," the leaflet read. "We will no longer honor the agreements that were reached with Israel over the issue of the wanted men. We won't hand over our guns. This is a lie designed to split the Palestinian resistance."

The group said it had previously warned against the "plot" aimed at confiscating the weapons of Aksa Martyrs Brigades members in the West Bank. "The Israeli enemy does not respect any commitments or agreements," it said.

The Fatah group also criticized PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's government, holding it responsible for the arrest of its two men.

"Fayad must clarify his position vis-`-vis the arrest of our men, whose names had appeared on the list of wanted men who received amnesty," it said.

An Israeli official said in response that such a move by Fatah's military wing would only escalate violence.

"Israel expects the Palestinian Authority to take proper steps to root out terrorism against Israel, and to work with Israel to chart a more promising future for both sides," an official in the Prime Minister's Office said. "Incitement such as this only serves to ratchet up the situation, and would only harm the chances for progress between both peoples."

The IDF declined comment.

Herb Keinon contributed to this report.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Delta Vines, August 21, 2007.

I've written my opinion once again...this time about "playing G-d" (or in this case "Solomon), in relation to Jerusalem. Hope you find it of interest!

Please feel free to share the link with others, as well.

In a continual development of negotiations, rules, laws, and relocations -- Israel is taking on a different face. This is a face without Hebron, which is as Jewish a place on earth as is Jerusalem. This is a face without most of Judea and Samaria. This is land that the scriptures tell us is the heart of the homeland of Israel. It is in danger of being negated away.

This is a face in danger of being without the heart of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount once again. No access will even be allowed to the Western Wall in which one remembers there was once a Temple to the One True G-d shining forth His Shekinah for the world to see.

It is in danger of changing the face of the existence of G-d's covenant with His People. (not the covenant itself)

Jerusalem of G-d or ...?

These negotiations are in danger of cutting Jerusalem in half, leaving Israel without the Old City, without the Jewish and Christian holy sites, and without the Mount of Olives.

The wisdom of One Greater than Solomon knows that to offer a division of the city will cause a true mother to cry out. Instead one posing as Solomon (the U.S./Bush/Rice/Blair) and those posing as the mothers (Olmert and Abbas) eagerly wait for this division. Never mind the gruesome event will result in death for the child Jerusalem. We must all be evenly given a share, even if we are not entitled to it.

Parts of newer Jerusalem have experienced attacks in the recent and not so recent past. The aftermath of multiple suicide/homicide bombings on Ben Yehuda Street resulted in boarded up shops throughout for a time. Now it's streets have come back to life, bustling once again with activity. With the stroke of a pen, that progress may change.

Sitting just outside of Damascus Gate in the Moslem Quarter is Skull Hill, site of Gordon's Calvary. This "face" has been altered by the pavement of a road which obscures the "mouth". Fortunately, the adjoining gated Garden protects the Garden Tomb.

Nearby is the cave complex known as Zedekiah's Cave. This is where it is believed that King Zedekiah ran from the Babylonians and was captured at the exit near Jericho. (2 Kings 25)

The Mt. of Olives, Garden of Gethsemane, the archeological remains of the Palace in which King David lived, and tombs of various prophets, kings, and sanhedrin are all in the area being considered to be given to Moslems in the division of Jerusalem. But there is one place that is most important to the Jews...and that is the Temple Mount.

The Moslems have shown time and again they deny any Jewish identity with Jerusalem. The Hurva Synagogue was destroyed in Jerusalem when Jordan had the city (and Judea/Samaria) under it's control. The Tomb of Joseph was destroyed in 2000 and rebuilt by the Moslems as a Moslem site. The ultimate change of the historic face of Jerusalem is this: All archeological and historical evidence of Jewish identity will be destroyed when placed under Moslem control.

And so it has been attempted on the Temple Mount.

Now Israel has opportunity to regain or relinquish the Temple Mount to the palestinians in the negotiations of two states and borders. If it's possible for Israel to agree to hand the Temple Mount to the palestinians, then it should be possible for Israel to have the Temple Mount back. Of course, there would be Islamic outrage, denials, and blame on Israel for taking "palestinian land" when doing so.

Since the world finds reason to criticize Jews for taking possession of land already given to them, it will do so when it comes to the Temple Mount. This will not be a popular decision with the world.

Yet Israel needs the Temple Mount, to remind all of the sovereignty of the Lord G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Instead of negotiating land away, the leaders of Israel need to help the palestinians negotiate land for a state from Jordan...land that was once Palestine.

Let G-d alone be worshipped on His Holy Mountain!

The wisdom of Solomon is this: Don't divide the child, don't offer to divide the child, but give the child to the rightful mother. Who would that be? It is not to the government of Israel, not to a Prime Minister who thinks nothing of giving the land away, and not to any number of religious sects should the City be given.

Jerusalem belongs the Lord G-d Himself who has said it is HE who holds title to the land. G-d has given the land to His Chosen people who worship Him and Him alone.

The wisdom G-d gave Solomon would see Israel totally united, and it's sentinels on guard. It would see a leader who defends Israel. One who doesn't despise it's birthright.

For this child Jerusalem is not only of man, it is the city of G-d, where his name is physically and forever inscribed in the hills and valleys surrounding.

George Bush, Condi Rice, Tony Blair, and Ehud Olmert, and Abu Mazen: no matter those you imitate, G-d knows who you really are.... .... And you ain't Him!

Contact Delta Vines at delta_vines@sbcglobal.net or visit her website at http://tsofah.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 21, 2007.

This was written by Fred Weir and it appeared in

MOSCOW -- Russia began delivering 50 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria yesterday. An ally of Moscow throughout the Cold War, the Syrian regime is a key supporter of both Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Pantsyr-S1E anti-aircraft missiles are part of a $900 million contract signed earlier this year between Syria and the Russian state arms firm, Rosoboronexport.

Russian observers believe that about 10 of the weapons, which are extremely accurate at short range, could be transferred to Iran. But President Putin's government denied any possibility that the missiles could be re-exported.

Israel has accused Moscow of allowing Syria to transfer Russian anti-tank missiles to Hezbollah -- which were used against Israel last summer. Last month, the Moscow liberal daily Kommersant reported that Russia may sell advanced fighter planes to Syria.

The Kremlin appears increasingly willing to arm countries opposed to American "hegemony." As well as reasserting Russia's status as a great power, it also creates commercial opportunities.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, August 21, 2007.
[Background: Arab Israelis vote but have been exempt from serving in the army. Yesterday, Nissan Ratzlav-Katz of Arutz-Sheva wrote:
"On Sunday, the cabinet voted to establish a government body in the Prime Minister's Office assigned to facilitate National Service -- volunteering through civilian organizations -- for youths who do not serve in the IDF. The decision, the first of its kind, projects an additional 500 National Service volunteers every year."]

(IsraelNN.com) Leaders of the Arab Israeli public said "la!" ("no!") Tuesday to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's initiative to have Arab youths perform national service instead of military service. "The rights of the Arab public are not conditional on giving military services that serve the occupation," the leaders said after meeting to discuss the initiative.

The meeting, which took place in Nazareth, was initiated by leaders of the Arab political parties and included the head of the Northern Wing of the Islamic Movement, Sheikh Raad Salah.

The Arab leaders said that even asking Arab youths to serve in civilian capacities was a form of discrimination against them, and constituted service "in the rear lines of Israel's security apparatuses."

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), August 21, 2007.

This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared in the New York Sun

RAMALLAH -- American-run programs that train Fatah militias were instrumental in the "success" of the Palestinian intifada that began in 2000, a senior Fatah militant told The New York Sun.

"I do not think that the operations of the Palestinian resistance would have been so successful and would have killed more than one thousand Israelis since 2000 and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without these [American] trainings," a senior officer of President Abbas's Force 17 Presidential Guard unit, Abu Yousuf, said.

America has longstanding training programs at a base in the West Bank city of Jericho for members of Force 17, which serves as de facto police units in the West Bank, and for another major Fatah security force, the Preventative Security Services.

This weekend diplomatic security officials announced that the State Department will begin training Force 17 again this year in an effort to bolster Mr. Abbas against Hamas, which took over the Gaza Strip in June when the terror group easily defeated American-backed Fatah forces in the territory.

Under an agreement signed this month by Secretary of State Rice and Palestinian Arab Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Force 17 officers are slated to take course work and conduct VIP protection exercises under the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

The new training program aims to help the Palestinian Authority "deliver security for the Palestinian people and fight terrorism, build confidence between the parties, and ultimately help to meet the security needs of Palestinians and Israelis alike," a State Department press release said.

The training program, which includes courses in the use of weapons, paid with $86.5 million in funding granted to the Palestinian Authority by Congress in April.

Many members of Force 17 and the Preventative Security Services also openly serve in Fatah's declared "military wing," Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which took credit along with the Islamic Jihad terror group for every suicide bombing in Israel between 2005 and 2006. The Brigades is responsible for more terrorism from the West Bank than any other Palestinian Arab organization.

Abu Yousuf, the Force 17 officer, received American training in Jericho in 1999 as a member of the Preventative Security Services. He is a chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Ramallah, where he is accused of participating in anti-Israel terrorism, including recent shootings, attacks against Israeli forces operating in the city, and a shooting attack in northern Samaria in December 2000 that killed the leader of the ultranationalist Kahane Chai organization, Benyamin Kahane.

After the Kahane murder, Mr. Yousuf was extended refuge by Yasser Arafat to live in the late Palestine Liberation Organization leader's Ramallah compound, widely known as the Muqata. Mr. Yousuf still lives in the compound.

Prime Minister Olmert last month granted Mr. Yousuf amnesty along with 178 other Brigades leaders reportedly in a gesture to Mr. Abbas.

Speaking during an interview for the upcoming book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Mr. Yousuf said his American trainings were instrumental in attacks on Israelis. "All the methods and techniques that we studied in these trainings, we applied them against the Israelis," he said.

"We sniped at Israeli settlers and soldiers. We broke into settlements and Israeli army bases and posts. We collected information on the movements of soldiers and settlers. We collected information about the best timing to infiltrate our bombers inside Israel. We used weapons and we produced explosives, and of course the trainings we received from the Americans and the Europeans were a great help to the resistance."

Mr. Yousuf said the training included both intelligence and military tactics.

"In the intelligence part, we learned collection of information regarding suspected persons, how to follow suspected guys, how to infiltrate organizations and penetrate cells of groups that we were working on and how to prevent attacks and to steal in places," he said.

"On the military level, we received trainings on the use of weapons, all kind of weapons and explosives. We received sniping trainings, work of special units especially as part as what they call the fight against terror. We learned how to put siege, how to break into places where our enemies closed themselves in, how to oppress protest movements, demonstrations, and other activities of opposition."

Mr. Yousuf seemed to anticipate criticism for speaking publicly about the training. He's not "talking about U.S. training in order to irritate the Americans or the Israelis and not in order to create provocations," he said. "I'm just telling you the truth."

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by B'nai Elim News, August 21, 2007.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached by mail at 244 Madison Avenue, Suite 427, New York, NY 10016, Tel: 212-372-3752, and by email at Constitution@usa.net

The Babylonian Talmud (Pesachim 49b) states that Jewish ignoramuses are greater anti-Semites than gentiles. The Zohar (Exodus 7b) declares that in the "end of days," certain wicked Jews will become the allies of Israel's enemies.

Such Jews have become Israel's ruling elites. Although they comprise a small (ultra-secular) minority, they control the major levers of power in this country. And they do so while intoning the mantra of "democracy."

It was precisely such Jews that foisted the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement on Israel. The same kind of Jews enacted and implemented the policy of "unilateral disengagement" -- a euphemism for treason. Lest I be accused of "extremism," let us recall some facts, beginning with Yossi Beilin, Shimon Peres's erstwhile "poodle."

Backed by Peres, once known as the nation's "saboteur," Beilin initiated secret negotiations (then illegal according to Israeli law) in 1992 which led to the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 13, 1993.

Fast forward to December 1, 2003. Even though he was no longer a member of the Knesset, Beilin, together with such prominent Israeli officials as former Labor chairman Avram Mitzna and former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg, signed the Geneva Accord with Yassar Abed Rabbo, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Executive Committee. (In the U.S., Beilin and his Labor colleagues would have been incarcerated for violating the Logan Act, which prohibits non-government officials from negotiating with foreign powers. They might even have been indicted for treason for violating Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.)

The Geneva Accord is a non-governmental proposal ostensible intended to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Accord gives the "Palestinians" almost all of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, drawing Israel's borders close to what existed before the Six-Day War of June 1967. In return for removing most of the Israeli settlements in these areas and giving Palestinians control of the Old City of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, the Arabs would limit their so-called right of return to Israel to a number specified by Israel's government.

The present writer doesn't know when the Beilin/Mitzna/Burg/Rabbo negotiations were initiated. Perhaps it was before Israel's January 2003 election, since Labor leader Mitzna campaigned on a policy of "unilateral disengagement" from Gaza. Also, it may not have been a coincidence that in was in December, when the Geneva Accord was publicized, that Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly adopted Labor's policy of "unilateral disengagement" as the centerpiece of his Government.

Be this as it may, those surrendering Jewish land, or intending to surrender Jewish land, to Israel's enemies are prima facie guilty of committing acts defined as treason by Israel's Penal Law, specifically:

1. acts which "impair the sovereignty" of the State of Israel -- section 97(a);

2. acts which "impair the integrity" of the State of Israel -- section 97(b);

3. acts under section 99 which give assistance to an "enemy" in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

4. acts under section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

Eminent Israelis signed scholarly petitions to the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the Government's withdrawal from Jewish land. The court nonetheless dismissed the petitions as involving "political" as opposed to "justiciable" issues. Strange, since Aharon Barak, then court's president, had decreed, even before Oslo, that "everything is justiciable."

Unbeknownst to the public, that decree (or dictum) made the Supreme Court the supreme law-giver and virtual master of Israel. Indeed, that decree heralded not only a judicial coup d'┬üÚtat, but also the subtle judicial management of a one-sided civil war -- a war waged by the Left against Jews who want to preserve Israel as a Jewish commonwealth and the Land of Israel as the eternal birthright of the Jewish people.

This war became rather obvious when the Sharon Government, sanctified by Barak's ruling that Gaza (as well as Judea and Samaria) is "belligerent occupied territory, expelled 8,000 Jews from Gush Katif and turned over this Jewish land to Israel's implacable enemies.

At stake in this civil war is nothing less than the soul or identity of the Jewish people. This war, to reiterate, is being waged by Jewish anti-Semites against Jews who more or less identify with the Jewish heritage. Refer again to the passages of the Talmud and Zohar cited at the outset of this article.

What complicates this civil war is that these Jewish anti-Semites, having control Israel's Government and the national treasury, have enticed unwary and half-hearted Jews -- religious and non-religious -- to collaborate with them in the war against Judaism.

Unknown to the world, the war now going on between Jews and Jews in Israel is the basic reason why Israel's Government did not, and has not, declared war against the Palestinian Authority, whether led by Fatah or Hamas.

Moreover, and unknown to the world, it is precisely this war between Jews and Jews that has made Israel subservient to Washington.

Indeed, if the Jews of this country were united and armed by the wisdom and power of the Torah, they could and would be invincible as well as the greatest blessing to mankind!

Contact B'nai Elim News at news!@bnaielim.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 21, 2007.


More than 10,000 professors have rejected the British college teachers union's boycott of Israel. The 10,000 vow not to participate in any academic event from which Israeli academics have been excluded (IMRA, 8/1).

There is a conscience! Thanks to Prof. Alan Dershowitz for organizing it.


Syria secretly warned Israel that if it continued to refuse to negotiate, it would initiate a war of attrition on the Golan. To that end, it is settling reservists on its side of the Golan (IMRA, 8/2). Israel should have kept more of the Golan for strategic depth, not return it. From the Golan, Syria had attacked Israel before.


A Hizbullah officer told Israeli TV that just before the ceasefire, Hizbullah was running low on food, water, arms and morale. He said another 10 days of that, and Hizbullah would have had to surrender to Israel. Instead, Israel accepted a ceasefire. Foreign Min. Livni boasted of having obtained the ceasefire, but it preserved the terrorist organization. Now Hizbullah is ready to renew the war.

The officer also admitted firing rockets at Israel from within urban Lebanese areas (a war crime), knowing that this would cause Lebanese civilian casualties. Hizbullah was afraid to fire from unsettled areas, because the IDF would swiftly spot and liquidate them there (Arutz-7, 8/1).

Israeli governments do what benefits the country's enemies. That is their talent. It is not as if they are unaware of it. The Right foretells their mistakes. Some people want to end a war as soon as possible, but with Syria, that is the prelude to more war and killing.


When Abbas' P.A. police stood aside and his Fatah fled from Hamas attacks in Gaza, Hamas captured Fatah's intelligence files. Hamas has released some, to demonstrate Fatah corruption. The files attest to payoffs, financial favors for favored officials, tax scams, etc.. When the impoverished Arabs in Judea-Samaria see enough of that, they will have enough of Fatah.

Fatah responded by asking Hamas to account for funds from Iran and Qatar (sorry lost source).


A bus of Israeli Arab tourists returning from the Sinai crashed. Was it terrorism, as the passengers claim, or a fraud by passengers hoping to cheat the government of Israel of revenues reserved for victims of terrorism?

Egypt refused to let Israeli medical people rush in to help the Arab victims. The victims denounced the government of Egypt or favoring terrorism and suggested it learn about human rights from Israel (Arutz-7, 7/31).


Jordan categorically rejected a purported Israeli invitation to patrol Judea-Samaria. Jordan called it an Israeli attempt to keep the P.A. Arabs from taking care of themselves (IMRA, 7/31).

Muslims think in terms of plots. They call the Harry Potter books a Zionist plot to twist their minds. How much did the books twist their minds? Considering their backwardness and violent intolerance, maybe they need a shaking up.

I think Jordan's decision wise for it, good for Israel, and bad for jihad.


The government suddenly realizes that a large proportion of Jewish youth in Israel will be Ultra-Orthodox. These youth mostly study until past draft age. That means a rising proportion of the country does not work at what will benefit the economy. Thus both army and economy lose.

The government is devising schemes to get more of that sector into jobs earlier. Some of these schemes are not likely to work. But they recognize that many feign to be Torah scholars in order to get draft exemptions.

Defense Min. Barak noted that employers fire some reservists, so as not to lose work time while they are in the service, universities don't coordinate the timing of exams with the timing of military recalls, etc.. Soldiers increasingly feel that the country is not behind them and that they are suckers (IMRA, 7/31).

Why not end the IDF hostility to religious Jews?


About two million Iraqi refugees are in Jordan and Syria. Jordan says it no longer can afford the 750,000 there. It wants the US to pay for them (IMRA, 7/31). Why don't the oil states pay?


Israel let imprisoned terrorists study for matriculation and let the P.A. send proctors for exams, under rules for security. Guards caught the prisoners and proctors in widespread cheating, especially as stand-ins for other people and taking forbidden classes in name-calling anti-Zionism and in chemistry (perhaps bomb-making). Prison authorities had to suspend the matriculation (IMRA, 7/31).

Never a word of praise is heard for the many services that Israel renders the Arabs. Does the media withhold praise lest it cancel out their effort to demonize Israel as oppressive towards the Arabs?


2001: The US would do whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend itself from Chinese aggression. China continued to amass coastal forces. Meeting with the leader of China, Pres. Bush chastised Taiwan for holding a referendum on a missile defense (although the US pushes for a missile defense in eastern Europe).

