HOME Featured Stories April 2010 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, April 30, 2010.

Evergreen forest in the Judean Mountains at Sataf

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


It is a deeply satisfying moment when one of your children reveals that he's actually been paying attention to some of what you've been saying to him over the years. And so I was thrilled when my 13-year-old son, Avishai, called to me from up ahead on the trail, "Abba, come check out the light on the trees!" We had been hiking several hours in broad daylight along the 8-kilometer, Mt. Eitan loop trail that encircles a small park near Jersusalem called Sataf. I was in parent/hiker mode and wouldn't have spotted this scene without my son's calling it to my attention.

When analyzing a textural image such as this, my primary concern, after exposure, is the composition. I normally shoot a little wide and make a final, perfected crop back in my studio using a combination of intuition and design rules. My process begins along the outer edges of the photo, where I look for any elements that will prevent the viewer's eye from wandering off the page. These elements may include some part of the photo's content or even a darkened area, which will function as a visual brake to a roving eye. If I don't have the visual elements I need, I rely on how it feels.

An excellent exercise for testing your results is to stand in front of your photo, close your eyes, then reopen them and study their movement. Where do they travel and where do they come to rest? If you wind up at the heart of the image, your intended subject, you've probably done something right!

Technical Data: Nikon D-300, 18-200mm zoon at 58mm, f16 @1/250 sec.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, April 30, 2010.


U.S. Intelligence official "breaks silence" on Israel situation"

31 December 2008: Northeast Intelligence Network director Doug Hagmann interviewed a highly-placed U.S. intelligence official late yesterday who not only confirmed rumors about escalated and more intensive Israeli military operations against the Muslim terrorists in Gaza, warned of the increasing probability of abandonment of Israel by the U.S. and other Western countries based on what he termed "malicious intelligence."

"Remember that term," advised this well-placed intelligence official, "you'll be hearing it again."

"This is just the beginning," stated this intelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous. This official stated that the possibility for a much more protracted ground war is more likely today than at any other time in the past, adding that Israel is exercising her right to protect herself from her enemies in Gaza. But there is a catch, noted this official, and a big one at that: Israel could be about to lose the support of the United States.

"I have every reason to believe, based on what I've seen at my level of [security] clearance especially over the last several years, that Israel will soon be completely on their own. or worse." When asked what could be worse than losing the support of the United States, he stated: "when our administration provides more support to Arab countries [with] financial and military aid, undercutting Israel's defense efforts all while pushing Israel to succumb to the pressure of unreasonable demands designed to end with their political annihilation as a nation."

According to this official, the U.S. has been slowly proceeding down this road. He cited the 2005 surrender of Gush Katif to the Palestinian Authority as one critical example of the slow dismantlement of Israel as a viable nation. "Despite critical intelligence outlining in every possible manner imaginable that this would be a disastrous move leading to the events we are seeing today, it was done anyway," he stated.

"We are seeing the very scenario play out today that was outlined in intelligence briefs three and four years ago. Knowing that, there is something very wrong with this picture," he stated.

He added that Western media is also playing a very big role in the current war in the Middle East, thanks, in part, to carefully worded statements prepared by political officials in Washington. Officials in the current administration, like some previous administrations, submit carefully crafted informational releases to a media that is controlled by those having special interests that are contrary to a legitimate peace in the Middle East.

"The game is rigged. At the highest levels of power in the U.S. and even by some in power in Israel, the game is rigged," he emphasized.

The next obvious question in this interview was, of course, "how is it rigged?" followed by "how are you in a position to know?"

This official responded by stating that he has spent the last two decades serving in "an unfortunate position where intelligence and politics meet and often collide." Now, merely days away from retirement, he stated that he is looking forward to leaving his position after conducting over 20 years of intelligence work "that has been molded and massaged to advance the agendas of a select few."

He continued: "When an intelligence work product that has been thoroughly and properly vetted is submitted to those in Washington, and I see a completely different and entirely inaccurate product intentionally submitted and aired in the media, only to be told 'that is the way it must be,' then I know it's time for me to leave."

"It is obvious to me that most Americans don't understand or don't care what is actually happening in the Middle East relative to Israel. People don't understand history, or have been subjected to revisionist history based on lies and more lies. Add to that a media that fails to provide an accurate assessment of what is taking place in Israel, in Gaza, and you end up with a very bad situation for Israel," stated this source. He added that the disinformation coming and going to and from Washington is getting worse, as is the media bias against Israel. The events currently taking place in Israel are extremely perilous for Israel and especially perilous for the national security of the United States, according to this source. Contrary to the accepted assessments of "Middle East experts" in the news, our intelligence services have "ample evidence to prove active collusion and support between HAMAS and other terrorist organizations, both Sunni and Shite. Further, there is a level of Iranian complicity in this war that is not being talked about, or being dismissed out of hand because of the schism between the Sunni and Shia sects," stated this source.

More from this interview, in addition to an interview arranged by this intelligence official with a high-ranking Israeli IDF official conducted on 31 December 2008.

By Kate Evans-Taylor, Analyst

16 March 2010: The current animus between the U.S. and Israel is being carefully orchestrated by the Obama administration, and will eventually lead to this administration's complete abandonment of our most trusted democratic ally in the Middle East — or worse. The "prediction" of abandonment and even embracing the Palestinian agenda was first published on this web site over 14 months ago, and the process appears to be right on schedule.

This "inside" information originated from a former highly placed intelligence official familiar with the agenda of the Obama administration who warned about the very events unfolding today. Although that source retired days after the initial interview with Doug Hagmann, the director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, he remains tapped in to Beltway sources. Speaking from his home in rural Virginia, he said that "I still have people who I speak with on a regular basis; I know what the overall agenda of this administration is, and hasn't changed since I left."

Moreover, this source believes that the current rift in relations was not only orchestrated by the Obama administration, it is purposely being manipulated to become a "defining moment and a watershed event" in U.S. and Israel relations. It will allow this administration to manipulate the facts to further sway world opinion against Israel and embolden the Palestinians. "It is designed to change the overall dynamic of the Middle East, something the Obama administration and his Arab backers had planned since the beginning," stated this source. He added that this incident could be used to restrict or cancel the future sales of arms necessary for Israel's defense.

The information he provided is also consistent with the analysis published Sunday by Sean Osborne, assistant director of the Northeast Intelligence Network. Mr. Osborne stated that "Obama has abandoned all pretense of neutrality and is clearly siding with his long-time radical Arab brethren," and also noted that the posturing by the Obama Administration "has been designed to provoke if not precipitate an Arab-Israeli military confrontation."

"I believe that time has proven me correct since that first interview [December 31, 2008], and the process of deliberate antagonism by this administration is right on schedule," he said. It's no secret that this administration is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, pro-Arab Muslim, which goes back to his relationships during his time in Congress. I haven't seen much in the news about the foreign contributions to his campaign, which we knew from the beginning originated largely in Arab and Muslim countries. Look who is presently visiting and advising Obama, and in effect, controlling Middle East policy and posture toward Israel. You will find direct connections between the interests that initially funded him and those who are currently advising him," he added.

"The entire situation [the announcement of Jewish building in Jerusalem] is a 'red herring' and has little to no impact on the Palestinians," he stated. This former intelligence official pointed to a portion of an article penned by Rick Richman titledUn-Smart Diplomacy to underscore his point:

"Even actual building by Israel (much less the mere announcement of building in the future) would not have violated Israel's commitment to a 10-month moratorium, which excluded Jerusalem. Second, the area in question is one that will not be yielded to the Palestinians in any conceivable peace agreement (even one that would divide sovereignty between Jewish and Arab areas) because it is a longstanding Jewish community, not an Arab one. Third, the area has military significance, for reasons explained (and illustrated with pictures) by Israel Matzav."

"Anyone familiar with Israel's ability to defend herself against external aggression, and that should include anyone and everyone of influence in this administration, knows that the area in question is of extreme importance to Israel's national security," this source stated.

And that appears to be exactly what this is all about. As Mr. Rickman points out and as is well known in this administration, the Palestinians have no legitimate claims to the area of intended construction. This area has never been an issue, except for those who oppose Israel's right to exist. Unfortunately, people are not hearing the truth about this matter in the media.

The importance of the "disputed" area, Ramot Schlomo, for the security of the citizens of Israel is the real issue and cannot be understated. The article that appears on the Israel Matzav web site spells it out in the simplest of terms. The ridge where Ramot Schlomo sits overlooks every major highway in the city, including all modes of ingress and egress. "The Obama administration knows this, and so do Fatah, Hamas, and every Palestinian feigning outrage," added our intelligence source.

"The Obama administration is using strong arm tactics privately and media manipulation publicly in their attempt to dismantle the nation of Israel, one block at a time, at the behest of the pro-Palestinian inside the White house." Developing.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Kaplan, April 30, 2010.

The San Francisco Jewish Community Federation and Donors are putting the brakes on anti-Israel academics and programs in Bay Area Colleges.

It's finally happening. One of the most radical leftist regions in the United States, the area where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement was started on American college campuses at UC Berkeley is seeing a clamping down on anti-Israel activism conducted by certain habitually anti-Israel Jewish academics by restricting and overseeing their funding. Both the San Francisco Jewish Federation and private donors are creating new guidelines to just where there money will go.

The restrictions and new guidelines came about as a result of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival's screening of an anti-Israel propaganda film, Rachel, done by a radical Jewish filmmaker that claimed ISM activist Rachel Corrie was deliberately murdered by the IDF. The film was not just shown, but became a way for the ISM to infiltrate the Federation and persuade American Jews that Israel is a pariah state. The San Francisco Jewish Federation not only provided funding for the event, but spent money it receives from Jewish donors to fly Rachel Corrie's mother to the screening to give a speech attacking Israel. Corrie's mother currently has a wrongful death lawsuit going in Israel against the IDF as yet another ISM publicity stunt on behalf of the IDF. Her daughter intentionally sat down in front of an IDF bulldozer demolishing weapons smuggling tunnels and was killed when the driver did not see her. Only two weeks earlier Rachel Corrie was involved in aiding terrorists by removing dead bodies from the tunnels as a human shield.[1] The ISM does this in combat zones sometimes without fear of arrest by the IDF because they know Arab snipers will use them as bait to shoot IDF soldiers.

Of course, none of this appeared in the film Rachel. The audience at this Jewish event was in fact filled with ISM activists, human shields for Arab terrorist groups and even included Paul LaRudee,[2] the Head of Norcal ISM who was deported by Israel for connections to Hamas after I revealed he had entered the country under a false name and passport in 2006.[3] Deported, he next went to Lebanon where he aided the Hizballah during the summer war. As one pro-Israel speaker spoke before the screening mentioning it was not a balanced presentation, he was heckled by ISM activists in the audience who even shout Sieg Heil! and gave the Hitler salute. Many of these "Jewish" attendees had already been given medals of honor for their support by Hamas leadership during the Gaza flotillas and all are active in the divestment campaign against Israel.

In attending ISM national conferences[4] at major universities[5] across the United States since 2003 I heard and wrote about plans by anti-Israel activists to infiltrate Jewish institutions like the Jewish Federation in San Francisco and pose as Jews only interested in "criticism" of Israel but who would garner support Boycotting and Divestment from the Jewish state. In Bay Area colleges Jewish Studies programs would bring in anti-Israel academics like those featured here on Isracampus who would also call for divestment and or make false accusations of atrocities or war crimes against Israel and then would ultimately call for sanctions against Israel. Some, like Shlomo Sand,[6] would even deny the existence of a Jewish people. While such "academics" have a right to free speech, there is no logic or reasons why money donated by Jews who want a safe Israel should be forced to fund such events under the false moniker of "academic freedom" when such events are part of a worldwide Arab propaganda campaign to destroy Israel.

One could call the Federation's new funding guidelines the whine that was heard around the world.

Chana Kronfeld,[7] a literary professor of Hebrew and English at UC Berkeley featured earlier here at Isracampus, opined that "It's absolutely disastrous if we lose funding. In times of huge cuts, we have no funding from anyone sometimes except Federation or community organizations. It's clearly a campaign to control academic freedom."

Kronfeld was earlier involved in just the kind of deceptive programming the new guidelines seek to curtail. She organized with the Students for Justice in Palestine whose mission statement calls for the end of Israel to produce on the University's website a permanently viewable one hour video of IDF army "resisters" that she called her "heroes." These speakers claimed the IDF routinely massacres innocent Arabs. Kronfeld also was booted from an Israel independence celebration at the local Jewish community center by a screaming audience when she was to give a poetry reading about Israel but read poems by radical anti-Israel poetess Dahlia Ravikovitch that again accused Israel of indiscriminately murdering Arab children.

Such usage of captive Jewish audiences is part of the ISM and Arab plan to persuade American Jews not to support Israel since US support is deemed the backbone guarantee of a Jewish state's existence.

In the past, other Bay Area professors such as Daniel Boyarin,[8] a Talmudic scholar at Berkeley, have also consistently prevented speakers or been involved in programs that openly attack Israel. Boyarin has attempted to prevent pro-Israeli speakers like Ehud Barak from speaking on campus and even attacked verbally a Jewish student who complained her Iraqi language instructor taught in class that the Protocols of Zion were true and threatened to expel her from school. Joel Beinin[9] of Stanford works with a consortium of college professors who routinely promote the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel and call for the end of a Jewish state. Aside from anti-Zionists like these two, several other professors at these schools, as well as the University of California campuses in Davis and Santa Cruz, have publicly supported some form of divestment campaign or promote Arab-backed o organizations that do

Private donors are also getting involved[10] like Sanford Diller and Tad Taube who have donated millions to Jewish Studies programs on Bay Area campuses only to see their money go to hire anti-Zionist Jewish professors who preach an anti-Israel line.

It has been suggested that Diller was informed by UC Berkeley that if he tried to influence programs at the Cal campus that Berkeley would just give back his donations.

The Middle East Studies Program at Cal where the Jewish Studies program is housed receives enormous funding from a Saudi prince, so Berkeley has another source. Diller's 5 million grant to set up a Jewish Studies program was used by the MES department's chair to hire every anti-Zionist and anti-Israel Jewish scholar he could find.

There is sure to be a certain resistance from ideologues against Israel already entrenched within the Jewish community since the anti-Israel fanatics have had seven years to build on deception. But the issue is not a denial of academic freedom as much as Jewish donors not playing into part of the worldwide Arab and ISM tactic of funding attacks on Israel while masquerading it as "academic freedom."

Things change slowly but they are changing.


[1] http://www.stoptheism.com/

[2] http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/127400

[3] "http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Articles/Article.aspx/6321



[6] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa= PAGE.view&pageId=113092"

[7] http://www.isracampus.org.il/third level pages/ Editorial — Lee Kaplan — Chana Kronfeld battles Zionism.htm

[8] http://www.isracampus.org.il/third level pages/ Editorial — Lee Kaplan — Daniel Boyarin.htm

[9] http://www.isracampus.org.il/ Israeli Academic Extremism page Russian.htm

[10] http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2413

Lee Kaplan is an investigative journalist. See www.IsrCampus.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, April 30, 2010.

What this means is that Obama has accepted that there is no diplomatic solution. As I have written many times before, he intends to impose a plan, in fact the Saudi Plan. He has already started the imposition by demanding a settlement freeze and the other things set out in this article. Negotiations are a sham. Israel will be given an erzats peace but will not get an end of conflict agreement or recognition by any Arab government that Israel is a Jewish state. We will get "normalized" relations, whatever that means.

On the other hand, Barry Rubin, The U.S.-Israel Crisis May Be Over and We Can "Celebrate" the Achievement of Nothing, believes that all that has happenned is that Obama can claim he got negotiations started, ignoring that he caused them to stop.

Elyakim HaEtzni — an Israeli lawyer and activist — goes beyond the negotiations and concludes that it is all about imposing a plan. I agree with HaEtzni.

This below was written by Elyakim Haetzni, who is a former member of Knesset. Contact him at ehaetzni@netvision.net.il


There Is No Diplomatic Solution. Will Obama Try To Impose One?

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu avoided attending the international nuclear conference in Washington in order to side step the mine that President Barack Obama had planted there for him and us.

What was the nature of that mine?

It's not just Jerusalem or any particular clause in the document that Obama set before Netanyahu for his signature at their last meeting. At stake is the independence of the State of Israel. We are poised at the edge of a Second War of Independence, in which the Quartet, under America's leadership, is playing the role of the British High Commissioner. Alex Fishman, in an article in "Yediot Achronot" from April 9th, details what Obama presented to Netanyahu for his signature:

*The withdrawal of the IDF from all the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria and a large proportion of the countryside, precluding all future Israeli military operations in those areas (pretty much the only way of preventing terrorist attacks against Israeli targets);

*Allowing the Palestinian Authority to resume operations unhindered in Jerusalem;

*Obligating Israel to cease any present or future building in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, amounting to the de facto division of the capitol.

In addition, Obama demanded that Netanyahu continue the building freeze in Judea and Samaria indefinitely and hand over parts of Area C to the Ramallah authorities, changing its status to Area A, which prohibits Israelis from setting foot there. Obama required Netanyahu to relinquish the northern Dead Sea and parts of the Jordan Valley to enable the PA to develop tourism there.

All this must take place immediately, before the beginning of negotiations, while the negotiations themselves will determine the final border and, according to the American timetable, will be signed and sealed within two months.

"What if Israel doesn't respond to Obama's plan or only responds partially?," Fishman asked a senior State Department official. The man replied, "What do you mean we won't receive full answers? Where do you think you're going from here?"

The American commentator Barry Rubin listed three substantive breaches of agreement by the Obama administration towards Israel:

* A breach of the agreement to recognize Israel's right to maintain settlement blocks.

* A breach of the agreement for Israel to continue building in eastern Jerusalem, given in return for Israel's acceding to the administration's demand for a 10-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria.

* The intention to publicize an American peace plan that will be forced on the sides if negotiations can't get started or fail.

The subject of the third breach completes the process of Israel's loss of sovereignty. First by forcing Netanyahu to create in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria conditions under which the territory is de facto handed over to the Arabs, and then by giving him a few months to play at the farce of negotiations, with the predetermined result of arriving at the American "peace plan."

And that's not all. There's the Quartet's declared intent to base the forced "peace" on foreign armies. The Americans and Europeans are offering Israel the services of foreign troops as a beneficence in response to Israel's complaint that it will no longer be able to defend itself within the borders of the Green Line. Their answer to this is "security guarantees" backed up with a military presence in the Jordan Valley and along the Green Line. They tell us that their intention is to defend us from the Arabs while they tell the Arabs that their intention is to defend them from us. In effect, this military presence will tie our hands and will prevent the Israeli government from taking any independent military action. From then on, Israel will be a sovereign nation in name only. In fact, Israel will be a protectorate under international control, led by America.

Obama masterfully stage-directed the threat of a forced solution upon us. A meeting was called of past security advisors that all shared a common attribute: hostility to Israel. The chairman was General Jim Jones who served in Israel and became known as favoring a forced solution with foreign military backing. Obama named him as his National Security Advisor. The other participants were Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and Samuel Berger, men with reputations as fierce opponents of Israel. Colin Powell — not a great friend but a bit more neutral — also participated. With Powell as the sole dissenter, they all reached the conclusion that America must adopt a policy of forcing a solution. The fact of the meeting as well as its conclusions were leaked by the White House to The New York Times and The Washington Post, who were also told that the President himself had dropped in to listen in on the discussion — this to let us know that it wasn't just another discussion by another committee, but a working meeting sponsored by the President. In this discussion too, the participants agreed on the need to station American or NATO armed forces along the Jordan River.

Another figure in Obama's circle is Samantha Power, who in 2002, answering the question of how she would advise the President about the Arab-Israeli conflict, replied that instead of giving Israel three billions dollars annually, the money should go towards building a Palestinian state and to funding "a huge army" with substantial capabilities for "forced outside intervention". Obama appointed this woman as an advisor, a fact that says it all.

The Arabs caught on to the new rules of the game before Netanyahu, and are acting like they don't have to do a thing since the Americans are doing it all for them. We, the Israelis, don't count, since we're not considered as having any independent power of decision. Instead of talking to the puppet, the Arabs prefer to address the one who pulls the strings.

America has a rich past of coercive foreign interventions. She had a hand in the coup in Chile that overthrew and killed Salvador Allende, Chile's democratically elected president. America orchestrated the revolt of "Solidarity" in Poland that overthrew the communist regime. She was involved in the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in the Ukraine (since then, the Russians overturned things once again), and helped to overthrow Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in order to set up a pro-American government there. Her intervention in numerous Latin American countries coined the phrase "banana republic".

The Americans call their hostile subversion of other countries' governments "destabilization," and the press is indeed reporting that the sources close to the prime minister fear that Obama intends to bring down Netanyahu's government if he doesn't accept American dictates. In economics, this is known as a hostile takeover.

The hostile Israeli press sides with Obama, of course. Orly Azoulay, Yediot Achronot's Washington bureau chief, acts as a "court reporter" for Obama, as if she works for him and not for us. And Alex Fishman, quoted above, criticizes "the problematic behavior of the Prime Minister in Washington." Obama puts Neyanyahu through a hazing in Washington, and instead of defending his prime minister and condemning the one who insulted him — and thereby insulted us, one of Israel's prominent reporters throws mud on the "problematic behavior" of the victim. What was Netanyahu's sin? That he didn't immediately sign the decree of surrender?

Another example of the slavish and servile language of the Israeli press is the headline of Yediot Achronot from Sept. 17, 2009, which proclaims "The U.S.: Our Patience With Israel is Ending." The paper's editors composed this formulation, as if Israel were a stubborn child getting on the nerves of the teacher.

Israelis aren't sufficiently cognizant of the threat of foreign military forces entering the country even though the writing has been on the wall for some time now. For example, as far back as October 2008, the newspaper A-Shark al-Aussat citing French sources reported that the European Union had offered to deploy a European "peace force" along a future Israeli-Palestinian border. The Jerusalem Post reported on November 26, 2008 about a recommendation by one of Obama's most senior advisors to station American or NATO armed forces in the Jordan Valley. Brzezinski also spoke of an "American line" along the Jordan Valley.* Aaron Klein reported on January 12 about secret discussions in which the possibility of placing Jordanian forces in Judea and Samaria was weighed.

Another blow to Israeli sovereignty that Klein publicized (April 8, 2010), is the spy network that George Mitchell has established here. There is detailed American oversight in eastern Jerusalem and the highest echelons become involved in every tiny building or development project. Mitchell set up the operation from within the American consulate in Jerusalem that also oversees building in Judea and Samaria, including every tractor that moves in Ma'ale Adumim. David HaIvri, spokesman of the Samaria Local Council, also noted that the Americans patrol the settlements and stick their noses everywhere. According to HaIvri, they present themselves as advisors to the consul, "but we know that in fact they're spies for the Obama administration."

In truth, the deterioration leading to the loss of sovereignty, G-d forbid, started back in 2003, when Ariel Sharon's government obligated itself to the Road Map. It is the Road Map that the Americans rely on when they accuse Israel of not fulfilling her obligations.

However, during the government vote on the Road Map, Netanyahu agreed to support it only on condition that 14 "reservations" were appended to it. The reservations included dismantling the terror organizations, including Hamas, stopping the incitement, confiscating unauthorized arms, and an end to arms smuggling and arms manufacture.

These conditions, to say the least, haven't been met — suffice it to mention that the Hamas state in Gaza, whose raison d'etre is to conduct a terror war against Israel until the Jewish State is destroyed, comprises almost half the Palestinian population.

Another reservation stated that as long as the Arabs fail to honor their commitments to put an end to terror and incitement, Israel is also absolved of her commitments (for example, to dismantle outposts and freeze building in the settlements).

Another reservation said that "final status issues, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the status of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, will not be dealt with." In another reservation, Israel rejected "any reference to international or other decisions," (referring to the Saudi-Arab Initiative).

In light of these reservations, Obama's attack on Israel is groundless since the conditions that would obligate Israel to the Road Map haven't been met at all. Since May 23, 2003, the date the government obligated itself to these reservations, we've heard nothing about them, as if they vanished into a black hole. At the time, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told us: you can decide among yourselves whatever you want, but just as no one consulted you when we formed the Quartet or formulated the Road Map, no one's cares about your "reservations" now. Today, it appears that she was right: Israel's reservations aren't worth the paper they're written on. The Secretary of State's position was indeed correct: the Road Map was a dictate and no one heard the Israeli poodle's whimper of protest in the form of "reservations".

Here, with the Road Map, was the beginning of our loss of independence: we subjugated ourselves to the Quartet, we agreed to be supervised and judged by their inspectors, we gave them the authority to convene international conventions with the power to declare Palestinian independence, and we accepted the principle that the Arabs have legitimate claims to Jerusalem and regarding the refugees — all under the umbrella of the Saudi Initiative. All this, in addition to the obligation to freeze settlements and destroy outposts.

We waged our first war of independence against the British and the Arab armies when we were very weak — we had a population of 650,000, which is the same as the population of Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem today. We had almost no arms, only a nascent army, and no economy — we were like a newborn baby, naked and vulnerable. Those conditions are incomparable with our situation now. And yet, despite our current strength and resources, if we aren't now willing to undertake the risks and hardships entailed in a second war for our independence, we're likely to loose everything we achieved in our first war of independence.

*On April 26th, Channel One's Ehud Yaari interviewed Palestinian Authority head Abu Mazen on Israeli television. There, Abu Mazen asserted that he and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had reached an agreement that Israel's security concerns would be safeguarded in a final peace accord by stationing NATO troops under American command along the future Israeli-Palestinian border.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com or tedbdl1@israpundit.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 30, 2010.

It seems clear that President Barack Hussein Obama's agenda is to assure Iran that he, in America's name, will do absolutely nothing to stop Iran's development of Nuclear Weapons. Within that decision is a determination to see Israel first weakened and then eliminated by Iran and the Muslim Arab League's Charters.

Moreover, this planning also fits the agenda of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department and such high ranking parasites as former Secretary of State James Baker III, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gen. James Jones, among others, generally referred to as "Arabists".