2002: The US would not support P.A. statehood "until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure."

2003: The US promised Japan about N. Korea, that it would "not settle for anything less than the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of nuclear weapons program."

2004: The US would crush the Kurdish terrorists in Iraq.

2004: The US would support democratic movements in the Mideast. It said nothing as Egyptian police arrest, beat, and sodomize political protestors. The State Dept. revoked the visa of a P.A. banker scheduled to testify before Congress about P.A. corruption. The US had promised to try to get a Libyan reformer released, but will meet with Ghadaffi anyway. (The US subverts Israel.)

Those are the real Bush lies. They prompt allies to shrink away and enemies to test our resolve. Turks now hate America (Michael Rubin, IMRA, 7/31).


The E.U. is sponsoring a UNO conference of NGOs billed as promoting peace. In past conferences, the participating NGOs and their speakers all promoted propaganda against Israel and armed conflict with Israel (IMRA, 8/1).


As reported earlier, Egypt is planning to clear housing within 150 meters of its border with Gaza. That would help reduce arms smuggling concealed by houses, but the distance is too short to be very effective.

Expanding the cleared area so that tunnels would be obvious and easily destroyed would make the cost of tunneling from further away extravagant.

It turns out that the cost of clearing the housing is relatively small. Much more could be afforded, to make it, say, 1,000 yards, even if Israel or the US has to pay for it. The cost of doing so would be much less than the fortune that the US wants to sink into the coffers of Fatah terrorists and get a degradation of security.

Egypt may be criticized for not suggesting the extension. Israel deserves criticism for not suggesting it. It should suggest this as a way of helping Egypt meet its treaty obligation to stop arms smuggling. A byproduct would be better housing for the relocated residents. Let Egypt explain why it would not be willing to do this! (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 8/2.)


Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) invited the director of JihadWatch, Robert Spencer, to address it on "The Truth About CAIR," (an Islamist organization that claims to advance repressed Muslim rights but seeks to repress resistance to Islamist encroachment on everyone else's rights) at Georgetown U..

CAIR sent YAF a letter threatening to sue it for having as a speaker what it called a well-known bigot and defamer, and to sue him for slander. If offered no evidence in support of its claims. It just demands blackballing him.

The Middle East Forum has offered to have its legal unit defend both possible defendants. This legal unit was set up to protect researchers on terrorism from physical and legal intimidation (MEF News, 8/2).

No evidence offered by CAIR. Who then is the bigot and defamer?


She praises Abbas as moderate and for disarming terrorists. But polls, whose findings were shown in the news brief, reveal that his people are the most extremist Muslim population. IMRA has reported the disarmament as a charade, for the P.A. issues them new weapons. Now it seems that many terrorists won't hand in their weapons (IMRA, 8/2).

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 richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Kae, August 20, 2007.

This essay is by Melanie Phillips and appeared on her website (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1605).

'My enemy's enemy is my friend' is a principle that has always underpinned Realpolitik. It is extremely stupid. My enemy's enemy may also be -- my enemy.

Saudi Arabia is supposedly our ally against al Qaeda. While it may well be the case that it has been useful to us in providing intelligence and so forth, it is also the intellectual and religious fount of al Qaeda.

Having created this monster, Saudi then found to its dismay that it turned into its own most bitter attacker. So Saudi fights al Qaeda terrorism inside its own borders, but sees no reason to cease funding and promoting jihad against the rest of the world.

Now Saudi sees an even bigger threat to itself from Iran. On the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' principle, the US is taking advantage of that to try to use Saudi as leverage against Iran. The US also seems to think that 'solving' the Israel Arab impasse will help defeat Islamist terror (which is, of course, precisely the wrong way round); or maybe

President Bush is merely desperate to leave as his legacy a peace deal between Israel and the Arabs (dream on). Whatever. Either way, there is now a US/Saudi love-in going on. So the US has just given it a whopping $11 billion arms deal, and Saudi has graciously indicated that it may attend the Middle East peace conference the US is organising for the autumn which will consider, we are told, a revival of the Saudi Middle East 'peace plan'.

People are hailing the prospect of Saudi sitting down with Israel as a breakthrough. It should be seen instead as the US forcing Israel to embrace a scorpion. The so-called 'peace plan' by Saudi -- which has never recognised Israel and which forbids Jews to enter its own territory -- requires Israel to return to the 1967 border, which is in fact the 1949 armistice line otherwise known as the 'Auschwitz border' because it would leave Israel undefended against genocide. Which is, of course, the intention.

The other arm of the Saudi pincer of peace is the demand for the return of the so-called Palestinian 'refugees' (they are as much refugees as I am a refugee from Poland from whose harsh and anti-Jewish environment my grandparents fled in the early years of the last century) which is tantamount to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Which is, of course, the intention.

It is obvious that Saudi Arabia is making only rhetorical and deeply dishonest gestures to convey the impression that it is a serious player in the 'peace process'. The Jerusalem Post has pointed out what Saudi Arabia could do if it was really serious about peace with Israel:

the Saudis and other Arab states can take serious steps to dismantle the monster they created and continue to feed: the Arab-Israeli conflict. Attending a conference would be nice, but it is substance that matters. The key substantive things they can do is to stop their diplomatic warfare against Israel, drop their illegal trade boycotts, combat the rampant anti-Semitism in their countries, and start openly breaking it to the Palestinians that their 'right of return' can only be to a future state of Palestine, not to Israel.
Of course Saudi won't do this. Indeed, the idea that Saudi is anything other than the enemy of civilisation is ludicrous. Power Line quotes Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, who points out that based on Israel's 2003 intelligence assessment, 50 to 70 percent of Hamas's budget derives from Saudi Arabia. Gold also told YNet :

Several years ago, Israel received reports of the interrogation of al-Qaeda captives who admitted that their organization had penetrated the Saudi Arabian air force, and that it was planning to take control of several Saudi F-15s based at Tabuk in north Western Saudi Arabia, near Eilat, and fly the fighter planes into sky scrapers in Tel Aviv, Gold said.

'From the pattern of past al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia, many western observers have concluded that elements of the Saudi national guard colluded with the attackers. Which only further substantiates Western concern that al-Qaeda has penetrated different branches of Saudi Armed forces.'

Saudi also turns out to be heavily involved in Iraq -- and guess what, not on our side. A few days ago the New York Times , no less, reported that the US is angry at Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the Iraq war.

Counterproductive? You can say that again.

They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq.

Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow...

The American officials in Iraq also say that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and that about 40 percent of all foreign fighters are Saudi. Officials said that while most of the foreign fighters came to Iraq to become suicide bombers, others arrived as bomb makers, snipers, logisticians and financiers.

American military and intelligence officials have been critical of Saudi efforts to stanch the flow of fighters into Iraq, although they stress that the Saudi government does not endorse the idea of fighters from Saudi Arabia going to Iraq. On the contrary, they said,

Saudi Arabia is concerned that these young men could acquire insurgency training in Iraq and then return home to carry out attacks in Saudi Arabia -- similar to the Saudis who turned against their homeland after fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The Bush administration's relationship with Saudi Arabia has deteriorated steadily since the United States invasion of Iraq, culminating in April when, bitingly, King Abdullah, during a speech before Arab heads of state in Riyadh, condemned the American invasion of Iraq as 'an illegal foreign occupation.' A month before that, King Abdullah effectively torpedoed a high-profile meeting between Israelis and Palestinians, planned by Ms. Rice, by brokering a power-sharing agreement between the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the militant Islamist group Hamas that did not require Hamas to recognize Israel. While that agreement eventually fell apart, the Bush administration, on both occasions, was caught off guard and became infuriated.

But Saudi officials have not been too happy with President Bush, either, and the plummeting of America's image in the Muslim world has led King Abdullah to strive to set a more independent course.

The administration 'thinks the Saudis are no longer behaving the role of the good vassal,' said Steve Clemons, senior fellow and director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The Saudis, in turn, 'see weakness, they see a void, and they're going to fill the void and call their own shots.'

So angry is the US with what Saudi has been doing to destabilise the region and back Israel into a corner that it is rewarding Saudi with an $11 billion deal -- and inviting it to discuss Israel's future existence.


Contact Kae at kew1@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, August 20, 2007.

This was written by Herb Keinon and appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1187502427210&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A survey by a respected journal showing that 15 of 108 foreign policy elites in the US believe Israel does not serve US national security interests has raised eyebrows in Jerusalem. It precedes the publication in early September of a book by two US professors slamming the Israel-US alliance.

Nicholas Burns, the US undersecretary of state for political affairs, center, and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, left, shake hands as Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovitch looks on during a news conference in Jerusalem on the US aid package to Israel.

The journal, Foreign Policy, on Monday published its "terrorism index," co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress, asking a bipartisan group of former "secretaries of state, national security advisors, senior White House aides, top commanders in the US military, seasoned intelligence professionals, and distinguished academics" a variety of questions having to do with US national security issues.

When given a list of US allies and asked to choose the one country that least serves US national security interests, 14 percent of the respondents picked Israel. Russia led the list, with 34% saying it least served US interests, followed by 22% who said Pakistan, 17% who selected Saudi Arabia, and 5% each for Egypt and Mexico.

The journal billed the respondents as America's "top foreign-policy experts." Forty-five of the respondents described themselves as Democrats, 24 as Republicans, and the rest as Independents.

One diplomatic official in Jerusalem, while acknowledging that 14% is a considerable minority, said he was still worried by the trend.

"Considering the closeness and importance of our ties with Washington, this is something we need to watch," he said.

The official said that while in the past the notion that the US alliance with Israel harmed US interests was a belief relegated to individuals on the far right, such as Pat Buchanan, and the far left, like Noam Chomsky, this survey indicated that the idea was gaining prominence among the elites.

This idea is starting to make it into the mainstream, the official said, citing as an example a paper published last year by University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer and Harvard University's Stephen Walt arguing that the US was willing to "set aside its own security" to advance Israel's interests because of AIPAC and the Israel lobby. Walt, incidentally, was one of the participants in the Foreign Policy survey.

The official expressed concern that this trend will likely pick up steam with the scheduled release early next month of a book by the two, which, according to press reports, argues that with the end of the Cold War, "Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States."

The official also expressed concern that more US policy elites were buying into the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the source of Islamic terrorism and anti-Americanism around the world.

The Foreign Policy survey bore this out, with 51% of the respondents saying that creating peace between Israel and the Palestinians would be "very important" to "addressing the threat of Islamist terrorism worldwide." Another 24% said solving the conflict with the Palestinians would be "somewhat important," and only 25% said it would have little or no impact on Islamic terrorism worldwide.

Regarding Hamas, a majority of the respondents came out against the current US policy of isolating Hamas, with 53% saying that engaging moderates inside Hams would be in the US's best interests, and only 17% backing the current Bush administration policy of isolation.

The respondents' replies to a question about what Iran would do with a nuclear capability were also somewhat surprising. Sixty-seven percent said it was either "somewhat unlikely" or "very unlikely" that Iran would build weapons to "wipe Israel off the map."

Even as Foreign Policy published its survey on Monday, the Financial Times released a poll that showed Israel was no longer viewed in large parts of Europe, and in the US, as a threat to global security.

Less than half a percent of the respondents in Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the US listed Israel when asked, "Which one, if any, of the following countries do you think is the greatest threat to global stability?" These results contrasted mightily to a controversial poll carried out in 2003 by the European Commission, in which more than half of those asked said Israel posed the "biggest threat to world peace."

In Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany, the US -- according to the Financial Times survey -- led the list of countries threatening global stability. In the US that distinction was shared by Iran and North Korea.

The poll was conducted by Harris Interactive among 6,398 people between August 1 and 13.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Milton Fried, August 20, 2007.

DUBAI (Reuters) -- A one-legged Emirati father of 78 is lining up his next two wives in a bid to reach his target of 100 children by 2015, Emirates Today reported on Monday.

Daad Mohammed Murad Abdul Rahman, 60, has already had 15 brides although he has to divorce them as he goes along to remain within the legal limit of four wives at a time.

"In 2015 I will be 68 years old and will have 100 children," the local tabloid quoted Abdul Rahman as saying.

"After that I will stop marrying. I have to have at least three more marriages to hit the century."

The United Arab Emirates newspaper splashed its front page with a picture of Abdul Rahman surrounded by his children, the eldest of whom is 36 years old and the youngest of whom is 20 days old. Two of his current three wives are also pregnant.

Abdul Rahman said his large family lived in 15 houses. He supports them with his military pension and the help of the government of Ajman, one of seven emirates that comprise the UAE, which includes the Gulf trade and tourism hub of Dubai.

Islam allows men to marry up to four women at a time, though most marry only one. The UAE is a Muslim country but is home to migrants from around the world.

Contact Milton Fried at docmiltfried@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, August 20, 2007.

Dear Mr. President,

If Mr. Lieberman knows about Syria's aid to el-Qaeda, then surely you must know too.

If you know about Syria's complicity in killing our men in Iraq, and killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, then why do you hesitate to implement your own doctrine?

You said it well shortly after 9/11. Terrorist attacks are an act of war against us, and must be countered in a manner that is appropriate for our nation's response to an act of war against us.

A country that harbours and trains and funds and deploys terrorists is a terrorist country. That country's aiding and abetting and sheltering and funding and arming and deploying terrorists against us is also an act of war against us.

Such a country is our enemy. That country's acts of war must be countered in a manner appropriate for our nation's response to an act of war against us.

Syria is such a country. Syria is our enemy. Syria is housing and harbouring and training and arming and funding and deploying thousands of terrorists who attack our troops and our allies.

Where is your response to Syria's multiple acts of war against us?

david meir-levi
menlo park, CA

This next is called "Al Qaeda's Travel Agent." It was by Joseph Lieberman and it appeared as an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

Damascus International Airport is a hub for terrorists.

The United States is at last making significant progress against al Qaeda in Iraq--but the road to victory now requires cutting off al Qaeda's road to Iraq through Damascus.

Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, and the strength and skill of the American soldiers fighting there, al Qaeda in Iraq is now being routed from its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces. Many of Iraq's Sunni Arabs, meanwhile, are uniting with us against al Qaeda, alienated by the barbarism and brutality of their erstwhile allies.

As Gen. Petraeus recently said of al Qaeda in Iraq: 'We have them off plan.'

But defeating al Qaeda in Iraq requires not only that we continue pressing the offensive against its leadership and infrastructure inside the country. We must also aggressively target its links to 'global' al Qaeda and close off the routes its foreign fighters are using to getinto Iraq.

Recently declassified American intelligence reveals just how much al Qaeda inIraq is dependent for its survival on the support it receives from the broader, global al Qaeda network, and how most of that support flows into Iraq through one country--Syria. Al Qaeda in Iraq is sustained by a transnational network of facilitators and human smugglers, who replenish its supply of suicide bombers--approximately 60 to 80 Islamist extremists, recruited every month from across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, and sent to meet their al Qaeda handlers in Syria, from where they are taken to Iraq to blow themselves up to kill countless others.

Although small in number, these foreign fighters are a vital strategic asset toal Qaeda in Iraq, providing it with the essential human ammunition it needs to conduct high-visibility, mass-casualty suicide bombings, such as we saw last week in northern Iraq. In fact, the U.S. military estimates that between 80% and 90% of suicide attacks in Iraq are perpetrated by foreign fighters, making them the deadliest weapon in alQaeda's war arsenal. Without them, al Qaeda in Iraq would be critically, perhaps even fatally, weakened.

That is why we now must focus on disrupting this flow of suicide bombers--and that means focusing on Syria, through which up to 80% of the Iraq-bound extremists transit. Indeed, even terrorists from countries that directly border Iraq travel by land via Syria to Iraq, instead of directly from their home countries, because of the permissive environment for terrorism that the Syrian government has fostered. Syria refuses to tighten its visa regime for individuals transiting its territory.

Coalition forces have spent considerable time and energy trying to tighten Syria's land border with Iraq against terrorist infiltration. But given the length and topography of that border, the success of these efforts is likely to remain uneven at best, particularly without the support of the Damascus regime.

Before al Qaeda's foreign fighters can make their way across the Syrian border into Iraq, however, they must first reach Syria--and the overwhelming majority does so, according to U.S. intelligence estimates, by flying into Damascus International Airport, making the airport the central hub of al Qaeda travel in the Middle East, and the most vulnerable chokepoint in al Qaeda's war against Iraq and the U.S. in Iraq. Syrian President Bashar al Assad cannot seriously claim that he is incapable of exercising effective control over the main airport in his capitalcity. Syria is a police state, with sprawling domestic intelligence and security services. The notion that al Qaeda recruits are slipping into and through the Damascus airport unbeknownst to the local Mukhabarat is totally unbelievable. This is not the first use of the Damascus airport by terrorists. It has long been the central transit point for Iranian weapons en route to Hezbollah, in violation of United Nations Security Council sanctions, as well as for al Qaeda operatives moving into and out of Lebanon. Now the Damascus airport is the point of entry into Iraq for most of the suicide bombers who are killing innocent Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, and trying to break America's will in this war. It is therefore time to demand that the Syrian regime stop playing travel agent for al Qaeda in Iraq. When Congress reconvenes next month, we should set aside whatever differences divide us on Iraq and send a clear and unambiguous message to the Syrian regime, as we did last month to the Iranian regime, that the transit of al Qaeda suicide bombers through Syria on their way to Iraq is completely unacceptable, and it must stop.

The U.S. government should also begin developing a range of options to consider taking against Damascus International, unless the Syrian government takes appropriate action, and soon.

RESPONSIBLE AIR CARRIERS should be asked to stop flights into Damascus International, as long as it remains the main terminal of international terror. Despite its use by al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists, the airport continues to be serviced by many major non-U.S. carriers, including Alitalia, Air France, and British Airways. Interrupting the flow of foreign fighters would mean countless fewer suicide bombings in Iraq, and countless fewer innocent people murdered by the barbaric enemy we are fighting there. At a time when the al Qaeda network in Iraq is already under heavy stress thanks to American and Iraqi military operations, closing off the supply line through which al Qaeda in Iraq is armed with its most deadly weapons--suicide bombers--would be devastating to the terrorists' cause. Simply put, for the U.S. and our Iraqi allies, defeating al Qaeda in Iraq means locking shut Syria's 'Open Door' policy to terrorists. It is past time for Syria to do so.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Maria Sliwa, August 20, 2007.

In today's highly controversial article entitled "Nuclear Terrorist Deterrence", WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah asks: Should the U.S. Threaten to Nuke Mecca?

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist. His latest book is "Stop The Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution." He also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

The article is archived at

America's nuclear arsenal maintained an uneasy peace for 50 years during the Cold War.

The leaders of the nuclear-armed Soviet Union knew beyond any shadow of any doubt that a nuclear attack on the U.S. -- perhaps its only hope for defeating its archenemy -- would lead to an all-out nuclear counter-attack and the virtual destruction of its "workers paradise."

The policy was called MAD, for mutually assured destruction, but there wasn't anything crazy about it. Until Ronald Reagan came along with his idea for an anti-missile strategic defense, this kind of nuclear deterrence was the only thing that saved the U.S. from certain attack.

The Cold War may be over, but the nuclear threat to the U.S. is not.

* Russia, despite many arms-control agreements designed to make us safe, still maintains a nuclear arsenal large enough to destroy the U.S. many times over.

* China is another growing nuclear power with the capability of destroying some major U.S. cities.

* North Korea and other rogue nations are rapidly developing the capacity to target the U.S. with nuclear-armed missiles.