Regrettably, such people as Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and other Leftists assist the Obama Agenda.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared December 8, 2006 in the Jerusalem Post on
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881847667& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability and at the expense of America's allies.

Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world — Iran and Syria — in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an "honorable" American retreat from the country.

Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts — in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary — that Iran and Syria share America's "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries. The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.

Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.

Obviously, if implemented, the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendations will be disastrous for Israel. Just the fact that they now form the basis for the public debate on the war is a great blow. But it isn't only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.

Although Baker — and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on his commission until Bush announced his appointment next month — believe that there is a deal to be done that will end Iranian and Syrian aggression against the US, its vital interests and its allies, the fact of the matter is that there is no such deal.

Contrary to what the Baker report argues and what Gates said in his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Iran is not analogous to the Soviet Union and the war against the global jihad is not a new cold war.

Even if the US were to somehow get them to agree to certain understandings about Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the Iranians and Syrians would keep their word. Not only would the US be approaching them as a supplicant and so emboldening them, but to date the US has never credibly threatened anything either Syria or Iran value. Indeed, through supporting negotiations between the EU and Iran, empowering the UN to deal with Iran's nuclear program and forcing Israel to accept a cease-fire with Hizbullah last summer that effectively gave victory to Syria and Iran's proxy, the US has consistently rewarded the two countries' aggression.

Worse than that, from a US perspective, although Gates admitted Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, he ignored the fact that Iran — whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad daily calls for the destruction of the US — may also attack the US with nuclear weapons.

Gates admitted in his Senate hearing that Iran is producing many bombs — not just one.

Since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb, the Americans should be asking themselves what Iran needs all those other bombs for. There are senior military sources in the US who have been warning the administration to take into consideration that the day that Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear bomb, 10 cities in the US and Europe are liable to also be attacked with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, no one is listening to these voices today.

IT IS particularly upsetting that Washington has chosen now of all times to turn its back on the war. Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran has completed the nuclear fuel cycle and so has passed the point of no return on its nuclear program. He also made a veiled statement indicating that Iran will have its nuclear arsenal up and running by March — just four months away.

Serious disagreement exists in Washington over the status of the Iranian program. Some claim that Iran is four or five years away from nuclear weapons capabilities. Other maintain that Iran has recently experienced serious technical setbacks in their uranium enrichment activities and that the North Korean nuclear bomb test in October, inwhich Iranian officials participated, was a failure.

But there are also engaged officials who agree with Ahmadinejad's assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. Those officials maintain first that the North Korean-Iranian test in October was successful and should be taken as a sign that Iran already has a nuclear arsenal.

Second, they warn that the US and Israel have six months to act against Iran's nuclear installations and to overthrow the regime or face the prospect of the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of several US cities as a result of an Iranian nuclear offensive.

Obviously, Israel cannot risk the possibility that the last group of officials is correct. And since Washington has decided to go to sleep, it is up to Israel alone to act.

WHAT MUST Israel do? First, it must plan an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities and regime command and control centers. To pave the way for such an attack, the IDF must move now to neutralize second order threats like the Palestinian rocket squads and the Syrian ballistic missile arsenals in order to limit the public's exposure to attack during the course of or in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Second, Israel must work to topple the Iranian regime. As the Defense Minister's advisor Uri Lubrani told Ha'aretz last week, the regime in Iran is far from stable today and ripe for overthrow.

The overwhelming majority of Iranians despise the regime. There are rebellious groups in every ethnic group and province in the country — Azeris, Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen and even Persians — that are actively working to destabilize the regime. Every day there are strikes of workers, women and students. Every few weeks there are reports of violent clashes between anti-regime groups and regime forces. Recently, oil pipelines were sabotaged in the oil-rich Khuzestan province in the south where the Ahwazi Arabs are systematically persecuted by the regime. Westerners who recently visited Iran claim that Israel operating alone could overthrow the regime by extending its assistance to these people.

Thirdly, in his testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, Gates casually mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons. In so doing, he unceremoniously removed four decades of ambiguity over Israel's nuclear status. While his statement caused dismay in Jerusalem, perhaps Israel should see this as an opportunity.

With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike. While such a discussion will not dissuade Iran's fanatical leaders from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it could influence the Iraniannation to rise up against their leaders.

Moreover, such a debate could influence other regimes in the region like Saudi Arabia which today behave as if Israel's annihilation will have no adverse impact on them. Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields. Such an understanding may influence their willingness to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Tragically, in these perilous times, we are being led by the worst, most incompetent government we have ever had.Prime Minister Olmert's way of dealing with the Iranian threat is to pretend that it is none of his business. During his visit to the US last month, Olmert abdicated responsibility for safeguarding Israel from nuclear destruction to President Bush. It didn't bother him that Bush didn't accept the responsibility. By mindlessly adhering to non-existent cease-fires with Iranian proxies in Gaza and Lebanon and squawking about peace with them, Olmert continues to behave as if this is someone else's problem.

For her part, reacting to the possibility of national extinction, Education Minister Yuli Tamir this week cocked her pedagogical pistol and shot at her rear. By ordering the public schools to demarcate the 1949 armistice lines on the official maps and so wipe Israel off maps of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights, Tamir worked to divide the nation over second order issues at a time when unity of purpose is most essential. Olmert, who refused to overturn her scandalous decree, was doubtlessly pleased with her political stunt. For two days the media devoted itself entirely to stirring up internal divisions and so ignored the threat hanging over our heads and Olmert's refusal to deal with it.

Next Thursday, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations Malcolm Hoenlein and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold will hold a press conference in New York where they will call for the US to indict Ahmadinejad for his call to annihilate Israel under the International Convention Against Genocide. This is doubtlessly a welcome initiative. But it is insufficient.

In a few months, Iran may well be in possession of nuclear weapons which it will use to destroy the Jewish state. With the US withdrawing from the war and Israel in the hands of incompetents, the time has come for the Jewish people to rise up.

OUR SURVIVAL begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear. Eitherthe Iranian regime is toppled and its nuclear installations will be destroyed or Israel will be annihilated. The Jews in the Diaspora must launch mass demonstrations and demand that their governments take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The citizens of the State of Israel must also take to the streets. The government that led us to defeat in Lebanon this summer is leading us to a disaster of another order entirely. All citizens must demand that Olmert, his ministers and the generals in the IDF General Staff make an immediate decision. They now hold the responsibility for acting against Iran. They must either act or resign and make way for others who will.

America just abdicated its responsibility to defend itself against Iran and so left Israel high and dry. Nevertheless, the Jewish people is far from powerless. And the State of Israel also is capable of defending itself. But we must act and act immediately.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, April 30, 2010.

This was written by Walid Phares with Khairi Abaza. They are senior fellows at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The full article is at
http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/28/ jimmy-carter-and-sudans-genocidal-regime/

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=11788502&Itemid=105


Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is often lauded by the Arab world for championing the Palestinian cause. However, after stumbling into the world of Sudanese politics, Carter has lost all credibility. Inexplicably, Carter gave his blessing (with perfunctory caveats) to a rigged election that has handed victory to a genocidal war criminal who granted safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.

Sudan held polls earlier this month (April 11-16) to elect a president and a legislature. These were the country's first elections there since Omar El-Bashir's Islamist military junta overthrew the government in 1989. While some Arab observers described the vote as a new possible beginning for Sudan, many parties decided to boycott them. And for good reason. The elections were neither free nor fair.

Carter, one of the international observers of Sudan's elections, had an opportunity to expose the vote for the sham that it was. On the Carter Center's website, he raised several concerns about the vote, but on the ground, the former president told reporters that he saw "no reasons for any concern" about the elections, except for "a few isolated stations way out," that could experience some complications.

Carter's endorsement is beyond the pale. El-Bashir's government has been responsible for death and mayhem for decades. After the 1989 coup, El-Bashir's regime ordered massacres against the Christians and animists in the south by deploying a militia known as the "Difaa al Shaabi." By the year 2000, the ethnic cleansing campaigns widened to reach the Black Muslim provinces of Darfur. These attacks, carried out by another militia, the "Janjaweed," prompted the international community in 2004 to declare the Darfur massacres genocide. ............

When the election process began to unravel, El-Bashir attempted to save face through the statements of high-profile observers, including Jimmy Carter. Indeed, Carter's presence there alone legitimized his criminal regime. And his comments failed to reflect the dismal reality of a vote that did not reflect the voice of the people.

In a country as vast as Sudan (about a quarter of the size of the United States) and that lacks basic infrastructure (roads and electricity, for example, are inconsistent throughout the country) how can international observers make an honest assessment of the elections? Moreover, how could Carter ignore that most major contenders boycotted the vote?

Carter did not have to look hard to find the irregularities, either. On the second day of the polls, the problems began. Citizens could not find their names on voter registries. Electoral lists in rural villages exceeded the number of inhabitants, which could enable the El-Bashir regime to pad its numbers. In fact, it was never revealed how many ballots the regime actually printed. The potential for fraud was everywhere.

Even worse, in places like Darfur, the government did nothing to account for the large number of displaced people — refugees that had been driven out by the regime in charge of the electoral process.

El-Bashir, predictably, has had an answer for everything. He blames these and other irregularities on poor logistics. All the while, he anticipates his landslide victory becoming official next week.

In a country where a president accused of war crimes can run for reelection, where an ongoing genocide has yet to be addressed, and where most political parties dispute the political process, Carter has clearly put himself on the wrong side of history. Indeed, he has joined forces with a small ruling elite in Khartoum that has oppressed and slaughtered its own people — and supported America's most dangerous foes. .........

Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 30, 2010.


Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit (A.P./Hussein Malla)

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit accused Israel of lying about Syria making Scuds available to Hizbullah, called Israel the "enemy," said the Arabs should isolate Israel and not normalize relations with it, and warned Israel that if Israel attacks Syria, Egypt would come to the aid of Syria and even of Hizbullah. A couple of days later, Al-Ahram seconded Abu Al-Gheit's statements (IMRA, 4/28/10).

One of my reports was that Syria is training Hizbullah to operate the Scuds and is keeping them just on the Syrian side of its border with Lebanon, to turn over the minute Hizbullah is to use them. If true, then technically Syria did not actually give those missiles to Hizbullah, yet.

Egypt is harming the so-called peace process that the U.S. incorrectly denounces Israel for harming. Will Obama chide Egypt for it? Don't expect so.

That would be consistent, fair, and sincere.

Egypt made a non-aggression pact with Israel in return for normalizing relations with Israel. But Egypt did not normalize relations. Although Egypt has been violating its treaty with Israel, many of those who urged land for peace before, still do and cite the Egyptian treaty as an example. It's a bad example

What does it mean, "If Israel attacks Syria?" It means that if Syria has Israel attacked, and Israel retaliates, Egypt would claim that Israel attacked Syria.

Noting that Egyptian military doctrine posits Israel as an enemy — not naming "Israel" but describing a country on the other side of the Sinai, which can only be Israel — some of us realized years ago that Egypt remained Israel's enemy. Now Egypt declares it such. Years ago, a few of us also objected to the U.S. donating $2 billion a year to Egypt, mostly to build it a first-class military. Some warned that if a radical regime replaced Mubarak's, it may use that military in another war. I was concerned that Mubarak may be radical enough to do it, himself. It seems that he is.

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA used to warn Israeli strategists that their concept of Israeli defense strategy that did not take Egypt's military into account was fallacious. Will they finally realize this?

The U.S. has been remiss in building up the armies of aggressor Arab states and organizations, and that retain a jihadist ideology. Now the expanding influence of radical Islam and the shrinking influence of the U.S., presided over by a sympathizer of the Muslims who is undermining U.S. influence and weakening its defenses, is leading to an unrestrained explosion. Some call it Armageddon and some call it the "end of days."


Most Israelis say they favor free speech but would squelch human rights groups that expose Israeli government wrongdoing. So found a poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University.

More than half of Israeli Jews believe that Israel allows too much freedom of speech, and 57% would not allow NGOs to reveal immoral doings by the government.

Most of those polled would support punishing citizens to promote boycott of Israel and journals that reflect badly on the Army.

82% "back stiff penalties for people who leak illegally obtained information exposing immoral conduct by the defense establishment."

Some academicians saw a correlation with the poll results and right-wing views. Prof. Gerald Steinberg, however, said that the Left attacks people for having right-wing views rather than discuss anything faulty about those views. He said this lowers the quality of discussion (IMRA, 4/28/10).

When IMRA orders a poll, it quotes the questions. No questions were quoted about this poll. The report should include the main questions, rather than have pollsters rephrase for us. Many polls ask slanted quetions so the pollsters can mislead the public,

The theft of military documents include mostly top secrets and secrets that having nothing to do with military misconduct but could jeopardize Israeli lives if they fell into enemy hands. Perhaps that is what people objected to. Perhaps they object to treasonous subversion for a self-hating ideology.

It is difficult to believe that Israelis oppose revelation of unethical governmental behavior. It is likelier that the objection is to false accusations of unethical conduct. The Left has gone from mere criticism to joining the outside world in defaming Israel and in encouraging terrorists.

Tellingly, the pollsters use the vague term, "immorality." It could be interpreted more than one way by people interviewed.

What Prof. Steinberg said is true. The Left does engage in censorship and in inappropriate propagandizing on campus.


Har Homa construction, once controversial, too (AP/Dan Balilty)

Next week, the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee will hold its first meeting since Biden complained about its last meeting (IMRA, 4/27/10).

Are they meeting because people accused Netanyahu of ordering them to freeze housing in annexed parts of Jerusalem? We may find out when they meet.

How many people know that what they approved at that time was just another stage in the series of stages that housing approval goes through? How many people know that they did not rub it into Biden? Actually, leftists informed Biden of this minor decision. Obama used it as an opportunity to exaggerate a show of indignation, as Israeli royalty who must be obeyed and is indignant if a sovereign state has an independent policy for national growth and security.


Hamas animated film mocking father of son it kidnapped (A.P./Hamas)

Critics of Israel claim that Israel mistreats Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). How does the P.A. treat Arabs?

The PFLP (a radical, terrorist member of the PLO, tolerated by Hamas) complains about Hamas' arbitrary and confiscatory taxation. PFLP accuses Hamas of levying "strange" and high taxes for these low times. Hamas interrogates taxpayers in "baseless and humiliating" ways.

The PFLP also accuses Hamas of giving Hamas security officers the houses of people traveling abroad.

In Abbas' Fatah-run part of the P.A., the Palestinian Center for Human Rights has condemned P.A. arrest of a writer in Ramallah and his interrogation on political views. Police kept his computer.

Muhannad Salahat, a journalist who resides in the P.A. and Jordan, was arrested on unexplained charges. He was interrogated abusively — not allowed to use the bathroom, kept away, etc. — about articles criticizing the P.A.. After two weeks he was released. They returned his computer, purged. The P.A. claimed he had been investigated on criminal matters (Arutz-7, 4/29/10).

Every week the Center registers complaints like that. No wonder 62% of Israeli Arabs prefer their citizenship to joining a future Arab state in the Territories! Another poll found that 77% would rather keep Israeli citizenship than live anywhere else.

Another wonder might be why the human rights groups that manufacture accusations against Israel hardly find time to expose the real grievances by Arabs under P.A. rule. The explanation is that those organizations are biased by an anti-Zionist agenda. Partially extenuating is the difficulty of reporting on totalitarian regimes. One soon is shut off if not cut down.

Arafat used to close dissenting newspapers, liquidate dissenting Arab journalists and wound or kidnap Western ones. Eventually the domestic and foreign media became much less critical.

Everyone knows that the PLO is corrupt. Under Arafat, Arabs used to pay gangs to harm their rivals and that the P.A. used to bring businessmen to prison and shake them down for release. Hamas won the legislative elections largely because the PLO was corrupt and did not deliver government services. Today's report is an early indication that power may be corrupting Hamas, as it has corrupted the fierce Iranian and harsh Saudi regimes.


"The situation is getting out of hand," reports my Israeli associate about Arab assaults on Israeli motorists. "Settlers" who used to drive their own cars to Hebron now must consider taking the bullet-proof bus, instead. Should one take road 443 to the airport, and risk attack? Or should one drive longer but on a safer route? These burdens on daily life are "nerve-racking." (4/29.)

If police were more active and made more arrests, the problem would be manageable. Israel built some separate roads, but the Supreme Court recently ruled against separating traffic by whether the license plate is Israeli or Palestinian Authority.

Under U.S. pressure, which started with Secretary of State Rice and has continued with President Obama, the new priority is to remove roadblocks, checkpoints, and police. The new priority is Arab quality of life. Low priority is to Jews' quality of life.

In reality, Israel is in a state of war. War, when declared, puts civil rights into a different perspective. Bear in mind that Arab society is collective. Though some individuals may be decent, their rulers are not and the Arabs there are a fifth column or an enemy people that makes violence against Jews and calls that religiously justified. If you think that most of those Arabs want peace, and you ignore the polls that show otherwise, and if you ignore their constant attacks, recall that when an Israeli turns into their area, within minutes dozens of Arabs are liable to try to murder him.

Should one run a country for an enemy people intent on destroying one's own people?


Memorial Day at Mt. of Olives cemetery (AP/Tara Todras)

On Memorial Day, sirens started Israeli mourning for their fallen soldiers. The sirens signaled to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to start celebrating for felling them.

Arabs set off fireworks for joy in towns surrounding Ma'ale Adumim, in Silwan, and in Arab towns near Gilo. Some "peace partners!" (Israeli associate, 4/29.)

About a fifth of Israel's population is like-minded. It is demoralizing and dangerous for a Jewish state to harbor such a fifth column. For years, Israelis pretended their Arabs were loyal. Some try to be. But their religious agitators, word from the surrounding Arab states, and their own history of civil war made sedition inevitable, once they attained a critical mass and once they saw that, despite what propagandists say about Israel, it is not harsh with them for riots.


Israeli soldiers are under orders not to fire guns at rampaging Arabs attacking them, unless they are in imminent danger of losing their lives. Many soldiers interpret that as wait until the Arab knife is inches from the Jew's throat. Punishment for violation of those orders is certain. A couple of years ago, the police came under investigation after Arab rioters accused them of defending themselves.

The result of such orders is that Arabs believe they have little to fear. This emboldens them to attack all the more, especially with rocks and firebombs. That is rocks, not just stones. We reported an incident about this, a month ago, but my Israeli associate puts it with more feeling.

Four Israeli soldiers asked an Arab the way from Hebron to Kiryat Arba. Instead he directed them deep into the Arab zone of Hebron. There, about a hundred Arabs attacked the soldiers. They beat up three of them. The fourth, who had a gun, hid. A witness described this to my associate.

The IDF now is equipping soldiers with paint balls they can fire at the Arabs, to mark them for further arrest. But it is not allowing firm self-defense (4/29).

The threat to life may not seem imminent, as a mob approaches, but the menace is there, and grows with their approach. When the mob cuts off escape and closes in on the victims, lynching is imminent. Therefore, active defense must begin when the danger is seen, not imminent, when it may be too late and gives the aggressor an advantage.

People in authorized and peaceable protest parades are entitled to full civil rights. People in unauthorized and peaceable parades are entitled to some civil rights but also are subject to arrest. What about violent parades and riots by an enemy population in time of war, a population that commits hate crimes? If the police can disable the mob and arrest it, the police should. If the mob has too many people for that, then the rules should permit police to shoot to kill, until the rest of the mob submits to arrest. Warning shots either fail or leave the enemy intact, ready to try another time. Wounding them causes suffering and medical costs, but leaves the enemy able to take the field again, eventually.

Harsh measures would end the boldness to riot. It also would draw foreign and leftist criticism. So far, this criticism, unfair as it would be, inhibits proper Israeli deterrence and self-defense. So there are more riots and injuries, year after year. Those critics call those riots and injuries "non-violent." Would you?


consulted a source of mine about a gap in the story. Suppose Israelis stranded in Europe had return tickets on another airline than El Al, the other airlines having grounded themselves. The answer is that El Al accepted their tickets, though it had to charge some kind of a fee (4/28/10)


Family mourns slain terrorist (AP/Hamas)

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights described an Israeli attempt in the Territories to arrest a wanted terrorist, Ali Swaiti, as if the Israelis did something wrong. The Center mentioned that the fugitive refused to surrender, that he or a companion fired at the Israeli troops, and that the troops demolished the house on top of him.

Israeli journalist Dr. Aaron Lerner wrote to the Center's deputy director, asking what alternatives would the Center have accepted. For examples, would the Center have approved of an indefinite siege, until the fugitive surrendered? What measures by the besiegers, in self-defense against being attacked by firebombs and rocks would the Center approve? (IMRA, 4/28/10).

By asking what alternatives the IDF had, Dr. Lerner gets people to realize how easy it is to criticize Israel without being able to show that Israel had no other choice than to let themselves be murdered.

I do not come across indignation over Arab murders of Jews, to which the IDF is only reacting. The indignation against Israeli self-defense is misinformed or malign.


How do Westerners become subservient to Islam? Submission to Islam, the goal of jihad, is not just by conquest but also is by infiltration and subversion. Here is a case study.

Comedy Central has a show, "South Park." One segment satirized the trend of self-censorship of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The show had experienced controversy over that issue, itself, four years earlier.

In the new segment, celebrities who suffer much criticism wondered how they could gain the same immunity from criticism as Muhammad enjoys. They had people seek out Muhammad, who therefore disguised himself, as a bear. Reaction to the show is part of the process of being conquered from within.

1. Muslims in the West assassinate or pursue noted critics or satirists, such as the Danish cartoonist.

2. Fearing for their lives in supposedly secure and democratic Western countries, Westerners apologize and submit to Muslim demands, as by canceling book launches, removing Museum art, and altering disaster films.

3. If some Westerners persist, then Muslims threaten their lives. Thus the group, Muslim Revolution, wrote a warning to Comedy Central that the show's creators may end up like the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh. The message was accompanied by a photo of van Gogh's butchered corpse and a sermon from a pro-terrorist Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.

In the next episode, Muhammad's picture and name were blocked out and a message about not submitting to intimidation was deleted. The last laugh was on Comedy Central.

4. Then what the U.S. government likes to call mainstream Muslim organizations deny that the radical extortionists represent Muslim doctrine. They purport to suspect that the organization that issued the threat is phony, set up to make Islam look bad. The real culprit here is said to be anti-Islamic.

5. Thugs win, Westerners become more intimidated, and the process gets repeated (David Rusin, MEFNews, 4/28, with much documentation).

The claim that non-Muslims are agents provocateurs, by issuing death threats that bring results for Islam, by murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11, and by murdering many Israelis, all to make Israel look bad, is absurd. Here and there, a small instance may exist, But when the attempt to make terrorism look bad is said to be the whole of what the U.S. or Israel calls terrorism, the conspiracy asserters should be condemned as being the deceivers. The so-called mainstream Islamic organizations, that usually defend terrorists, should be exposed.

American needs its University Mideastern Studies Centers to alert the country. But the Centers are staffed largely by pro-jihad Muslims and leftists who do not. America needs the media to alert the country, but who will alert the largely biased or blasé media? American needs the President to lead them to safety, but he is leading the other way. Americans are getting more politically correct as they lose political freedom.

Our politicians are considering immigration reform, but they are not considering how to bar, and how to remove from our midst. a sector of the population that harbors members who abuse our hospitality and freedom in order to destroy our freedom.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Eidelberg, April 30, 2010.

It's always a pleasure reading the lucid and logical Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial. The title of his latest book, Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About the New Atheism (2010), is co-authored with John Mark Reynolds. Johnson writes in the Introduction:

Our position in this book is that the arguments for atheism should be taken seriously and considered both respectfully and critically. One of the healthy aspects of the current atheist movement is that the atheists who are selling so many books say that they want everything to be put on the table for criticism, with nothing held back as too sensitive for such examination. They say that they deplore the fact that in some circles it is considered unacceptable to criticize a religion because somebody might be offended.

Contrast this statement with the attitude of Muslims to any criticism of their religion. Notice the "political correctness" or lack of intellectual integrity or courage on the party of so many pundits, professors, and politicians on the subject of Islam. Despite the awesome threat of Islam to the United States (and to Western civilization as a whole), hardly a word was said about Islam during the 2008 US presidential campaign — and we all know about the religious integrity of Barack. Obama, a Muslim as well as professed Christian who sonorously attended the irreverent sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

We also know about the Danish Cartoons, and how they aroused the wrath and violence of Muslims hither and yon. Contrast Jews who, century after century, have been burned at the stake, whose Torah scrolls and sacred books have been cast into the flames; Jews who, down through ages, have been the victims of vilification and pogroms. And yet, have you ever heard of their taking revenge on their tormentors? Have you noticed Jewish self-restraint against Arab terrorists despite the overwhelming power of the Israel Defense Forces? Nothing like this in history.

So what is there in his psyche that indices the Muslim to wreak the cruelest slaughter of "infidels" — mutilating men, women, and children and even exult in such barbarism?

It's not enough to say, as the gallant scholar Bat Ye'or has said, that Islam is a "culture of hate." It's not enough to say, as the marvelous Brigitte Gabriel has written, Because They Hate — the title of one of her books. Nor is it enough to attribute Muslim hatred to A God Who Hates — the title of a book by the courageous Syrian-born psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan.

Of course, Muslims, having lost their erstwhile imperial glory, are now animated by envy of the Christian West, which has excelled Islam in so many ways. We know of their undying hatred of Western colonialism in the Islamic Middle East. We know how the Jews rejected Muhammad's pretensions as the prophet of a new religion. Oh, how Muslims hate the Children of Israel — and with an overwhelmingly theological hatred! Which means they hate the God of Israel! That's why Muslims compulsively intone the words Allahu Akbar, to convince themselves that Allah is the "greatest god"!

So let me offer a new and provocative hypothesis. Perhaps what animates the Muslim's murderous hatred of "infidels" is that he himself is an infidel, meaning, he does not harbor in his soul unwavering belief in Allah and Islam? Perhaps he is tormented by a vague suspicion that all his beliefs or professions about Allah and Islam are a self-delusion. Perhaps this is the most fundamental reason why he loves death and exults in martyrdom.