But all of those nation-state threats are mitigated somewhat by the concept of MAD as well as the very primitive stage of a missile defense program begun under Ronald Reagan.

The real potent threat, though, comes from enemies who would never consider firing a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental ballistic missile. The threat some experts and high-ranking government officials say is a virtual inevitability comes from nuclear-armed terrorists who covertly detonate one or more bombs after sneaking them into the U.S.

How do we reduce the likelihood of a catastrophe of that magnitude?

Some suggest we can leave it up to the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated bureaucracy responsible for welcoming into this country millions of unidentified, undetected illegal aliens, any one of whom could be involved in what al-Qaida calls its "American Hiroshima" plot.

Others suggest the answer is to fight nuclear proliferation, yet that idea is the equivalent of putting a nuclear genie back in a bottle. Dr. A.Q. Khan of Pakistan probably put the final nail in the coffin of that policy prescription.

Only Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and a GOP presidential candidate, among elected officials, has put forth the proposition that its time to make deterrence work for us, again, like it did with the Soviet Union.

Tancredo says we need to find that deterrent soon or face the inevitability of a nuclear 9/11.

I agree.

The nuclear terrorist threat today largely comes from radical jihadists. Though they are sometimes seemingly stateless players who don't seem to put much value on their own lives, I have never believed these maniacs are invulnerable to real-world threats and immune to consequences.

There are so-called holy places and population centers they don't want to see destroyed. There are nations and cities they don't want to see vaporized. There are strategic sites they don't want to see turned to glass.

I want to join my courageous friend Tom Tancredo today in publicly urging a national dialogue to identify those targets.

It is not pleasant business. But neither will be a nuclear attack on the U.S. We are talking about preventing an unthinkable nightmare scenario that is, as Tancredo and George Bush and Dick Cheney and many others have suggested, all but assured without a specific deterrence prescription.

It is important for our enemies to know what the costs will be for an attack on the U.S. It shouldn't be a secret, any more than it was a secret to the Soviet Union.

Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the other Hitlers in headscarves who have sworn to bring the U.S. to its knees need to be told, in no uncertain terms, what the consequences of a nuclear or radiological attack on America will mean to them, their people and their so-called holy sites.

Here are some of the targeting ideas that need to be considered:

* Mecca
* Medina
* Tehran
* Qom
* Karbala
* Kufa
* Najaf
* Damascus

Perhaps all of the above.

Because of the nature of terrorism, it is often difficult to determine who is responsible. Therefore, targets need to be identified that will serve as deterrents for both Shiites and Sunnis. Sunni terrorists like bin Laden will need to understand that a nuclear attack on the U.S. will mean destruction of both Sunni and Shiite targets. Shiite terrorists like Ahmadinejad and his proxies in Hezbollah need to comprehend both Sunni and Shiite targets will be destroyed.

I know I will be pilloried for making these suggestions today. Understand it is not because I want to see Islamic cities destroyed by fire and brimstone. It is because I want to see U.S. cities spared from destruction.

Deterrence works. It is proven. Without it, I fear, we are inviting the deaths of millions of American civilians.

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

Contact Maria Sliwa at msliwa@sliwa.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 20, 2007.

Are lunatics and inmates from an insane asylum considered on the same level?

Love when people come from nowhere, and agree with my thinking and statements.

The article below is by Ellen W. Horowitz, who is an author who lives in the Golan with her husband and children.

I've added one of my photo artworks of a young father and his young son.

Hybrid hydras have smashed all that is sacred.

"No weapon engineered against you will succeed...." -- Isaiah 54:17

Those words from last week's Haftarah comforted this mother who sits in a leaderless country run by lunatics; with Iranian-backed Syria literally looming on my horizon and my sons assigned to combat units.

The Jewish unity needed to ensure victory, security and sanity seems eons away.

America's liberty crusade through the Middle East has been turned into a shop-'til-you-drop arms extravaganza for peace, with headlines blaring: "US military deals with Mideast promote stability." There's talk of war, but our army is preoccupied with desecrating the city of our forefathers (Hebron); while those affected are so pained as to blaspheme our army. The Jewish unity needed to ensure victory, security and sanity seems eons away.

Nu? So what else is new?

Some warn of global warming and others of nuclear winter. Through it all, I pray that my family will remain firmly planted on the ever-shifting Syrian-African rift. Armageddon is not on my mind -- but Redemption always is.

I believe the words of the Prophets are true, but I know that whereas good prophecies will be actualized, the bad ones can be overturned by human endeavors. I know that battles can be fought in the Heavens, rather than on earth. I anticipate miracles, but I've got a few gerrycans of water and extra blankets stored in the corner -- just in case.

"Bible thumping" is something I do before Pesach -- while cleaning book shelves in search of random crumbs. "Doomsday" is what my youngest kid will face if he brings another stray cat into this house. "Tribulation" is what I went through two weeks ago as I tried to keep my children, the goats, dogs, cats, chickens, birds and rabbits cool through an incredible heat wave. "Rapture" is what I felt when the temperature broke, leaving me -- and a stressed-out air conditioner -- alone.

And when I'm alone, domestic and international difficulties never fail to invade my bliss. As a creative religious woman, living in the Holy Land, I confess that I've toyed with numerous spiritual scenarios and various political and military options. But I have never entertained thoughts of a Biblically based Christian-Jewish merger against Islam. I'm grateful for remaining fairly lucid, despite the chaos (with regards to this issue, many have not).

Not long ago, a person could have gone through a lifetime without having heard of the term "eschatology". "Judeo-Christian" described a cultural tradition within the framework of Western civilization; it was not a religion. What exactly is "Islamo-Fascism," if not a newfangled term for an ancient problem called "Amalek"?  "Rapture" is what I felt when the temperature broke.

A corrupted fusing of faiths, ideology and political interests has produced some mutant relationships -- born in sin -- which have infringed upon the independent belief systems of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. These hybrid hydras have smashed all that is sacred by trespassing the boundaries that have ensured civil society.

Retired Israeli General Shimon Erem is now described as "an early mobilizer of Judeo-Christian anti-Islamofascism" who feels compelled to warn the US "that it must quickly end its indifference before it ceases to be a society of Christian ideals." (You won't find that stuff in the annals of IDF protocol.)

Rabbi MK Benny Elon broke historic Jewish precedent by appealing to missionary leaders to convert Muslims to Christianity, and by inviting missionaries to become an integral part of the Jewish State's political process.

Israeli academic and Director of The Jerusalem Summit, Dr. Dmitry Radyshevsky, calls for a Christian restoration of Europe, and for Christians and Jews to unite "politically and spiritually" in the face of radical Islam. He believes "Jews and Christians are one tree, with the Jews forming the roots and the Christians the branches...."

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin's Jerusalem Post editorial ran roughshod over his rebbe's staunch position opposing interfaith dialogue. Perhaps Rabbi Riskin was unaware that those evangelical leaders he praised are actively promoting a Messianic Jewish (Hebrew-Christian) restoration in Israel. I believe his understanding of theological grafting -- which touched him -- is incomplete.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that not only does the metaphor of a grafted Judeo-Christian olive tree constitute a prohibited union; but that any Jew who adheres to, advocates, or entertains this belief is dabbling with avodah zarah (literally, "strange worship").

In order to understand just how forbidden this concept is for Jews, you can delve into Rambam, consult with your rabbi, or simply read the following quote from the website of the youth division of the ICEJ (International Christian Embassy):

Ephesians 3, vs. 6 -- "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus."

When Islamic Jihadi meets Christian Crusader over the future of the Land of Israel, and the amen choir is made up of religious Zionists, Knesset members and sundry Jewish national leaders, where does that leave concerned Jews who may not be Torah literate or textbook Zionists, but who possess beating Jewish hearts, a natural aversion to alien theology, and an overwhelming sense of terrestrial responsibility? Do we just dismiss them as godless liberals and saw off that branch in order to make room for faithful Christians? Grafting 50 million Evangelicals onto the far-right branches of our now-lopsided tree means we stand to lose a few good roots -- and lose ourselves when that tree topples.

And what about the rest of the forest -- the rest of humanity?

"G-d fearing" used to be associated with responsibility, accountability and foresight"G-d fearing" used to be associated with responsibility, accountability and foresight.

Reciting Biblical verses verbatim and creatively interpreting prophetic writings was never a prerequisite to walking with G-d or being a great leader.

The most disappointing aspect of our current voluntary liaison with the cross, is that we stand to surrender an essential part of ourselves -- and our universal role. It was Jews who had shown the world how to temper and refine religious zeal with wisdom. We were able to transport heavenly concepts into an earthly domain by channeling the inspiration into concrete, productive, ethical, responsible and compassionate behavior and action that was universally accepted. We never felt comfortable with the gushing "hallelujah crowd," because, for us, religious experience had always been personal, intimate and non-intrusive. We were to win converts by sanctifying G-d's name, serving as outstanding individual and collective examples.

At the end of the day (as opposed to "the end of days"), Israel's Left will have to foot the bill for initiating Oslo and the upheaval that ensued. However, the Zionist camp could have it worse. In our desperation and isolation we knowingly forged a forbidden relationship and initiated programs that caused spiritual destruction and gross erosion of the fences built around the Torah.

In an historic Biblical reversal, it seems we have tried to sell our birthright to some clean-shaven, faithful preachers in exchange for the opportunity to rake in some needed tourist bucks, secure influence in Washington, and to pass the burden of caring for our own peoples' humanitarian needs on to ready and willing Christians.

Without immediate correction, we may have to call this epic chapter in Jewish history, "Esau's revenge."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 20, 2007.

An Internet writer named Daniel Bernard reproduced "Land of Apartheid" by Stanley Heller. Called a "report," it ignored the Israeli side and Arab culpability. It's not a report but a diatribe.

Mr. Heller was a guest of the Christian Peacekeepers in Hebron, whom he described as a group that escorts some of the 25,000 Arabs in the Israeli sector, to protect them from the 400 "settlers." Who are those 400, able to intimidate 25,000, super-Jews? This indicates Peacekeeper bias, since the Arabs have made many attacks on the Jews and the Jews, very few attacks on the Arabs, but the peacekeepers don't try to protect the Jews. My Israeli news services have cited incidents in which other foreign peacekeepers come there to interfere with Israeli Army counter-terrorism and self-defense and egg on the Muslims. In any case, some of what Heller states is what the Peacekeepers told him. Hearsay by interested parties lacks credibility.

Either confused or attempting to confuse, Heller fabricates some of his claims of apartheid by counting the P.A. Arabs as part of Israel, as an Israeli responsibility for equal treatment. The Arabs wanted autonomy and got it. They wanted Israel to let them take care of themselves. Then don't hold Israel responsible for them.

Now the P.A. is responsible for its own hospitals. But a poorly provisioned hospital in the P.A. is his basis for impugning Israel. If the P.A. cared for its own people instead of for crusade and embezzlement, the standard of living for Arabs in the Territories would not have fallen so much below what Israel had raised it too. Where is his credit to Israel for having elevated it before?

A way of defaming Israel is to pile on exaggerated accusations against it in emotional terms, and to omit the history and reasons for what happened. There follow many examples.

As if Jewish discrimination against Arabs, Heller refers to "unrecognized villages" of Arabs in Israel. Israel has peculiar and inefficient procedures and is bureaucratic. Hence it does not recognize certain villages of Jews in Judea-Samaria, because they did not get through the last of the many stages of permission, though they got enough to start. Arabs squat and build illegally on public land and ignore municipal planning, and yet Heller deems them entitled to the municipal services that their lawlessness makes more expensive and less deserving.

Yes, thousands of houses are slated for demolition. Slated. Very few get demolished. The designation is mentioned to imply that Israel plans wrongdoing wrong. Why did Israel slate Arabs' houses for demolition? Heller doesn't say. I will. They were built illegally. Sometimes they were built on stolen public or private land or without permits, interfering with planned roadbeds and without inspection for safety, etc.. Foreign Arabs financed many of them, placed strategically to block building by Jews or to facilitate terrorist attacks. It is part of the Arab attempt to take over Israel. Some of those houses are in Israel and some are in the Territories. Israel has a right to demolish them. People such as Heller shamefully oppose demolition and the government hasn't the courage or patriotism to demolish them. The result is that Israel is condemned for what it rightfully should do. By keeping silent, Israel misses the opportunity to show what crooked scofflaws its enemies are.

Without explaining the background critical to understanding the situation and whose fault it is, Heller oversimplifies the P.A.'s economic problem, apparently blaming it all on the security fence, which he calls the "apartheid wall." He does not refer to the policy of fencing for security (which I think misconceived, for I prefer action against the Arabs to hiding from them behind a fence that can be circumvented). If he did, he would have to acknowledge that the Arabs are violent and vicious, and, contrary to what he asserts, not fit to live with. They are too intolerant. If they didn't commit terrorism, there might not be a fence. Unfortunately, the fence serves the anti-Zionist Israeli regime as a means of making a de-facto cession of territory to the Arab enemy. By the way, Heller does not admit that the Arab Muslims are the enemy of Israel.

And so he claims that the fence cuts off people in Jerusalem suburbs from their relatives and keeps their garbage from being picked up. He does not cite enough specifics to evaluate his claims. He is too loose with facts and vague about statistics and proportions. That is suspicious. Perhaps he just doesn't know. Where he doesn't specify, critics cannot check and rebut his claims.

The fence runs close to the edge of the Territories. There is no attempt to impose hardships upon the Arabs. The fence has been sited so as to make hardships for the Jews. It cuts some Jewish communities off from others and from Israel. It subjects others to attack by Arabs on nearby hills, while fencing in the Jews. The Arabs complain that it cuts off people from their fields; it does bisect some Jewish municipal boundaries.

The fence makes economic and travel hardships for all. That is only a fraction of the economic hardship resulting from terrorism and Arab rule. Arab terrorism had been ruinous for many Jews and forces many to travel in indirect routes, taking much longer. Heller notes an Israel travel ban against Arabs on certain roads sarcastically as settlers finding it unacceptable to have to share the roads with Arabs. That is deceitful of him. Arabs around Hebron, a city whose Jews he accuses of attacking the Arabs, and elsewhere in the Territories, regularly throw stones and firebombs, shoot at, and drive into Jews who share the roads with them. The limited separation was not because the Jews were apartheid-minded, but because the Muslims were!

Hazy, non-quantified accusations of unfair practice as routine and extensive, are leveled against Israel as, for example, having driven out Arabs in the 1947 war. The Arabs embarked upon genocide, because they were most apartheid-minded. The Jews asked them to stay in peace. Before and during that war, most of the Arabs fled. A few in strategic places from which they were harassing, or could menace, the Jews, were driven out. The Arabs drove out Jews, when they could. That is not mentioned, nor is the Arab threatened to massacre all the Jews. That is not mentioned either. Some historical account! I think that Israel should have driven all the Arabs out. That would have spared it thousands of subsequent casualties and prevented most terrorism.

For the Arabs, the main economic hardship is that their leaders divert most of the public funds to war on the Jews and to their private accounts, extort from businesses, set up monopolies for themselves, and fail to enact business law by which businesses can run in orderly fashion. Arafat refused a free sewage treatment plant, lest he would have to share it with Jews. Israel did withhold some P.A. excise taxes, as stated, but the reason is that the P.A. spent them on terrorism, which factual explanation Heller omitted. Not fair to blame Israel for that! The resulting hardships are the Arabs' own fault.

I don't know whether one accusation be true or false. Heller claims that Israel mostly does not lease land to Arabs. He is not specific. Does he mean lease or sell, by the government or by the Jewish National Fund? The Jewish National Fund is a private organization that is not supposed to sell off land to Arabs, because Jews contributed to it for their own national development, because the colonial masters or Arab landowners would not sell to them. Now the Arabs are bidding again to take over the country, so Israel would be wise to deny Arab access to more land, to clear them from land illegally taken, and to rescind their citizenship. Claims elsewhere that in Jerusalem, Israel denied Arabs building permits, and that that is why Arabs build illegally there, were false. When Jews try to live in Arab villages, as my own, idealistic cousin tried to do, they get harassed out. The apartheid-minded Arabs are driving the Jews out of Jaffa and certain other mixed cities. The P.A. made it a capital crime to sell real estate to Jews. It is a complex picture. Heller draws the wrong conclusion.

His most vicious canard is about "Jewish settlements at war with the Palestinian (Arab) neighbors. Left to themselves, Jewish villages have proved good neighbors. But led by Israeli and foreign leftists, Arabs are making war on Jewish villages. For years they threw stones and fired guns at passing Jews, and, particularly in Israel, burned down forests. Now they are destroying crops of the Jews, while falsely complaining it is the reverse. They have been caught at the attempted deception. Lately they have set crops afire in the hope of burning down the houses of the Jews. P.A. doctrine, whether of Fatah or of Hamas, approves of attacks on Jews as "resistance." Proof: thousands of Arab terrorists have been arrested and convicted. As for depicting the Jew-expelling Israeli government as plotting against the Arabs, let Heller explain why Jews who defend themselves, even if only by warning shots against Arab thieves, vandals, and cutthroats, get arrested and their assailants do not!

Heller pours his most acidic venom on the Jews of Hebron. I guess it is instinctive, because the Jews there are Orthodox, Hebron is Judaism's second most holy city and its original capital, they are few in number, yet they are holding out against constant Arab attack and Israeli harassment as a symbol of Zionism and resistance to the Israeli anti-Zionist drive to evacuate from that core area of the Jewish homeland.

After mentioning the Arab massacre of dozens of Hebron Jews in that city in 1929, and the Arab and British expulsion of the rest of the city's Jews, Heller refers to Jewish attempts to resettle there as a "brutal project." He puts it baldly that religious fanatics are taking over Hebron Arabs' houses.

What is a "religious fanatic?" Remember, the Arabs there tend to follow Hamas. They are religious fanatics, wanting to murder religious rivals! The Jews just want to reclaim what legally belongs to them and to live in peace. Heller fails to indicate that they are buying, for a second time, property stolen in that 1929 expulsion from the Jewish people and some of the incoming Jews' direct ancestors. Why doesn't Heller observe that if Hebron Jews entered the P.A. sector of their own city, they likely would be lynched. Jews don't lynch Arabs.

Some of the property referred to is not housing but abandoned stores. Heller might mention that the modern Hebron commercial area is elsewhere, but in its war on Israelis, the P.A. forces some Arabs to remain in those seldom frequented stores, to block Jewish re-entry.

One could not tell from Heller's account that the Muslim Arabs have declared war on the Jews. Daniel Bernard has done a disservice in relaying libel, blood libel.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 20, 2007.

1. Thanks to Boris Celser for this brilliant comment. The "books" by anti-Semite lecturer Ilan Pappe, including those alleging Israel conducted "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs, should be known as PAP SMEAR!

The latest Pap Smear is discussed here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid= 1186557466176&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

2. Unlike Israel, SLAPP suits lose in the US!!

"Yale Press Prevails In Suit"
by Paul Bass
August 15, 2007 2:33 PM
New Haven Independent
www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/08/ yale_press_wins.php

A group called KinderUSA had sued the Press for a book that accuses the group of being a front to raise money for the terrorist group Hamas in order to skirt U.S. laws.

KinderUSA filed suit against the Press in L.A. on April 26 over the publication of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. The suit also targeted the book's author, Matthew Levitt; and the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, where Levitt works. The suit claimed that Levitt fabricated facts about the charity's role in funding money to terrorist groups abroad.

Yale Press struck back, filing a so-called anti-"SLAPP" motion. SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation." The term refers to a tactic, often employed by corporations, to muzzle public criticism by filing libel or slander suits against critics that have no legal basis, but that can cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to defend. California has an anti-SLAPP law designed to counter such lawsuits. Click here to read a summary of the law; it enables targets of SLAPP suits to file motions to require SLAPPers to prove they have a viable case. If not, the SLAPPers have to pay the target's legal costs.

Yale Press -- along with Levitt and his foundation -- filed such a motion in this case. And they hired a top-tier First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams, signaling their intention to fight back.

After that motion was filed, Kinder withdrew its suit.

KinderUSA's suit focused on pages 151-2 "and the respective footnotes" in Levitt's book. The section of the book describes how the U.S. shut down American-based charities accused of funneling funds to terrorist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda, charities such as the Holy Land Foundation.

The complaint quoted from the pages in question: "Even after the closure of the Holy Land Foundation in 2001, other U.S.-based charities continued to fund Hamas. One of the organizations that has appeared to rise out of the ashes of the HLFRD is KinderUSA." The group claims that the accusation is false.

In the book, in a subsequent part not mentioned in the lawsuit, Levitt states that two leaders of KinderUSA were also involved with HLFRD: KinderUSA Executive Director Dalell Mohmed served as a project director at the previous organization, and KinderUSA founder Riad Abdelkarim as a governing board member. Both people were deported from Israel on suspicions of ties to Hamas, Levitt's book reports.

Levitt (pictured) writes and speaks widely, including on national TV, about terrorism and front groups for organizations that carry out suicide attacks, like Hamas and al-Qaed. A former U.S. Treasury official, he worked on shutting down American funding pipelines to foreign groups identified by the government as sponsors of terrorism.

The KinderUSA complaint also deemed as false Levitt's statement that "the formation of KinderUSA highlights an increasingly common trend: banned charities continuing to operate by incorporating under new names in response to designation as terrorist entities or in an effort to evade attention. This trend is also seen with groups raising money for al-Qaeda." The complaint charges that a related footnote falsely ties two KinderUSA officers to a discussion of al-Qaeda "without informing the reader that there is no allegation that KinderUSA is tied to al-Qaeda."

KinderUSA describes itself on its website as "a group of physicians and humanitarian relief workers... believing that all children are born with fundamental freedoms and are entitled to the rights of survival, health, and education. KinderUSA puts into action programs to ensure these rights are not forgotten." The site cites relief work with children in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.

In a press release, KINDER Board Chairwoman Laila Al-Marayati claimed the book "will take food out of the mouths of hungry children in Palestine that so urgently need our help."

Her group's complaint sought $500,000 in compensatory damages, plus unspecific punitive damages and legal expenses.

It also claimed that "Yale University Press did not conduct any fact-checking" in connection with the book.

"Of course, the book was vetted," Yale Press chief John Donatich responded at the time the suit was filed. "We took it through peer review, as with all our books."

3. Cowardice begets cowardice:

"Lebanon in Sderot"
by Uzi Dayan
August 19, 2007
Ynet News
Major General (Res.) Uzi Dayan is chairman of the Tafnit movement and a former National Security Council chief

Sderot and its vicinity have experienced another stormy week. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who visited the city with Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that "in Israel we live under a constant barrage of Qassams." Well, not in the whole of Israel -- only in Sderot and vicinity. Sometimes it is reported in the press and sometimes it is not.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who also joined the tour, pledged to fund the fortification of the community center. If the State doesn't help, philanthropists will do the job -- if not Gaydamak, then Ellison.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that Mahmoud Abbas is unable to "deliver the goods" and that a diplomatic settlement with the Palestinians is a fantasy. It's true. So what's to be done? Keep talking about removing the checkpoints.

And again this morning, there was another brief and routine report that Qassam rockets "landed" in Sderot. No injuries were reported. What are we waiting for? For the moment that a rocket hits a kindergarten, heaven forbid?

Terrible sense that there is no leadership

And thus, three failures that characterized the Second Lebanon War are repeating themselves, live from Sderot.

  • Decision-making: Then, they didn't understand that it was war and acted based on shortsighted impulse, whereas today they are unable to make clear-cut decisions with well defined missions, as required in a state of war for all intents and purposes.

  • Deploying the military: Then, they didn't know how to deploy a large and powerful ground force, which wasn't even called up on time. Then as now, a large army is lying around idly, awaiting orders that are not forthcoming.

  • The home front continues to be abandoned: After years of Qassam rocket fire in the Gaza region (to date, over 2,500 Qassam rockets were fired on Sderot alone,) there are still more than 1,500 unfortified houses, most places of work do not have an adequate solution, and educational institutions in the area are unprepared for the opening of the next school year. Then as now, the sovereign is "chalking up points" by announcing that it "will not fortify itself to death." So for your information -- the entire investment in fortification doesn't reach a single percent of the overall defense budget.

The failures of the last war and their continuation today leave us with a terrible sense that there is no leadership; that there is no direction and no responsibility. We should do what we were not smart enough to do during the Second Lebanon War -- win.

Take control of Egyptian border

Yes, there is a military response to the two key strategic objectives facing us: Preventing fatal Qassam rocket fire on the residents of Sderot and vicinity and preventing Hamas from becoming Hizbullah number 2 within a short timeframe.

To this end, the Gaza Strip should be isolated and we should intensify targeted killings, economic pressure and operations against Hamas. Forces should be deployed into areas from which rockets are being fired, the Philadelphi Route should be re-occupied, and we should take control of the Israeli-Egyptian border, which we should not have left in the first place.

The humanitarian issues that would emerge as a result of these policies should be dealt with sensitively, but we should make it clear that we too have a humanitarian problem -- our abducted soldiers.

This military response must be used in order to give the residents of Sderot and its vicinity the security that every citizen is entitled to, but also to restore the sense of security of Israelis who are asking "how can we depend on a leadership that failed us in Lebanon that cannot provide an answer to the Qassam fire and deal with the Iranian nuclear threat?"

Indeed how? Everyone -- from Sderot to Ramallah and Damascus, Hamastan and Tehran -- is waiting for the answer to this question, which should come out of Jerusalem and constitute a key element of our policy regarding the Palestinian issue.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Ben Ariel, August 19, 2007.

I know from firsthand experience how Muslims deny Christians the right to pray upon the Temple Mount. I was taken into "protective custody" to save me from militant Muslims for merely trying to read my Bible and pray in peace upon the site of the holy temples. Later I was deported from Israel for highlighting the plight of the Temple Mount under Nazi-Muslim occupation on trumped up charges that were later reduced to another fabrication: "visa violation."

May the Israelis, Jews and Christians worldwide, stand up for our religious rights upon the Temple Mount and refuse to be dhimmis.

This article is by Aaron Klein, chief of the World Net Daily Jerusalem Bureau, and it appeared August 17, 2007 in World Net Daily

Palestinians say no agreement unless Olmert forfeits holiest site in Judaism

JERUSALEM -- Palestinian negotiators drafting an agreement behind the scenes with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office have made clear they will not accept any final peace deal with Israel unless the Jewish state forfeits the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site, WND has learned.

According to a report in Israel's Yediot Aharonot daily yesterday, Olmert is willing to discuss joint Israeli-Palestinian control over the Temple Mount complex. The report didn't state the positions of the Palestinian side on the issue.

A chief Palestinian negotiator, speaking to WND on condition his name be withheld, said yesterday, "there can be no agreement with Israel unless we get complete sovereignty of the Mount. Once Palestinian control over the [Temple Mount] is fixed, then we will make assurances for Jewish visits to the site."

The chief negotiator said aides from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization have been hammering out the parameters of a final status agreement for presentation in November at a U.S.-backed international summit regarding the Middle East.

Issues already discussed between Israel and the Palestinians reportedly include the division of parts of Jerusalem and debates regarding permanent borders between Israel and the PA.

The November international conference and talk from the Bush administration the past few weeks has led many here to speculate the U.S. will push in the near future for intense Israeli-Palestinian negotiations leading to a Palestinian state.

With a year and a half left in office, President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been urging meetings between Abbas and Olmert to establish a framework for momentum leading to a breakthrough at November's conference. Olmert and Abbas have been meeting bi-monthly in summits brokered by the U.S.

Asked by WND whether Olmert is willing to forfeit the Temple Mount in an agreement with the Palestinians, David Baker, a spokesman for the prime minister, had no comment.

Jews, Christians barred from praying on Mount

The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. Muslims say it is their third holiest site.

The First Jewish Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

The Jewish Temple was the center of religious Jewish worship. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God's "presence" dwelt. The Al Aqsa Mosque now sits on the site.

The temple served as the primary location for the offering of sacrifices and was the main gathering place in Israel during Jewish holidays.

The Temple Mount compound has remained a focal point for Jewish services over the millennia. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition. Jews worldwide pray facing toward the Western Wall, a portion of an outer courtyard of the Temple left intact.

The Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed around A.D. 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al Aqsa was meant to mark where Muslims came to believe Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven.

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. Islamic tradition states Mohammed took a journey in a single night from "a sacred mosque" -- believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia -- to "the farthest mosque" and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque later became associated with the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

Currently under Israeli control, Jews and Christians are barred from praying on the Mount.

The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area.

Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.

The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It still is open but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf.

During "open" days, Jews and Christian are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Waqf permission. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

'Secret' plan would give Palestinians West Bank

The talk of behind-the-scenes negotiations follows a WND report earlier this week stating newly installed Israeli President Shimon Peres has quietly drafted a plan for the Jewish state to evacuate and transfer to the Palestinians nearly the entire West Bank and several Arab Israeli cities located within territory that is undisputedly Israel's according to the international community.

The West Bank is strategic territory that runs alongside Jerusalem and is within rocket range of Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport. It is home to many biblical Jewish communities and some of Judaism's holiest sites.

Peres has presented his initiative to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to top aides for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas the past few weeks, after he took office as Israeli president last month, diplomatic sources in Jerusalem told WND.

The official role of president here is limited largely to ceremonial matters; the president does not create foreign policy.

Olmert is mulling over the plan and agrees with much of its contents, the diplomatic sources said.

Peres' plan calls for Israel to hand 97-percent of the West Bank over to Abbas, with Israel retaining a small number of the territory's Jewish communities. In exchange for Israel keeping some land, the Jewish state will give the PA control of Arab Israeli cities north of Tel Aviv which, together with the evacuated West Bank territory, would amount to the equivalent of 100 percent of the West Bank.

Already during his bi-weekly meetings with Abbas, Olmert has granted a number of security concessions to Abbas regarding increased Palestinian control of the West Bank.

The Israeli prime minister last month granted amnesty to 178 gunmen from Abbas' Fatah organization who comprise most of the senior leadership of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the declared military wing of Fatah that is responsible for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years.

Olmert is reportedly considering granting amnesty to 206 more Brigades terrorists. According to Palestinian officials, the Israeli Prime Minister already informed the PA that Fatah gunmen are largely immune from Israeli anti-terror raids regardless of whether they are officially on Olmert's amnesty list.

Also, Olmert is strongly considering removing hundreds of Israel Defense Forces roadblocks and checkpoints situated in strategic sites located throughout the West Bank. The IDF sees the checkpoints as crucial in helping stop terrorists, including suicide bombers, from infiltrating Jewish cities.

As well, in a scantily-reported but major move, Israel last week started allowing armed Palestinian policemen to patrol areas in the West Bank that fall under Israeli security control according to the 1993 Oslo Accords. Security in the territory, referred to as Area B, is supposed to be ensured by the IDF, which still monitors the area but has allowed for an unprecedented stepped-up armed Palestinian security presence there.

In response to the renewed momentum toward a Palestinian state, rabbis for the Yesha Council of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria -- the West Bank -- yesterday slammed the Israeli government for considering major concessions.

The council released a statement expressing "concern at the irresponsible diplomatic moves being made during these days, the main point of which is the consent to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. These moves are founded upon irrelevant considerations of political survival, and are being made in total opposition to the opinion of the defense establishment."

David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall." Contact him at http://www.beyondbabylon.blogspot.com/ or email davidbenariel@earthlink.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), August 19, 2007.

This was written by Rabbi Levi Brackman and it appeared today in Ynet News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3439155,00.html Rabbi Levi Brackman is executive director of Judaism in the Foothills and the author of numerous articles on a whole range of topics and issues, many of which can be found on his website (http://www.jitf.org).

We are currently witnessing the beginning of the end of the failed experiment called Reform Judaism

The Reform Movement is in the midst of an identity crisis. According to a Jewish Week article last week, this summer guest musicians came to Kutz Camp, the Reform movement's teen leadership camp and led a jazzed-up version of the evening prayers. One by one, 40 campers in their mid-teens got up and walked out. They wanted a more traditional service, they later explained.

It seems that this is a culmination of much change that has taken pace in Kutz Camp. Everything about the camp reflects the Reform Movement's irreverence for tradition: the food is "kosher style" rather than kosher proper, rituals are sidelined and prayers are jazzed up.

However, according to the Jewish Week, camp director Reform Rabbi Eve Rudin said that some Reform youth attending the camp are interested in making it really kosher. "We first started seeing kids lay tefillin two or three years ago," she said. "Certainly we saw it last summer. It's a handful of kids. Tzitzit are more widespread; quite a few kids are wearing them."

So the elite Reform youth are getting interested in religious ritual, demanding kosher and turning their back on "innovative" types of prayer services. This growth from within the Reform Movement removes the raison d'┬üŕtre of Reform Judaism. Abraham Geiger (1810-1874) and Samuel Holdheim (1806-1860), who founded Reform Judaism, had one major concern in mind: how can Judaism remain relevant in the modern world, where Jews have been emancipated from the ghetto and shtetl? Their response was that Judaism needed to be modernized if it was to survive.

They thus changed around the synagogue: they took away the mechitzah (separation between men's and women's seating), moved the bimah to the front and brought in the organ. They felt that this made Judaism less distinct and more modern -- in fact, they modeled their synagogues on Protestant churches. In addition they did away with most rituals, and prayer services were held in German rather than the traditional Hebrew. By modernizing Judaism in this way they hoped to make it relevant to the modern, emancipated Jew and thus salvage it from certain demise.

Judaism's peaceful death

So in fact Reform Judaism was not meant to be an ideology; it was a response to a perceived problem that modern societies posed to traditional Judaism. Unfortunately that response has failed on a number of levels. Statistics show that, instead of saving Judaism, Reform just allows it a more peaceful death -- this has been proven in a study by Antony Gordon and Richard Horowitz, which shows that where there are 100 Reform Jews today, there will be only 10 within four generations.

The premise that traditional Judaism could not survive modern, open-minded ideas and philosophy turns out to be incorrect too. The biggest proof of this comes from within the Reform community itself. The fact that members of the Reform Movement's teen leadership group, brought up in the midst of liberal American culture, are returning to tradition is testament to the fact that traditional, ritualized Judaism is compatible with modernity.

Perhaps most surprising, however, is that at the end of the Jewish Week article, Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, was quoted as saying, "If you take it all (rituals) upon yourself as an obligation rather than as a choice, you've reached the point at which you're no longer a Reform Jew." It is strange that the higher echelons of the Reform Movement are now feeling the need to define people out of its ranks. For the first time we have people defined by the leadership of the movement as Reform heretics, who can no longer be considered Reform Jews.

Beginning of the end

This was not how the founders of Reform envisioned it. In order to preserve Judaism, they wanted to be as inclusive as possible. We have now come full circle and Reform Judaism itself is losing some of its finest members to traditional Judaism. Now they feel the need to define their boundaries. To quote Kutz Camp director Eve Rudin, "This is about the Reform Movement coming to terms with the fact that there are boundaries, and what those boundaries may be."

Incredibly, instead of being happy that traditional Judaism can in fact thrive in a modern, liberal culture, the Reform leadership is working to stop its members from joining traditional Judaism by threatening to exclude them from the movement they were born into. Clearly, Reform Judaism has lost its very reason for existing.

Undoubtedly, what we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of a failed experiment called Reform Judaism. The leaders of the movement have realized this and are thus taking desperate measures to save what is, in fact, a sinking ship.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, August 19, 2007.

Is there a window of opportunity for Israel-Palestinian peace right now? Let me put it this way: in diplomatic terms, looking through the window is worthwhile but, in analytical terms, I don't think anyone is going to be able to climb through it.

The problem of the current situation poses two typical issues which often bedevil -- but could be used to clarify -- Middle East issues. The first is the logical versus the real; the second is the diplomatic versus the analytical.

Let us begin by what to outsiders seems a logical evaluation of the current situation. It goes something like this: Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA) it controls in the West Bank are in serious shape. Hamas has seized the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian infrastructure has been devastated. There seems to be no progress toward peace or an independent state.

Given this crisis it is logical that the Fatah leadership, headed by "President" Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who seem to be moderate men, pursue a new course. They can enforce stability on the West Bank and discipline on their own forces. They can use the aid money they are getting from international donors to improve their people's situation, build schools and hospitals, and create a viable economy. And they can make peace with Israel to obtain a Palestinian state. They can say to the Palestinians: Hah! See how we deliver and Hamas does not! We have brought you all these benefits and so naturally you must support us.

Happy ending. Curtain falls. Standing ovation from the audience. Good reviews in the media. Nobel prizes to follow.

The problem here is that this approach treats Palestinian politics as a black box without examining its inner workings. Or, to put it another way, this interpretation is totally logical but has no connection to reality.

It is worth remembering, by the way, that this is precisely the framework that was used to justify the Oslo peace process in the 1990s. Yasir Arafat and the PLO were cornered, threatened with extinction. An offer to save them by moderating them would be eagerly accepted. And once Arafat actually had to administer people -- providing jobs, fixing roads, collecting garbage -- he would naturally be moderated and channels toward a comprehensive peace agreement.

True, Abbas is more flexible and less extreme than Arafat but he is far weaker, also. He himself has reportedly admitted that his regime cannot stop terrorist attacks on Israel from the territory it supposedly controls. Fatah is so fossilized, factionalized, and corrupt that it is not capable of changing course. Nor does most of the leadership want to do so. They would prefer to steal aid money rather than use it effectively. And they don't want to be considered traitors to the cause by pursuing moderation. There is no chance of their agreeing to a peace accord ending the conflict. One can only hope that they would do easier things like blocking attacks on Israel or ordering their media to stop inciting terrorism. Even that modest expectation is likely to be disappointed.

All this brings us to the second issue. The above analysis argues that all the massive diplomatic effort being waged right now is going to fall on its face. Does that mean it should not be tried at all?

In diplomacy one can try things one believes will fail if they serve some purpose and do not undermine other interests. At present this means holding talks with Arab states to try to encourage them to make some effort toward peace and reduce tensions; and with PA-Fatah to see if any progress can be made toward a political solution to the conflict.

There are also some more immediate goals at stake: helping Fatah survive because it is preferable to Hamas though the gap may be narrow than often acknowledged; and to press it to block terrorism from the West Bank and reduce anti-Israel, pro-terrorist incitement in the media and institutions it controls. Additional reasons for pursuing diplomacy include showing that Israel and the West wants an equitable peace and perhaps laying a basis for long-term efforts.

Yet this kind of thing requires balance and a strong sense of skepticism, based on the analysis that full peace is unlikely for decades and that Fatah's drive toward political suicide seems unstoppable. This requires:

--Not fooling people into thinking that peace is close or that there is even a good chance of achieving it.

--Politicians not making fool of themselves by racing around to create peace blueprints, conferences, and financial give-aways which will fail in a humiliating manner.