There is only one way to deal with a mass delusion.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at pauleid@netvision.net.il or list-owner@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 30, 2010.

Are all Muslims taught to be candidates for becoming "Manchurian Candidates", some knowingly, some unknowingly? (The original movie by this title has American soldiers held hostage by the Chinese Communists, being brainwashed to become killers and mentally implanted with the post-hypnotic suggestion that, on a given signal, they/he would assassinate the American President.)

When a young Muslim is taught Koranic Law in a "Madrassa" (school for strict Islam), repeating his lessons by rote day-after-day, year-after-year, these lessons of Islam's superiority and violence are deeply implanted and never to be forgotten. Add to that the lessons he is taught about Mohammed, both his proclamations as recorded in the Koran and how he lived his life with instructions written in his "Hadith" (Oral Teachings).

Few Muslim children (or adults) can resist what psychiatrists would call "post-hypnotic suggestion", otherwise called "reduced cues" or "subliminal cues". These strong inner motivations create a call to action, hence: the "Manchurian Candidate", under the post-hypnotic suggestion and instruction to attack America(ns), Israel(is), the un-believers of Europe and the rest of the "infidels" (non-Muslims).

Once imprinted, such a manipulated brain cannot be cleaned. Like attack guard dogs, they cannot be de-programmed with any reliability that they will not attack when triggered.

Clearly, Muslims seem to have multiple personalities that range from friendly (at times) but which can quickly change to anger and then to being willing killers. They exhibit the face they want you to see at any given time.

"Jihadists" (holy warriors for Islam), such as Dr. Humam Khalil Abu al Balawi who was thought to be a reliable agent for the CIA and Jordan apparently had many faces. He used his Muslim Killer face when he exploded himself among ranking CIA agents in Afghanistan, killing 8 (7 American CIA agents and 1 Jordanian). Balawi was a Jordanian doctor — sometimes — when he was not being an Al Qaeda recruit. (1)

Recall the 6 Muslim doctors who mounted failed car bomb Terror attack in Britain and Glasgow? British Police confirmed a Palestinian doctor and an Iraqi physician, plus a Muslim doctor arrested in Australia. July 2, 2007 (2)

A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an 'extremist' internet chat site. (3)

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri was a co-conspirator with Osama Bin Laden, an Egyptian doctor who became a master of Terror — 'interested' in the use of biological and chemical warfare — like anthrax. Bin Laden paid Chechen mobsters millions of dollars in cash and heroin to obtain radiological "suitcase" bombs left over from the Soviets. (4)

America's two most recent 2 Muslim Terror attacks killed 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood by the base psychiatrist Dr. Nidal Abdul Hasan and the failed underwear bomber on Flight 253, December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab whose underwear fire bomb was put out by irate and brave passengers. Christmas was chosen deliberately as the day for such an attack as the most "meaningful" time to inflict pain on America. Perhaps the date for Fort Hood was chosen because it was so close to Thanksgiving.

Remember, the dates the "Jihadists" have chosen always seem to resonate with some esoteric meaning. 9/11 four planes hijacked and exploded into Twin Towers Trade Center (a virtual symbol of American capitalism's superiority), the Pentagon. Flight 93 may have been aimed at the White House or Congress but was taken over by the brave American passengers and deliberately crashed in Pennsylvania. 3/11/04 Madrid commuter trains was exactly 911 days after 9/11. 7/7/05 London subway commuter trains and buses. 7/11/06 Mumbai, India, another "terrorist" train bomb killed 209 (2+9=11) commuters. Those who study numerology can find many more "coincidental" numbers.

Did you read about the Palestinian, Mansor Mohammad Asad of Toledo, Ohio — on a Detroit-bound Delta flight in Miami who, as it was taxiing away from the Terminal, began making loud anti-Semitic comments and chanting in Arabic, saying to the Miami-Dade police: "I am a Palestinian and I want (to) kill all Jews," according to witnesses. (5)

Passengers at U.S. airports have been jolted by at least two dozen disruptive security incidents since the failed Northwest #253 December 25. The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) has tallied — 24 incidents at U.S. airports from Dec. 27 to Jan. 3; 37 incidents during the previous week; and 18 the week before that. (6)

We often hear from at least two Presidents coming to the defense of Islam and Muslims — usually after a Muslim Terrorist attack. Remember that all the Terror attacks in the past 2 decades have been by Muslim "Jihadi" (warriors for Islam) Terrorists. In 2009 U.S. Intelligence reports that there were at least 139 such attacks. Presumably, that does not include attacks thwarted by the FBI and others of America's 16 Intel Agencies.

Are Muslims merely ticking bombs, some awaiting instructions to go into action as "sleeper cells", while some unknowingly have altered attack brain cells, tucked into the dark recesses of their mind that springs into murderous action when circumstance calls it up?

Presently, there is a new awareness in the West, namely, in America, England, France, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and others about so-called home-grown Muslim Terrorists, some of them second or third generations coming out of their host countries. Seemingly ordinary, even well-educated and well-to-do young men suddenly sneak off to Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan to learn attack methods — including suicide bombing techniques — "how to burn" for the cause of Islam.

To their victims it doesn't matter one whit if they are well-taught Manchurian Candidates or merely subliminally implanted with Koranic teachings that surface sometimes in their adult life. The Victims are dead and the radical Islamists cheer their success, handing out candy in their rejoicing — then they go on to recruit more volunteers. Some have forgotten their cheers after 9/11's 'success' in the Muslim communities around the world, including so-called peaceful, moderate Muslims in America.

Among the Muslim Arab Palestinians, they were giving out candy and dancing in the streets, celebrating the 3,000 viciously murdered innocent souls. In places like Chicago — Flint, Michigan — Los Angeles, their parties were a bit more subdued (lest they be noticed).

Many people are deeply concerned now about President Barack Hussein Obama's birth to a Muslim father and early education as a Muslim, with all that entails. Some wonder why Obama was selected by an American black convert to Islam, Khalid al-Mansour (principal adviser of Saudi billionaire Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal), so Obama was approved to receive considerable funding to attend Harvard University. These funds reportedly came from Saudi Arabia.

Why was Obama profiled for greater things by Islamic leaders? What was there in his person or personality that brought him to the attention of the Saudis — among other Muslims?

We still await the full story of why Antonin Rezko, a born Syrian, who changed his name to an Italian style, Tony, was so helpful in further funding Obama. Rezko is now in jail, having been convicted for kick-backs from companies seeking State Pension fund business through Governor Blagojevich. He also assisted the Obamas in a real estate hustle.

I cannot help but wonder how many Muslim Americans have been funded for education and elections because they can operate freely inside the American system?

How many second and third generation Muslims who pass as typical American but harbor plans to one day destroy America from the inside?

In effect, all Muslims may be potential Manchurian Candidates who can be activated to kill for the cause of Islam — unless they already have. Something is pathologically twisted in the blood cult of Islam through Koranic teachings that leaves them slaves to whatever violence is demanded of them.

In the "Madrassas", mostly funded by the Saudis, the Mullahs and Imams speak disparagingly about the ungodly American ways, therefore, the Americans are deserving of conversion to Islam and strict "Sharia" laws. Also, that America, in its entirety, is destined to become an Islamic nation. Their preferred method of conversion is by the sword — which in today's age of advanced technology means sophisticated bombs.

But, first the sleeper cells and the programmed Manchurian Candidates must subvert the targeted nations (America), weaken her financial system, have her military undermined through P.C. (Political Correctness), have her Courts similarly converted to judicial decisions compatible to Islam and Sharia laws. This is happening already in England, France, Canada, the Netherlands and other supposedly democratic "Free West" nations as the critical mass of Muslims grow in those nations and pressure their governments to 'lean' toward Islam.

In Israel, one of the key targets of the "Jihadists" (holy warriors for Islam), we observe enormous pressure coming from the regime of President Barack Hussein Obama and the Arabist U.S. State Department to accept the Arab demands to surrender to their fate.

Sadly, we also see Israeli politicians accept their 'diktats' under U.S. pressure, to surrender Land — our Biblical Jewish Homeland, given to the Jewish people by G-d in perpetuity — including ALL of Jerusalem, our Eternal Holy Capital for 3500 years. With these surrenders, so goes our sovereignty as the only Jewish Nation/State in the world. This would be just to please Obama and the Leftists in Israel and Europe. Obama's hostility toward Israel while he is appeasing Iran, Syria and local Muslims is no longer conjecture but solid, observable fact.

How can an American President and his wife be "Manchurian Candidates" who hate American ways, America's democratic system of government and America's once successful, capitalistic financial system?

Why has Obama been so protectively cocooned by the State Department and America's 16 Intel Agencies?

Why does Obama flaunt this protective barrier about his true life and past history?

We all thought the President and the Government's job was to protect the American people from all enemies — domestic and foreign. Do they agree that America is destined to become a Third World nation where the non-workers are to be supported by the industrious — with their entitlements written into law?

Obama promised during his eloquent election speeches to "Change" America and to "redistribute the wealth". Why does he pick the pockets of industrious, hard-working Americans who built this nation and who is actually guiding his fingers?

Perhaps there are many different breeds of Manchurian Candidates — each with a separate mission which, in the end, serves the ultimate Muslim goal of harnessing a once great nation to the wagon of Islam.

Remember that the Muslims are taught their goal is to create a Global Caliphate for Islam. And also, remember that Not All Muslims Are Suicide Killers — But All Suicide Killers Are Muslims.


1. "IT WAS A MUSLIM DOCTOR WHO KILLED 7 CIA AGENTS & HIMSELF" by sheikyermami on January 4, 2010,
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/01/04/it-was-a-muslim-doctor-7-cia-agents-and himself
WINDS OF JIHAD by Sheik Yer'Mami



4. "THE MAN BEHIND BIN LADEN: How an Egyptian doctor became a master of terror" by Lawrence Wright THE NEW YORKER September 16, 2002

5. "MAN THREATENING JEWS HAULED OFF FLIGHT IN MIAMI" Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60631120100107

6. "WARINESS PERSISTS AT AIRPORTS" by Melanie Trootman & Mike Esterl WALL ST. JOURNAL January 8, 2010

7. "REBUTTAL OF AIR/TRAN DENIAL & CHARGES OF HOAX OR "URBAN LEGEND" by Emanuel A. Winston Dec. 11, 2009 re: Air/Tran Flight #297 on November 17.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, April 30, 2010.

This was written by Dan Izenberg and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post


But state's representative rejects petitioners' demand to stop paying for security of Silwan building's residents

J4JP Prefacing Note:

As it goes with Jonathan Pollard, so it goes with his house. Symbolically, nominally, morally, and even in simple translation from Hebrew, "Beit Yehonatan" is "Jonathan's House". It is Jonathan's in all but deed. The property was bought, built, inaugurated and named in honor of the Israeli captive,Yehonaton Pollard, who is serving his 25th year of a life sentence in an American prison for his service to the security of the state of Israel. This is the 25th year of Pollard's betrayal abandonment by the Government of Israel. The news item below takes on added significance, if the reader understands that this is Jonathan's house which is under attack.

The state on Thursday told the High Court of Justice that it agreed with petitioners demanding that the Jerusalem Municipality immediately evacuate Beit Yehonatan, the illegal seven-story apartment building in the Silwan neighborhood, and seal it up.

In its response to the petition, the state's representative, attorney Tadmor Etzion, rejected the petitioners' demand to stop paying for the security of the building's residents, saying their lives were in danger.

The petition was filed by the three members Meretz lawmakers — Haim Oron, Ilan Gilon and Nitzan Horowitz — and former Meretz MK Ran Cohen. It was aimed at state officials including the government, the prime minister and the minister of interior, the municipality and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and the occupants of the building.

In response to the state's brief to the court, Barkat issued a statement saying he advocated a freeze on all punitive measures against all illegal buildings in Silwan. Barkat added that he believed the top two stories of Beit Yehonatan should be demolished because they exceed the building heights he proposes in a new plan for the neighborhood that has not yet been approved by the planning authorities.

But the state called for immediate action to enforce the judicial order.

The court order was issued by the local affairs court of the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court and upheld in appeal hearings by the Jerusalem District Court and the Supreme Court.

"Once a court order, which was approved by the higher court echelons, has been issued, it must be carried out as quickly as possible," Etzion wrote. "When the occupants of the building refused to uphold the order to seal the building, the local council, which was explicitly authorized to do so in the court verdict, must execute the order."

In his response, Barkat pointed out that there were 115 court orders regarding illegal construction in the mostly Arab neighborhood. "The state's insistence on implementing only one judicial order out of 115 is inconsistent with the obligation to maintain uniform and equal treatment toward all members of the the public," he said.

Nevertheless, Barkat added, "under protest," the municipal authorities had taken measurements of Beit Yehonatan "in preparation for implementing the order to seal the building."

See Also
Jonathan's House, Beit Yehonatan under attack

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to j4jpnews@jonathanpollard.org

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, April 29, 2010.

The Zionist Response

For the past week I've felt haunted. Being very busy with tours and other necessary tasks, I hadn't found time to put down some words on paper. Actually, I began working on a very important document which I didn't even find time to finish.

But something else was eating at me. Friday night. Tomorrow night. The 17th day of the Hebrew month of Iyar. Exactly thirty years ago, the 17th of Iyar was also on a Friday night. I lived then in Mevassert Tzion, just outside Jerusalem. The next night a friend of mine commented, 'I knew something was wrong, seeing helicopters flying into Hadassah hospital.'

And something was very wrong. Friday night, May 12, 1980. It was just a year earlier when a group of about 10 women and 40 children had reentered Beit Hadassah in Hebron. The building, originally built in 1893, and having served as a medical clinic for Jews and Arabs in Hebron prior to the 1929 riots, had been vacant since Israel's return to the city in 1967. A week and a half following the end of Passover in 1979, the group climbed in thru a back window of Beit Hadassah in the middle of the night, reestablishing a Jewish presence in the heart of the city for the first time in 50 years.

Living conditions were non-existent, and the going wasn't easy; to the contrary, it was very difficult. But women such as Rebbetzin Miriam Levinger, Sarah Nachshon, and others were made of platinum. Not necessarily material platinum, rather spiritual platinum. Their faith, and their grasp of the significance of the return to Hebron, overcame all other factors. Together with a large group of children they defied all odds, refused to surrender to pressures, physical and mental, and maintained the Jewish presence in the city of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

Every Friday night, following Shabbat worship at Ma'arat HaMachpela, a group of men would sing and dance their way down the street to Beit Hadassah, where they continued the festivity, joined by the women and children living in the building, adding to their Shabbat spirit.

Friday night, May 12, the 17th of Iyar, only one day before the Lag B'Omer celebrations. The men arrived as usual and began forming a dance circle...and then it happened. Shots rang out, blasts enveloped the pure Shabbat air. Arab terrorists, hiding on a rooftop across from Beit Hadassah, began 1929, all over again.

The sudden attack on the Jewish men was not the first since the Tarpat massacre. Only three months earlier a young yeshiva student from the Kiryat Arba yeshiva, Yehoshua Saloma, a new immigrant from Denmark, was shot and killed at the entrance to the Kasba while purchasing dried fruit for the upcoming Tu'B'Shvat holiday. Following the murder the Israeli government decided, in theory, to reestablish an official Jewish community in Hebron. But that decision remained theoretical; in practice, nothing was done.

Three short months later, it seemed that history was repeating itself. The terror attack was heard miles away. Even up in Kiryat Arba, residents, hearing the shots, quickly make their way into the city. Something bad was happening.

Six were killed and about 20 injured. Among the killed was a young Torah scholar from the United States studying at Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav in Jerusalem, Tzvi Glatt. Another victim was also a former America, who had fought in Vietnam and converted to Judaism, Eli HaZe'ev. Three others studied in Kiryat Arba and another at Kerem b'Yavneh. The murders left the country in shock.

I remember attending two of the funerals: that of Tzvi Glatt in Jerusalem, outside the Yeshiva. I remember that the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Tzvi Yehuda HaKohen Kook attended and eulogized the martyred scholar. I don't remember what he said, but his grave presence made a deep impression on me. From there I travelled by bus to Kiryat Arba and Hebron, for the funeral of Eli HaZe'ev. Little did I know that about a year later I would move to Kiryat Arba and later to Hebron. I don't remember too much, except that many many people participated, and all were very very angry.

The day after the attack, on Sunday, the Israeli government finally decided to reestablish a Jewish community in Hebron, and this time, they did do something about it. Families were reunited; husbands were allowed to join their wives and children at Beit Hadassah. And eventually the government approved and assisted in rebuilding Beit Hadassah, adding two floors to the original structure, (and building the apartment I've lived in for the past 11 1/2 years).

That's what happened. But that's not what's bothering me. I've told the story more times than I can begin to count, and have written it a few times too. But still, something's been tugging at me.

Back in those days, even before Oslo, before the first and second intifadas, even then, Arabs killed Jews. But thirty years ago, when an Israeli was murdered, there was some kind of authentic response. Where a Jew died, another Jew would live. This was the rule. Where Jews were murdered, a building, or even a community was founded and established. This was called, 'the Zionist response.' The Arabs don't want us here and will do anything and everything to rid themselves of us, including cold-blooded murder. Normal people understood that the answer to such action was to do the opposite. Wherever they don't want us, that's where we'll be. And that's the way it was in Hebron.

I would guess that you've figured out what's bugging me. Back then, thirty years ago, that was the Zionist response. And today? Today, when Jews are killed, rather than build, the government decides to flee. If the Arabs don't want us 'there' then it's just too dangerous for us to stay 'there.' And we run, in the wrong direction. It's been called Oslo, Hebron, Wye, Gush Katif, and who knows what's next. Jerusalem? More Hebron, more of Oslo? G-d forbid.

We are in Hebron today by the grace of three factors: the grace of G-d, whose Divine Presence and assistance was (and still is) indispensable; by the grace of the women and children whose dedication and determination, whose faith and inner comprehension of Hebron kept them from abandoning their mission; and by the grace of the lives of six men, who gave their bodies for the soul of Am Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael, for they brought us back to Hebron.

I only hope and pray that those neshamot, those souls, and the thousands who have been killed since, will, wherever they are, never feel abandoned, never feel that their deaths were in vain, that they too, with their lives, brought new life and spirit to the Jewish people in their land.

May their memories be a blessing upon us, forever.

(Note: A copy of these images where the text is easier to read is here.)

Video — With Rebbetzin Miriam Levinger speaking about life in Beit Hadassah The events of the terror attack from 8:50 min. http://goo.gl/wvLK

Beit Hadassah and Beit HaShisha (from the Hebron Web Site
http://goo.gl/UYg0 and http://goo.gl/HhXs — posted following the dedication of Beit HaShisha — the House of the Six, exactly ten years ago.)

Pesach 1968 — Jews return to Hebron to celebrate Pesach.

Erev Rosh HaShana 1971 — Jews move from the Hebron Military Compound to the newly founded Kiryat Arba

Erev Rosh Hodesh Iyar 1979 — Jews Return to the city of Hebron

A week and a half after Pesach a group of 10 women and 40 children left Kiryat Arba in the middle of the night, driven in a truck through the deserted streets of Hebron. They made their way to the abandoned Beit Hadassah building, originally built in the 1870s as a medical clinic for Jews and Arabs in Hebron, abandoned since the 1929 riots.

The women and children, assisted by men, climb into Beit Hadassah through a back window, bringing with them only minimal supplies. They swept some of the decades-old dust from the floor, spread out some mattresses, and went to sleep.

When they awoke in the morning the children began singing: v'shavu banim l'gvulam — the children have returned home. Soldiers guarding on the roof of the building, coming down to investigate, were astounded at the sight of the women and children. Quickly they reported to their superiors, and soon the "Beit Hadassah women" were a national issue.

Prime Minister Menachem Begin was not in favor of Jewish settlement in the heart of the city, but opposed physically expelling the group. He ordered the building surrounded by police and soldiers, and decreed that nothing, including food and water, be allowed into the building. Begin was soon visited by Rabbi Moshe Levinger, whose wife Miriam and many of his children were among those inside Beit Hadassah.

"When the Israeli army surrounded the Egyptian third army in Sinai during the Yom Kippur War, we gave the enemy soldiers food, water and medical supplies. If this is what we supplied Egyptian soldiers who had attacked and killed our soldiers, at the very least allow the women and children in Hebron the same."

Begin had no choice but to agree. The women and children lived like this, under siege, for two months. No one was allowed in and anyone leaving would not be allowed to return.

One day a little boy in Beit Hadassah had a tooth-ache and left for a dentist in Kiryat Arba. When he arrived back at Beit Hadassah the soldier guarding at the entrance refused to allow him back in. The little boy started crying, saying, "I want my Ema (mother)." At that time the Israeli cabinet was in session, and a note was relayed to the Prime Minister that a little boy was crying outside Beit Hadassah because he wasn't allowed back in. Following a discussion by the cabinet, the little boy was permitted to return to his mother in Beit Hadassah.

After over two months the women and children were allowed to leave and return, but no one else was allowed in. They lived this way for a year.

On Friday nights, following Shabbat prayers at Ma'arat HaMachpela, the worshipers, including students from the Kiryat Arba Nir Yeshiva, would dance to Beit Hadassah, sing and dance in front of the building, recite Kiddush for the women, and then return to Kiryat Arba. In early May of 1980, a year after the women first arrived at Beit Hadassah, the group of men was attacked by terrorists stationed on the roof of a building across from Beit Hadassah. The Arab terrorists, shooting and throwing hand grenades killed six men and wounded twenty. Later that week the Israeli government finally issued official authorization for the renewal of a Jewish community in Hebron.

On June 11 of this year, exactly twenty years after the murder at Beit Hadassah, a new building in memory of those men killed was dedicated in Hebron. Beit HaShisha, the House of the Six, will house six new families. This beautiful structure will eternalize the names of six young men who gave their lives in Hebron, and who deaths led to the return of Jews to the heart of the city. Hebron's Jewish community had to wait twenty years to memorialize these men, but that dream is now a reality.

Video: Thirty years later: http://goo.gl/y0pl
(please excuse the quality of the video)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Grobman, April 29, 2010.

This was written by Lela Gilbert, an accomplished journalist with a number of books. She is an ardent Christian Zionist and one of our great allies. A very special person.


"We left in the night and rushed to the ship."

Imagine a frightened six-year-old girl trying to catch her balance in the stifling and cramped hold of a violently tossing ship. She is not alone on the turbulent sea — her parents and sibling are nearby. But fear is in the air, along with the sight and smell of terrible sickness. The child understands little about her circumstances. She is aware that she is going to a place called Israel, where three of her brothers now live. She realizes that she is saying good-bye forever to her Morocco home. But that's all she knows about her journey.

Meanwhile her present misery, and that of her beloved family, eclipses all else. The girl's name is Dina Gabay. The year is 1955. Dina, her parents — Avraham and Rachel — and the family are fleeing ever-increasing dangers in their town of Sefrou, near Fez.

Only in later years did Dina come to appreciate the constant pressure her parents had endured before their departure. There were small things — insults and ceaseless intimidation. For example, her father, who owned a large and successful butcher shop, was at the mercy of local thieves, who sometimes simply walked into his business and demanded that he give them whatever they wanted — at no cost. "Not once and not twice," Dina explains, "but whenever they wanted something. These were our good Muslim neighbors, you know?"

Avraham knew better than to argue. "If you said something they didn't like, you were in danger," Dina recalls. "Most of the time everybody got along. But when you are in a lower place in society, you don't dare to stand up for yourself."

There were bigger threats too, including mysterious disappearances. First her father's best friend vanished. Then one of Dina's cousins, a remarkably beautiful 14-year-old girl, also disappeared, never to be seen again. In the Moroccan Jewish community, such things weren't exactly unusual. And they happened more and more frequently after 1948, when Israel declared itself an independent state. At that moment, the centuries-long, low-grade oppression Jews experienced in their role as dhimmis under Muslim rule was ignited into ugly confrontations, humiliation and random attacks. These episodes sometimes exploded into full-blown pogroms in which hundreds were killed or wounded.

An article in Commentary magazine published in September 1954 described the difficult circumstances of Morocco's Jews during the early years of Dina Gabay Levin's life. "In disputes with Muslims, or on civil commercial and criminal issues among themselves, Jews are almost entirely subject to Islamic courts... even under the best of circumstances [the courts] regard Jewish litigants as unclean, inferior beings."

While Dina's family felt increasing pressure from the surrounding Muslim community, Morocco itself was in political upheaval over French colonialism. As has often happened in anticolonial independence movements, Jews were stigmatized as enemies of the surging nationalist factions. Again, they paid the price.

In 1954 and 1955, Morocco's Jews were attacked by pro-nationalist forces in Casablanca, Rabat, Mazagan and Petitjean, with numerous deaths and injuries. Throughout the country property was seized, and arsonists attacked Jewish schools. In the five years following Israel's independence, around 30,000 Jews made aliya; the numbers increased in subsequent years.

Historian Heskel M. Haddad wrote, "The major cause of the Jewish exodus from Morocco is the two pogroms that occurred in 1948 and 1953. Within a few years, several thousand Moroccan Jews immigrated to Israel. But mass immigration of Jews from Morocco occurred in 1954 when it became clear that France intended to grant Morocco full independence. Tens of thousands of Jews left Morocco, thereby betraying the typical anxiety of Jews in an independent Arab country."

"We left all of our property," Dina remembers, "our house and my father's business. We couldn't take anything with us. We left in the night and rushed to the ship. All kinds of people were fleeing. In fact some of those that went to Israel were wealthy. My uncle, for example, was very rich. He was a carpenter and had a large factory. He had also built a school for Jewish children, which he owned. When he decided to go, he left everything behind — his home, his factory and the school."

AS IN many Jewish communities that fled hostility in Muslim majority nations in the 20th century, numerous Jews who left Morocco had been leaders in their communities; they were wealthy, successful and comfortable in their way of life. Doctors, lawyers, merchants and bankers were among the frightened masses that sailed away from their homelands. The day of their departure has often been described as their Nakba — the Arabic word for catastrophe that is often used by Palestinian activists to describe Israel's Independence Day. In their catastrophic departures from their homes — many families had lived in North Africa since the 15th century and some even before — most of the Jews of the Maghreb lost everything but the clothes they wore. In a stunning riches-to-rags reversal, they found themselves among the poorest of the poor.

After the terrible voyage — she can't remember how long it took but it seemed interminable — Dina and her family were taken from the ship to a squalid tent city — one of many ma'abarot, where tens of thousands of refugees from the Maghreb were kept in almost unlivable conditions upon their arrival in Israel. The young nation, not yet 10 years old, was ill-prepared for such an influx of displaced people. The Gabay family felt utter desolation. "Every night we just wanted to run away, but there was nowhere to run."

A Jewish Agency report describes the ma'abarot of the time.

The structure of the camps was essentially similar: Families lived in small shacks of cloth, tin or wood, no larger than 10 square meters to 15 sq.m. each. Other shacks housed the basic services: kindergarten, school, infirmary, small grocery, employment office, synagogue, etc. The living quarters were not connected to either water or electric systems. Running water was available from central faucets, but it had to be boiled before drinking. The public showers and lavatories were generally inadequate and often in disrepair. A paucity of teachers and educational resources severely hindered the attempts to provide the camp children with suitable education. Work, even relief work, was not always available.

There were tens of thousands of Moroccans in the ma'abarot, but they weren't the only ones. A wholesale exodus was under way across the Maghreb. Soon the vibrant Jewish populations of North Africa would dwindle to almost nothing.

In 1948, Algeria had around 140,000 Jews. By 2008 there were none.

In 1948, Libya had more than 35,000 Jews. Today there are none.

In 1948, Tunisia had as many as 105,000; today there fewer than 2,000

And as for Morocco, there were around a quarter of a million Jews in 1948. Today there are fewer than 6,000.

DESPITE THEIR trauma, however, many Moroccans distinguished themselves in their new Israeli society. Author Yehuda Grinker wrote of them, "These Jews constitute the best and most suitable human element for settlement in Israel's absorption centers. There were many positive aspects which I found among them: First and foremost, they all know [their agricultural] tasks, and their transfer to agricultural work in Israel will not involve physical and mental difficulties. They are satisfied with few [material needs], which will enable them to confront their early economic problems."

After three months in the absorption center, the Gabays were reunited with Dina's three brothers, who had made their way to Israel at 13, 15 and 17. By then, the boys were in their 20s and had served in the Hagana during the War of Independence. Once the family was back together, they went to live together in Rishon Lezion.

As a child, she could hardly have imagined such a turn of events, but like others among her homeland's émigrés, Dina married, had a family and proved herself more than suitable to life in Israel. In fact, she grew up to become deputy mayor of Rishon Lezion, a role in which she served until 2007. Today she remains a spokeswoman for the city and for the Moroccan Jews in Israel.

For over half a century, the flight of more than 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands has led to controversy both inside Israel and internationally. More Jews were forced to flee from Muslim persecution than the approximately 762,000 Palestinian Arabs, who left their homes in the newly declared State of Israel. The full story has rarely been told, except among dedicated organizations like justiceforjews.com, jimena.org, and the David Project, which produced a powerful documentary, The Forgotten Refugees in 2005. For reasons too complex for brief analysis, Israel did not, as one writer tactfully said, "put the catastrophe that overtook the Arab Jews on its international public relations and national agenda..."

But all that changed in February. After years of effort, and by a majority of votes, a bill to seek compensation for Jews from Arab countries was passed in the Knesset. Zvi Gabay (no relation to Dina Gabay Levin), a reporter for Yisrael Hayom, writes, "For the first time since the establishment of the state the rights of the Jews from Arab countries are receiving legal recognition in Israel. Up until now, Israeli administrations have chosen to ignore the issue, even as the topic of the Arab refugees and their rights have been front and center on the public dialogue in Israel and the world, under the code name the 'right of return.' The time has come to rectify the situation."

According to the bill, a "Jewish refugee" is defined as an Israeli citizen who left one of the Arab states, or Iran, following religious persecution. The landmark declaration — long awaited by those who lobbied for its passage — specifies that the question of compensation must be included by the government in all future peace negotiations.

Dina Levin, like so many others, finds this turn of events very gratifying. She says, "The new declaration is a very important historical step for the people of Israel, especially for the Jewish communities from Muslim nations. I hope this bill will be put into action and will not stay only as a declaration. That way, finally there will be justice for the tremendous number of Jews who left their property behind in the Muslim nations when they immigrated to Israel."

Dr. Grobman's most recent book is "Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe" [KTAV]. He is also co-author of "Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened?" (University of California Press, 2000) His next book "Zionism=Racism: The New War Against The Jews" will be published in 2005.

To Go To Top

Posted by Eye on the UN, April 29, 2010.

This was written by Anne Bayefsky (anne@hudsonny). It appeared Today on FOXNEWS.com.


This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on FOXNEWS.com.

How could a country that stones women to death for adultery possibly be chosen to serve in a leadership role on the U.N.'s Commission on the Status of Women?

The United Nations Economic and Social Council yesterday elected Iran to serve a four-year term — beginning in 2011 — on the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). The U.N. calls the Commission "the principal global policy-making body" on women's rights and claims it is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women." Yet Iran was elected by acclamation. It was one of only two candidates for two slots allocated to the Asian regional bloc — in other words, a fixed slate and a done deal.

Among other Iranian qualifications to serve in a leadership role in advancing the rights of women, is the country's criminal code, which includes punishments like burying women from the waist down and stoning them to death for adultery.

The 2009 U.S. State Department report on Iran outlines other highlights of Iran's women's rights credentials. For instance, "spousal rape is not illegal" and when it comes to any other kind of rape "most rape victims did not report the crime to authorities because they feared...punishment for having been raped...Four male witnesses or three men and two women are required for conviction. A woman or man found making a false accusation of rape is subject to 80 lashes."

Other features of Iran's legal system, according to the State Department, include: "a man may escape punishment for killing a wife caught in the act of adultery if he is certain she was a consenting partner....[I]n 2008, 50 honor killings were reported during a seven-month period..." In general, "the testimony of two women is equal to that of one man." Moreover, "a woman has the right to divorce only if her husband signs a contract granting that right, cannot provide for his family, or is a drug addict, insane, or impotent. A husband was not required to cite a reason for divorcing his wife."

As USA Today has reported, women have borne the brunt of Iran's crackdown on civil liberties. Laws permit polygamy, employment laws favor men, and family laws entitle women to only half the inheritance of a man.

In an effort to prevent Iran's election to the Commission, the National Iranian American Council reported prior to the meeting: "in the past year, Iran...has charged women who were seeking equality in the social sphere...with threatening national security...Its prison guards have beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and raped female and male civil rights protesters...In universities...the government is now banning women from key areas of study. Childcare centers are being shut down to hamper women's ability to work...Women's publications that addressed gender equality have been shut down. The regime is attempting to erase decades of struggle and progress."

None of that made the slightest difference to the U.N. bosses. The Commission on the Status of Women was established in 1946 with the usual stated lofty goals. CSW was charged with "promoting women's rights" and making "recommendations on urgent problems requiring immediate attention in the field of women's rights." The forty-five member states meet annually at U.N. headquarters in New York, boasts the U.N. website, to "identify challenges, set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and advancement of women worldwide."

Having welcomed Iran into its exclusive club with open arms, the challenges facing Iranian women will obviously not be on the CSW agenda any time in the future. It should be noted that the likelihood of CSW caring one whit about the fate of Iranian women was remote. For years the CSW has only ever adopted one resolution naming any country for violating women's rights — you guessed it — Palestinian women's rights allegedly violated by Israel. The Commission is "gravely concerned" about Israeli violations of Palestinian rights. The right to life of Palestinian women and girls subject to honor killings, coerced into becoming suicide bombers or child soldiers at the hands of non-Israelis somehow has never made it on to their radar screen. And the same is true of the rights of women and girls violated by any other specific state on earth but Israel.

Along with Iran, other human rights stalwarts elected to the Commission yesterday were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe. They will join current CSW members and human rights enthusiasts like Belarus, China, Cuba, and Libya.

Iran's election to the leading U.N women's rights agency indicates two things. First is the low regard held for women's rights on the U.N.'s list of priorities. Iran had originally wanted to become a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council but various players decided that Iranian membership might be even more embarrassing than current HRC members and U.N. human rights authority figures like Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Angola, Egypt, and Krygyzstan. Women's rights were the consolation prize. Second is the continuing muscle of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the U.N. Nobody challenged Iran's entitlement to membership on at least one major rights body. Nobody dared to.

This is another example of just one more U.N. body created to do one thing and now doing the opposite, for which American taxpayers foot 22% of the bill. And it will continue unless those with their hands on the spigot in Congress finally decide to turn off the tap.  

EYE on the UN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. Its website is at see www.EYEontheUN.org.

EYE on the UN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.

To Go To Top

Posted by Stephen Kramer, April 29, 2010.

We recently attended a great documentary at Tel Aviv University, an annual fundraiser for the English Speaking Friends of TAU. The film, entitled "In Our Own Hands," describes the efforts of Jewish soldiers in WWII to fight the Axis as part of a unified Jewish Force. First, let's review similar efforts of Jewish self-defense during WWI.

Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky was the brilliant leader, writer, orator, journalist and soldier behind the Zionist Revisionist movement. He knew that Jewish self-defense was essential to ennoble the Jewish spirit and to create the "new Jew" — free of the ghetto and ready to build a state for the Jews in Palestine.

With the aim of earning the Jews in Palestine a place at the peace table after the successful conclusion of World War I, in 1914 Jabotinsky joined with Jewish patriot and Russo-Japanese war veteran Joseph Trumpeldor. Their goal was to establish a Jewish fighting force to join the Allies against the Ottoman Turks. After much hesitation, in 1915 the British formed the Zion Mule Corps, which fought gallantly in Gallipoli. The corps was soon disbanded, but in its place three Jewish battalions were established in the Royal Fusiliers (British infantry regiment). Jabotinsky became an officer in the 38th Royal Fusiliers, the first company to cross the River Jordan into Palestine. After the war, Jabotinsky was unable to prevent the disbanding of the unit, which he had hoped would be a Jewish defense against growing Arab hostility to Zionism. (www.mfa.gov.il)

Fast-forward to the 1930s. The Nazis had proved that their intentions to eliminate European Jews were deadly serious. After war broke out in 1939, though Jews did not yet have a country to fight for them, there were many in Palestine and elsewhere who desperately wanted to get into the fight under a Jewish flag. Britain, with its history of the Zion Mule Corps and the subsequent three fighting battalions, was the logical host for a Jewish Brigade. World Zionist Organization president Chaim Weizmann contacted Winston Churchill and others repeatedly to establish the Jewish unit. Of course, Jews were already prevalent in the British armed forces, but there was a strong desire to combine under a Jewish insignia. Palestinian Jews already serving in the British Army were frustrated by the fact that they were assigned to guard duty rather than to the front.

"In 1940, the Jews of Palestine were permitted to enlist in Jewish companies attached to the East Kent Regiment. These companies were formed into three infantry battalions of a newly established 'Palestine Regiment.' The battalions were moved to Cyrenaica and Egypt, but there, too, as in Palestine, they continued to be engaged primarily in guard duties. The Jewish soldiers demanded to participate in the fighting and the right to display the Jewish flag." (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

Neville Chamberlain, Britain's prime minister at the beginning of the war, denied the establishment of an all-Jewish Brigade, fearing (correctly) that it would give more legitimacy to the Jewish yearning for national independence and would increase Jewish military prowess. By that time, the British had had ample experience in dealing with armed Jews who defended themselves from Arab irregulars and/or British soldiers.

The soldiers' frustration with their impotent status remained until Chamberlain's successor, Winston Churchill, made a fateful decision. In 1944 he allowed the establishment of the Jewish Brigade, consisting of infantry, artillery, and service units. After training in Egypt, approximately 5,000 soldiers of the Brigade fought on the Italian front under the command of the Canadian-born Jew, Brigadier Ernest Benjamin.

"In April 1945, the Jewish Brigade led the offensive across the Senio River. As they moved into northern Italy, the Jewish soldiers met Holocaust survivors for the first time; thereafter they provided them with food, clothing, and assistance immigrating to Palestine. They continued these activities in Belgium, Austria, Germany, and Holland and also assisted the Allied authorities in searching for Holocaust survivors." (www.answers.com)

Jewish Brigade veterans, the stars of the documentary, provided fascinating details. At first, the Holocaust survivors were put into DP (displaced persons) camps alongside of prisoners of war and others who were antagonistic towards them. In addition, attempts were even made to repatriate them to the countries, such as Poland, where they no longer had homes or families and where their lives were endangered. The Brigade soldiers agitated against these practices. Finally, the Jewish survivors were segregated into safer quarters. Then, the Jewish soldiers took an active role in enabling survivors to reach boats bound for Palestine. They also acquired arms for the Hagana, the major Jewish underground defense organization in Palestine.

One veteran told the incredible story of how the Brigade stole an entire contingent of trucks and painted them to be duplicates of the Jewish Brigade trucks. With this second fleet they were able to move survivors all around Europe to expedite their escape towards Palestine. When the Brigade's ruse was suspected, it was moved from Italy, but it continued similar activities in Belgium, Austria, Germany, and Holland. In 1946, the Jewish Brigade was disbanded, partly because of increasing tension between the British mandatory authorities and the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine).

The Jewish Brigade wouldn't have been established without efforts by men like Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Chaim Weizmann and Winston Churchill. While some anti-Zionists might say that Churchill made a mistake in reversing Chamberlain's refusal to build a Jewish fighting force, I think Churchill approved it knowing that a Jewish Brigade would both advance the Allied effort and become the nucleus of a Jewish army to defend its yet-to-be-independent state in Palestine.

"In Our Own Hands" is a fascinating film. Veterans of the Jewish Brigade who live in Israel were in the audience and answered our questions after the film, adding to the experience. Go to www.olinfilms.com to learn more about the film or to order a copy for yourself or your organization.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." Contact him at mskramer@bezeqint.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 29, 2010.


Revolutionary Guards near Strait (AP/Fars News Agency, Mehdi Malarizad)

Bar-Ilan University researcher Dr. Moshe Vered warns Israelis to think about how to shorten a prospective war with Iran that otherwise would last for years, not weeks as in recent wars.

Iran's regime does not compromise to end conflicts. It persisted in a war with Iraq for eight years, taking half a million lives and a hundred billion dollars, until the war seemed ready to destroy Iran's clerical regime. Its regime considers it a sacred duty to recover Israel on the basis of earlier Muslim conquest. Its threats against Israel are not empty bombast, but serious.

Suppose the U.S. leaves it to Israel to knock out Iran's nuclear arms facilities. If Israel were to attack Iran's oil facilities, the world certainly would condemn Israel. If Israel struck first, Iran would play the victim, in order to get Israel condemned, but Iran secretly would send its troops into neighboring countries to get at Israel. Iranian proxies would fire tends of thousand of rockets at Israel. Iran also likely would attack non-Israel Jews all over the world.

The presence of longer-range rocket launchers deeper in Lebanon would require Israel to capture most of Lebanon. Syria would threaten Israel, too. Israel might be in for lengthy guerrilla warfare.

What might shorten the war? (1) Extensive preparation by Israel. (2) Unlikely Israeli use of nuclear weapons. (3) International pressure on Iran. Dr. Vered thinks there would be such pressure if Iran were viewed as the aggressor, but Iran is stubborn. (4) U.S. joining Israel in the attack on Iran (Arutz-7, 4/28/10).

Obama is not likely to join Israel in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama has made it clear that he hates Israel. He also is reducing American defense and trying to placate Islam.

Dr. Vered may have too much faith in the "world," when he assumes that it would identify Iran as the aggressor. When the world deals with Israel, normal facts and logic are ignored, prejudice rules.

International pressure on Iran failed to stop its nuclear arms development, so how would it get Iran to stop its war on Israel, disliked by the world?

If Israel attacked Iran's oil facilities, it would cause immense financial and related hardship. Iran, however, has threatened to block Gulf oil exports, causing the same hardship. (insert link) That is why, if the U.S. were to mount an attack on Iran, it would have to destroy the Iranian navy and shore batteries.

Whereas International law does not allow a country to annex territory seized in offensive war, Islamic law approves not only of Muslim states annexing territory seized in offensive war of war, but also of starting new wars to regain territory liberated from Muslim conquerors. Anti-Zionist critics claim that Israel violates international law, but have no ears for Muslim violations.

Anti-Zionist critics also claim that Israel is "racist," but have no eyes for Muslim attacks on nearby Jews who are not Israeli but share ethnicity with Israeli Jews.

I have been warning for some time that Iran is a regional or world power that cannot be raided and then left alone. It has too much offensive capability for those forces to be left intact after a raid.

Others have warned that a raid would leave Iran free to resume a nuclear weapons buildup. I foresee, if the regime is not overthrown, repeated raids.


Former Brooklyn College student Syed Hashmi, a naturalized immigrant from Pakistan, now age 30, pleaded guilty of conspiring to provide Al-Qaeda with military equipment for use against GIs in Afghanistan. His plea bargaining got him a 15-year sentence a few days before a trial that could have ended with a 70-year sentence. He's already been in custody four years.

His courtroom hearings have been packed by his supporters, backed by demonstrations outside (Benjamin Weiser, NY Times, 4/28, A22). Supporters? There often is ethnic support for accused terrorists. Why?

Did they make up their minds he was innocent, without knowing? Do they sympathize with accused terrorists because they share their hatred for America?

Did America mistreat him in letting him become a citizen and attend a low tuition municipal college of good reputation? Or did he have a pre-existing animus based on a religious ideology that does not judge people by whether they do right or wrong so much as whether they follow that ideology or not?


Underwear bomber with Al-Qaeda in Yemen (AP/ABC News)

Shiite rebels in Yemen turned over to Haaretz a letter from Yemen al-Qaeda addressed to anti-Hamas radicals in Gaza, offering money for weapons and asking how to smuggle terrorists into Israel in the guise of African immigrants and asylum-seekers crossing from the Sinai.

The anti-Hamas radicals are Salafists who seek to replace Hamas.

The Shiite rebels get Iranian assistance but deny Iranian dictation (IMRA, 4/27/10).

Years ago, I imagined that Israel's border with the Sinai would become problematic, because it is long and narrow. It tempts invasion. Being unfenced and largely unguarded, it also tempts infiltration. Israel should not allow people who cross it for asylum and jobs. Shut the flow, within which there now would be al-Qaeda terrorists.


Qatar Emir al-Than (AP/Petros Karadjias)

If you guessed obesity, diabetes, and genetic disorders, you would not be wrong. Within five years, about two-thirds of Qatari adults will be obese.

When countries have extensive oil and natural gas and relatively small populations, they switch from a physically exerting life to one of ease. Out from the desert and into air conditioning. Let servants burn calories and Qataris absorb them from fast-food!

Qataris are not the only Arab hydrocarbon exporter whose citizens are a minority among their country's residents — 250,000 Qataris among four times as many aliens.

Qatar, like some of the other Arab countries, clings to custom. One custom is to marry first cousins. Scientists know that such a practice invites genetic disease. Nevertheless, that custom persists in some places.

The approach to disease there is treatment and not prevention. Doctors and scientists are trying to change the self-abuse of over-eating and under-exercising (IMRA, 4/27/10).

Perhaps the U.S. should export Weight Watchers to the Arabs.


Church once Great Mosque of Cordoba (AP/Manu Fernandez)
Spain is close to the Islamic world, a gateway to Europe, and a connection with Latin America. Saudi Arabian businessmen plan to establish Spain as a hub of global Islamic finance (IMRA, 4/27/10).

Islamic rules of finance are laid down by Sharia, Islamic law. As I have reported, a speaker at a rally in New York explained that Sharia requires Muslim business to donate to charity, but these charities often are terrorist fronts. Does the Spanish government realize this? Does Spain know that Islamic doctrine holds that areas formerly conquered by Islam, including Spain, must be returned to Islam? The same goes for Israel, but the Spanish king, Barry Chamish points out, has been traveling all over for years, on missions to assist Muslim claims to Israel. He would be better advised to work with Israel to preserve his own country. His country faces not just a simple change of religion, as it would be for, say, leaving Catholicism and entering Protestantism, but a loss of freedom and all sorts of cultural restrictions.


The Telegraph (U.K.) lists these top 10 Obama insults to Israel:

1.Obama humiliated Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, by presenting a list of demands, and, making a snide parting remark, abruptly leaving the meeting to have supper with his family.

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel.

The Obama administration "has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters."

3. Likened Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current Palestinian Arab plight.

4. Obama condemned Israeli "occupation" and "settlements," and linked Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians to life in Gaza, in his speech to the United Nations, without mentioning terrorism.

5. Obama accuses Israel of causing instability in the Middle East [by not settling the Arab-Israel conflict on the Arabs' terms, which would destroy Israel].

6. Established diplomatic relations with Syria, which backs terrorist organizations that attack Israel. [Syria has let people through, to fight U.S. troops in Iraq].

7. Hillary Clinton's 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu.

As The Telegraph reported, Hillary Clinton sought to dictate terms to Israel. She made demands like an imperial Viceroy.

8. David Axelrod's attack on Israeli settlements on "Meet the Press"

Presidential aides rarely attack on a close US ally on live television. David Axelrod "did in an interview in March with NBC's Meet the Press. Referring to housing in Jerusalem, "This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive."

9. Hillary Clinton's call on Israel to show "respect"

She "lectured the Israelis at a dinner attended by the Israeli ambassador and the ambassadors of several Arab states in mid-April, urging Israel to 'refrain from unilateral statements' that could 'undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks'. "Prime Minister Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza."

10. Also on TV, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs accused Israel of weakening "the trust that's needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East." Netanyahu should start "coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialog about moving the peace process forward." (IMRA, 4/27/10).


1. Obama never has mentioned in a major policy speech the long, special relationship between Britain and the U.S..

2. The State Dept. declared itself neutral over whether Britain or Argentina is sovereign over the Falkland Islands.

3. The Obama administration supports a federalized Europe, although Britain does not want to surrender sovereignty.

4. Britain provides more troops for NATO than any other member except for the U.S., but the U.S. does not let Britain have any major commands in it, but got the number two position for France, which has been ambivalent about NATO.

5. President Bush used to thank Britain for its efforts against terrorism, including having as many troops in Afghanistan as all the other major European countries combined. 250 British soldiers died there. President Obama does not mention Britain's role.

6. In solidarity with the U.S. over 9/11, Britain lent the White House a bust of Winston Churchill [whose mother was American]. Within days of moving into the White House, Obama returned the bust.

7. When the U.S. treated Britain unpleasantly at a White House reception, a senior State Dept. diplomat remarked, "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

8. At the White House, Britain's Prime Minister was denied a dinner and a press conference.

9. At the General Assembly meeting last September, Obama refused five requests from the Prime Minister for a private meeting.

10. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs disagreed with an article in the Telegraph. He reacted, "Let's just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I'd open up a British newspaper. If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it'd be the first pack of clips I'd pick up."

Obama engages with U.S. enemies, and disengages from U.S. allies (IMRA, 4/27/10).


A small outpost (A.P. photo/ Dan Balilty)

In the context of Pres. Bush's memo of understanding that Israel would be expected to retain large settlement blocs in any final status agreement, former PM Sharon was willing to pledge dismantlement of some 23 hilltop outposts.

President Obama refuses to honor that memo of understanding. Therefore, PM Netanyahu no longer feels obliged to dismantle the outposts.

Instead, the government is checking whether outposts are built on private land owned by Arabs. If any are, they must be moved, as one already was. After checking, the implication is that those not built on Arabs' private land would be legalized (IMRA, 4/28/10).

Implications are not necessarily sincere.

A number of outposts were built within some towns' municipal boundaries. Why was their legality not recognized and their demolition demanded? Arabs have grabbed hilltops they do not own. Why is their legality not questioned and their demolition not demanded by the U.S. or performed by Israel?

From an American viewpoint, the government of Israel has too much power to deny building permits based not just on municipal planning, zoning, and building regulations, but also on politics.


Volanic eruption (AP/Jon Gustafsson)

On Hamas TV, a Palestinian Arab cleric blamed European "infidels and polytheists" [their word for Christians who believe in the Trinity] for the volcanic eruption in Iceland. It was punishment by Allah, he asserted (IMRA, 4/28/10).

Why earthquakes in Iran or Turkey, where most people are not "infidels and polytheists?"

Our planet is home to many natural disasters. Some religious Jews attribute them to anti-Jewish actions by foreign countries. I think that religion should be separate from politics, and unless God explains his reasons to clergy, clergy should not purport to speak for God on new, political matters.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, April 28, 2010.


Submitted to: United Nations Permanent Forum on Reforestation and Clean Water — April 28, 2010

Presented By: Indigenous People of Israel (IPO) and the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (NGO/IPO)

The Shemittah Year for the Twelve Tribes of Israel in the Land of Israel

Robin Ticker representing 12 Tribes and the Jewish Tribal People

The Shemittah year is a year of rest for the Land of Israel which occurs every 7 years. The term as we know it today, "Taking a Sabbatical" originate with this Biblical commandment to the 12 Tribes of Israel to let the Land rest. It written in the Holy Torah:

But the seventh year shall be a complete rest for the land, a Sabbath for Hashem. Your field you shall not sow and your vineyard you shall not prune. The after growth of your harvest you shall not reap and the grapes you had set aside for yourself you shall not pick. It shall be a year of rest for the land. The Sabbath produce of the land shall be yours to eat, for you, for your servants and for your laborer and for your resident who dwell with you. And for your animal and for the beast that is in your land shall all its crop be to eat." [1]

Our Commentaries explain that in this year it is forbidden to plant, sow and harvest for ones' personal economic gain. Every farmer must make their field "hefker" which means open to all, and it is forbidden to sell ones' produce as one usually does in the other six non Sabbatical years. In this year, the ownership of the Land returns to its Creator, the Master of the Universe. G-d has then commanded that the produce is free for the picking and it is a year of communal sharing.