--Not pretending that Abbas is a great man of peace or that Fatah is a collection of moderates.

--Not recyling the myth that peace is dependent on Israel offering more and displaying more expressions of guilt or empathy.

--And not making dangerous concessions or taking risks to "build confidence" or prove one's benevolence.

Ironically, offering to save Fatah leaders from bloody extinction (or at least a luxurious exile paid for by foreign aid) is not being used to press them toward reform and moderation. Rather it is being cast as Fatah doing the Americans or Israelis a favor by accepting their help without any requirement to change its behavior.

The way this crisis is being handled -- even though the basic idea of the strategy makes sense -- makes it more likely that peace plans will be forgotten, money wasted, casualties multiplied, and the world even more misled about the nature of a conflict which is kept going by Palestinian intransigence.

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, August 2007). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

A version of this article was published in the Toronto Globe & Mail and another in the Jerusalem Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 19, 2007.

From a children's program on Egypt's Al-Nas TV, Egyptian cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri instructs children on the times when it is appropriate to lie: to a wife, to Jews, and to reconcile two arguing Muslims. (Courtesy of MEMRI TV.) See the video at http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1519.htm

Mahmoud Al-Masri: We should not teach our children to lie, because it is forbidden. But there are three types of lies that are permitted. Let me tell you what they are.


The first, my dears, is lying to the wife in matters of the heart. You are not married yet, but Allah willing, you will be one day, and then you will know what I'm talking about. The wife always likes her husband to say sweet things to her: "I love you," "I'm crazy about you," things like that. All the forbidden things he used to say before he was married -- he should say them now, when they are no longer forbidden. The wife always likes to hear emotional stuff, in order to feel stability in life. The wife does not want money. She wants sweet words and emotions. Sometimes, the husband reaches the point where he gets tired of his wife, and can't stand her, and doesn't want to see her anymore. The same goes for the wife -- she can't wait for the day that Allah will take him away from her. So what should we do in such a situation? In order to preserve the Muslim family, the Prophet Muhammad allowed the husband or wife to lie to one another -- but only about matters of the heart, mind you. About what?

Children: Matters of the heart.

Mahmoud Al-Masri: Matters of the heart. If the wife asks her husband: "Do you love me, Abu Muhammad?" He should say: "Of course I love you, honey. How could anyone not love you?" He might not love her at all, but when he says: "I love you," she feels happy and stable, and feels that this is still her home, and that these are still her children and her husband. Right? But if he were to say to her: "The Prophet has forbidden lying, so I cannot tell a lie -- I hate you, I want to kill you, and get rid of you..." Can they possibly continue to live together after this? No. That's why the Prophet Muhammad said: "You are allowed to lie to your wife, but only about matters of the heart." He is not allowed to lie to her about money, or about his comings and goings, and so on. No -- only about matters of the heart. "Do you love me?" "I'm crazy about you, my life, you are a part of my heart. If you opened my heart, you wouldn't find anybody there but you." You should say such things that will make her happy and fix matters. That, my dears, is the first kind of lies that are permitted. What lies?

Children: Permitted lies.

Mahmoud Al-Masri: Permitted lies. There's no such thing as a "white lie" or a "black lie." No, there are exceptions. My dears, the second kind is lying to the enemy in times of war. What does this mean? For example, somebody joins the army, and a war breaks out, between us and the Jews, for example. He is captured by the Jews, who ask him: "Where do you keep your weapons, where is your artillery, and where are your airplanes, and so on?" He knows, but what will happen if he tells them the truth? He will destroy his country, right? So what should he do? If, for example, he knows that the tanks are at Heliopolis, he should say they are at Hilwan. Is he lying or not?

Children: Yes.

Mahmoud Al-Masri: But it is permitted, in order to defend his country. Do you get it, my dears? So this is the second kind of lies that is permitted. The third kind is in order to reconcile two rivals. What does that mean? What's your name?

Ahmad: Ahmad.

Mahmoud Al-Masri: And what is yours? Mahmoud. Ahmad quarrels with Mahmoud, and the two are mad at each other, After the show, they might got out and hit each other. What should we do? We take Ahmad aside, and say to him: "Ahmad, you are mad at Mahmoud, but Mahmoud loves you very much, and keeps saying: I love Ahmad very much and don't know why he's mad at me. I want to make up with him, and if I was sure he would agree to make up with me, I'd tell him I love him very much." And then you go to Mahmoud and say to him: "Why are you mad at Ahmad? Ahmad praises you, and loves you very very much." Did I lie to him? Yes, I did. But is this lie permitted or forbidden?

Children: It's permitted.

Mahmoud Al-Masri: How come? Because we are reconciling two Muslims.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 19, 2007.

This was written by Alex Kogan and it appeared August 12, 2007 in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557428862&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"The Jewish community in the US today is facing multiple challenges, starting with deterioration in centrality of Israel to its world view because of strong pressure of extremist leftist forces that view the Palestinian issue as a part of their politically correct menu," Ariel Cohen, Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow has told The Jerusalem Post.

A member of the Council of Foreign Relations, International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, and Association for the Study of Nationalities, Cohen, who often testifies on Capitol Hill and appears on major TV channels around the world, handles an impressive portfolio, which includes international energy security, Russia and Eurasia, and the Middle East.

Cohen noted that many young Jewish students in the West have a hard time publicly advocating for Israel, or at least viewing the Arab-Israeli conflict realistically in the context of the onslaught of jihadi forces in the Middle East and beyond.

"With the rise of Hamas the struggle against Israel is a part of the global jihad against free societies and democracies. There is a continuous failure of both Israeli "hasbara" (advocacy) and of American Jewish education to communicate very basic issues of dealing with Israel's history Israel's struggle for survival. Moreover, Israel's security predicament is often viewed through the prism of 'occupation,' not the current confrontation between the forces of radical Islam (both Shi'ite and Sunni) and the existing regimes in the region, and the onslaught against western and American interests on the Middle East," Cohen said.

Cohen sees Israel's foreign policy lacking in several strategic aspects. "First of all, after the debacle of the Second Lebanon War, Israel's deterrent capabilities are no longer viewed as a sure thing by its enemies. Very little is done to rebuild this absolutely vital element," he said.

Secondly, Israel is not conducting information warfare as a part of general strategy to ensure survival of the Jewish state. Israeli spokespeople are not well trained and their message is often too curt and blurred. I am talking about information warfare in the West in the Middle East, and even when it comes to explaining to the Israeli population of some very basic things -- why are we here, why do we have to be here... That there was no "Naqba" (disaster) as extremist revisionist historians and their anti-Zionist fan club want us to believe. These issues are no longer self evident, as they were in 1948 and in 1967.

The third important aspect is lacking of any strategy in Israel's foreign policy. The acceptance of Saudi/Arab League plan is the sign of that. If you read it carefully, it talks about the return of the so-called 1948 refugees into Israel proper. This plan is very dangerous; it does not recognize any border changes which are necessary for Israel's defense and survival. The Saudis claim this plan cannot be altered. So Israel is virtually negotiating itself out of existence.

It must be remembered that peace processes in the Middle East worked only when there were breakthroughs of recognition. These were the cases when the Egyptian President Sadat came to Jerusalem and King Hussein of Jordan was ready to start openly negotiating with the State of Israel. Nothing of the kind came from Saudi Arabia so far, despite Israel's invitations.

At this point Israel should declare that assumptions of the Oslo agreement and the Saudi initiative are no longer valid and no longer of interest. The country should attempt to negotiate a new platform that includes recognition of Israel, diplomatic ties, cessation of any anti-Israeli activity and propaganda", Cohen said.

In addition, Cohen stressed that Israel is in need of strategic allies and here, paradoxically, while the attitude of the European countries is critical towards the Jewish state, it finds support in somewhat unexpected places. India and China are good examples, but moderate Muslim states of the ex-Soviet Union are of high importance also. Among these countries Kazakhstan stands out, as it demonstrated exemplary relations with Israel.

President Nursultan Nazarbaev works to promote interfaith harmony, and Israel's relations with his country can constitute a model of Israel's relations with Muslim states. This country is interested in chairing the OSCE in 2009 and is striving to improve relations with Europe and US. The West has important interests to cultivate relations with Kazakhstan", Cohen said.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, August 19, 2007.
This is by John W. Cassell and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7350 John W. Cassell is a retired law enforcement officer and prosecuting attorney. He served during the Vietnam War in the Strategic Air Command of US Air Force and is the author of five novels on the American counterculture of the late 1960s and early 1970s and several short stories.

What do you offer a suicide killer not to kill?

Jack Engelhard's recent article on Messrs. Dubner and Levitt ("Bad Brain Day for 'Freakonomics' Author,"
www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7330) was thought-provoking on many levels. Before pressing on to what bothers me most about this bizarre world of political self-delusion we in America appear to live in these days, I want to say that at least Mr. Levitt should be especially ashamed.

My G-d, Levitt, are you not a Jew? Do you not trace your heritage to the Levites? In the name of the six million of the Jewish people who died in the ovens of another terrorist just two generations ago, how can you possibly even appear to condone the actions of people who have, in the most public and persistent ways, continually said they intend to visit the same fate yet again on us, the people of the so-called civilized world?

Does nobody live in gang-infested neighborhoods anymore? Has everybody in the United States capable of making any noise lost touch with the nature of psychotic hoodlums? From Adolf Hitler to Saddam Hussein to Billy the Kid to Bonnie and Clyde to your neighborhood gangsters -- they are all the same. They don't react to killing like you do. For them, watching a mother plead for the life of her children is almost a sexual experience. At the same time, they are honest to a fault. When they say they're going to kill you, they mean it.

When you remember how those people died on 9/11, how they've been dying in Europe and all over Iraq ever since, you'll readily recall it was by suicide killers. Just think a moment: What do you offer a suicide killer not to kill? How do you stop a suicide killer? By the "expressed displeasure of the international community"?

[Hysterical laugh break.]

Back to the gang infested neighborhood -- and I grew up in one, so if you didn't, then listen close. The only way you keep a psychotic hoodlum from attacking you is if you convince him he's going to die and he doesn't want to. But a suicide killer wants to die, so the only way to stop a suicide killer is to kill him first. It's just that simple. Think about it.

That said, let's now look at one of the travesties of the dismal legacy of the worst president in modern times: James Earl Carter. Now, mind you, the Civilized World gave him the Nobel Peace Prize, but, as events both before and after, have demonstrated, the Civilized World, yet again, was wrong. What Carter started doing with his peace prize machinations was what this country has been all too adept at doing ever since -- abusing what is probably the greatest ally we ever had: Israel.

Before we get to the real tragedy of all this, let's return to the Arabs. Does anyone doubt Al-Qaeda intends to massacre the Jews as soon as we stop pinning them down in Iraq? Does anyone doubt that was Saddam's intention? After all the years since Carter began the policy of telling Israel "you won't have a friend in the world if you don't do what we say," can anyone doubt that the Palestinian Authority has no intention whatever of living side by side with Israelis in peace?

"Okay," you say, "but you are tarring the entire Arab world with the same brush. That's not fair."

Isn't it? Point to one Arab state today whose leaders loudly condemn acts of terrorism against Israel. Point to one Arab country whose police interdict terrorist plots to be launched against Israel. Point to one Islamic leader who condemns Jihad against the Jews. Just like the families in that gang infested neighborhood -- or the Christians in Nazi Germany, for that matter -- the very best of them stand mute, letting the terrorists use their lands; many others doing much more.

A bullied Israel now must face rocket attacks on her people coming from the very lands we made her give back in the name of peace -- Adolf Hitler's peace, Neville Chamberlain's peace -- while gaining absolutely nothing in return from the Arab world, except promises of genocide from some and complicit silence from the rest.

So, I say this: With our young men and women now killing Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan every day, it's time for the United States of America to go forthrightly a few steps further; to look these gang-infested neighborhoods of the world in the eye and then say:

"Even a dummy can smell the blood of the dead Israeli women and children our bankrupt policies in the past have helped murder. We're sorry, Israel. We're sorry for every inch of land bought and paid for with the blood of the very best of Israel's youth that we bullied you into giving back. We say we're at war with terror; well, from here on out, we're not going to hypocritically continue to exempt from that war, sub silentio, the oldest most longstanding victims of it. Any Jewish settlements left in the conquered territories stay where they are. Any attack on Israel is an attack on the United States."

It would be a welcome change -- not being hypocrites. Most of the Arab states hate our guts anyway. And if there are any truly peaceful, non-genocidal Islamic kingdoms and republics out there in those gang-infested neighborhoods, then let them so state -- and truly join in the war on terror with all the help we can give them. But not another inch of Israeli lands.

It's the Old Mr. Goodwrench commercials all over again, folks: pay me now or pay me later. At least if we pay the piper now, we'll still have the best ally we ever knew at our side. If we keep forcing Israel to pay for our armchair liberalism and squeamish, giggling foreplay with the enemies of Judeo-Christian civilization, as Mr. Levitt attempts, the next time they come for New York we won't get off with 3,000 dead. After all, our troops will have long since been pulled from where they now kill terrorists on a daily basis, and our Islamic fundamentalist friends, with their billions of petrodollars and universal support in the Arab lands, will simply change the killing fields to America.

Right now, the Islamists fear the IDF, and rightly so. Only frightened Israeli politicians and their American tormentors can defeat the IDF. But Israelis can't continue to survive our terrible gaffes forever. The time is now.

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 19, 2007.

Changes are on the horizon: in closer proximity than we think!

The Crazy leftists liberals are catching on! Amotz Asa-El, former executive editor of the Jerusalem Post also known to be a strong left-wing supporter of the Oslo Accords and Yasser Arafat, and acknowledges that he "publicly called for a compromise even on Jerusalem," has totally reversed himself!

These are two articles. The first has excerpts from an Op-Ed called "Israeli Arabs reject Jewish state." The second is From the ZOA and is entitled, "Former Jerusalem Post editor: don't lease Jewish JNF land to Arabs."

Excerpts from an Op-Ed called "Israeli Arabs reject
Jewish state"
by Amotz Asa-El
August 7, 2007
http://www.jta.org:80/cgi-bin/iowa/news/print/ 20070807opedasael.html

An Israeli columnist argues that in recent years it has become clear that by a two-state solution, Israel's Arabs mean two states for Palestinians.

The endless duplicity: The Israeli Arab leaders hail Western values only when it helps undermine the Jewish state, but otherwise do not believe in them.

The Israel Arab communities' elected leaders are attempting to hammer away at the idea of a Jewish State. They demand the abolition of the Law of Return, seek the alteration of the national anthem and hide behind a seemingly innocent agenda like the quest for a country of all its citizens.

The Israeli Arabs have participated in terror attacks including driving suicide bombers to their destinations!

Israeli Arab leaders are for now identifying with and actively assisting Israel's enemies, and we Jews have yet to consolidate our grip on the country our parents have built, so that in the future no Jew will be landless."

The time has come to CHANGE their status (they are Israel's 5th column) and the way we treat them!

"Former Jerusalem Post Editor: Don't Lease Jewish Jnf Land To Arabs"
Zionist Organization of America News Release
August 17, 2007

New York -- Amotz Asa-El, former executive editor of the Jerusalem Post and presently a lecturer at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, wrote "the Jewish National Fund (JNF)'s mission statement remains morally valid and strategically vital." This mission statement essentially states that JNF private land purchased by contributions from Jews during the last hundred years will be leased to Jews.

Asa-El, who had been a strong left-wing supporter of the Oslo Accords and Yasser Arafat, and acknowledges that he "publicly called for a compromise even on Jerusalem," has totally reversed himself and now says that the "Arabs' real aim is Israel's extinction." (At a Zionist Organization of America [ZOA] Mission to Israel, Asa-El, during a panel discussion with Yossi Klein Halevi and Jonathan Rosenblum, acknowledged that ZOA was right in opposing Oslo.) He adds that "while we pro-Oslo Israelis were devising two states for two peoples, our Arab counterparts, on both sides of the Green Line, were contemplating two states for one people: the Palestinians. ..an increasing number of Israeli Arabs have participated in terror attacks including driving suicide bombers to their destinations and in some cases performing the bombings themselves, which at the same time, the Israel Arab communities' elected leaders are attempting to hammer away at the idea of a Jewish State. They demand the abolition of the Law of Return, seek the alteration of the national anthem and hide behind a seemingly innocent agenda like the quest for a country of all its citizens."

"The tactics deployed in this well-crafted assault are as simple as they are cunning: diversion and deceit. The diversion is in the systematic changing of the subject from the real aim, which is Israel's extinction. The deceit is in that all this crusading energy disappears once one leaves Israel's borders. They fail to demand rights and freedoms for those living under Arab rule throughout the Middle East.

"In other words, Israeli Arab leaders hail Western values only when it helps undermine the Jewish state, but otherwise do not believe in them."

"There was a time when Israelis like me honestly believed in the imminent emergence of a new Middle East, one where people, goods, capital and ideas would transcend borders as naturally as they do in North America and Western Europe. We have since been disillusioned -- by Middle Eastern despotism, Palestinian violence and Israeli Arab deceit.

"The day when we Israeli Jews can roam the Middle East as freely as Italians roam Europe, and purchase real estate in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Syria as freely as New Yorkers do in Ontario has yet to arrive. Worse, the effort to deprive us of what land we have has yet to abate."

"Now one can say, 'but Israeli Arabs are Israeli citizens and I so much want to say, 'Gosh, that's so true.' But the truth is that Israeli Arab leaders are for now identifying with and actively assisting Israel's enemies, and we Jews have yet to consolidate our grip on the country our parents have built, so that in the future no Jew will be landless."

Asa-El added that we must understand "this context in which the attack on the JNF comes."

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "More and more people and organizations are coming out in support of JNF and the Israeli Knesset position that private JNF land bought by Jews for Jews must remain in Jewish hands. That was the contract JNF had with the Jewish people for over one hundred years. That's why we put our money in the famous blue and white JNF pushkes -- to help enable and induce more Jews to emigrate to Eretz Yisroel where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived and where Kings David and Solomon once ruled. Israeli Arabs can and do lease any Israeli public lands in Israel, despite our knowledge that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and other Arab countries are helping fund the purchase of Israeli lands in eastern Jerusalem, the Galilee and elsewhere. ZOA strongly praises Ronald Lauder, former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Irwin Hochberg, past chairman of the UJC -- Jewish Federation of New York and past national campaign chairman of Israel Bonds; the distinguished MidEast scholar and Director of the MidEast Forum, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Amotz Asa-El of the Shalem Center; National Council of Young Israel and others for supporting the Israeli Knesset vote.


"JNF's land should be leased to Jews"
By Morton A. Klein and Irwin Hochberg
August 10, 2007
"We urge Abe Foxman of the ADL and Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the Reform movement, and the Labor Zionists (Ameinu) and Peace Now and the New Israel Fund and Leonard Fein to stop criticizing the Israeli Knesset, which voted 64-16 to support JNF's position. We urge ADL's Foxman and Reform's Yoffie and the others to reverse their position and support the right of Jews to hold onto private Jewish land in our holy Jewish country of Israel; just like the Catholic Church and the Muslim WAKF in Israel does what it wishes on their private land.