More laws of the Sabbatical year are as follows. It is written in The Holy Torah:

"May there be no destitute among you, rather Hashem will surely bless you in the Land that Hashem, your G-d will give you as an inheritance, to possess it..... If there shall be a destitute person among you, any of your brethren in any of your cities, in your Land that Hashem your G-d gives you, you shall not harden your heart, or close your hand against your destitute brother. Rather you shall open your hand to him, you shall lend him his requirement, whatever is lacking to him." [2]

From these passages we learn that in this year there shall be no poor and there is no rich since all are equal and no one is lacking. This year has enormous environmental, political and economic ramifications. It is binding only on the members of the 12 Tribes of Israel and those that live with them, only in the Land of Israel within the specified borders delineated in the Torah. [3]

The 12 Tribes of Israel are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel whose ancestry dates back to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the Biblical, biological, historic and spiritual forefathers of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

The Twelve Tribes of Israel conquered the Land of Israel in the time of Joshua a well known Biblical narrative. With the destruction of the 1st and Second Temple, the Tribes went into exile and were dispersed throughout the world. The descendants of the Tribe of Judah, Benjamin as well as members of the Tribe of Levi, the Levites can trace their lineage back to their ancestors from the Kingdom of Judah which today is part of what is known as Judea and Samaria. For 2000 years of exile these Tribes pray daily to return to the Land of their ancestors the Land of Israel.

Our holidays express our souls' yearning and desire to be able to return to the days of old and once again be able to serve G-d as we did in the past. The other 10 Tribes are known as the 10 Lost Tribes and they are from the Israelite Kingdom, and only in recent years have these lost Tribes been re surfacing among them members of the Tribe of Menashe, the Tribe of Dan, the Tiribe of Asher and other peoples who trace their ancestry to the 10 lost Tribes.

The Commandment of The Shemittah year is one that is considered perhaps the hardest commandment in the Torah to keep because it requires unfaltering faith in the Almighty that He will sustain us when we are forbidden to profit from the Land, which for many is our only source of income.

It was only with the Tribes return to their ancestral homeland in this century, was it necessary to observe the commandment of Shemittah of the Land. Up until then, observance of Shemittah, the Sabbatical year in the Diaspora was not required. Now, after 2000 years, this commandment, once again is relevant. It is perhaps the most mysterious commandment and attempts of implementation have created revolutionary political, economic and environmental upheavals. While many Rabbi's in Israel have differences of opinion as per how this commandment should be observed in our time, the laws are still evolving and the goal of observing the Sabbatical Year in the spirit of the Sabbath, a time of economic and spiritual utopia, is still elusive and yet to be realized.

In the Torah it states that the key to Peace, Prosperity, and Security lies with this commandment. It is in this year that the ownership of the Land is very clear. By keeping Shemittah, the Israelite demonstrates quite dramatically to himself and to the entire World what G-d says "Ki Li Kol Haaretz" which means

"the entire Land belongs to Me, G-d, and it is I who determines who will inherit it."[4]

Thank you.
Robin Ticker

Posted on Shemitttahrediscovered.blogspot.com on 13 day of Iyar 5770, 28th day of the Omer Malchut Shebenetach


[1] The Delineated Boundaries are specified in the Torah in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 34. The Commandment of the Sabbatical year is in the Book of Leviticus Chapter 25 starting Verse 4.

[2] Deuteronomy Chapter 15

[3] Numbers Chapter 34

[4] First Rashi in Genesis Chapter 1


Robin Ticker

This email is L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy — Kaplan) a great activist and lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch.

Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Babu Suseelan, April 28, 2010.

The world has suffered enormous devastation from Islam for centuries. Several ancient civilizations have perished. More than 100 million non Muslims were slaughtered. And it still continues. Since 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center, Mohammedans who strictly follow the irrational Koran have carried out 15,101 deadly terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and killed more than 75,000 innocent people.

Muslims can make horrible crimes, run amok, destroy lives, disturb social peace and commit deadly terrorism in the name of Allah. Are we supposed to look the other way and let Jihadis do whatever they freely choose to do in the name of Islam?

Islam must be reformed and Muslims must be forced to freedom from Islamic shackles and it can be done only if freedom loving, peace craving people can act with insight and power. We have to force Jihadis to sing "Let Freedom Ring". We have to ensure that Muslims don't have the choice to ignore our call.

Now let us be real. Making freedom a priority in closed Islamic societies can be a scary idea. Muslims ask: what right do infidels have to teach us absolute values? The question is bogus and we are justified in clamping down or even forcing them to freedom. We have to use force to teach them to fill their heads so full of true freedom that they must know there is no other way. Muslims will say, "We are following Allah's directives.

But Allah does not make us follow this irrational and dangerous road to death. We should not allow Muslims in the business of enslaving infidels or eliminating Kafirs to continue their deadly game in 21st century.

Today Muslims are not free. We have to liberate Muslims into freedom. Jihadis are not exercising real freedom when they behead an innocent kafir under Islamic spell. We need to force Jiahdis to act and exercise responsible freedom. Muslims are ignorant of true freedom. They are guilty of Islamic "Bad Faith".

How can we allow a Muslim to alienate himself from real freedom and commit deviant acts in the name of his distorted sense of freedom? Muslims are doing incalculable harm, death and destruction to infidels by deceit. Jihadis do act under impulse pretending that they are exercising their freedom to please Allah. It is a pretext to avoid responsibilities for their cruel deeds. It is monumental moral turpitude and brutality.

If we are ever to understand with the seeming irrational and dangerous behavior of Muslims, we must first come to term with the cognitive process of jihadis and the manner in which these processes enter into their deviant behavior. We must understand Islamic illogic and addictive thinking. We must also understand how to spot Islamic resistance to change from addictive Islamic thinking. We have to expose them to their own self-defeating logic, and use the evidence in liberating Muslims from their irrational belief system.

How to force Muslims to freedom? We need to create boundaries for Muslims living in democratic countries. Let them know in unmistakable term that "if you can do everything but this". We need to create a thick wall around them inside of which freedom can flourish.

Jihadi misbehavior is complex and they must be faced directly to save the free world. Democratic societies must compel Muslims to learn in schools about the results of their bad choices under the pretext of freedom. Muslims frequently say that they are exercising their religious freedom. They may strongly resist the notion that Islam must be revised or reformed. Muslims consider 6th Century Islamic dogma is a perfect and perfected religion and it requires no revision or transformation.

Liberal politicians and lay public (bogus secularists) may weigh the desirability of such forced re-education. Marxist Academicians, phony intellectuals and bogus human rights activists may enter into heated debates over relative effectiveness of such programs. Their arguments and rationalizations should not obscure the menace of Islamic terrorism. The cowardly media and Islamic apologists have no idea as to what they are dealing with. Muslims want world dominance and put all infidels as dhimmis paying Jasiya (Islamic Tax) as well as introduce medival, out dated and dangerous Islamic Sharia law.

Jihadis show symptoms of anti social behavior, social pathology and criminal thinking necessitating intervention. Blaming infidels is a traditional Islamic game to draw attention away from their criminal thinking and anti social behavior. It is a common diversionary technique.

Democratic countries must offer a choice to Muslim immigrants-either undergo compulsory reeducation or stay in your own Islamic prison.

Muslims must be offered the opportunity to enter a reeducation program that they may not want. We have to force them to liberate from their mental shackles. The government must observe and control their activities for an extended period of time. Such legal coercion is essential for the common good.

The attractiveness of such an approach is that it seems to liberate Muslims from criminal thinking and protect our life, limb and liberty. The assumption is valid since there is an inherent virtue in forcing Muslims to freedom.

It would be wrong to assume that involuntary re-education of Muslims in any way denigrate the value of freedom. This will preclude the Jihadi criminals from pleading freedom as justification for terrorism.

Democratic countries must enact laws to criminalize hate preaching in the name of Islam. Nations must regulate Islamic Madrasas and insist on what Mullahs can and cannot preach. And the school system must ban hate filled Koran verses. Peace loving nations must grant freedom to preach Islam provided that the Koran remove negative mentions of infidels.

All peace loving citizens of the world must voice their support for hate crime laws. Hate Crime laws are necessary to provide penalties for Islamic hate preaching. Hate crime laws must be used to lay the legal framework to investigate, detain and persecute Muslims whose actions are based upon and reflect the hate spreading passages of the Koran.

Islamic nations should not be allowed to fund conversion of criminals in correctional Institutions. Laws must be enacted to prevent Islamic conversion of correctional inmates, Love Jihad, Cyber Jihad or construction of Mosques for preaching Islamic hatred.

The free word has joined together to defeat fascism, Nazism, and Communism. The communists and Nazis had killed more than 60 million people. Islamists have killed more than 100 million innocent people and the killing spree still continues. Democratic nations must act together to make Muslims to freedom and coerce them to act creatively to the sublime dimensions of human thought. It will be a burden for freedom loving people. But Islam must be defeated for world peace at any cost.

Whatever we do, we are forcing Muslims for transformation; and enable them to move away from the closed, controlled Islamic paradigm.

Contact Dr. Suseelan at b.suseelan@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Narvey, April 28, 2010.

9/11's murderous explosion that rocked America and the world, also blew away the fog and enabled all to clearly see that the lid was off the millennial Islamic Jihad Pandora's box.

Even with that, Pres. Bush still tried to blow smoke and fog in our eyes.

In addressing the nation and the world following 9/11, Bush declared the 9/11 terrorists were a mere handful of radical Muslims who had "hi-jacked Islam", like that phrase makes any sense. He took pains to declare that the "vast majority of the world's Muslims are peace loving" and practicing their "religion of peace". No such modifier has ever been used to describe any other religion.

The phrases Islamic terrorists, Islamists, Jihadists and radical or fundamentalist Muslims, soon gave way to euphemisms, such as militants, insurgents, criminals or terrorists.

A new euphemistic modifier was also invented to distinguish Islamic terrorists from the great many Muslims who do practice their religion peacefully and in harmony with non-Muslims, by describing these latter Muslims as "moderate". Again, no such modifier has ever been employed to describe adherents of other religions.

Why the modifier "peaceful" instead of "moderate" was not used to describe these peaceful, tolerant and law abiding Muslims, is a question not generally asked or answered.

Bush's words regarding Islam, Muslims and the terrorists were quickly adopted and repeated ad nauseum by other Western leaders and many in the media, as was Bush's declaration of the "war on terror", another asinine euphemism that is up there with other asinine euphemisms.

So why did Western democratic leaders quickly adopt those words? Do our leaders really think this will protect us from Islamic terrorists, their supporters and sympathizers and keep us safe?

Since 9/11, many Islamic scholars, historians and terrorism experts informed us that the Koran and other foundational Islamic writings contain a very great many edicts, tenets and teachings that urge Muslims to be intolerant and suspicious of and to hate non-Muslims, especially Jews first and Christians, a close second, to wage Islamic holy war, ie. Jihad against infidels, to terrorize, murder, convert or subjugate them to live in dhimmitude under the yoke of Islam and to expand the frontiers of Islam until Islam rules the world.

It is no surprise that what these experts found in Islamic theological writings is exactly what the Islamic terrorists themselves liberally quote to justify their terrorism to achieve what they proclaim to be Islam's objectives and manifest destiny.

Obama in 2009, thought to kick it up a notch to scrub Islamic terrorism clean of any reference to Islam or terrorism by inventing the phrase "overseas contingency operation", a phrase even more absurd then the already absurd phrase "war on terror". See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/ article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html

In keeping with Obama's mindset, later in 2009, as the smoke cleared from Nidal Malik Hassan's gun, used to murder 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas as he screamed Alahu Akhbar, Obama cautioned Americans not to jump to conclusions:

Anyone with a lick of sense had no such problem as Obama did, as they immediately reached the obvious conclusion, which subsequent investigation confirmed in spades.

Islamic Jihad, its supporters and sympathizers are in North America and the EU. Be it the Hassans, the likes of Abu Talhah al Amrikee of Muslimrevolution.com, a radical Islamist who just the other day threatened death to the creators of Southpark for their depiction of Mohammed as a bear, the numerous Islamic terrorist supporting and sympathetic Muslims and organizations that have been identified, tried and convicted in American and other Western courts, makes Obama's phrase "overseas contingency operation", all the more absurd and laughable.

Ignoring the evidence of the link between Islam and Islamic terrorists, Obama has now kicked it up another notch, issuing a directive that bans words like Islam and Jihad from national security documents. See:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/obama -bans-islam-jihad-national-security-strategy-document/

Experts have concluded that the number of Islamic Jihadists and their Muslim supporters and sympathizers constitute between 7 — 15% of the world's Muslim population of 1.5 billion. That works out to between 105 — 225 million Jihadists and sympathizers. See Dr. Pipe's essay in this regard:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/05/ how-many-islamists and a collection of articles on the subject at:
http://pursuingholiness.com/category/religion-of-peace %E2%84%A2/the-tiny-percentage-of-radical-islamists/

In that collection, a PEW study frighteningly found that 102,876,561 Muslims support suicide bombings. See
http://pursuingholiness.com/2007/07/ pew-102876651-muslims-approve-of-suicide-bombing/

The number of Islamic terrorists and their Muslim supporters and sympathizers is anything but a mere handful of "radical Muslims". That number is greater then the populations of most of the world's nations. A great many of them live and work to further their Islamist agendas in Western nations in North America and the EU.

To be sure, the large majority of Muslims are not fundamentalists and do appear to practice their religion peacefully and in law abiding tolerant ways, but a "vast majority"? No way!

It is small comfort that most Muslims are not Jihadists and Jihadist sympathizers. The vast majority of them do not speak out and join with Western nations against the Jihadists that, incidentally have murdered far more Muslims then non-Muslims. According to Muslims who have bravely spoken out, the vast majority of peaceful Muslims are simply too frightened to speak out and take action against Islamists wherever they are.

Their silence means that they cannot be counted on to join the non-Muslim West in its war against Islamic terrorists, their supporters and sympathizers.

Given the foregoing, we shouldn't be surprised that Jew/Israel hatred, surpassing enmity and hatred of Western non-Muslims by only a stone's throw, is rampant throughout the Middle East and that it is here on our Western shores.

Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, the terrorist wing of Fatah, Abbas' Fatah whose own charter implicitly speaks to Israel's destruction, the Muslim Brotherhood operating in so many Middle Eastern and Western nations and a myriad of global Islamic terrorist sympathizing organizations are all engaged in a war against us Westerners, for them usually symbolized as the Jews/Israelis and Americans.

Though our Western leaders want to deny it, Samuel Huffington's famous characterization of this existential war between Western and Islamic culture and religions, as being a "clash of civilizations", rings so true.

With all due respect to our leaders' best intentions, we simply cannot afford to continue to imperil ourselves by ignoring Shakespeare's sage counsel, "know thine enemy".

The evidence is incontrovertible that ignoring the obvious link between Islam and Islamic terrorism through euphemisms and outright denials, does not protect and make us safer, but to the contrary, only endangers us all the more.

For our own sakes, it is incumbent on all of us to tell our leaders that, as much as they do not seem to want to hear it!

Bill Narvey

Contact Bill Narvey at wpnarvey@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Jewish Policy Center, April 28, 2010.

On February 28, inFOCUS Editor Matthew RJ Brodsky interviewed Lee Smith, author of the new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. Smith writes a weekly column called "Agents of Influence" for Tablet Magazine, and is a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute. He has worked at a number of journals, magazines, and publishers, including GQ Magazine, the Hudson Review, and Talk Magazine. He was also editor-in-chief of the Voice Literary Supplement, the Village Voice's national monthly literary magazine. Smith has been a frequent guest on radio and television, including Fox News and National Public Radio, and has contributed articles on Arab and Islamic affairs to, among other publications, the Weekly Standard, the New York Times, the New Republic, and the Boston Globe.

iF: What inspired the title of your new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations?

LS: The title comes from Osama Bin Laden's observation, "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."

iF: What is your book's central thesis and why did you decide to write it?

LS: I was raised in New York City and wanted to understand and explain why almost 3,000 of my neighbors were killed on 9/11. So I sought to explain the centrality of violence in Middle Eastern politics and society to an American audience that is freakishly lucky insofar as we are able, unlike the majority of human beings throughout history, to conduct our political lives free of bloodshed, repression and coercion. Because we have inherited this system we tend to assume that most of the world's other political cultures are similar to ours. Some are but many more are not; the political culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East is one that has no mechanism for sharing power, or transmitting political authority from one governing body to another except through inheritance, coup or conquest.

iF: A cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy has been engagement based on the idea of "resetting" our relations with certain countries. Does such a metaphorical reset button exist and how does it work in the Middle East?

LS: Such a button could only exist, even metaphorically, if American interests and policies were subject to change every time a new president came to office. Since they are not, all the "reset" button did was to inadvertently make explicit what everyone already knows about the United States: new administrations typically ignore the lessons of their predecessors and have to make their own mistakes before they are capable of dealing with the reality that is, rather than the reality they promised on the campaign trail.

Let's hope the administration has learned from its errors over the past year. Among others, they should have discovered that: 1) despite the counsel of academic experts and media pundits, there is a point past which you cannot "strong-arm" an Israeli government; 2) the Saudis do not offer confidence-building gestures toward Jerusalem and it is unwise to push them on this in public; 3) the Iranians do not wish to have normal bilateral relations with Washington, a preference they have made clear to five different U.S. administrations over the last 30 years.

iF: How would you say the president's strategy of engagement has worked so far?

LS: It's been a disaster, but not because engagement is in itself a bad idea. First of all, let's be precise: engagement is neither a strategy nor a policy; it is one aspect, and not the extent, of diplomacy; it is an instrument that all U.S. presidents have used, including Obama's predecessor. The problem is not that Obama used to his advantage the mischaracterization of George W. Bush as a trigger-happy unilateralist cowboy who preferred bloodshed to diplomacy; after all, he was running for president and just about anything's fair game. The problem is that Obama took this show on the road. When you visit foreign capitals and run down your domestic opponents, you invite foreigners to participate in your domestic affairs and side with you against the nearly half of the country that you represent but voted for your opponent. That makes it hard not only to govern the U.S., but also to compel foreigners to take your foreign policy seriously; they know you're not really speaking to them. Obama seems to have realized what he was doing and adjusted his rhetoric when he presented a more robust defense of American foreign policy in his Nobel acceptance speech.

As for his other big speech in Cairo, that was a bad idea to begin with. The president wanted to speak to the Muslim world, but what is that? Assuming the Muslim world includes American Muslims, why go to Cairo deliver a speech? That the Egyptian capital is a traditional Sunni citadel was not lost on the Shia. Indeed, in the sectarian states of the Middle East, there are no Muslims, only Sunni and Shia. So what is the Muslim world? There is no caliphate, no unified order — instead, there are separate nation-states, with many of whom we have alliances and share strategic interests. This is how we interact politically, diplomatically and even militarily with the rest of the world, as a nation-state; and our president is the chief executive of a secular republic, not a religious leader who calls on different parts of the globe according to how they conceive of their religious identity. To address the Muslim world as such plays into the public diplomacy campaign of our adversaries: it is the Islamic Republic of Iran who promotes the idea of a single Muslim umma, unified in resistance against the United States and its Middle East allies, not just Israel but also the Sunni Arab states. Almost no one came out of that speech the better for it.

Maybe the one minor upside to the Cairo speech is that polls show how in certain parts of the Middle East, people look more favorably on the U.S. than they did during the Bush years. Unfortunately, this doesn't translate into real policy gains. The Egyptian president, for instance, is more likely to cooperate with Washington on precisely which issues because the Egyptian masses like Obama a little more than they liked Bush? The recently thwarted terror attacks in NY and Detroit show that, logically enough, the president's approval ratings have no bearing on reducing levels of anti-American terror.

Finally, the actual process of engagement has not proven successful. The Iranians just don't want to talk, a prospect that the administration never seems to have entertained, for while the president said on the campaign trail that an Iranian nuclear program is unacceptable, the administration has all but announced that it is now acceptable since it believes Tehran can be contained and deterred. The fact however is that our security architecture in the Persian Gulf has been designed for over 65 years to prevent just the sort of breakout that an Iranian nuclear program represents. If the Iranians get the bomb, we will not be entering an era of containment but leaving it.

iF: How do you see the clash of Arab civilizations and strong horse politics playing out in the Middle East today, and who are the main actors vying for supremacy?

LS: There are many different clashes today throughout the region, including, among others: Fatah versus Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria against the government of Lebanon, Yemen and Saudi Arabia taking on the Houthi rebellion, etc. But the most significant conflict in the Arabic-speaking Middle East features two non-Arab powers, Iran and the United States. Tehran and its allies, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, are making a run at the U.S.-backed regional order, which includes Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing Gulf Arab states. The stakes are very high; it's possible we may forfeit the hegemony that we've exercised in the Persian Gulf for more than 65 years. We may lose and some, allies and adversaries alike, think we are losing.

iF: What would happen in the region if Iran were able to produce a nuclear weapon?

LS: The immediate concern is the nuclear arms race it would touch off. I think it's likely that these Middle Eastern regimes would be able to deter each other in the same way that they deter each other by backing various Islamist organizations. For instance, Jordan and Syria support each other's chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood, as if to say, if you try to bring down my regime with the MB, I'll do the same to you.

The problem then is that these regimes use terrorist organizations, and the prospect of nuclear weapons falling into their hands is awful to contemplate. Washington has already signaled that there are no return addresses for attacks by terrorists, even, presumably WMD attacks. This is what the Saddam and Al Qaeda argument was all about. The Bush administration never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11; it investigated the possibility of connections between the two, connections that we now know did exist. But the Washington policy establishment fought back against Bush and the "necons." Sure, officially we acknowledge there are state sponsors of terror, but practically speaking we ignore that states are responsible for the majority of so-called stateless terror around the world. There are a few reasons why, not least of which is the peace process. How do you justify to the American people the time, money and prestige expended on a peace process with a state like Syria that is up to its waist in the blood of Americans and our allies?

The other issue with an Iranian nuclear bomb is that it would supply concrete evidence that the culture and ideology of resistance works, whereas compromise and agreement leads only to humiliation. It will re-shape the political culture of the entire region and some of our allies are scared they will be swept away by it, just as Sadat was murdered in the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian revolution.

iF: Some realists argue that American support for Israel is a central reason why the U.S. is not liked in the Middle East. Does America's relationship with Israel come at the expense of better relations with Arab states?

LS: Washington has relations with virtually every member of the Arab League. The amount of money that U.S. taxpayers have spent protecting our oil-producing Arab friends in the Persian Gulf dwarfs the amount of aid we've given Israel. So, no, our relationship with Jerusalem does not come at the expense of our many Arab allies.

There are lots of reasons we're not liked in the Middle East, and yes, backing Israel is one of them. This hardly means, as some counsel, that we should check our support for the Jewish state. This is not a realist argument, but a preposterous one. Imagine the consequences: it would set a precedent for anyone who doesn't like U.S. policies that the easiest way to get what you want is kill American citizens and threaten to kill more unless Washington changes its policies.

Martin Kramer is someone who makes a genuinely realist argument: it is because the Arabs know that our reliable Israeli ally is strongly backed by Washington that has kept the peace in the Eastern Mediterranean and prevented the outbreak of state-on-state wars since 1973. Kramer argues that our problems in the Persian Gulf — Saddam, al-Qaeda, Iran — are because we have no ally there like Israel.

iF: In your book, you write that some Arab states have started to see Israel as a strong horse to counterbalance Iran. Can you elaborate?

LS: In the last four years, Israel has made war on two Iranian assets, Hezbollah and Hamas. The latter confrontation was more successful than the first, which is why states like Egypt were more vocal in their support of Israel. Nonetheless, Washington's Arab allies also wanted Israel to hurt Hezbollah but were forced to put a lid on it once the Olmert government showed its incompetence. Now the issue is not just Iranian allies, but Tehran itself. As it appears that Washington will not stop the program, the task is presumably left to Jerusalem. I have heard from informed sources that Gulf Arab officials support an Israeli attack, provided it succeeds. Assuming Israel does succeed, its prestige in the region will be enhanced, while America's will suffer since it tasked out the heavy lifting to its junior partner rather than do the work itself.

iF: Given that Saudi Arabia and Israel share the same concerns about Iran, what are the prospects of that relationship growing?

LS: Maybe they'll have open relations someday in the future, but remember that the Middle East works on a different timeline. Reportedly there are meetings between officials from both sides on the Iran issue and this is enough for now. Moreover, it is a solid foundation for expanding the relationship since this is how bilateral relations are typically built between Middle Eastern states, though security arrangements brokered by intelligence agencies. A shared mutual interest in security is the basis of the Israeli-Jordan accord, without which the treaty would just be a sheaf of papers.

iF: What do you make of the administration's decision to return an ambassador to Syria and what should we be looking to accomplish with Syria?

Even Bush administration officials admit that merely isolating Damascus did not bring about the desired change in Syrian behavior. But why doing an about-face is a much better idea is not immediately obvious. Do we really need an ambassador in Damascus to explain to the Syrian regime that we still want what we have wanted over the last half-decade? I doubt it, but what's the harm? A U.S. envoy is not going to tip the scales, for the better or the worse. Certainly we would like it if Syria would help to stabilize Iraq, but after destabilizing the country for the last seven years, it should be clear Damascus has no interest in a stable Iraq. We would like Syria to make peace with Israel, but that requires Bashar al-Asad to cut off support for Hezbollah and Hamas and it is futile to imagine that he will throw away the cards that allow him to project power and make Washington take him seriously. We also want Asad to distance himself from the Iranians, and it is testimony to the incoherence of the administration's Iran policy that we are taking Syria out of isolation in order to isolate Iran. Damascus has paid no price for the clandestine nuclear facility destroyed in 2007 and now they are back to working on joint nuclear efforts with North Korea. And it seems that the Special Tribunal on Lebanon, which was presumably going to hold Syrian officials responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, has stalled.

In short, we have forfeited the very little bit of leverage we had on Damascus. However, it can get even worse. The Bush administration leveled sanctions against the Syrian regime as a punitive measure, to show them that they can't have both terrorism and money. If we ease sanctions on the regime, as some around Washington are now advising, we will effectively be rewarding Damascus for not killing as many U.S. soldiers in Iraq and allies in Lebanon and Israel as they have in the past. That is, we will be inciting terrorism against us and our allies.

iF: The Palestinian-Israeli peace process has not made much progress in the last year. What can be done to advance the prospects for peace among Israelis and Palestinians?

LS: First of all, let's put this in context, both historical and regional. In my reading, the Jews are one of many Middle Eastern minorities, including Shia, Christians, Kurds, Druze, Alawi etc. None of them, in a history going back over 1,400 years, has ever had a peace accord with the Middle East's Sunni majority. Israel, as the realization of one regional minority's dream of self-determination, has treaties with two Sunni states, Egypt and Jordan. From that point of view, Israel is doing very well.

But as for an Israel-Palestinian peace, for a moment I'll go along with the conventional wisdom that says let's be patient and keep building up the PA security forces and the West Bank economy, and these will be the pillars of a genuine peace agreement sometime in the not too-distant future. But we all know this could go south at any moment; what happens if Salam Fayyad is ousted, peacefully or otherwise? What happens if the PA security forces turn their American weapons and American training on the IDF, as has happened before?

So what I really mean to say is this: maybe Palestinians and Israelis will never have peace the way, say, Europe today understands the concept. But for most of history, peace was not a free-floating condition guaranteed by a distant superpower; rather, it was the carefully managed and maintained state of affairs that can only be earned through war. People fight because they have competing versions of peace; your peace is not only different from mine, but it may also prevent me from enjoying my version. The U.S. Fifth fleet patrols the Persian Gulf to ensure the free flow of affordable oil because the stability of global markets is a prerequisite of the peace America earned by winning World War II. The Germans were on the front lines of the Cold War because they lost World War II and we won it; it was our peace and we imposed our conditions on them whether they liked it or not. The only reason people who are not clinically insane make war is to shape the conditions of their peace and not have someone else's version of it imposed upon them. The Palestinians understand this, and most Israelis seem to get it as well. The Israelis have a state and the Palestinians have a choice. That is to say, from this perspective, the Israelis already have their peace, even as they must defend it with war. The Palestinians, on the other hand, can either keep fighting in order to win their version of peace or they can lay down their arms, effectively accepting Israel's peace. Hence it seems quite possible the Palestinians will never put down their arms. If you want the sort of ahistorical peace that the Europeans talk about, you will not find it anytime soon anywhere in the Middle East.

iF: If you had the ear of President Obama, what advice would give him today regarding the Middle East?

LS: First, I would tell him the same thing all of our regional allies, from Jerusalem to Riyadh, have told him — stop the Iranian nuclear program by any means necessary and do it now. Polls show that the majority of Americans also feel this way, so I'm not telling him anything he hasn't already heard.

Second, Afghanistan is a waste of resources, time and prestige. The U.S. has no vital interest in Afghanistan. We are there for two bad reasons. The first is to defeat an outfit backed by dangerous elements of our Pakistani ally's security services so that the government in Islamabad's nuclear weapons don't fall stay into the hands of those same bad elements of the ISI. This is not strategy; it's a bank shot. Don't ask the Russians for help on Afghanistan; play balance of power with them, China and India, three regional nuclear powers that have reason to be concerned about the stability of Pakistan, and force them all to deal with it. It should make us very worried that the administration believes it can contain the Iranian nuclear program, but hasn't figured out how to deter Pakistan without U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The other reason we're in Afghanistan is even worse. If we leave, some say, we'll be showing our adversaries that, in the words of Bin Laden, we're a paper tiger. If it seems that the strong horse principle dictates that we have to stay and fight the Taliban, there is nothing strong horse about letting someone else shape your strategy and tie you down with petty affairs. If Sheikh Osama thinks we're a paper tiger, that's his problem. We shouldn't be shedding American blood to teach terrorists how to do the math.

Third, Iraq is much more important than this administration seems to think. Besides oil and a port, Iraq matters because it represents a forward position bordering two adversaries, Iran and Syria, and a very problematic and often dangerous ally in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, our investment in Iraq has produced a U.S.-trained and U.S.-allied Arab military, and more importantly has put an Arab security service at our disposal. It would be careless to throw these away.

And finally, at the risk of redundancy, there's Iran.

iF: Thank you for your time.

This article is archived at
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1632/ lee-smith-middle-east-scorecard

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 28, 2010.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. See others of his graphics at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, April 28, 2010.

Death of Heroes Must not be In Vain!

On the eve of Israel's 62nd Independence Day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened the weekly cabinet meeting with a quote from State visionary, Theodore Herzl: "Don't rely on the help of foreigners", contradicting Barak's statement: "an agreement we need to work with the world, but mostly with the United States." (I wonder who the Israeli Defense Minister is representing? Not the interests of state of the Israel and Jewish people!)

"No More" Now! Since 2000, 968 Israelis have been murdered in terrorist attacks, and 17,000 have been wounded.

During the Memorial Day ceremony at Ammunition Hill, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said, 'Heroes who fell here changed our way of life.' "Twice we have paid a heavy price in order to release the blockade on Jerusalem. The first time in the War of Independence and the second time when the city was bombed during the Six Day War," on Jerusalem's Ammunition Hill, the site of one of the fiercest battles. Netanyahu added, "One of the critical battles in this campaign took place here. True heroes fell here. They and their friends changed our country's way of life." "Forty-three years ago Jerusalem was a divided city with a wall at its heart. Today, along that same route the tracks are placed for the light rail, which will connect the thriving neighbourhoods that have been built over dozens of years," he said. "Jerusalem, once a divided city, has become a city of life, productivity and rejuvenation. "Not a day has gone by in which we have not extended our hand in peace to our neighbours. That hand is still reaching out to those who want peace.

Over the years we have learned that olive branches of peace will be obtained only if we remain strong and prepared to defend our country," the prime minister said. "The fighters of Ammunition Hill, as well as the other fighters, gave up their lives for the State of Israel. They believed in the righteousness of protecting the Jewish nation's only state."

Open Gates to Israeli Arabs. A delegation of 40 Israeli Arab community leaders, Knesset members, and journalists was making its way to Libya on Sunday morning, after crossing into Jordan. MK Ahmed Tibi told Israel Radio that the group is planning to ask Qadaffi to "open the gates of the Arab world to Israel's Arab minority." The group is entering Libya without passports, on Qadaffi's orders. (They went to the enemy state, therefore they must not be allowed back to Israel.)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak It is not enough to be just "pro-Israel" — it does not mean much nowadays! Israeli self-serving governments come and go, policies are changed daily! Only by being pro-Zionist, in the true meaning of the word, will Jews be able to end the ugly status quo, bring peace to Israel and reunite Eretz-Israel!

34 Arab Arm Dealers Arrested. The police arrested 34 arms dealers in Arab communities in the Galilee in a wide-scale operation. The operation began about half a year ago when the Galilee District Police recruited a resident of one of the Galilee villages as an undercover agent.

Idiot has Opened His Mouth Again. Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, said in an interview on Israel Radio that the world will not put up with decades more of Israeli rule over the Palestinian people. (He could say that it is time to end the occupation of Jewish land by its real occupiers, so-called Palestinians. The world happily ignores and encourages the occupation of Jewish land!)

US Political Schizophrenia or Tricky Policy? The Obama administration appeared torn by internal debate when on Wednesday, April 21, US deputy defense secretary Michele Flournoy said: "The US has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon" — only to be contradicted a few hours later when the Pentagon spokesman denied the United States had dropped its military option. Iranian officialdom believes the debate is a trick to put them to sleep, while the US gradually builds up its Persian Gulf forces to peak in two or three months. In a memo several months ago to top White House officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that Washington has no long-term policy for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. (the New York Times)

Quote of the Week: "Treatment of the Arab refugees from Palestine violates the Mission Statement of UNHCR which says "By assisting refugees to return to their own country or to settle permanently in another country, UNHCR also seeks lasting solutions to their plight." Instead, UN created UNRWA to perpetuate the Arab refugee status. Billions were spent to maintain Arabs in 59 refugee camps, instead of resettlement in their indigenous countries." — Israel Zwick

Rockets Fired from Jordan. According to reports, two Grad-type Katyusha rockets were fired from Jordan towards Eilat on Thursday morning. One rocket exploded in Jordan's Aqaba resort while a third one fell into the Red Sea.

Another 'Change of Policy'. President Barack Obama has given up on tough UN Security Council sanctions on Iran over its nuclear drive, and gone back on the longstanding American commitment assuring Israel of recognized and defensible borders. In congratulating Israel on its 62nd Day of Independence, US Secretary of state Hillary Clinton mentions "recognized borders" while omitting the traditional qualifier "defensible."

Syrian Apple Spin. Syria has been importing apples from the farmers of the occupied Syrian Golan(?) to help support them as the Israeli occupation imposes siege(?) on their products. Syria started to import apples from the occupied Golan in 2005. A total of 8000 tons of apples were transported into Syria this season. Apple production in the Golan is estimated between 50 and 60 thousand tons. (Anything can be justified by twisting facts, 'smart' spin, specially when it is unchallenged propaganda: If Israel has imposed a "siege" on apples produced in the Golan, what happened to the remaining 50 thousand tons? — Were they eaten by Zionists as part of the siege?:)

Hypocrisy of the Headlines:

Cost to Palestinians of Israeli security... — Guardian.co.uk — No one is asking why Israel imposed those security measures and what they cost to Israel ! What has come first — the chicken, as Arab terrorism, or the egg, as Israeli security?

Not So Little Economic Miracle. The Bank of Israel has pledged to help out the International Monetary Fund in its efforts to ensure that enough aid is available for countries that get into economic trouble. As part of its New Arrangement to Borrow program, the IMF is increasing the amount of money available to bail out countries that need to pay off loans from $50 billion to $550 billion. Israel has pledged to provide up to $750 million in case of need.

Ugly 'Peace Partner' in Action. The Palestinian Authority has extended its boycott of Israeli goods from Judea and Samaria to fruits and vegetables. A group of PA enforcers, thugs, have been confiscating and smashing watermelons which were grown by Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria — destroying 7.5 tons of watermelons in the process.

No Protests Against Illegal Arab Constructions Allowed? After coming up against a brick wall at City Hall trying to stop illegal Arab building on private Jewish property in Jerusalem, East Jerusalem activist Aryeh King decided to change tactics. He asked police for a permit to demonstrate in front of the illegal building in the neighbourhood of Samir Al Amis, hometown of the Prophet Jeremiah. But the police refused King the right to demonstrate.

Another 'Success' of War Against Terror. Two suicide bombers reportedly dressed in burqas blew themselves up a week ago in a camp for refugees fleeing military offensives in north-western Pakistan, killing at least 30 people and wounding over 60. (Many millions of refugees, more than 4 million Arabs living Israel and the territories, were created during the pretence war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet again there is a peculiar absence of condemnations by the UN or public outcry!)

Words Must be Supported by Action.

The Office of the President reports having been inundated with letters from heads of states from across the world, on the occasion of Israel's 62nd anniversary of independence: President Obama's blessing stated, "The United States remains unwavering in its commitment to Israel's security as we work towards our common goal of a lasting peace. Israel's prosperity is a reflection of the hard work and ingenuity of its people. I wish the State of Israel a peaceful future so that the dream of Israelis and their forefathers can continue to be realized." (Thank you Mr. Obama for your support! The dream of our forefathers was to end Arab occupation of Jewish land and reunite Eretz-Israel! Will you support Israel in this endeavour or is your letter just another ridiculous spin?)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 28, 2010.

Prime Minister Netanyahu provided a "sort-of" denial yesterday, with regard to rumors of a de facto building freeze in Jerusalem: Obama and European leaders, he said, are well aware of his position, but he didn't elucidate what that position was.

But now Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat has gone on record with clarity.

Barkat is currently in Washington.

He informed the Israeli Embassy that he was coming, but then proceeded to arrange his own meetings with members of Congress and the media. When speaking with reporters yesterday he told them that the rumors of an informal halt to building are erroneous. He insisted that construction will continue and all that had been observed was a "temporary slowdown" in response to the enormously negative US reaction to the announcement for new housing in Ramat Shlomo that had been made while Biden was here.

"There is no freeze. It's not true."

The temporary slowdown, he said, was misinterpreted as an unofficial freeze. However, that slowdown was simply the result of having been "slapped in the face" by the US.

"It takes some time to recover from such an attack from a friend like the US administration."

(Note: It had been announced after the flack over Ramat Shlomo that bureaucratic procedures were being reviewed and that matters would be on hold until the review was complete. Now the NY Times reports that Netanyahu has established a new committee to ensure that he would never again be surprised by an eastern Jerusalem housing announcement. According to Mark Regev, Netanyahu spokesman, the new mechanism was intended to improve oversight and coordination.)

Barkat said that local and district commissions that had responsibility for overseeing housing approvals had begun to meet again. "You cannot stop a vibrant and living city like Jerusalem from growing."

"If they [US officials] are recommending a freeze, the answer is no."


One does not sense game-playing in this statement, and I welcome its forthright "tell-it-like it-is" tone. We will know soon enough if planning committees are meeting and construction is progressing.

AP, in reporting what Barkat said, indicated that these are "comments that may complicate the Obama administration's attempts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks."


And that leads me to another observation:

There are those who were certain yesterday that Netanyahu had caved.

However, I will suggest that something else was going on: It's likely that the deliberate vagueness or reticence on Netanyahu's part was not intended to hide what he had promised the US regarding a building freeze in Jerusalem. Rather, it may well have been intended to hide what he didn't promise. He may have been avoiding an open defiance of Obama's request, hoping to not spark the confrontation that would follow if Obama felt he had "lost face." Perhaps he allowed a certain ambiguity to kick in so that there would be playing room for Obama to advance his negotiations agenda. Hey, the thinking may have gone, PA officials can say whatever they want in order to provide cover for themselves, if in the end they are not defining our real policy.

This would be Netanyahu's style. He likes to appear to play the game even as he quietly goes his own way, forever doing a balancing act. Dedicated nationalists, who prefer clear statements about our rights, have no patience with this.

Sometimes it can make one cringe, because it gives the semblance of our having made concessions and makes us seem weak. Sometimes it's a successful technique that skirts unnecessary international tensions. Sometimes there is a partial concession that leads to the proverbial slippery slope. Problem is, with Netanyahu, we often don't know exactly where we are.


In this particular instance, thanks to Barkat, we have picture that's a good deal clearer. For he has now said, according to YNet, that his positions on Jerusalem are identical to Netanyahu's. But you don't see our prime minister standing up and say, "Right on. It's true." In fact, members of our government are quite irked with the mayor. Fussed one unnamed official, Barak spoke inappropriately "at such a sensitive period in US-Israel ties, when every housing unit in Jerusalem gains prominence."

Sha still, be nice, don't tell the world what our rights are, or what we intend.


Barkat further said that Israel is sometimes confused about what signals the US is delivering. And he indicated that "bad American proposals" would be worthless in resolving the Mid-East conflict.

The nerve of him! He told the truth.

As a result of this, the US government denied his request to meet with Clinton and Mitchell.


As to our refusing to cave to US demands, another, unexpected, instance made the news today. The Jerusalem Post reports:

"Despite a 2002 road map commitment and years of pledges by successive prime ministers including Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel has no intention in the foreseeable future of dismantling any of 23 unauthorized West Bank outposts built after March 2001...

"In part, this is because the promise to dismantle the outposts was made in the framework of wider understandings with the Bush administration that provided for continued home-building [in] settlements Israel is likely to retain under a permanent accord with the Palestinians. Since, under the Obama administration, those wider understandings gave way to a demand, accepted by Netanyahu in November, for a moratorium on all new home-building throughout the settlements [according to one senior official], Israel no longer regards itself as having to go through with the outpost demolitions on the basis of that pledge to the US."

Several ministers, included Moshe Ya'alon, were cited by the Post as supporting this version of the current situation.

Likud Minister Yuli Edelstein has explained that decisions on which — if any — outposts would be razed "would now be determined on the basis of the legal status of the land in each specific case, and the completion of all the necessary legal procedures, not on the basis of Israel's pledge to the US."

Declared Edelstein, "There were all kinds of understandings that the other side [the US] no longer views as valuable. As a result we do not have to blindly fulfill everything. There are legal procedures in this country and we have to follow them."

Good for us!


A number of other issues played into this decision: One is the fact that there are no negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs going on, and that dismantling the outposts would be seen as a unilateral concession to them.

Another is the "likely internal friction with the settler community." The lesson here is that it pays to make noise. Let it not be forgotten.


This issue would be less urgent if it were not for the meddling of left wing organizations such as Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), which bring petitions to the Court demanding that the outposts be taken down.

I mention here again, as I have before, that what these organizations do would be thrown out of court in the US, for they have no standing in these cases: It is not their land, they are not affected by the building.

What the government has been doing is buying time by assessing the status of the outpost in question. The Defense Ministry has actually drawn up a memo advising that enforcement of evacuation orders against outposts be deferred.


Aside from the 23 outposts built since the road map in 2001, there are some 100 others built earlier. Discussion is being held in a couple of instances with regard to retroactively legalizing them. This is the case most notably with the Derech Ha'avot outpost near Elazar in Gush Etzion. It would represent the first such action since 1996.

A similar action might be taken with the Givat Hayovel outpost near the community of Eli in Samaria. Plans to demolish this outpost attracted wide spread attention because it is where the widows and families of IDF majors Roi Klein and Eliraz Peretz live. To take their homes away from them would be to demonstrate breathtaking insensitivity (Roi Klein threw himself on a grenade to save his men), and Defense Minister Barak finally got that message.

I mention here again, as well, that the issue of what is an "authorized" community is far more complicated than it sounds. Many ministries and agencies are involved, and in almost every instance there has been some official approval — for a road to go in, or electric wires to be run, or whatever. What is missing is the final Defense Ministry sign-on.

In each of these two instances, what would be required would be the expansion of the neighboring community or the establishment of new communities. This, too, would contravene the original agreement with the Bush administration. If you remember, when the issue was being fought regarding a freeze in Judea and Samaria, the point was reinforced that the perimeters of the communities were not being enlarged, and all building was being done inside existing borders. (This was even though the Arabs were screaming that we were taking all of "their" land.)

Clearly now, our interaction with the US has shifted. I am pleased to see that our government is not being passive and simply acceding to Obama's demands. If he doesn't honor certain prior commitments, then we are prepared to say that neither will we honor reciprocal ones.


A note with regard to my post yesterday. (As Moti G. has pointed out) a key example of different national narratives is our celebration of Independence Day, while the Arabs who live here annually on May 15 commemorate the Nakba, which means the "catastrophe."


I strongly recommend Daniel Pipes' latest column, "Understanding Europe," in which he discusses a newly translated book by French novelist and essayist Pascal Bruckner:

"Europe exonerates itself of crimes against Jews by extolling Palestinians as victims no matter how viciously they act, and by portraying Israelis as latter-day Nazis no matter how necessary their self-defense. Thus has the Palestinian question 'quietly relegitimated hatred of the Jews.'"



For whatever it's worth, it's not only us that Obama treats shabbily. IMRA is carrying a piece from The Telegraph (UK) that lists Barack Obama's ten top insults against Britain:

"Without a shadow of a doubt, Barack Obama has been the most anti-British president in modern American history. The Special Relationship has been significantly downgraded, and at times humiliated under his presidency, which has displayed a shocking disregard for America's most important partner and strategic ally."

Sound familiar?


But don't worry. Obama knows what he's doing. On Monday he renewed his pledge of a "new beginning" with the Muslim world.

Sometimes I think this is all a bad dream.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Kyle-Anne Shiver, April 28, 2010.

Now that General Jim Jones, the current national security adviser to the president of the United States, has apologized (sort of) for his blatantly anti-Semitic joke, told to an audience including many Jews, the matter is supposed to be closed. End of discussion.

Hold on just a gosh-darned minute.

Read the joke here, dear readers, so you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

This supposedly all-in-good-fun "joke" has extremely — yes, extremely — dangerous undertones, especially in this current age and especially under this current administration. And I, for one, am not going to just blithely accept General Jones' up-against-the-wall, sorry-that-some-were-offended "apology" and let this get swept under the media's protect-Obama-at-all-costs rug.

Depicting Jewish merchants in of all places, Afghanistan, turning away a bedraggled, dangerously dehydrated, fleeing Taliban fighter, Jones employed one of the oldest, crudest Jewish stereotypes in the world — "greedy Jewish merchant." In not seeing the obvious to even the densest ninnies on the planet regarding his adaptation of the old joke, General Jones would seem to be following the rewritten history template of this administration regarding Islam. Hear no Islamic evil; see no Islamic evil; wish all Islamic evil away.

For one thing, the only really funny item within this so-called joke was the appearance of two Jewish merchants doing unmolested business in a radical Islamic stronghold. Now, that is a real joke.

For the record, there is only one Jew left in all of Afghanistan. Because of his single-Jew-in-Afghanistan status, Ishaq Levin has become quite the international celebrity. He remains despite his family having immigrated to Israel and is continuing his one-man demand that the Taliban return the Torah confiscated from the last remaining synagogue in Afghanistan. This last remaining synagogue is the building which Levin, the last remaining Jew in Afghanistan, now guards day and night, depending on the charity of neighbors and good Samaritans around the world.

But leave it to a high-ranking member of this administration to imply that the overwhelming number of prosperous Jews in Afghanistan are taking advantage of the impoverished, fighting-only-for-justice Taliban.

As for me, I believe that this "joke" was intended as a thinly veiled metaphor for Israeli-Palestinian relations. This "joke" seems to meld perfectly with the long-cherished Palestinian whoppers about Jews prospering on Palestinian misery, about Jews never being satisfied and always wanting more, about Jews perpetrating "Israeli apartheid" against them. Isn't this the story line of every Palestinian-support group of the last 50 years?

The implications of this story line coming from a national security adviser to the president are even more ominous in light of the Obama administration's moves towards Israel over the past 16 months. Both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have given signal after signal that they believe this Palestinians-as-victims-of-Jews story line.

President Obama has seemingly gone out of his way to snub Prime Minister Netanyahu and to humiliate him publicly. And everyone has noticed. Everyone has noticed, also, that President Obama has gone just as far in the other direction to sanitize every decidedly Islam-inspired act of terror, even going so far as to make no mention of Islam in the report on the Ft. Hood terrorist act.

The media looked the other way when disturbing anti-Semitic associations turned up in Barack Obama's past. They ignored his chosen church's close ties to Louis Farrakhan, the most well-known Jew hater in America. They ignored Barack Obama's decades-long choice of a black liberation theology "church," among whose tenets is an undeniable anti-Semitism. They ignored Barack Obama's links to Rashid Khalidi, known promoter of the Palestinians-as-victims story line.

Just as now the mainstream media expect all Jews and supporters of Israel to just get over this blatantly anti-Semitic joke, told by a very high ranking member of this administration.

Now, all of this reminds me sadly of a conversation I had with a Jewish friend from New York in 2007. At that time, it looked as though Hillary Clinton was the likely Democrat nominee for '08 and I asked my friend whether she would vote for Hillary knowing about the disturbingly anti-Semitic features of her past. My friend was shocked.

She was evidently completely unaware that Hillary and Bill's most frequent guest to the White House during their tenure there was Yasser Arafat, the late-great leader of the PLO. My friend was also in the dark about the infamous Hillary sympathy-kiss to Arafat's wife when she accused Israelis of, among other things, using poison gas on Palestinians. My friend seemed never to have even heard the charges made by a good many close associates of the Clintons that the harshly derogatory phrases, "Jew Motherf***er" and "f***ing Jew bastard," were among Hillary's favorite epithets.

In fact, my Jewish friend from New York accused me of making it all up and insisted vehemently that "all Democrats support Israel and all Democrats love the Jews." End of discussion.

And General Jones didn't really mean a single nasty thing by this blatantly anti-Semitic, full-of-logical-holes "joke."

Sweep it all under the protect-Obama-at-all-costs rug, folks.

As for my Jewish friend, I implore her to refrain from saying "never again" in my vicinity as long as she and so many like her keep voting for these people. It gives me the vapors and I'm running low on smelling salts these days.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist. Contact her by email at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com and visit her webiste at www.kyleanneshiver.com. This article appeared on the Pajamas Media website,
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/general-jones-apology- not-nearly-good-enough

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Greenfield, April 28, 2010.

Woman being stoned

When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And so, liberals believe that the solution to every problem is more socialism. Americans often believe the solution to every problem is more democracy. And Muslims believe that the solution to every problem is Islam. Combine the three and you arrive at the inevitability of Sharia law in the West. As Muslims harness democratic pluralities in countries that have become socialist and thus less free, they will impose Islamic law.

In the conception of religion held by Western Liberals, religious moderates are people who are willing to allow the separation of religion from civic life or even its domination by the civic code. Religious extremists they believe are people who want to impose religion on public life. By this standard however, there is virtually no such thing as a Muslim moderate, because Muslims do not recognize the hallowed ideas of Western liberals such as pluralism and the separation of church and state.

Even the few exceptions such as Turkey, did not create separate spheres, so much as they imposed forced secularism in order to modernize the country. And these exceptions are also collapsing, notably in Turkey where the Islamists under Erdogan have come to power. The imposed secularism in countries such as Turkey originated at a time when it was thought that a Muslim country had to forcibly secularize in order to enjoy the benefits of a modern state.

But the willingness of Westerners to accommodate Islam and the billions in oil money that have flowed into Saudi Arabia and the UAE have discredited that notion by showing that one can be a fanatical Muslim and still be a doctor in England, or own skyscrapers in Dubai, be a Lord or a Peer, a respected professor in a French university or have a nuclear reactor assembled in your country. Political correctness, appeasement and dhimmitude have eroded the gains made by secularization and helped radicalize Islam.