"It's also perplexing that when Israel did discriminate against Jews by forcibly removing only Jews, not Arabs, and their families from their homes, schools and businesses in Gaza and Northern Samaria, Abe Foxman, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, Ameinu, Peace Now and Leonard Fein openly supported that exercise in real discrimination and enormous human suffering placed on own brothers and sisters in Gaza who are still suffering today because of Israel's broken promises to them. Almost no families are in permanent homes, one half are unemployed, there has been a dramatic increase in divorces and emotional problems among the children and adults since their forced transfer and eviction, many have still not received full compensation for their destroyed homes, farms and businesses. Why is there silence by the ADL, Reform movement, Peace Now, Ameinu, etc., about the injustice toward and horrific plight of these Jews, yet these same groups find their voices when it comes to Israeli Arabs, and other non-Jews?"

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, August 19, 2007.

"Thoughts of an Israeli Christian Arab."
by Solly Ganor

I had conversation with an Israeli Arab construction boss by the unlikely name of Francis who was in charge of building a villa near our house in Herzelia. He told me:

"Your bungling war against a few thousand Hezbollah fighters which you should have crushed no matter what, considering the importance of the outcome, has created a completely new situation, not only for this area, but globally. Your inept leadership totally misunderstood the importance of winning this war."

"The Americans, the Europeans, and even you Israelis really don't know what it is all about, do you? During the last generation hundreds of thousands of children have been taught all over the Moslem world in Madrass schools to become martyrs for Allah in order to kill the infidels. These youngsters not only are ready to do it, but are actually in the process of doing it. Bombs are going off all over the world killing and maiming thousands of people, not only on 9/11 in the US, in London Madrid and Bali, but in Africa, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many other places. The first signs of the Islamic Tsunami is already here, but the West doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand what is coming."

"Now is the time to stop them, not only because they are developing nuclear bombs, but because Iran has become the base for all Islamic terrorist. They supply money, men, and weapons to Islamic terrorist around the world, quite often through their diplomatic mail. Billions of petro-dollars that are pouring into Iran are being funnelled into terrorist organizations world-wide. They believe, and perhaps rightly so, that the West will do nothing to stop them in achieving their goals."

"Well, you Israelis, should better prepare yourself for another round against Hezbollah. It will not be long in coming. It depends on the Iranians to give the word. This time you will have to destroy Hezbollah no matter what the cost may be."

If only Jews and the Israeli government would listen!

Policy of Defeat. The IDF announced Saturday it will reopen the Karni crossing even as terrorists in Gaza continue their attacks on Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert continues to add concessions to the Palestinian Authority, this time granting amnesty to 110 PA terrorists.

Food for Thought. "Israel does not apologize!" -- One of many lame justifications from 'nice' Israel-haters I have received. Do we hear apologies from UK or Spain for deporting Jews or for Turkey's genocide of Armenians? Have any Arab/Muslim countries apologized for supporting terror? Dear anti-Semites, please, do not preach humanity and morality to the Jews, look in the mirror first!

One Sane Politician in America. American Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has bucked the party line of successive US administrations and come out against the establishment of a Palestinian state. "Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism." (For Israel, there is never a good time for the idea of another Arab state on Jewish land! But still "at a time"?)

Gaza a Major Threat to Israel. Senior Israeli military officials say the government ignored their warnings of what would happen to Gaza following the 2005 withdrawal. Hamas is believed to have at least 13,000 men under arms in Gaza. The force has been trained by Hizballah and Iranians. The group has also reportedly moved a huge quantity of advanced weapons and high-grade explosives into Gaza since Israel surrendered control of the strip, including Katyusha rockets, advanced anti-tank missiles and shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles.

Fight of Mad Dogs. PA media are reporting clashes between Hamas and the Doghmush clan in Gaza City's al-Sabra neighbourhood. The powerful clan, which held journalist Alan Johnston, was hired out as mercenaries by both Fatah and Hamas, but has resisted Hamas efforts to disarm it.

Hizbollah Buys Land to Attack Israel. Hizbollah is buying up large tracts of land, north of the Litani River, owned by Christians and other non-Shias in southern Lebanon as the militant group rebuilds its defences in preparation for a new war with Israel. With no harassment from the 13,000 United Nations peacekeepers.

Stupidity Unlimited Co. IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi elicited enthusiastic applause from a largely Druze audience week ago when he told the crowd that in the next life, he wants to be a Druze. l is home to 5.4 million Jews. Last year it became the world's largest Jewish community, passing the U.S. with its estimated 5.3 million Jews. (Assimilation, Christian evangelic assault, anti-Israel propaganda, national apathy and basic lack of understanding of what Jewishness means, nationhood -- not just religion, is tearing our people apart!)

Arafat's Doctor: His Blood had HIV. Late PA chairman Yasser Arafat's blood contained the deadly HIV virus, Arafat's personal physician, Dr. Ashraf al-Kurdi, told Jordanian media over the weekend.

Another Delusional. Tony Blair stepped into his new position as Quartet Middle East envoy with hopes and dreams: "Just imagine for a moment if this process were moving forward again, just think how much hope there would be." (Only affirmative and decisive action by Israel against her enemies can end the conflict!)

Is India a New Partner? India will launch Israeli spy satellite called TechSar, weighing about 260 kg. It is likely that some of the secret images will be made available to India. The Indian Space Research Organisation are tight-lipped about the nature of the mission.

Solar Power for Italy. An Israel-based electric company has completed construction of Italy's first solar power station. The 50-kilowatt plant is part of an order for a nationwide network of solar power stations, to be completed in five years.

Forged Accusation.
by Sivani, (Israeli girl from www.MySpace.com)

Racist ideologies use the differences between peoples, such as race, religion, gender, economic status, etc., as an excuse to oppress, discriminate, and deprive people of their natural and most basic rights. Zionism, on the other hand, sought and gained for the Jewish people the ability to rule themselves, which is a basic right shared by every nation. In the Diaspora, Jews where either oppressed by others or depended on the whims of the majority in the countries where they lived. The whims often turned into persecutions and pogroms.

The accusation that Zionism is racism is motivated by a simple reasoning: After the Holocaust, it became unacceptable and ineffective to call Jews a subhuman race. In the face of those horrors traditional anti-Semitism was seen as barbaric and primitive.

Present day anti-Semites (a k a anti-Zionists) are trying to stick to the state of Israel the false accusations of "Racism", "Apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" in order to deny Jews their inherit and most basic right for self-rule and self-determination, the right of every nation to be free.

Not all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitism, but anti-Zionism denies basic rights to Jews. Anti-Zionists commit an act of discrimination -- Racism!

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 StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, August 19, 2007.

Some years ago I came across an essay "The Jewish Government" by Rabbi Meir Kahane (z"l). Commenting on Exodus 23:2 -- "Do not follow the majority to do evil" -- Rabbi Kahane said that "transgressing a law passed by the evil is a mitzvah." He explains as follows:

A majority which contests Torah law, the only law of the Jewish People, is no majority. Those who contest Torah law are lawbreakers when they decide to oppose the law of the Jewish People and to forbid that which is required and to require that which is forbidden. It is they who undermine the rule of law and disturb the peace. It is they who bring tragedy and Divine punishment upon the Jewish People. If the government or a Jewish king establishes a law or decree against Torah law, the laws of G-d, we are duty-bound to reject it. The issue here is not Jews rebelling against the government and breaking the law, but Jews seeking to uphold the law and rebelling against a government which breaks the law and tries to keep Jews from living by it.

It is forbidden to obey a governmental decree or law which opposes G-d's Torah, and obviously, it is forbidden to aid ... sinners in implementing it. [Maimonides, the] Rambam wrote [in the Mishneh Torah] (Hilchot Rotzeach 12:14): "Whoever makes a blind man stumble by giving him inappropriate advice; or gives strength and encouragement to sinners, blind people who do not see the way of truth due to the desire in their heart, violates a negative precept: "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Leviticus 9:14).

According to Rabbi Kahane, the verse "Do not follow the majority to do evil" warns us not to give verbal encouragement to sinners and not to befriend allies of injustice, as it says in Isaiah (8:12): "Do not treat as a coalition that which this people calls a coalition." "A coalition of the wicked is no coalition, and there is no force to any law or decision or decree of a wicked government which opposes the Torah. It is a mitzvah to resist them, and it is absolutely prohibited to accept the evil majority's decision."

Rabbi Kahane goes on to say: "... the principle that Dina D'Malchuta Dina, 'The law of the government is law,' is no issue here. No kingdom or government, Jewish or non-Jewish, has any right to nullify a mitzvah or to pass a law opposed to our holy Torah, and if they do so, their edict has no force...."

We thus see in the Torah and its commentators the basis for civil disobedience if not rebellion!

Let us not be deceived or anesthetized by the democratic principle of majority rule. The American Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive" of man's unalienable or God-given rights, it is the duty and "Right of the people to alter or abolish it." "Any" form of government obviously includes a democracy.

The American founding fathers well understood that a majority can be as unjust as a minority; indeed, they feared majoritarian tyranny. We should thus be doubly concerned about any Israeli government that would leave the fate of our Jewish brothers and sisters in Judea, Samaria, and the Golan Heights to a "majority" vote in a national referendum.

We have already witnessed the crime perpetrated by the State against the Jews of Gush Katif -- a crime "justified" in the name of majority rule. Yes, a Knesset majority enacted the Evacuation Law implemented by the State -- its army and its police. That law clearly revealed the conflict between the State and the Torah.

Is it futile to repeat the words of the great Alfred North Whitehead: "xThe Jews were the first people not to worship the State"? Is it futile to declare that above the laws of the State are the laws of G-d? How we have fallen! Kahane, Whitehead, and Jefferson -- a rabbi, a philosopher, and a statesman -- they saw the light, whose source is the Torah. That light is being extinguished in the unJewish and pseudo-democratic State of Israel.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached by mail at 244 Madison Avenue, Suite 427, New York, NY 10016, Tel: 212-372-3752, and by email at Constitution@usa.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 19, 2007.

This item was posted by Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch

"Islam in America before Columbus" by Hisham Zoubeir appears this week in the Muslim Weekly, but actually it has been making the rounds for years, and can be found on many Islamic sites.

Zoubeir claims that there is archaeological and linguistic evidence for a pre-Columbian Muslim presence in North America. I don't know of any scholarly refutation of the claims he makes, and for all I know they could be true, although they recall Khrushchev-era Soviet propaganda about how the Russians actually were the first people to do just about everything.

Zoubeir's article may seem to many to be simply an exercise in chauvinistic overreaching until one realizes that to some Muslims who take his claims seriously, America is now Muslim land -- and Islamic law stipulates that Muslims possess by right any land that once formed part of the House of Islam; this is a key element of the claims to Israel and Spain put forward by Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and others. Chauvinistic overreaching, yes, but quite possibly with a political agenda.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 19, 2007.

1. It is official. Even Minister Friedmann concedes there are two justice systems that operate in Israel:
"Justice Minister: Justice System Biased"
5 Elul 5767, 19 August 07 01:51
by Gil Ronen(IsraelNN.com)

Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann supported the Right's contention that the justice system in Israel persecutes people who are not perceived as leftist enough, in an interview to Haaretz.

Friedmann delivered a long, crushing critique of the Supreme Court in the interview. Among other things, he said the court should not have intervened on security matters such as the route of the security barrier; the law preventing "family unification" between Israeli Arabs and Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza; the IDF procedure in which a local Arab is used as a shield when knocking on doors of suspected terrorists' homes, and the timetable for fortification of buildings in Sderot and the Gaza Perimeter.

He said that the State Prosecution is too eager to press charges against public figures, and noted the examples of former minister Aharon Abuhatzira, as well as Aryeh Deri, Reuven Rivlin and Avigdor Lieberman. As for the case against Chaim Ramon, his predecessor in the Justice Ministry: Friedmann says it was "not even a borderline case, but a sub-borderline case," and hints that the prosecutors' views may have affected their judgment.

Of the five cases mentioned above, only one -- Ramon -- is associated with the left wing Ashkenazi-secular elite. Abuhatzira and Deri are Sephardic and religious, and both represented Sephardic-religious parties. Reuven Rivlin was about to be appointed Justice Minister when he was served with an indictment he was exonerated from years later. The case against Avigdor Lieberman was dragged out for seven years before it was dropped.

"I am not talking about bribery cases, about a heavy and clear cut case with real evidence," Friedmann explained to his interviewers, who asked him whether he believed the prosecution behaved conspiratorially. "I am talking about borderline cases. When the prosecution has such wide latitude of action, even if the prosecutor is simply behaving as his conscience dictates, and especially if he is influenced by his attitude towards that public figure. then [the public figure] is treated differently. If he is a person who belongs to one category then he is treated one way, and if he belongs to a different category then he is treated differently. This is a very unhealthy situation."

Asked whether he is sure that this mode of action is used with people who are "disliked," Friedmann said: "I do not know. It is clear that the right wing feels that they are treated more severely."

"We need to select judges with a different judicial attitude from the one that is currently prevalent in the Supreme Court. The judges currently in office are from a certain milieu, they live in their milieu and they don't see the public." Friedmann noted retired Judge Menachem Elon as a positive example of a judge who did not favor "judicial activism" like the current court does, and was more moderate.

Judge Elon is a religious man, and his son, Benny Elon, is an MK for the National Union / National Religious Party.

Minister Friedmann himself, an Israel Prize winning professor of law, is considered to hold political views that are left of cente

2. After the Rabin assassination and in the wave of leftist McCarthyism against freedom of speech that followed, a Haifa teacher was fired for refusing to teach "Rabin's Legacy," meaning the North Korean style indoctrination in the Oslo approach, hailing it as unchallengeably brilliant and correct.

The matter continues to drag on, years later:
Teacher claims political persecution
By Elie Leshem
Aug. 12, 2007 19:43

Yisrael Shiran, a teacher who used to be the principal of the Moria-Barkai School in Haifa, on Sunday submitted a petition to the High Court of Justice demanding that he be allowed to return to his former position following a sharp plummet in the achievements of students at the school.

In 2000 Shiran won a lawsuit against the Education Ministry after he was unlawfully suspended from his post for statements to the effect that studies dedicated to the Rabin assassination should not necessarily include the study of his "heritage". Shiran claimed that while the assassination itself was considered a reprehensible act by almost all Israelis, Rabin's actions, and especially the signing of the Oslo Accords, were not embraced by a broad enough consensus to warrant its inclusion in the curriculum of all Israeli schools.

Yuli Tamir

Then transportation minister Yuli Tamir and Aharon Zbeida, head of the Haifa district in the ministry of education, wished to suspend Shiran following his remarks, launching what Shiran's lawyers call "a personal and political smear campaign" against him.

According to the current petition, when the Moria-Barkai School expressed their wishes that Shiran return to "rescue" the school, Zbeida put his foot down and prevented the school from hiring him.

According to Shiran's lawyers, since 2000 Shiran has continued to teach in many schools- without encountering any objections on the part of the Education Ministry.

Shiran's lawyers claim that many parents to students in the school have pulled their children out of the institution, with many more threatening to do so, following the Education Ministry's decision to prevent his return.

"The education minister and the Haifa district are jeopardizing our children's education for the sake of.a personal and political settling of scores against an outstanding teacher," Shiran's attorney, Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, said. "If the ministry had no objection to his employment in the Orot Etzion School in Efrat.then it can have no objection to him being employed by a school in Haifa."

"In the past, Tamir has attempted to obtain personal gain from the teacher's objection to the teaching of the Oslo Accords," she added. "The teacher, [however], was cleared of all allegations, and was allowed to return to his job after he was awarded compensation."

"The time is ripe for the Education Ministry and [Tamir] to learn a lesson in good citizenship and just proceedings," she said.

3. We knew that all along:

Attending Synagogue makes you live longer, says academic journal in Europe:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f2044j2v77318842/ ?p=66a80b5f48f447d988d5c8381b5755f7&pi=0
"What really matters in the social network.mortality association? A multivariate examination among older Jewish-Israelis"
European Journal of Ageing
Springer Berlin/Heidelberg
ISSN 1613-9372 (Print) 1613-9380 (Online)
Issue Volume 4, Number 2 / June, 2007

"Synagogue attendance is seen to promote survival mainly through its function as a source of communal attachment and, perhaps, as a reflection of spirituality as well. "

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 18, 2007.

For many years, many months, many days we dealt with the arrest and the incarceration for life of Jonathan Pollard.

An article written by Tsafrir Ronen in Yesha News
(http://yeshanews.com/?id=56190 in Hebrew) sheds a new light on this sad case. I found it was imperative to translate the article and share it with all of you.

Israelis Who Betrayed Pollard Now Betray Their Country

A traitor is always a traitor; the anti-Zionist Left have a deep rooted betrayal trait.

Over time, Pollard's case turned to be the betrayal in Pollard's case. Pollard passed information about Iraq and the preparations she was making to destroy Israel. Pollard did not spy for the enemy, rather passed information, the Americans were obliged, in an agreement they had in place with Israel, to pass on to Israel. The American lied to Israel, they betrayed the strategic treaty they had with Israel and Pollard knew it. The American revenge on Pollard was so great because he discovered they betrayed Israel and what they were hiding from her.

Apart from Netanyahu in the Wye River Accords, there was not one leader in Israel that had the courage to stand up and demand the release of Pollard. The conclusion from the succession of events over a period of time is that the ideological Left contains a deeply rooted betrayal mentality. For example, 112 members of Knesset signed a petition calling for the USA to release Pollard but neither Sharon nor Olmert took the document to the United States. They preferred to appease the master -- the Congress -- rather than demand justice for Pollard.

Pollard represents our collective conscience. Any person with conscience and loyal to the Jewish Nation, who saw the information that was gathered and would have not warned Israel, would have been betraying his nation. Therefore Pollard must be seen by any free person anywhere in the world as a freedom hero, not a spy. Passing the information did not intend to harm the United States, rather to save Israel. After all, the US conquered Iraq because of this very same information -- weapons of mass destruction.

This is the way the ideological Left is rewarding the State of Israel. The chief traitor of Pollard is Shimon Peres who passed to the American the documents that allowed them to sentence him to life in jail without the possibility of parole. Peres, who often celebrates in shiny halls full of alcohol with his EU peers, is well accepted in the world because of his betrayal in his nation and for him allowing the Trojan horse, a militia of terrorists in the guise of governmental authority, to enter the land so they can destroy Israel. The anti-Semites love those who do the work for them. One cannot ask for much from a person who escaped military service during our Independence War. This man was a traitor from an early age. He is a dodger, a crook, a liar, and today he is the President of the State of Israel...

Others followed...Ehud Barak, who ran away from Lebanon to please the derelict media and some Left wing organizations, thus he abandoned and betrayed his allies -- the South Lebanon army -- whom fought and died to defend Israel. He brought on us the catastrophe of Hezbollah. The question that must be asked is: who will sign treaties with us after Ehud Barak betrayal?

When the fundamental betrayal psyche exists, then everything is allowed. Barak also betrayed Pollard and during his last days Clinton made sure to pardon his friend, the fugitive financier Marc Rich but he left Pollard to rot in jail. Barak betrayed everyone many times over. He betrayed the Nation of Israel when he wanted to hand to Islamo fascists the Holiest of Holy -- the Temple Mount. He betrayed his friends in the case of the Associations and the fighters who died in Ze'elim...he betrayed anyone who was with him. Therefore one is not at all surprised to know that Barak did not lift a finger to save Pollard. His deeply rooted betrayal psyche is internalized so strongly it is almost without a trace.

Sharon, who forgot all of his values, cheated and betrayed his constituents and the Land of Israel, snored with scorn when someone mentioned Pollard.