Muslim countries that are socially, morally and politically backward nevertheless have access to all the modern technology and conveniences of the West. Their backwardness makes it all but impossible for them to actually reform their countries so they provide opportunities for their own people, but makes it all too easy for them to export their surplus populations to the West.

And so a goat herder who still believes that he has the right to kill his daughter if she so much as looks at a boy can get on a 747 and arrive in London or Paris in a matter of hours, New York or Los Angeles in a matter of a few more. His children will go to Western schools, where they will be implicitly or explicitly taught the superiority of Islam, almost as much as they would be in a madrassa. They will never be forced to choose between Islam and the benefits of the West — and so they will inevitably choose both, benefiting from their free educations, their professional careers and the good life, while embracing increasingly fanatical Islamic ideas in order to balance out their materialistic lives.

This combination of a Western trappings and Islamic interior will doom the West because Islam is an ideology that is less about faith than it is about governance. Unlike their Western liberal patrons, Muslims do not recognize any distinction between church and state, which means they are bent on imposing their religion on the state. Western liberals believe that most Muslims are moderate. Most Muslims, however, believe that the remedy for all social, political and moral ills lies in Islam.

A believing Muslim, whether Westerners consider him an extremist or a moderate, will believe that Islam and the Koran have the solution for all of society's ills. Social problems are caused by a lack of Islam. In his worldview, Muslim countries can only repair their problems through Islam. And non-Muslim countries in the Dar al Kufr (Realm of the Infidels), Dar Al Harb (Realm of the Sword) are bound to be even worse off because they don't follow Islamic law — which means their only solution is Islam.

In such a scenario, Sharia is inevitable because as Western liberals think of social reforms in terms of added government control, Muslims think of reform as added clerical control. This makes Muslims and Socialists seem like natural allies, at least for a time, because both confuse reform with centralization that takes individual liberties. Meanwhile the Western Liberal is deluded enough to think that any application of Sharia law will be moderate, when in fact it will be no such thing because the Muslim understanding of the world is radically different than the Western understanding of the world.

For example, take the recent statement by a Muslim cleric that blames immodestly dressed women for earthquakes. Such an idea has a basis in Islam. It may seem utterly insane to the Western mind, but it demonstrates a worldview in which every individual action is inherently interconnected with the larger social welfare, (an idea shared by both Muslims and Socialists). And if indeed women not wearing a burka cause earthquakes, then the greater good demands that they be compelled to wear them. After all, what is more important, freedom of dress or people dying in earthquakes?

Variations of that argument will accompany resistance to any Islamic ban. And the only response to it can be that the idea behind it is lunatic and unproven. Yet the former would be construed as denigrating Islam and the latter is a useless point, as there is also no way to disprove that (or any other insane linkage that a cleric might come up with).

If you really doubt that such a thing can happen in the rational West, remember that much of our best and brightest currently believe that cow flatulence and human exhaling is destroying the planet, that gender differences are the product of nurture and that people who share their political views have superior genes. The belief of that Islamic cleric is no more absurd than these, and with enough force and propaganda behind it, is just as likely to be accepted. And much worse things will be as well.

As a country's population rises, it will approach the Sharia tipping point. Sharia law's imposition will be sold as social reforms, just as they are throughout the Muslim world. And since only disruptive forces would be opposed to it, naturally criticizing its implementation would be one of the first bans. There is only one clean way to avoid it, just as there is only one clean way to avoid a Communist or Nazi takeover — and that is not to have people inside your borders who want to see the country turn into a Nazi, Communist or Islamist state. If you fail to do that, then sooner or later, you will either face a bloody civil war, or/and live under a Communist, Nazi or Islamist state.

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger, columnist and freelance photographer born in Israel, who maintains his own blog, Sultan Knish.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 28, 2010.


Richard M. Haass explains his views in a Wall St. Journal Op.-Ed. [He differs with other Obama aides on how to achieve U.S. goals, but they questioned his loyalty to America.]

Mr. Haass continues his long-time advocacy of a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), based entirely on Israeli concessions, and without evidence that peace would ensue.

He warns against: (1) Over-emphasizing the Arab-Israel conflict and its effect on more pressing issue of Iranian nuclear development; (2) Promulgating a U.S.-made plan unlikely to work; and (3) Rushing into a plan prematurely.

He contends that if peace were attained, it would "help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous Jewish state" and it would be a feather in the U.S. cap. That conflict, solved or festering, has little to do with other Mideast issues of grave concern to the U.S..

For example, regardless of what happens with Israel, Iraq has problems of provincial boundaries, powers, and oil allocation. Afghanistan still will have a weak and corrupt regime trying to fight the Taliban. Iran still would want nuclear weapons to protect it from what it fears, a U.S. conventional attack.

Likewise, the Arab-Israel conflict has not stopped Arab states from working with the U.S. when they want to.

As for terrorism, al-Qaeda has goals far broader than the Arab-Israel conflict. If that conflict were resolved, Islamists would not cease their terrorism.

Haass warns that the parties are not ready for peace, so any U.S. plan would be over-reaching and embarrassing. He puts it, "The Palestinian leadership remains weak and divided; the Israeli government is too ideological and fractured." The answer is to build up the Palestinian Authority so Israel would find it suitable to negotiate with. The two governments need to build mutual trust, and U.S.-Israel ties should be repaired in the interest of facing this era's most strategic danger, a nuclear arming Iran (4/26/10, A19).

Haass's analysis may be faulty but his loyalty is unquestionable. For rival aides to question it is demagogic. It trades on antisemitism.

His three warnings make sense. So does his de-linking Israel from the Iranian issue. But an agreement with the P.A. would do nothing for Israeli democracy, which has major failings that American's founding fathers avoided. An agreement would not make Israel prosperous, because jihad would continue. An agreement would not bring peace, since no likely agreement would end jihad, just deprive Israel of secure borders. Israel would not survive.

To assert that both parties are not ready for peace is incorrect and unfair. It treats Israel the same as the genocidal, aggressor jihadist side. Israel wants peace, but the Arabs want pieces, of Israel, until it all is theirs. That's jihad.

The explanation that the P.A. leadership is weak and divided is misleading. Suppose the leadership were unified and strong. Both P.A. factions are jihadist, their goal being to conquer Israel. That is the problem, not territory.

It also is misleading to call the Israeli government "too ideological and fractured." Too ideological for what? Just because some nationalist Cabinet or Knesset members have some integrity, national loyalty, and understanding of jihad, does not impair peace. Appeasement, that the Left favors, would impair a lasting peace by leaving Israel with insecure borders, among other things, that would offer jihadists hope of conquering Israel. The Netanyahu administration, that Haass calls too ideological, actually agrees with Haass about building up the P.A. economy and has been allowing it to build up its forces. How would that stop jihad?

What about mutual trust? Israel has made many offers and concessions and kept its agreements, at least until too many years of P.A. violations demonstrated that the P.A. entered the agreements in bad faith. Israel would be foolish to trust the P.A. no matter how improved its economy might become. If Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had become more prosperous, would they have become more trustworthy? Not so long as they retained their Nazi and Communist ideologies and duplicity. Jihad is just as fanatical and underhanded.


Israeli attorney David Schoenberg demands that Hebrew University dismiss Judge Goldstone from its Board of Governors and rescind its award to him of an honorary degree.

The demands are in reaction to Goldstone's UN report that accused Israel of having committed war crimes. In Schoenberg's opinion, "This is a man who succeeded in causing grave damage to the State of Israel on the basis of twisted descriptions of reality." (Arutz-7, 4/27/10).

Similar demands have been made to the Nobel Prize committee for awards made for ideological reasons to people who did not make peace and even continued their wars. The usual answer is that there is no procedure for putting toothpaste back into the tube.

This may seem like an issue of free speech. It really is a matter of Israel having honored someone who falsely tries to make Israel seem dishonorable.

Americans say they do not trust politicians, but they seem too trusting.

(For more on Goldstone, click here.)

P.S.: I updated an article about Arab-Israel cooperation. I invite you to view it by clicking here.


Mickey Leon and other Israeli actors refused a role in a libelous British film. They gave up the money and film credit, so as not to mislead audiences in a film that defames Israel.

The script, based on what a Gaza Arab told the producer, calls for an Israeli captain to separate an Arab girl from her mother, in order to use the girl as a human shield. Mr. Leon informed the producer that Israeli soldiers do not do that. The producer kept the script as is, except for removing the line, "That's Israeli Defense Forces procedure." (Arutz-7, 4/27/10).

This kind of defamation probably pervades the media all over, forming an unfavorable impression of Israel.

Until stopped by their Supreme Court, the IDF did ask Arabs to knock on neighbors' doors to advise them that the house is surrounded, why not surrender peacefully rather than let fly bullets that might strike neighbors. Israeli troops did not hide behind the Arab messengers, did not use them as human shields.

Do producers want to understand the subjects they film about, or just bash Israel or the U.S.?


Iranian war games in Strait, using speedboats (AP/Mehdi Marizad)

Parviz Sarvari of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission threatened that if the UN Security Council imposes additional sanctions on Iran, Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz. That narrow strait bears the most oil export traffic. Sarvari estimates that through it courses 62% of oil exports. [He put it as 62% of the world's energy.]

Shutting the Strait would impair the whole world's economy (IMRA, 4/27/10).

Defenders of Iran have posted comments after my articles exposing Iran's violations of international law. What do they think of this threatened violation, which would cripple the global economy?


Netanyahu in Knesset with Foreign Minister (A.P./Bernat Armangu)

Now Abbas, head of the P.A., is ready to resume negotiations. Did he abandon his demand that Israel freeze Jewish construction in annexed parts of Jerusalem? He did not refer to that demand. Neither did Israeli PM Netanyahu say he abandoned his resistance to that demand.

Jerusalem municipal officials, however, report that the Netanyahu regime has, in effect, frozen such construction. They said that the committee that approves building plans normally meets every week, but did not meet at all in the last seven weeks. This is a surreptitious freeze.

Abbas signed a law banning his subjects from working In Israeli "settlements." Many of his people depend upon jobs there (Wall St. J., 4/27, A10).

Typical behavior of Netanyahu — succumb under pressure and dissemble about it. Netanyahu still poses as a nationalist. Those who openly favor the Arabs, such as Richard Haass, still berate him for being "ideological." They are not?

What pressure did Obama apply?

As for Abbas, while Israel takes measures to boost the Arab economy, Abbas takes measures to kick Israel's and that of his own people. Netanyahu, Obama, Abbas, and Haass, such are the characters that beset our world.


Running for congress in Tennessee, Vijay Kumar has the usual conservative goals, but his priority is to stop the islamization of America.

Why is that his priority? Mr. Kumar believes that Islamic imperialism threatens the existence of the U.S. and indeed the whole world. He contrasts Islam with the U.S.:

  1. The U.S.A. is a free, democratic, constitutional, republic. By contrast, Kumar explains, Islam was formed as a totalitarian theocracy.

  2. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to secure freedom. The purpose of Islam is to secure submission to Islam, "not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life."

  3. "Our constitutional republic is built upon the foundation of separation of church and state, with a representative form of government that derives all of its power from the will of the people, framed by a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land."

By contrast, "Islam is built on a foundation of church and state being one, an inseparable autocratic form of government that derives all of its power solely from the will of Allah, framed exclusively by Islamic law — which Islam holds to be divine, supreme, and immutable."

"...Islam, at its core, is ideologically at war with our Constitution. It is a declared war against everything our Constitution stands for."

The cause of the conflict with jihad is not that the U.S. did something to antagonize Muslims, but those contrasts. The Constitution antagonizes Muslims, because it contradicts what Islam stands for. The Constitution gives Americans the right to reject Islam. Therefore, the long-range Islamic goal is to replace the Constitution with Islamic law. Islamic law would destroy the other religions [or humiliate and tax them]. It would forbid dissent.

"These goals and purposes of Islam I've stated are not "Radical Islam;" they are Literal Islam. These are the fundamental canonical goals of Islam's most holy scripture, spelled out quite clearly in the Quran and Hadith, and being put into force right this minute in nations around the world."

The Islamic theologian Syed Abul A'ala Maududi said: "Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program." And yet they call the other countries the offenders.

I realize that reciting these goals of Islam is not popular or "politically correct" in our culture today, exactly because of the flood of propaganda insisting that Islam is merely "another religion" and "a religion of peace."

Islam, because of its religious side, "is the single greatest threat that America — and, indeed, the entire free world — has ever faced." "...Islamic imperialism is far more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined. Those two ideologies filed in 15 and 74 years, respectively, due to their self-contradictions.

"Yet today, Islam's Universal Jihad has gained control of over 50 countries in the world, according to the CIA's own World Fact Book. That's more than Nazism and Soviet Communism combined. And Islam is well on its way to demographic control in over a dozen other countries." (Interview by FaithFreedom, 4/26.)

Political correctness already has cost us some freedom of speech. It hobbles our self-defense against the kind of menace that Mr. Kumar identifies.


Senegalese (A.P./Sean Kilpatrick)

Israel's Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon is touring Senegal, Ivory Coast and Gabon, in preparation for Israeli technical advice in how to cultivate arid areas. Those and other areas in western and central Africa suffer from failure of rains. Ten million people will suffer food shortages, as a result.

Israel has desert areas uniquely being reclaimed. Half of Israel's food exports come from semi-arid areas. Israel can grow at least three crops a year. Having only one crop a year, Senegal must import 80% of its food. Israel will show Senegal how to become mostly independent of food imports. Some Israelis already are in Senegal, teaching about low pressure drip irrigation.

"In Israel we are using recycled water, desalinated water, rain water, salty water, which almost anywhere in the world we will not have any use for (but)we (use to) make the sweetest tomatoes," Simhon added.

"Israeli farmers now use 30 percent less water while almost doubling output over the last decade, leaving the country with a 150 percent food surplus." The Agriculture Minister said Israel could have shipped Africans food, but instead is teaching it how to take care of itself. The Israelis will be coming to the African's assistance, not to tap African resources (IMRA, 4/27/10).

I recall that in Israel's earlier years, the country sent agricultural experts to Africa, where they got down on hands and knees with local farmers and worked together. The Israelis were popular, compared with Western experts who advised from their offices and Russians who segregated themselves. Then Arab-Israel conflict politics caused many African countries to reduce or rupture relations. The black Africans should not have felt they had to show solidarity with the Arab Africans, traditionally slave traders.


New York rally on united Jerusalem (Photo courtesy of Narain Kataria)

About 2,500 people rallied in the rain for a united Jerusalem, on Sunday, April 25. They understood the attempt to detach Jerusalem from Israel as piecemeal conquest. They came to support Israeli existence and self-determination.

Organized by Beth Galinsky of the Jewish Action Alliance, 50 organizations of Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Christians demonstrated at the Israeli Consulate.

The crowd particularly appreciated the solidarity expressed by Narain Kataria of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum:

(1) He greeted them, "Brothers and sisters, Shalom!

(2) He sympathized, "We Hindus understand and appreciate your persecution and pain because we Hindus have suffered unprecedented brutalities and savageries at the hands of Radical Islam for the last 1400 years, hence we both are natural allies."

(3) He explained that Israel is the linchpin frontier for free world survival.

(4) He described the Muslims clearing of Hindus from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir. He was one of them, but fortunate to have survived.

(5) He broadened the conflict beyond the Arab-Israel conflict to Islamist claims not only to Jerusalem but also to Kashmir, Chechnya, Philippines, Sudan, Nigeria, Londonistan, parts of France, Spain, Belgium, Holland, and more.

A Sikh speaker, Bhupinder Singh Bhuri, first praised the United States for its freedom of religion, of thought, and of job opportunities. Then he said, "Like the Jewish people, we Sikhs were the victims of Islamic terrorism for the last 500 years. Hence, we understand and appreciate your pain, insecurity and anguish. We have assembled here to awaken and educate American citizens about the menace of terrorism. Radical Islam wants to dominate entire world."

Just a couple of months ago, the Taliban of Pakistan asked Sikhs to pay a special tax [a penalty for non-Muslims, according to Islamic law]. The Sikhs refused. Their houses and businesses were destroyed. The India Times reports that torture prompted 5,000 Sikhs to flee the country [that is, in addition to prior purges].

200 years ago, Sikh armies thrust Islamic invaders out of the Punjab and back into Afghanistan, keeping India secure. In 1971, the Indian army, led by a Sikh general, rescued Bangladesh from Pakistan and captured 90,000 Pakistani troops, an exceptional number in human annals (from Narain Kataria, 4/27, and with notes from Nagenda Rao).

People of different ethnic and religious groups working together against a common menace, that is America at its best. No doubt the Jews there were thrilled at multi-cultural support. Jews long have championed other groups.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith A. Klinghoffer, April 28, 2010.


The Obamas and the Saids celebrate.

In a recent interview New York Senator Chuck Schumer noted that there is there is a battle going on inside the Obama administration about Israel and added correctly that such a battle is not unusual.

The State Department tends to be Arabist while the Defense Department and the military appreciate Israel's strategic value.

The difference is that educated by the most radical leftist (hence anti-Israeli) professors he could find, Barack Obama came to power believing that Israel, like the US, is a bully that needs to be humbled and the way to sell that need to the American people is by convincing it that Israel is a strategic burden even if he hurts US interests in the process.

The result is a transformation of US policy towards Israel radical enough to shock as savvy a foreign policy expert as Fareed Zakaria. Barack Obama's close friend (see picture) and surreptitious adviser, Rashid Khalidi, gleefully explains

ZAKARIA: Rashid, what do you think? Does — does it strike you as a shift for the — the United States to be suggesting that this stalled peace process hurts America's ability to pursue its interests?KHALIDI: What they're saying is that Israel is a drag on the United States. It's not a strategic asset, and this is a discursive shift of some significance.

I don't think they're saying, you know, remove Settlement X from Hilltop Y and the Arab will sing Hosannas to, you know, American power. What they are saying is that Israel is not the strategic asset it was touted as during the Cold War.

ZAKARIA: Do you see the shift is as dramatic as — as you were just describing? Because what Obama has said and what Petraeus' report says is not Israel is a strategic drag, it's that the lack of progress in the peace process is the problem, you know, that — that we need this process to be energized. Otherwise, it is pointed to by the — by Jihadis, it is used as a recruiting tool. That's a — that's very different from saying Israel is a strategic drag.

KHALIDI: I think that discursively, if you sit down and parse what they're saying, at — at base, at root, that is essentially the message. . . .

But is Khalidi right? Is Israel a strategic drag? Not if Defense Secretary Robert Gates is right and at a time the US feels overextended the American security lies in "Helping Others Defend Themselves instead of depending on the US. Gates writes:

In coming years, the greatest threats to the United States are likely to emanate from states that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory. The U.S. government must improve its ability to help its partners defend themselves or, if necessary, fight alongside U.S. troops.

Unlike her neighbors, Israel is a thriving democracy with a first rate military which has repeatedly proved its ability to defend itself under the most trying circumstances. Alexander Haig aptly called Israel America's "unsinkable battleship in the Middle East.

"Much of the left's distaste for Israel is directly related the Jewish country's usefulness as an American strategic ally. The Israeli military may not fight along side the American one as some NATO members do but it has done much, if not more than many NATO members, to enhance US military ability in the post Cold War era.

Benjamin Netanyahu said as much when he remarked that Israel shared everything with the United States, everything. Danny Reshef writes that the time has come to tell the full story but to do so Israel will have to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding Israeli aid to the US:

When the US, for its own reasons, went to war against Muslim states, Israel possessed the most extensive knowledge base of the type of fighting involved as a consequence of her experience in Lebanon and in fighting Palestinian terror. Since 2003, the American army in Iraq made extensive use of Israeli technology in using and fortifying vehicles. Operational methods, defensive measures, identification and diffusion of mines as well as training methods were transferred from Israel to the American army and saved the lives of hundreds of American soldiers.Israel has in its possession a wide array of correspondence from various American agencies gratefully acknowledging Israel's contribution and even estimating the number of lives it saved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel helped to militarize and make more precise American drones technology thereby improve the efficacy of its targeted assassinations.

Indeed, it was the use of Israeli methods which enabled the US to increase significantly its use of drones in the past year because those methods increased the number of enemy casualties while at the same time decreasing civilian casualties. Foreign sources estimate that up to 400 American military personnel went through Israeli training in real time intelligence gathering to identify and pin point military targets.

A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that Americans may not be aware of all the details of Israeli help to the US but they, if not their current president, understand Israel's strategic value and, hence, disagrees with the Barack Obama's policy towards it.

Most instructively, those who understand Israel's value most, support it most. Israel has no better allies than American military families whose lives are on the line. Asked in a recent poll "Do you think the President of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel or not?" 66% of Americans answer "yes" and 19% "no." The affirmative number amongst military families is 75%.

Similarly results can be found when asked whether "President Obama is a strong supporter of Israel or not?" 34% of Americans believe he is a strong supporter and 42% think he is not. Amongst military families only 32% believe he is a strong supporter of Israel while 49% understand he is not.

These realities and not, as critics like to insinuate, a powerful Israeli lobby (headed at this moment by a staunch Obama supporter), are responsible for the fact that 2/3 of both houses of Congress sent President Obama a letter suggesting an end to his orchestrated attack on Israel. It is these realities that force the Presidential spokesman to deflect Senator Schumer's criticisms of Obama's treatment of Israel by stating that the US has "an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people." The pertinent question is whether a commitment by an American administration, which believes Israel to be a strategic burden, is credible? The simple answer is no.

The last time an American president so believed was in 1967. Then, as now, Foggy Bottom argued that American-Israeli relations is a one way street and that Israel is a strategic burden. The president was Lyndon Johnson; and the result was the Six Day War. It was instigated by Egyptian president Gamal Abd'l Nasser in the belief that he was strong enough to beat Israel provided Washington would do nothing to save the Jewish state. He was wrong about Egypt's military strength but right in doubting American interference.

Israel stood alone but her victory also helped save the American position in the Middle East at a time when the US was mired in the jungles of Vietnam. The role played then by Egypt is played today by Iran. The role played then by Nasser is played today by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That is the reason, Lebanese journalist Elias Bejjani has already concluded that Iran, not Israel, will start the war Now, unlike then, US forces are stationed in the Middle East and the weapons involved are nuclear. Need I write more?!

Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com and visit her blog Deja Vu

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 27, 2010.

50 American Generals (ret.) who served their country as proud Americans speak out on America's positive and beneficial relations with Israel. They knew how Israel. They knew how Israel had assisted American via transfer of vital Intel, capturing enemy equipment on the field of war, providing and improving technology, penetrating Terrorist nations and their proxies.

As General George Keegan, Head of Air Force Intelligence, said: "Israel is worth 5 CIAs." But along comes President Barack Hussein Obama and his pro-Arab staff of advisors. They proceed to attack Israel in the court of public opinion and the working relationships with a key, staunch, dedicated ally who Obama is trying to destroy — with malice.

The Obama Coalition have virulently attacked the sovereign Nation/State of Israel over her reluctance to divide her Eternal Capital and the other lands won in defensive wars over to Palestinian Muslims whose Charter calls for the absolute elimination of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

How did Obama become Islam's Chief Spokesman — even for the worst of Terrorist nations for both Israel and America?

Who does Obama really belong to?

And What is his true agenda?

Do we thank him for shaming the American nation and turning on our only reliable ally in the Middle East?

This below was written by Liran Kapoano and it appeared in Arutz-7


The next time someone tries to throw the nonsensical argument that sometimes Israel just needs some "tough love" to get it "back on track" or that treating the Jewish state like an immature child that needs be made to sit in the corner, is somehow beneficial to anyone — tell them to go argue with these 50 retired admirals and generals.

They decided to do something in response to the recent ridiculous treatment Israel has gotten from the Obama administration. This group of about 50 retired United States generals and admirals put together the following letter urging him as well as Congress and the general American public to recognize how truly intertwined Israel's success is with America's.

Here, is the unedited letter, directly from the officers: Israel as a Security Asset for the United States

We, the undersigned, have traveled to Israel over the years with The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). We brought with us our decades of military experience and, following unrestricted access to Israel's civilian and military leaders, came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to the United States and its policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. A strong, secure Israel is an asset upon which American military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel is a democracy — a rare and precious commodity in the region — and Israel shares our commitment to freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.

Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their neighbors was clearly articulated. Thus we view the current tension between the United States and Israel with dismay and grave concern that political differences may be allowed to outweigh our larger mutual interests.

As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through the prism of American security interests.

The United States and Israel established security cooperation during the Cold War, and today the two countries face the common threat of terrorism by those who fear freedom and liberty. Historically close cooperation between the United States. and Israel at all levels including the IDF, military research and development, shared intelligence and bilateral military training exercises enhances the security of both countries. American police and law enforcement officials have reaped the benefit of close cooperation with Israeli professionals in the areas of domestic counter-terrorism practices and first response to terrorist attacks.

Israel and the United States are drawn together by shared values and shared threats to our well-being.

The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology across the Middle East and Asia, and the ballistic missile technology to deliver systems across wide areas require cooperation in intelligence, technology and security policy. Terrorism, as well as the origins of financing, training and executing terrorist acts, need to be addressed multilaterally when possible. The dissemination of hatred and support of terrorism by violent extremists in the name of Islam, whether state or non-state actors, must be addressed as a threat to global peace.

In the Middle East, a volatile region so vital to U.S. interests, it would be foolish to disengage — or denigrate — an ally such as Israel.