Olmert who escaped military service and studied at the university as if he was doing his military service, in fact was a deserter. There is no child in Israel who does not know what kind of an empty, sly, crafty and a crook is at the head of the State. One cannot expect from a man negotiating with enemy to save Pollard.

So what do we have today? A president and Prime Minister who did not serve in the military of a country that has to live by the sword and its leadership must set a minimal personal example (do remember this expression?). Ehud Barak is the Minister of Defense, who was elected due to a colossal deceit and fraud and with the help of the Arabs voters' lobby. He is the one who cheated and evaded in the Associations' case and with another minister, Buzi Hertzog, kept silent during police investigations. The man that any child recognizes how irresponsible is his behavior. How he betrayal on his allies, brought about the last war in Lebanon as well as the Oslo War that broke in the year 2000. Let us not mention Peretz, the empty, reckless and miserable one. They all have a common denominator: they all betrayed the historical Land of Israel. They all want to give away to the enemy the cradle of our homeland, Zion.

Pollard can wait. With such a pile of betrayal and traitors, with the deputy Prime Minister, the reckless Chaim Ramon, and the Kadima cadre of traitors who betrayed their constituents and changed party without blinking an eye lid, there is no surprise Pollard you are still waiting. This is a fundamentally corrupt group with betrayal mentality roots who betrayed their constituents, the public, the Jewish Nation, Zionism, their allies, the soldiers, and the settlers; whom have they not betrayed yet?

But let not your heart worry, Jonathan. You are dear to us. Soon there will be a great change in Israel and Zionism will return to power. The traitors will go to where traitors go! And when we are in power, you, our brother Jonathan, will return home!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 18, 2007.

When late Moshe Dayan handed the keys to Temple Mount to the Muslim Waqf he was simply hasty and lacked ANY Jewish sense or vision!

Dayan's action was a devastating, derived from his total lack of comprehending, or ignoring, Jewish history.

The absurdity and foolishness of this government is over the top! We will not allow the Nazi heirs to have under their control OUR Holiest of Holy that symbolizes our national sovereignty.

Have this government gone totally crazy? Do we need the permission of these sub humans, Islamo-Nazi Arabs to come to visit our Temple Mount?

Now Israel will have to sacrifice a great deal of Jewish blood in the effort of returning the Holiest of Holy Temple Mount to her ownership.

To begin with, when next elections come, the cadre of the defeatists must be driven out from the government!

This next is from Arutz Sheva in Hebrew

Sheikh Raed Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel: "Temple Mount belongs to Islam for eternity!"He blames the "Israeli occupation establishment "for attempting to divide Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims by force. "The sovereignty of Temple Mount is in the hands of Islam forever." He said.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, August 18, 2007.
This was written by Tom Gross and it appeared August 16, 2006. It is archived at

Defying the anti-Israel (and in the case of some anti-Semitic) sentiment among European politicians, Poland has announced it is withdrawing from an anti-Israel conference due to be held at the European Parliament at the end of this month.

The conference has been organized by the EU in conjunction with a United Nations body called "The UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People," which is infamous for its diatribes against Israel. Working groups include one on "how to increase the resistance against Israel".

Resistance is the term used by Palestinian terror groups to describe suicide attacks on Israelis.

The president of the Israeli Knesset, Dalia Itzik, has sent a letter to the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Poettering, asking that the European Parliament not host the conference but Poettering has not replied to it.

Meanwhile Polish MEPs from all Poland's main political parties have said they will boycott the conference and called on the event to be cancelled.

"I have seen the materials prepared by the organizers and I will not take part in such a biased, anti-Israeli event," said one Polish MEP, Bronislaw Geremek.

Konrad Szyma┬ü˝ski, another Polish MEP, said: "Israel's objections are fully justified. According to most of the extremists from this UN committee Israel and its people should disappear. I am astonished that the European Parliament is allowing such activity to be placed in its building."

Israel has welcomed the decision by Poland, which historically has a record of anti-Semitism.

Contact Koira at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Salah Choudhury, August 18, 2007.

Salah Choudhury is a journalist, columnist and publisher of Weekly Blitz. He was arrested at the airport in his native country -- muslim Bangladesh -- because he was on his way to Israel to attend a writer's conference. He spent 17 months in jail and is now standing trial. If found guilty, he can be executed.

Today is 19th of August 2007.
I shall start for court at 9:00 am
as the court begins at 10:00 am.
Generally the judge 'loves' to keep me waiting
in the court for 5-6 hours.
So, even if there is no trial
(By the Grace of God),
I will not be back from the Court
before 3-4 pm.
My lawyer Advocate S N Goswami just told me that,
according to rule,
The trial court cannot proceed with
the trial as the matter is still
Pending with the Appellate Division.
Anyway, he said, we never know,
what Bangladeshi court will do with my case,
as they feel a kind of over-enthusiastic
in proceeding the trial.
Email him at salahuddinshoaibchoudhury@yahoo.com
To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 18, 2007.

The Pope says that jihad violence is against God's nature, and officials fear that in response, Muslims enraged by this insult will commit...jihad violence.

A. Muslims murder 3,000 innocents? in New York and..... expect no criticism.
B. Muslims murder 202 tourists in Bali and............expect no criticism.
C. Muslims murder 333 schoolchildren and their teachers in Besla and .......... expect no criticism.
D. Muslims murder 292 innocents, mainly Kenyans and Tanzanians at two US Embassies.......... and expect no criticism.
E. Muslims murder 241 US and 58 French peacekeepers in Beirut and .......... expect no criticism.
F. Muslims fire 4,000 Katyusha rockets into Northern Israel killing over 50 innocent civilians and........ expect no criticism.
G. Muslims murder 52 in London and? 191 in Madrid and....... expect no criticism.
H. Muslims murder 200 in Mumbai and................ expect no criticism.
I. Muslims behead Western hostages in Iraq, Buddhist monks in Thailand and Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia and.............. expect no criticism.
J. Muslims murder 500,000 in Darfur and................. expect no criticism.
K. Muslims regard Jews as 'sons of pigs and monkeys', and vow to nuke Israel and................... expect no criticism.
L. Muslims force women to wear hideous sacks, stone to death women for getting raped and for leaving the home unescorted, engage in honour killings of sisters and daughters for unapproved dating, and..................expect no criticism.
M. Muslims danced in the streets and handed out sweets to their kids to celebrate the 9/11 atrocity, and................... still expected no criticism.
N. Since 9/11 Muslims have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 50,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 and................ expect no criticism.

Since 9/11 Muslims have committed terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chad, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, East Timor, Egypt, England, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Jordan-Iraq, Kabardino-Balkans, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaza-Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Arab Republic, United States, Uzbekistan and Yemen, and......................... STILL expect no criticism.

Muslims have carried out over 5,800 fatal terrorist atrocities since 9/11 and countless thousands since Islamic conquest began in 623 AD and expect no criticism. But if a Pope dares to tell the truth about Islam or Danes publish cartoons about Mohammed, then let the outpourings of Islamic hate and outrage begin. And, by some twisted reach of logic, the arrogant bastards demand the Pope issue an apology.

Listen to Newt Gingrich on our "Phoney War." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9cqtJTvF4&mode=user&search

Some of his quotables:
"We don't have a peace process. We have a surrender process"
"We're in a global conflict with a force that wants to destroy us."
"We don't reorganize our beaucracies so they are effective."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 18, 2007.

What good are the treaties we signed with Egypt and Jordan?
a- to prevent war?....they won't
b- to normalize relations between Jews and Arabs?.....they won't
c- to cooperate in developing the area for the good of all? Show me some results.

We have a state of war with Syria, and there's practically no difference than the state of so called peace with the others.

What dream did I miss....PEACE, or maybe piece...........and what about the rest of the world....all over again, with their ignorant, hateful antisemitism, which has existed far too long, and serves no practical purpose except harms helpful relationships. Think of the left and some churches, and mainly Islam clearly stating and proving by actions and words, they wish to conquer the world and make all infidels slaves.

This is from Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

(IsraelNN.com) A Yediot Achronot journalist, who had been covering a music festival was thrown out of a press conference, after she tried to ask a question of one of the performers.

The reporter, whom organizers of the press conference did not know was Israeli, stood up to ask a question of Nancy Adjmi, one of the performers of the Jerash Festival. The question was posed in broken Arabic, with the Yediot reporter stating her affiliation and nationality.

At that point, witnesses said, a near-riot broke out among other Arabic journalists in the room, and the Yediot reporter left the room, fearing for her life as a mob began advancing on her. "The question was out of place at a time [when] the wound of the Lebanese people is still fresh from the attacks of the Israeli army on Lebanon last year," said a spokesperson for Adjmi, who added that if the Jordanian journalists hadn't intervened by having the Israeli journalist kicked out, [Adjmi] would have left the press conference."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 18, 2007.

Britain has an endless supply of nutters, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, Jenny Tonge, the loony left unions, and the list goes on and on.

The British are the very last one to talk ... They are the cause of some of the worst problems that the world is facing today.... Their colonies in the past..... and NOW their appeasement to Islamic fascism. This is called "UK peer blames Israel for extremism" and it is by Jonny Paul
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1186557467352&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

An Israeli scholar has firmly rejected comments by controversial UK Liberal Democrat politician Jenny Tonge, who recently accused Israel of driving the Palestinians to their current impoverished situation and claimed that this issue was being used to fuel Islamic extremism.

"Ever since 1948, Palestine has been used as a battle cry and a propaganda weapon for Islamists worldwide," she said in a speech in the House of Lords last month. "I have witnessed this in some African countries and, more recently, in Bangladesh. Palestine is what the West does to Muslims. That is the message. The Palestinians have been brought to their knees. A cultured and well-educated society with high skill levels has been reduced to a Third-World country. The statistics are there for all to see."

Tonge also alleged that the IDF was disrupting school exams in Nablus, resulting in a generation of illiterate and unskilled Palestinians.

"Even education is being destroyed as children are terrorized by raids on their schools," she said, claiming that the products of such a system would be "capable of very little except low-wage labor. The economy cannot be rebuilt unless Israel changes its policies."

But Dr. Jonathan Spyer, research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, disputed such assertions, which he said betrayed an "appalling ignorance of Islamist movements.

Radical Islam is a political idea, some of whose proponents use the method of terrorism. This idea sees world events as shaped by a struggle between the forces of authentic Islam, and those of the non-believers. It uses a long list of supposed Muslim grievances as a way to mobilize support," he told The Jerusalem Post.

He noted that al-Qaida had been formed to overthrow the Saudi Arabian government in opposition to the US presence there in the 1990s. "Al-Qaida hardly mentioned the Palestinian issue prior to 2001."

"The idea that this trans-national idea, which feeds off many local issues, is somehow 'traceable' to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and would be settled by the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel -- an outcome which the Islamists in any case reject -- is an absurd one. It's used by people like Tonge in order to hold Israel to blame for radical Islam's war in the West."

Baroness Tonge was sacked as a member of Parliament and as the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman in 2004 after expressing support for Palestinian suicide bombers.

Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli Government Press Office, told the Post on Thursday that at a recent meeting in Jericho, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the PA could not control Hamas.

"Any disruption is down to the extremists of Hamas who are operating in the area. Israel is operating in the area to protect its citizens. If exams are being disrupted, this is unfortunate. However, exams can be retaken. Lives cannot be brought back," Seaman said.

Tonge also questioned how things could get better. "The new government talks of rebuilding the economy in Palestine and of getting the Palestinians back to work, which is very welcome, but how will they do that with road blocks, checkpoints and Bantustans divided by settler-only roads?" she asked. "I am not anti-Semitic, but I am appalled by the racist, apartheid state of Israel. I use the word 'apartheid' in its literal sense; it means separation, because that is what is going on."

Tonge was challenged by Labour's Lord Parry Andrew Mitchell, who took exception to her labeling of Israel as an apartheid state. "Perhaps we have all forgotten what an apartheid state was like," he said.

He added that Israel "has an Arab Minister in the government and in the cabinet. There is no ban on races mixing with each other. If you go to any hospital in Israel, you will see Arabs, Israelis and Druze, whether they are being treated or whether they are doctors and nurses."

In particular, the Weizmann Institute, of which I am the UK chairman, has Arabs and Arab professors who mix closely [with Israelis]. 'Apartheid' is a very dangerous word; it has all sorts of meanings, and it is absolutely untrue to say that of Israel."

"The family that stones together"
by Barbara Sofer
which excuses terror as justifiable frustration. British MP Jenny Tonge expressed this attitude, saying she understood Palestinian frustration and suffering, and might blow herself up as well ... [Emphasis added.]

Iranian parents and children vacation by pelting Israeli positions with stones in southern Lebanon.

As author of Kids Love Israel, Israel Loves Kids, a family travel guide, I'm always eager to get updates of new tourist opportunities in the region.

Hence, a recent report forwarded to me by Tom Gross was of particular interest.

The Lebanese Daily Star newspaper, in a report by Mohammed Zaatari, described 90 Iranian tourists who had arrived for a family trip to Syria.

Among them were lawyers and university professors, their spouses and children.

The rule for success in family tourism is to get the kids involved.

That usually means limiting lectures and maximizing activities: crawling inside an ancient tunnel instead of hearing about its construction features.

And so it was on this family tour to Syria.

In an act of ultimate togetherness, the Iranian parents and children gathered to "pelt Israeli positions with stones at the Fatima Gate border during a visit to the Southern region." What fun!

Family trips engender strong memories, cherished stories told and retold at family gatherings.

I cringe to imagine Iranian families sitting on a couch with their albums, reminiscing about the day they all stood together and stoned the Jews.

Among the most frustrating aspect of our conflict is our enemies' eagerness to infect their next generation with hatred and scapegoating. Instead of solving problems, everything that goes wrong in their countries is our fault.

We understand that indoctrination is a goal of rigid, totalitarian governments, but the stone-the-Israelis tour didn't take place in a regime-run elementary school.

It was a family vacation, with well-healed, university-educated parents.

How much more potent is the hate-message when it's inculcated in the family.

Even before the current three and a half years of violence, a Venezuelan plastic surgeon who'd arrived in our area on a humanitarian mission to Gaza reported on this indoctrination of hate.

The doctor had arrived with a medical team that traveled the Third World to repair cleft palates and disfiguring facial injuries.

In Gaza, they'd seen facial scars typical of burns caused from tipped cooking pots in crowded kitchens.

But there was one difference.

When the surgeons asked how the injury was caused, in every other country the kids reported spilled cooking kettles.

In Gaza, even the smallest child claimed that "the Israeli soldier pushed me," even though the scars clearly came from home accidents.

The plastic surgeon wondered if the kids had been coached or if they suffered from group hysteria. I've never discovered the answer.

WITH THE sad history of Palestinian parents' encouraging their children to dress up as terrorists, their family album portraits of children in the garb of bombers, the summer camp chants of hate, and the ubiquity of posters honoring mass murderers, need we be surprised that an 11-year-old was dispatched on a murder mission this week?

French author and psychiatrist Daniel Sibony, speaking recently at a Jerusalem conference, claimed that terrorists' effective strategy is first to attack brutally, and then to make the West feel guilty for trying to protect itself.

We have, for instance, the poor Palestinian syndrome, which excuses terror as justifiable frustration.

British MP Jenny Tonge expressed this attitude, saying she understood Palestinian frustration and suffering, and might blow herself up on a bus if she were a Palestinian.

This strategy transforms murder into a legitimate form of protest.

Even the most vehement espousers of this dangerous doctrine would be hard-pressed to paint those affluent Iranian tourists as the oppressed masses.

What they do share with the Palestinians is their determination to pass on anti-Zionism.


http://gabriellegoldwater.com/2004/feb/britishmp2.html Viewpoint: Palestinian suicide attacks By Jenny Tonge MP In Jerusalem The British MP travelled to Israel ... Addresses to use: UK MP Jenny Tonge tonge@cix.co.uk and http://www.jennytonge.org

http://gabriellegoldwater.com/2004/jun/15_06.html in the media of MPs Oona King and Jenny Tonge upon their return from a Christian Aid mission. Tonge said of suicide bombers: "If I had to live in that situation..."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Qasim Shahzad, August 18, 2007.




Qasim Shahzad can be contacted at muhammad_kasim@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 18, 2007.

I've added one of my photo creations. It's called Night Driver.

A week ago, I was able to attend a dinner with Juval Aviv -- the Israeli agent who the movie "Munich" was about... He was Golda Meir's bodyguard and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

Tonight he shared information that EVERY American needs to know but our government has not shared. His bio is below, his book is "Staying Safe" and I suggest you buy and read it.

First, I am going to share what he discussed in regard to the Bush Administration, 9/11 and Iraq and then I will share his predictions for the next attack on the U.S. -- and he predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show and unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack occured and

Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occured. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. The Administration ridiculed him and refused to respond (Congress has since hired him as a security consultant -- but still the Administration does not listen to him). Within a month 9/11 occured.

He didn't agree with going into Iraq -- said it didn't make sense if we wanted terrorists responsible for 9/11 (and also he believes in Golda Meir's approach which was to bring justice to the terrorists but do not take down civilians -- killing civilians only creates more terrorists -- but similar to Bush, Israel's subsequent leaders were not as insightful as Golda Meir) -- however, when we did decide to invade Iraq we should have learned from Israel's past mistakes. He very articulately stated that Israel's greatest mistake against their war on terror was to invade the West Bank and Gaza and stay there...

He said they should have done the proven anti-terrorist strategy which was "Hit and Leave" instead of "Hit and Stay." Now we are stuck in Iraq and it is worse than Vietnam -- Iraq is the U.S.'s West Bank/Gaza. He doesn't think we will ever be able to truly leave because even when we are able to pull our troops back we will still have to go back regularly which will keep us quagmired.

We should have hit hard and left immediately -- or actually, we shouldn't have gone in at all...

Now for the scary stuff.... He predicts the next attack on the U.S. is coming within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again because the people on the plane will not go down quietly.

Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- we are being reactive versus looking at strategies that are effective.

1) our machines are outdated. They look for metal and the new explosives are made of plastic

2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire -- we now have to take off our shoes, a group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives -- now we can't bring liquids on board. He is waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on their underwear and light up in a plane or in the terminal and then we will all have to travel naked!

3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates, he says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times and on the front end when people are checking in.

It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink (and I have done that for people myself) and then detonate the bags.

BEFORE security even gets involved. Israel checks bags before people can enter the airport. Now, back to his predictions:

He says the next attack will come in the next few months and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places that people congregate: Disneyland, Las Vegas, Big Cities (NY, SFO, Chicago, etc...) and there it will be shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, casinos, etc.. as well as rural America (Wyoming, Montana, etc...). The attack will be simultaneous detonations around the country (they like big impact) in 5-8 cities including rural areas.

They won't need to use suicide bombers because at largely populated places like the MGM Grand in Vegas -- they can simply valet park.

He says this is well known in intelligence circles but our government does not want to alarm Americans. However, he also said that Bush will attack Iran and Syria before he leaves office (we are being prepared for that! and I have to wonder if we are not hearing about this impending attack so America will support attacking Iran and Syria?). In addition, since we don't have enough troops Bush will likely use small, strategic nuclear weapons regardless that the headlines the next day will read "US Nukes Islamic World" and the world will be a different place to such an extent that global warming will be irrevelent.

These are not conspiracy theories or crazy rantings. This is the man (and we have all heard/read that the Bush Administration was warned about 9/11 prior to it happening) who did the warning. He travels regularly to the Middle East and he knows his stuff.

On a good note -- he says we don't have to worry about being nuked -- he says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons -- they like suicide as the frontline approach. He also says the next level of terrorists will not be coming from abroad, but will be homegrown -- having attended our schools and universities -- but will have traveled frequently back and forth to the Middle East. They will know and understand Americans but we won'tunderstand them -- we still only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks and we need that to change he said...

What can we do? From an intelligence perspective he says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence but follow Israel, Ireland and England's example of human intelligence both from an infiltration perspective as well as trust citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens but our government treats us like babies and thinks we can't handle it and will panic

He did a test for Congress recently putting an empty briefcase in 5 major spots in 5 US cities and not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago -- someone tried to steal it! In Israel an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds with a citizen shouting "Unattended Bag" and the area cleared slowly, calmly and immediately by the people themselves. concerned....

He also discussed how many children were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11 without parents to pick them up and theschools did not have a plan. Do you have a plan with your kids, schools and families if you cannot reach each other by phone? If you cannot return to your house? If you cannot get to your child's school -- do they know what to do? We should all have a plan.

He said that our government's plan after the next attack is to immediately cut-off EVERYONE's abiltity to use their telephone, cell phone, blackberry because they don't want terrorists to be able to talk to one another -- do you have a plan if you cannot communicate directly with those that you love?

Again -- I recommend his book, "Staying Safe" and I also recommend we heighten each other's attention now for the inevitable.... In fact, this week the Today Show began with a segment that Al Qaeda was resurfacing -- the same kind of action on the Pakistani border occurred before 9/11...

It is scary, but we do not have panic, we just need to be aware....

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not been helpful and we can not change things until 2008. However, remember that when you vote....

Juval Aviv holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University and is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm.

Juval Aviv is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc. Based in New York with offices around the world, founded in 1979, Interfor provides foreign and domestic intelligence services to the legal, corporate and financial communities and conducts investigations around the world. In addition, Mr. Aviv serves as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress and other policy makers on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering.

A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103-Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich, as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team. Interfor's services encompass corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations, security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfors asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients.

Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence and special operations in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s. While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Al's security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today.

Most recently, Mr. Aviv wrote Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business,(2004,HarperResource).

He has been a guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight, ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles in major magazines and newspapers worldwide

Contact Fred Reifenberg at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, August 17, 2007.
The Jerusalem Post was as virulently left as the other Israeli news media. Then for a few years it went centrist and slightly even right and then it swung back to its mum-mum position -- on the left. But it's worth reading its remarkable women columnists: Caroline Glick and Sarah Honig. Both write very well, both are articulate, both are sensible, and both have something to say. The media has made much of an intemperate remark made a Bar-Ilan professor just because his daughter and her family were being kicked out (probably illegally) from their home, thanks to Olmert's "Protect an Arab first" policy. Wouldn't you be upset? But why make such a big deal out of it? I've said worse for much less a cause. And the Israeli journalists didn't get upset when Arab MK's made intemperate AND traitorous remarks about Israel to their Arab constituency. But Sarah puts it into perspective by widening the window to examine some of the intemperata on the left.

This is by Sarah Honig and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1186557466184&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Incredibly, some pretty consequential things happened while Israel's left-leaning media rocked and rolled to Prof. Hillel Weiss's discordant and tasteless tunes. The compelling diversion, amplified so assiduously, diminished all else -- even revelations that funds Israel irrationally remitted to the PA were transferred from Fatah's "good terrorists" in Ramallah to Hamas's "bad terrorists" in Gaza.

Surely officialdom's folly cannot rival the riveting professor. Never known as prudently diplomatic, Weiss let loose a cacophony of curses when approached by a Ynet reporter after his daughter, son-in-law and six grandkids were forcibly evicted from their Hebron home. Weiss resorted to vocabulary that wouldn't be countenanced by the overwhelming majority of those who deeply deplore the expulsion of Jews only because of their Jewishness from indisputably Jewish property. The fact that said holdings were wrested from a veteran Jewish community by means of unprovoked mass-slaughter, sadism and rape 78 years ago doesn't confer title-deeds on the perpetrators' equally genocidal offspring.

The reporter who approached Weiss was no babe in journalism's woods. It's no secret to anyone in the trade that if you're after cutting comments, Weiss is your interviewee. It's no different from seeking out the wildest-eyed most bizarre-looking settler/self-certified rabbi/self-proclaimed messiah to represent the National Camp collectively for credulous news-consumers. The more outlandish the remarks and the more oddball the delivery, the easier to tar an entire serious school of thought and caricature it as lunatic.

It's an old ruse but it works only one way. The late Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz is still revered as the Left's towering mentor -- not despite his penchant for characterizing Israeli soldiers as Judeo-Nazis, but precisely because of it.

Hebrew University Prof. Moshe Zimmerman likened Jewish youngsters in Hebron to Hitlerjugend, crack Israeli commando units to the Waffen SS, Israeli soccer enthusiasts to Third Reich crowds and even the Bible to Mein Kampf.

Former OC Military Intelligence and Ben-Gurion University president Shlomo Gazit equated the crocheted skullcap to Nazi insignia.

Israel's effusively liberal academic institutions pride themselves on tolerating free speech, no matter how repulsive. The exception is Bar-Ilan University, Weiss's employer. BIU fired preeminent military historian Dr. Uri Milshtein because he dared criticize Yitzhak Rabin's War of Independence record and even publish (pre-assassination) an in-your-face book about it.

THE TEACHING tenures of those who portray renascent Jewish sovereignty as racist are safeguarded. Only the most vehement post-Zionist excesses are indulged. Different strokes for different universities and different professors.

But this isn't exclusively academia's affliction. Israel's chronically amnesiac citizenry managed to totally overlook Lt.-Cmdr. Niso Shaham's recent promotion to the post of Jerusalem District deputy police chief. For those who may have forgotten (not unexpectedly, because tendentious scribblers and broadcasters hardly harped on the issue), here's a brief reminder. During the pre-disengagement mass rally in Kfar Maimon, then-Negev District commander Shaham affected his most macho pose for the TV crew that filmed him, well aware that the orders he barked to several young subordinates would be widely broadcast. That suited him perfectly -- televised exposure might impress the Sharon family of his limitless loyalty to their cause. A hefty professional advancement seemed in the bag.

And so hectored Niso for all to hear: "I want arrests and I tell you to use water-cannons unconditionally. Don't call me. Go for the water-cannons. Shit upon them," -- the protesters. "They should burn. Don't reassess -- use water-cannons and clubs. Hit them hard on the lower parts of the body. Work as you know how. I'm an expert in handling these haredim."

Niso went on to boast before the entire watching nation that he's braver than his own superiors, who advised him not to charge into Kfar Maimon. Niso's reply: "I'm not some whore who opens her legs and waits for someone to come in. You can bank on my ability to open their [the demonstrators'] legs. I'll f**k their mother's mother. Now go tell your buddies... not just a few beatings. I'm telling you all this to spare you the need to seek authorization."

Later, under pressure and to avoid greater repercussions than a feeble reprimand, Niso issued a wan statement of regret, claiming he was overwrought. That -- unsurprisingly -- sufficed last month for a three-justice High Court panel to reject petitions against his new appointment. The petitioners wondered what the reaction would have been were Niso's expletives directed at Arabs rather than haredim.

But the court condemned the petitioners for "seeking to ostracize a valued police officer because of one slip of the tongue, for which he tendered apology."

Panel-member Justice Ayala Procaccia, incidentally, kept a 14-year-old girl incarcerated without formal charges for 40 days for participating in "an illegal assembly" pre-disengagement. She judged that the child needs "re-education."

So much for the fairly balanced scales of justice. Legal equity and press impartiality in this country being what they are, no wonder Niso's promotion failed to generate headlines or enrage the masses. What if Niso shouted his obscenities to fawningly gain attention and attendant favors? What if he ordered wholly unwarranted corporal punishments for folks he was sworn to protect?

Niso was a man wielding power, unlike those our opinion-molders relish targeting -- such as Women in Green co-chair Nadia Matar. Her pre-disengagement sin was writing (not screaming on TV) to Disengagement Authority director Yonatan Bassi that his role resembles Judenrat acquiescence to Nazi expulsions of Jews, with the reservation that Judenrat collaborators were coerced. That earned her scathing censure and well-orchestrated odium. She beat moves to prosecute her for her letter, but lower court rulings were overturned on state appeal and she again faces trial.

Idealistic Nadia remains abhorred public enemy number-one. Vulgar Niso is the court-approved guardian of democracy and law.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haimson, August 17, 2007.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=1186557474056&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Sometimes terror doesn't have to pay. Reports last week that Fatah Prime Minister Salaam Fayad had paid the annual salaries of members of Hamas's army in Gaza caused US Congressman Eric Cantor to shoot off a livid letter to Fayad.

Cantor, the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, had just returned from leading a Republican Congressional delegation to Israel and the Palestinian Authority where he met with Fayad in Ramallah. He wrote: "Without further explanation from you, I will feel compelled... to forewarn my colleagues in the Congress that any visits with your government offer little value toward bringing peace and security to Palestinians and Israelis. Furthermore, I will help lead opposition in Congress to any proposed call for additional US taxpayer dollars being sent to the Palestinian Authority."

Cantor has good reason as an American to be angry at Fayad. Hamas forces in Gaza, which are trained and commanded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, constitute a key member of the axis of global jihad against which the US is fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world. By strengthening Hamas, Fayad is not simply harming Israel. He is acting in a manner that strengthens the axis as a whole. And so he is harming US national security interests.

In defending his move, Fayad initially claimed that the payment was a regrettable error caused by a computer glitch. In his updated story, Fayad claimed that a Hamas agent in his Ministry of Finance was responsible for the move.

Fayad's excuses naturally raise the question: If Fatah opposes Hamas, why are all the names and bank account numbers of Hamas's soldiers conveniently located in Fatah's Ministry of Finance's computer files? Aside from that, it is hard to believe that Fayad objected to paying the jihad forces. Since Hamas took over Gaza in June, Fayad has regularly paid the salaries of Hamas legislators, civil servants in Hamas's government, and Hamas terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails.

Moreover, Fayad's assertions that Fatah opposes Hamas are hardly believable given that Fatah is engaged in intense negotiations with Hamas toward a reunification of their forces. Wednesday, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated openly that he seeks to reconcile with Hamas. In his joint press briefing with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, Abbas called for a "return to national unity." He said, "The split [between Judea and Samaria and Gaza which happened] as a result of Hamas's coup is temporary and will be removed."

The fact that Fatah is itself a jihadist terror group also helps explain why it has no problem paying the salaries of Hamas's terror army. The inconvenient truth of Fatah's commitment to terror was brought home this week with the indictment of Fatah legislator and deputy commander of its General Intelligence militia Jamal Tirawi. Tirawi is accused of dispatching the suicide bomber who blew up at the Coffee Shop cafe in Tel Aviv in March 2002. He is also accused of training and commanding other terrorists who carried out suicide and shooting attacks against Israelis.

Tirawi's indictment was further evidence that Fatah undermines US interests. As Aaron Klein reported Wednesday in World News Daily, as deputy commander of Fatah's General Intelligence militia, Tirawi held extensive contacts with US Security Coordinator Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton and received US weapons.

But of course America is not Fatah's primary victim.

IDF forces, which engaged Hamas's army in southern Gaza this week, reported that Hamas today is a much more formidable foe than it ever was before: It fights much like Hizbullah, it has advanced arms and equipment and is organized in disciplined units.

Since Fayad paid these forces with funds that Israel transferred to him, it could have been expected that the Olmert government would be joining Cantor in condemning him. But, in yet another sign of the government's strategic dementia, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni rushed to Fayad's defense.

Speaking to a visiting delegation of Democratic congressmen, Olmert and Livni insisted that Fayad was telling the truth when he said that his payments to Hamas's army were the result of a computer glitch. As Representative Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post, Olmert, Livni and the US consul general in Jerusalem, Jacob Walles, all "said they believed that this was a clerical, bureaucratic mistake, not a conscious effort to help Hamas.

"In light of the fact that Israel's foreign minister, Israel's prime minister and our consul general all agreed on that fact, Mr. Fayad's representations had more credibility with us when we brought it up with him," Hoyer concluded.

ON THE most basic level, it is deeply disturbing that Olmert and Livni are acting as Fatah's public relations team. But beyond that, their insistent support for Fatah demonstrates that they fail to understand or reconcile themselves to three basic facts.

First, Livni and Olmert show that they are incapable of accepting that Fatah is Israel's enemy. Their commitment to appeasing Fatah and establishing a Palestinian state is so strong, that they cling to it even when Fatah's inherent hostility is staring them in the face.

Second, they fail to understand the potential impact of Cantor's letter on US policy toward the Palestinians. In defending Fayad against Cantor's rebuke, Livni and Olmert made clear that for them, there ought not, and indeed, cannot be a US policy toward the Palestinians other than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's policy of pressuring Israel to give land, money, statehood and guns to the Fatah terror organization.

Finally, by supporting Rice's policy of appeasing Palestinian terrorists, Olmert and Livni ignore the fact that both Israel and the US are treating the Palestinian jihad in a manner that completely contradicts the US's strategy for contending with the forces of jihad everywhere else in the world. In stark contrast to the administration's embrace of Fatah and Palestinian statehood, everywhere else in the world, the US works to defeat terrorists and deny them control of territory. The fact that the current US-Israeli policy toward Palestinian terrorists is antithetical to the Bush administration's overall strategy for fighting terror is reason enough to expect that many Americans might not believe that Rice's support for Fatah and Palestinian statehood advances US interests.

ALTHOUGH OLMERT and Livni refuse to see any of this, Rice herself openly acknowledges that hers is not the only possible view of the Palestinian jihad against Israel. Last month, in a conversation with members of Congress, Rice explained that she feels compelled to devote her energies to creating a Palestinian state quickly because she cannot trust that the next administration will see the situation as she does.

The strongest voices calling for the US to apply the same policies toward the Palestinians that it applies to terror forces throughout the world are heard in President George W. Bush's own Republican Party. Former New York mayor and Republican presidential frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani has been the strongest Republican voice calling for change.

In an article published this week in Foreign Affairs, Giuliani supported Bush's view that the aim of the US war is to destroy both the global terrorist movement and its radical Islamic-fascist ideology. But Giuliani expressed deep misgivings regarding Bush's actual policies, which he believes have been inconsistent and insufficiently strong.

Giuliani makes his call for consistency most clearly in his discussion of the Palestinians and Israel. In his words: "Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism."

He added, "America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy."

By so couching his argument, Giuliani made clear that, from his perspective, there is no difference between the jihad against Israel and the jihad throughout the world. As a result, in his view, the US should align its policy toward the Palestinians with its policy against jihad everywhere in the world.

While Giuliani has been the most candid in his critique of Bush's policy toward the Palestinians, his views are not out of sync with the general tenor of the Republican presidential debate. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Fred Thompson have similarly made clear that they believe the US must be more forthright and consistent in fighting the war.

THE REPUBLICAN debate should be signaling two things to Israel. First, it shows that there is a reasonable chance that in January 2009 Israel will be greeted by a US administration that does not share the Olmert government's enthusiasm for appeasing Palestinian terrorists.

Second it indicates that as the 2008 elections draw nearer, the Republican candidates may force Bush to dampen his support for Fatah. Rice may not be able to force her way to the finish line.

Here in Israel, after Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu's stunning victory in the Likud leadership primaries Tuesday, we are also moving into pre-election mode. Israeli voters will expect Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the Labor Party leader, and Netanyahu to present their visions of where Israel should be going.

Since Barak owes his primary victory to Labor's Arab voters, no one expects him to give up on his commitment to Palestinian statehood. But Netanyahu is a different story. It would make perfect sense for the Likud to base its electoral platform on recognizing that Fatah is Israel's enemy, and by rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state. And Netanyahu is better qualified than any politician to convince Israeli voters to support such a reality-based platform.

In addressing Iran's nuclear weapons program, Netanyahu recognized that there is a strong coalition in the US that is eager to act more forcefully to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons than either the Olmert government or the Bush administration. Netanyahu wisely supported these forces and helped them to pressure the administration to intensify its efforts to stop the Iranians. One consequence of that pressure was the administration's decision this week to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

As Cantor's letter and Giuliani's article make clear, there also is a strong coalition in the US that is willing to recognize that Fatah is a member of the enemy camp and to accept that a terror-supporting Palestinian state would harm US national security interests. Yet, as Steny Hoyer made clear, only Israelis can stand at the helm of such a coalition. Israelis and Americans alike must hope that Netanyahu will embrace his duty to lead that coalition. [Editor's Note: Two comments to the original article in the Jerusalem Post.] 33. If I was deaf, dumb and blind I would have bet my last dollar, if there were any takers in the world.
Arthur Rosen -- Canada
08/18/2007 12:28
They are playing the media real good and hoodwinking the world, but the boys are still whacking them good in Gaza and Judea and Samaria as we gaze into real-time cyberspace. HA HA HA. I suspected Abbas would be another Yasser. Fayad proved it. Soon as I saw Fayad's sour punim. I had a feeling. Muslims divide themselves to conquer unlike the romans but just like some other underworld organizations learned to do for MM. One Group makes buddy, buddy by day, and sends the angel of death at night.

28. Fatah and Hamas are playing "good cop, bad cop". The "coop" in Gaza was pre-planned and staged. Mashaal and Abbas cut a deal.
Skip Kelley -- USA
08/18/2007 04:11
Abbas said all the right things -- he was very believable -- and we gave him a lot of money. They then paid their soldiers a year's worth of wages and held their mercenary armies together with the money we gave them. They have been "working" us, and we have been really stupid. Mr Olmert, please find the courage to see the world the way it really is.

Contact David Haimson at DvHaimson@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haimson, August 17, 2007.

Following conciliatory signals from Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to Hamas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office warned Wednesday night that any Fatah-Hamas unification would lead to a breakdown in the diplomatic process with the reconstituted PA.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting in Ramallah with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, Abbas -- for the first time since Hamas's takeover of Gaza in June -- seemed to soften his stance toward the Islamist movement, calling on it to "return to national unity." Abbas's remarks were interpreted by Palestinians as an appeal to Hamas to resume talks with his Fatah faction.

Hamas immediately welcomed Abbas's statements and invited him to talk to the movement's leaders in the Gaza Strip.

"The split that happened [between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip] as a result of Hamas's coup is temporary and will be removed," Abbas said. "The Palestinian people are opposed to this separation because we want a united and independent Palestinian state."

Abbas said he would continue to work toward reuniting the Palestinians. "We will also continue to support our people in the Gaza Strip, because this is our responsibility," he said.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said in a statement that any Fatah-Hamas unification would lead to a breakdown of the diplomatic process, and that the PA chairman was "well aware" of this position.

Olmert, according to his office, told Abbas as much at their meeting last week in Jericho, and government officials have said that the progress Israel had made with the PA over the last two months would end if Hamas once again joined the government.

Israeli officials quoted Abbas as telling Olmert at their meeting that he would not conduct a dialogue with Hamas, despite pressure from a number of Arab countries to do so.

In another sign of rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah, the Fatah-controlled PA security forces in Bethlehem released nine Hamas members on Wednesday who were arrested last month on suspicion of trying to establish an armed Hamas group in the West Bank.

Farid al-Atrash, a lawyer representing the Hamas detainees, said a PA court ordered their release, and that the court's decision was endorsed by PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad.

A Hamas spokesman in Gaza City welcomed Abbas's remarks as "positive" and expressed hope that the PA chairman would visit the Gaza Strip fo