Signed (so far):

Lieutenant General Mark Anderson, USAF (ret.); Rear Admiral Charles Beers, USN (ret.); General William Begert, USAF (ret.); Rear Admiral Stanley W. Bryant, USN (ret.); Lieutenant General Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.); Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.); Admiral Leon Edney, USN (ret.); Brigadier General William F. Engel, USA (ret.); Major General Bobby Floyd, USAF (ret.); General John Foss, USA (ret.); Major General Paul Fratarangelo, USMC (ret.); Major General David Grange, USA (ret.); Lieutenant General Tom Griffin, USA (ret.); Lieutenant General Earl Hailston, USMC (ret.); Lieutenant General John Hall, USAF (ret.); General Alfred Hansen, USAF (ret.); Rear Admiral James Hinkle, USN (ret.); General Hal Hornburg, USAF (ret.); Major General James T. Jackson, USA (ret.); Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.); Rear Admiral Herb Kaler, USN (ret.); Vice Admiral Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.); General William F. Kernan, USA (ret.); Major General Homer Long, USA (ret.); Major General Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.); General Robert Magnus, USMC (ret.); Lieutenant General Charles May, Jr., USAF (ret.); Vice Admiral Martin Mayer, USN (ret.); Major General James McCombs, USA (ret.); Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (ret.); Rear Admiral W. F. Merlin, USCG (ret.); Rear Admiral Mark Milliken, USN (ret.); Rear Admiral Riley Mixson, USN (ret.); Major General William Moore, USA (ret.); Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC (ret.); Major General Larry T. Northington, USAF (ret.); Lieutenant General Tad Oelstrom, USAF (ret.); Major General James D. Parker, USA (ret.); Vice Admiral J. T. Parker, USN (ret.); Major General Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.); Vice Admiral James Perkins, USN (ret.); Rear Admiral Brian Peterman, USCG (ret.); Lieutenant General Alan V. Rogers, USAF (ret.); Rear Admiral Richard Rybacki, USCG (ret.); General Crosbie Saint, USA (ret.); Rear Admiral Norm Saunders, USCG (ret.); General Lawrence Skantze, USAF (ret.); Major General Sid Shachnow, USA (ret.); Rear Admiral Jeremy Taylor, USN (ret.); Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.); Lieutenant General Lanny Trapp, USAF (ret.); Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN (ret.); General Louis Wagner, USA (ret.); Rear Admiral Thomas Wilson, USN (ret.); Lieutenant General Robert Winglass, USMC (ret.); Rear Admiral Guy Zeller, USN (ret.): from the American Thinker

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, April 27, 2010.

This comes from David Harris, AJC Executive Director.


Sometimes it's stated openly, other times it's more veiled. The charge of dual loyalty is back.

On April 16, The Journal News, a Gannett newspaper, published a guest column by a local Westchester County resident.

Assigned the incendiary headline "Lowey undermines American interests in the Middle East," it accused Congresswoman Nita Lowey, a 22-year Capitol Hill veteran, of "deliberately undermining our national interest in the service of a foreign government." It asked, "To whom is she loyal and whose interests does she represent?", and proposed that she and those like her "register as agents of a foreign government."

What was Rep. Lowey's alleged transgression? That, among other things, "She and more than 300 other congressmen shamefully sent an angry letter to President Obama, demanding that he stop mistreating Israel. Rep. Lowey's treachery has pulled the rug out from underneath our president's feet and taken the teeth out of his bite."

Frankly, I'm even more concerned about why such a newspaper published an assault that smacked of McCarthyism against a public official than what the author actually wrote.

Surely, the paper receives many submissions, from which it chooses one for its daily column. Where were the filters that should have labeled such a venomous diatribe as out of bounds?

Or take a piece from the publisher of The Washington Note just featured on The Huffington Post.

The writer assailed Senator Charles Schumer, another veteran legislator who is Jewish, for "publicly crossing the line when it came to zealously blaming his own government and colleagues in delicate matters of US-Israel-Palestine policy." It asserted that "Schumer's screed gets to the edge of sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate."

And what was Senator Schumer's supposed sin? He was accused of having an "Israel blind spot." Schumer, you see, challenged the Obama Administration's approach to Israel, calling it "counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk."

Then there was the smear tactic of an unnamed Administration official (later condemned by a senior National Security Council figure) who told Laura Rozen, foreign policy reporter for Politico, that White House official Dennis Ross was "far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests."

Ross's suspected perfidy? He apparently counseled that Prime Minister Netanyahu could only be pushed so far in light of the make-up of his ruling coalition — and of polls showing him with wide support in Israel.

Stephen Walt, the academic who has turned his attack on "The Israel Lobby" into a cottage industry, jumped into the fray. He suggested that dual loyalty wasn't a particularly helpful term these days, but "conflict of interest" certainly fit the bill.

He knows the historical baggage associated with accusers of "dual loyalty" and surely sought a more, dare I say, "kosher" way of expressing essentially the same thought.

In an April piece entitled "On 'dual loyalty,'" Walt wrote: "Isn't it obvious that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular country in the region?"

Ross was associated with WINEP, which makes him ineligible, in Walt's mind, for government service on the Middle East. Ross, a distinguished scholar, is also a seasoned member of several U.S. administrations that have sought to advance the peace process. All this matters not a whit to Walt, who has a goal — distancing the United States from Israel in the name of his "realist" theories.

But then Walt might consider extending his witch hunt. After all, in the same piece he suggested: "When there are important national security issues at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to have U.S. policy in the hands of people without strong personal feelings about any of the interested parties?"

Pray tell, would that include, in the words of antiwar.com, "AIPAC's man in the Obama camp"?

That was Congressman Rahm Emanuel.

Shortly after President Obama's election, the site published a lengthy piece on Emanuel, which ended with these words: "Perhaps there is a limit to the mischief that he will be able to do; at this point one can only adopt a wait-and-see policy. One thing is certain, however. I f the subject is Israel, Emanuel knows very clearly where his loyalty lies."

Or perhaps, given the current contretemps over construction in Jerusalem, would Walt disqualify the author of a 2008 position paper who "believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned"?

That was Senator Hillary Clinton.

Or possibly the co-sponsor of the Jerusalem Embassy Act (S. 1322), which stated that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city and ... should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel"?

That was Senator Joe Biden.

Or maybe, as reported by ABC News in June 2008, the person who wrote: "In general terms, clearly Israel must emerge in a final-status agreement with secure borders. Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one should want or expect it be redivided"?

That was Senator Barack Obama.

According to Walt, shouldn't these "interested parties" with "strong feelings" remove themselves from Middle East policymaking, leaving the work, I suppose, to the likes of himself and his tag-team pal John Mearsheimer? Or is he hypocritically willing to give selected officials a pass?

There's a whiff of McCarthyism in the air, and it doesn't smell any better today than when it first surfaced 60 years ago.

Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, April 27, 2010.

The story below is just the latest bit of a long stream of evidence tying Osama Bin Laden to the Iranian regime.

The CIA, in particular, has worked hard to ridicule the notion that Shiite Iran could cooperate with Wahhibi al Qaeda — but even the Pentagon in its latest report on the Iranian military, released last week, debunks that notion.

After noting Tehran's support for Sunni groups including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezb-I eslami (Gulbudin Hekmatiar), the Pentagon report acknowledges growing Quds force support to the Taliban. "Tehran's support to the Taliban is inconsistent with their historic enmity, but fits with Iran's strategy of backing many groups to ensure that it will have a positive relationship with the eventual leaders," the report says.

Want to know why we can't find Bin Laden? Because he's not hiding in a cave along the Af-Pak border, arguably the most highly-surveilled pieces of real estate on the planet. He is in Iran, protected by the IRGC.

Read it in Newsmax at
http://newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/BinLadin-Iran-Tribeca- falcon/2010/04/26/id/356929 Best, Ken


A new documentary film premiering at the prestigious Tribeca film festival in New York this week presents stunning new evidence that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is living in Iran, where the Iranian regime is sheltering him.

The film, "Feathered Cocaine," began as a simple documentary of the illicit trade in hunting falcons to Middle East desert sheikhs. But as filmmakers Thorkell (Keli) Hardarson and Örn Marino Arnarson delved deeper into their subject, they discovered a dark underworld in which terrorism and falcon smuggling met with astonishing regularity.

In March 2008, the filmmakers ventured into Afghanistan and the former Soviet republics along with Alan Parrot, the head of the Union for the Conservation of Raptors, a conservationist group that seeks to protect wild falcons, to interview a smuggler they code-named "T-2." [...]

"T-2" told the filmmakers that he met bin Laden by chance in late November 2004 at a falcon-hunting camp in northeastern Iran.

"I met him five times after 2004," he said. "The last time we met was in October 2007. Every time, it was in Iran."

Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 27, 2010.

Today I attended a lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs given by Dr. Avi Becker. Former Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress, he now lectures in the MA program on diplomacy at Tel Aviv University.

The subject of his talk: Post-Zionist historical Revisionists (the "New Historians"). Those who have been most influential are:

Avi Shlaim — Baghdad-born, Israeli, teaching at Oxford and known for his book The Iron Wall

Ilan Pappe — Israeli-born professor of history in the UK

Tom Segev — Israeli historian and journalist (Haaretz columnist)

Benny Morris — Israeli, spent part of his youth in the US, author and professor of history at Ben Gurion University

It is likely that you know at least some of these names. Dr. Beker focused on Morris, the dean of the Revisionists, for reasons that will become obvious.


The revisionist history claims that Israel was born in sin because we drove out the Palestinian Arabs. What the New Historians have done is to substitute narrative for historical veracity.

And here I would like to stop for a minute, for I, too, sometimes refer to a narrative. We haven't told our narrative sufficiently in recent years, I have been known to lament, but instead actually promote the Palestinian Arab narrative. And from time to time I may continue to do this. What I am saying, of course, is that our point of view, our perspective, has been neglected. But there are historical facts and it is perhaps better simply to say that we counter Arab narrative with just that: facts.

Of course, when I refer to narrative, I am thinking as a Zionist, while the New Historians have crafted a narrative that is anti-Zionist. While their thinking was once fringe, it has entered the mainstream, particularly in academia. The revisionist version of matters affected the dialogue of the "peace process" (Oslo) with the suggestion that we have an obligation to "right the wrongs" of 1948.


There are key issues that the Revisionists have focused on:

The refugees: Were they expelled or did they flee?

The Revisionists talk not only about our having expelled the Palestinian Arabs from the area that became Israel, but in some instances refer to our having committed massacres with an intent to genocide.

The fact is that in most instances the Palestinian Arabs fled. In those few instances in which they were driven out it, was because they were seen as a security risk — a fifth column — behind Jewish lines during an existential war. This was notably the case at Lod. As to so-called "massacres," there were pitched battles in the course of a war. This was the case, for example, in Deir Yassin, where we have been accused of a massacre that never took place: the reality was a battle in which Jews died as well as Arabs.

Balance of forces — was it with the Israelis or the Arabs?

The Revisionists have it that what the Israelis did was not such a big deal — neither a major historic victory nor so brave. The historical facts tell another story (and I'll come back to this).

Arab intentions — to destroy Israel or share the land?

The Revisionists say the intentions of the Arabs were mixed. The historical facts tell a clear story of an attempt to destroy us. (This, too, I shall return to.)


A significant point Dr. Beker makes is that selective facts, taken out of historic context, can present a skewed picture. And what has happened with Benny Morris in the last few years is that he is looking at the broader picture, and shifting his perspective considerably. It is one matter, for example, to say that there is historic evidence that Arabs were driven out — notably in Lod. This information, provided without context, presents a very specific, though erroneous, picture. It's another to say, yes, they were driven out on this occasion, but it was because they were a threat to the Israeli fighters and were behind Israeli lines. Besides which, this is an exception and in most instances they fled.

This change in Morris's perspective began in 2000, when, as he has written, he saw that the Palestinian Arabs rejected the offer of a state made by Barak, then prime minister. He saw that they truly did not intend to share the land. And so began what amounts to a sort of tshuva (repentance or return), which is not explicit, but which is having the effect of demolishing the structure of the Revisionists.

Morris's recent books, 1948 and One State, Two States represent a major change from his 1988 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Now he writes with historic awareness. And while he still reflects a certain confusion, and may contradict himself sometimes, he is sounding like a spokesperson for Israel.


Dr. Beker looked at several issues that Morris has examined, and which I would like to share with you here:

Morris speaks of the Islamic hatred of Jews, going back to the Koran. The war in 1948, he says, was fought in an atmosphere of jihad. He says that even Ben Gurion was not aware of the depth of hatred felt by the Arabs, and blames historians who ignore the jihadi rhetoric. The war from the Arab perspective was not nationalist but a religious war, a "holy war." He even faults historians who ignore the earlier Islamic battle to control the Holy Land (this against the Crusaders).


Morris now says there were armies of at least seven countries (although not all had sent troops) involved in the war in 1948, and we were outnumbered.

The slaughter of the residents of Gush Etzion by the Jordanian Legion is also part of the broader context that must be considered. The British provided well-trained Jordanians with arms but didn't respond to Jewish cries for help.

[Note: there were Jewish communities in Gush Etzion prior to the founding of the state, there to provide a defense against forces seeking to march on Jerusalem from the south. Some of those who went to live in the re-established Gush Etzion communities after 1967 were the children of those who had been slaughtered in 1948.]


Now Morris speaks about the Jewish refugees from Arab lands who were absorbed by Israel. This provides an important context, for there was an exchange of populations.


In the histories of Pappe and Shlaim, there is no mention of the Jewish refugees, nor of the spirit of jihad nor of Arab anti-Semitism.


In a major shift of subject, I note here that things are not looking real good for Netanyahu.

Yesterday, there were more rumors afloat — and an article in Haaretz — suggesting that the prime minister had put in place a de facto, unofficial freeze on construction in at least some parts of eastern Jerusalem. According to certain municipal employees, he simply gave an order to prevent new starts, with approval of go-ahead blocked at the planning committee level. It has been difficult to pin down, precisely because it is unofficial. Some were claiming that it was bureaucracy that was holding matters up, and nothing more.

I spoke yesterday to an individual with good contacts and solid political instincts, who told me that this was still just rumor, and that many rumors floating had turned out to be not true. He said that while there was talk about meetings not held, in fact some meetings regarding planning had been held.

And, indeed, on April 16, I had written in my post that:

For the second time, this past week, I picked up news about construction in Jerusalem being "on the agenda." Now, putting it on the agenda is not the same as sending out the bulldozers, but there is a suggestion that there indeed will be construction in Jerusalem, over the Green Line (i.e., there is no de facto freeze).

Building projects that were supposed to be on the agenda of Jerusalem's Local Planning and Building Committee included a school and a synagogue in the Gilo neighborhood, and an extension to a synagogue in Pisgat Ze'ev.

And so, I held off, determined to get a clearer handle on the situation before writing about it. (Good luck to me.) My comment, privately, yesterday, was that if Abbas agrees to start talks, this would move us in the direction of concluding that something has happened.


And, unfortunately, this is what we have now:

According to Khaled Abu Toameh, writing today in the JPost, Abbas has said that he is now ready for "proximity talks" because the US has assured him that Israel would effectively freeze construction of housing in some Jerusalem neighborhoods. This came from a PA official in Ramallah. "Netanyahu has promised the Americans that the Ramat Shlomo housing project won't take place, at least not in the near future. Netanyahu has also promised to refrain from taking provocative measures in the city..."


And so, as I say, it's not looking good at all. But I still want to know more before I issue blanket condemnation. An official from Ramallah saying that the US promised that we would do something is not clear confirmation of facts as they exist on the ground.

Am I uneasy? You bet! I would have to be nuts not to be. Am I aware that holding out for more information may cast me as naive or idealist? Sure. But so be it.

I note, for example, that this Ramallah official said that the Ramat Shlomo project won't take place, "at least not in the near future," and I recall that just recently the "news" was floated that Netanyahu had agreed to freeze Ramat Shlomo building for two years. This tells me it's all amorphous and unconfirmed, and sometimes contradictory.


I had noted recently when these rumors began floating, that a very quiet behind-the-scenes stoppage of construction without an official announcement by Netanyahu might not satisfy Abbas because he needs to save face. There has been a very quick turn-around on Abbas's part with regard to his willingness to participate in indirect talks, and this has to have come with an enormous amount of US arm-twisting. The statement from Ramallah may be that face-saving gesture.

If, indeed, Netanyahu has agreed to a de facto stoppage, it surely was intended to be done quietly. Otherwise, why make it unofficial? But the PA has "gone public."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, essentially telling us nothing, said today:

"We have asked both sides to take steps to rebuild trust and to create momentum so that we can see advances in peace talks. We're not going to go into details about what we've asked them to do, but obviously this is an important issue in the atmosphere to see the advancement of peace."


And Netanyahu himself? Right now he's very busy campaigning with regard to a Thursday vote within Likud that would change the party's constitution. A significant matter.

Accompanied by others in Likud, including Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon (Bogie), Netanyahu was the guest of Likud Central Committee members in Ashkelon today. When speaking there, he took the opportunity, just briefly, to lash out at Moshe Feiglin, head of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction of Likud, who has criticized him. "They want to teach Bogie and me how to protect Jerusalem. They should not preach to us..." He added that Obama and European leaders are well aware of his position on Jerusalem.

Well, the implication is there: I have been saying no freeze in Jerusalem, and they know it. But there is nothing specific. No statement clearly refuting the rumors that there is a de facto freeze in part of Jerusalem.

Is he planning to have his proverbial cake and eat it too?


I go on record, unequivocally, regarding the fact that caving to Obama on this issue would be (is?) horrendous. It would weaken our rights to our capital city, united under our sovereignty, and it would set a precedent for ever more concessions, without end.

I have left a message with Mark Regev, spokesman for the prime minister. I said I do not like to write on the basis of rumor: I requested a clear statement, on the record, regarding whether there is a de facto construction freeze in Jerusalem. I am not holding my breath waiting for the answer, but, should I receive it, will speedily share it with all of you.

Surely, there will follow-ups on this.


Right now Foreign Minister Barak is in Washington and Obama has met with him — as has National Security Adviser James Jones (undoubtedly about Iran). According to presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs, Obama told Barak that he is determined to achieve comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

And what planet is he from?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard S. Shulman, April 27, 2010.


Photo of kidnapped Israeli Gilad Shalit (AP/Tasfrir Abayov)

Hamas circulated a video showing the father of its Israeli prisoner being disappointed by Israeli politicians' assurances, and demanding hundreds of terrorists back in exchange for his son.

PM Netanyahu called it a cynical maneuver to get the prisoner's family to rally support for giving in to Hamas' demands conditions leading to his release.

Meanwhile, Hamas did not respond to a German initiative for his release. By contrast, Israel let a girl be flown out of Gaza for lifesaving surgery (IMRA, 4/25/10).


King Abdullah of Jordan, formerly part of Palestine Mandate (AP/Michel Euler)

Meeting in Kuwait, eight Palestinian Arab factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, declared opposition to setting up an Arab state in the territories, alongside Israel. [That is, they want an Arab state to incorporate what now is Israel.]

They accused U.S. envoy Mitchell of touring the Mideast "to glorify Israel and provide the Jewish state with more time to implement its plans." (IMRA, 4/25/10).

One wonders whether the spokesman, not to mention their audiences in the Arab world, believe what they say about Mitchell. Are those spokesmen paranoid or consciously lying? Every time that Mitchell comes to the Mideast, he makes demands of Israel for concessions to the Arabs and does not make demands of the Arabs.

They keep calling it a "two-state solution," though for the Arabs it is but a stage in the conquest of Israel, and the Arabs already have a state in what had been the Palestine Mandate, called Jordan. Jordan became sovereign in 1946. If the governments and media acknowledged that, they would have less of a case for giving the Palestinian Authority statehood, too.


Kuwait PM al Sabah visits Sarkozy (AP/Remy de la Mauviniere)

Kuwait decided to invest money in Syria. Kuwait lauded Syria's stance in behalf of rescuing Kuwait from Iraq (IMRA, 4/25/10).

The U.S. talked about isolating Syria. The U.S. remains powerful, but apparently over-estimates that power, which is declining relative to the rest of the world.

Obama's attempted engagement with such countries undermines pressure upon them.

As for Syria's stance, the U.S. wanted the first Gulf War to appear to be a coalition effort that included Arab states. It bribed Egypt and Syria to participate. Those two countries sent an expedition, which barely kept up with U.S. forces and did not do much if any combat.


Israeli troops killed a Palestinian Arab wanted for six years for murdering an Israeli border policeman and wounding two others. Then they destroyed his hideout.

At 7:30 Monday morning, a combined force of border guards, secret service, and army troops surrounded a house in the Beit Awa neighborhood near Hebron. They asked Ali Ahmed Switi to surrender. Instead, he opened fire. They returned fire, killing him (IMRA, 4/26/10).

Terrorists often do not surrender. The Palestinian Arabs call the slaying in self-defense of wanted murderers a murder of "Palestinians." People eager to believe the worse of Israel accept the libel as gospel.

A lot of considerations go into what to do. Some considerations are proper and some are not. There are considerations of law, efficacy, and publicity. Confusing the issue is that Israel, like the U.S., has not officially declared a war of self-defense against the jihadist ideology making war on it.

If this be war, then Israel should try to kill terrorists rather than capture them. In war, capture might be preferred. In ordinary war, capturing the enemy spares one's troops. In terrorist war, attempts to capture the enemy, who otherwise could be caught in the open, risks one's troops. The situation is such that many terrorists get released. They therefore do not as much fear getting caught. Many murder, again. Therefore, it is better to liquidate them.


This is the border police unit involved (AP/Nasser Shiyoukhi)

Israel is forming a border police task force to protect Arabs. Israelis in the Territories appear to have meted out retribution to some Arabs. The examples cited, however, were of a minor clash with police and a puncturing of police vehicle tires, the culprit being suspected but not yet proved guilty (IMRA, 4/26/10).


Plume of volcanic ash from Iceland (APJon Gustafsson)

The Iceland volcano' plume of ash grounded the planes of dozens of airlines in Europe. The exception was El Al. The other airlines deserted the airports. Not El Al.

El Al kept sending word out where to gather and not to worry, El Al was coming to take its people home. It took many hours for some to travel by land to the major airports. El Al maintained offices at the airports to instruct its passengers. Although some European countries had closed its skies, El Al got through with extra planes. It accepted tickets presented regardless of where the tickets stated disembarkation was to be from. El Al was going to bring its people back to celebrate Independence Day regardless of obstacles. In this emergency, it put service before bureaucracy.

Celebrate they did, for now they had experienced something new to be proud of. It renewed faith in their berated country. It seemed almost like the airlift that rescued thousands of Yemenite Jews from oppression, decades ago.

My source, Noam Bedein, attributes El Al's resiliency to Israeli experience with many emergencies and a resulting skill in improvisation (IMRA, 4/26/10).

Passengers of other airlines had to stick it out under trying conditions.


The U.S. Senate Homeland Security committee is investigating the Ft. Hood massacre, to find out how to keep similar atrocities from happening.

Senators Joseph Lieberman (Ind.) and Susan Collins (GOP), committee chair and ranking member, repeatedly asked the Obama administration to make pertinent records available. The Executive branch either stalls or refuses. It claims that the information would become public and interfere with prosecution.

Senators Lieberman and Collins deny that, and affirm that the investigation is bi-partisan. The records they seek are not the ones prosecutors need to convict of a crime, but are needed for tracing the signs Major Hassan showed along his radical path and Army reaction. From such records, the Senate may figure out a more practical reaction (New York Times, 4/26, A17).

Obama acts as if he were trying to protect radical Islam.


An anti-American axis is growing; is Nicaragua next?

Ortega, Bolivia's Morales, and Chavez (AP/Ariana Cubillos)

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega is following in the footsteps of the dictatorial tendencies of the heads of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Honduras. He seeks to repeal term limits for himself, has mobs to intimidate the parliament and the judiciary, makes illegal decrees, and tries to intimidate the media. Now he is trying to stack the electoral commission. Ortega is being assisted by Venezuela and Cuba. Iran probably would, too.

The Honduras President was found acting illegally by the country's supreme court, was deposed by the army, and was deported by Congress, all acting against him and defense of the constitution.

How did the Obama administration react? It used the pressure of foreign aid and the bully pulpit to try to get Honduras to back down and still tries to get the would-be dictator reinstated.

The South American dictators are allying with Iran and against the U.S.. If Ortega succeeds, he is liable to join that axis (Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Wall St. J., 4/26,A17).

The Obama administration seems not to care about preserving democracies from anti-American demagogues. The U.S. has no strategy to keep the evil axis from growing. Iran exhibits more initiative than does the U.S., both in South American and in Africa. The U.S. does not have a comprehensive view of jihad. If it did, it would not be supporting the Palestinian Arab jihadists in Fatah and the Lebanese Army allies of Hizbullah.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, April 27, 2010.

Syria is tightening its military alliance with Turkey as it reinforces its recent threat to send Israel back to "the Stone Age" if it attacks Hizbullah. Syrian President Bashar Assad told a Kuwaiti newspaper on Saturday it has "surprises" in store for Israel.

Turkish military officials said that its soldiers began joint military exercises with Syria on Monday, the second time in a year. The army maneuvers are another sign of closer ties between Damascus and Ankara, which was considered to be a friend of Israel until last year, when it fell in line with most of the Arab world's anti-Israel campaign.

Turkey also has established closer ties with Iran, and an Iranian-Turkish-Syrian-Lebanese axis would pose a monolithic threat to Israel from the north.

Syrian sources told the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai that if Israel were to attack the Lebanon-based Hizbullah terrorist army, Syria would impose a naval blockade on Israel, using ground-to-sea missiles.

The regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad also has the capability to fire 60 ballistic missiles and 600 tactical missiles in one day, the sources told the newspaper. They added that if Hizbullah is attacked, Syria would fight alongside the Lebanese army, which has shown signs of being part and parcel of Hizbullah's forces.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday tried to defuse the hostile atmosphere, stating that Israel has no intentions of staging an attack.

Diplomatic tensions flared up two weeks ago after it was revealed that Syria has been arming Hizbullah with long-range Scud missiles. The report was first carried by Al-Rai and may have been leaked by the United States in order to create pressure for United Nations Interim Forces (UNIFIL) to beef up their patrols in Lebanon.

Syria categorically denied the charges, and the United States officially said it is investigating the report.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sara Lehmann, April 27, 2010.

Nat Lewin said if this video on youtube about rubashkin gets 100,000 views it will help Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin very much.

I am sure that some of you may have already received this and hopefully viewed it, but I am sending it anyway with the request that you view it continue to forward it.

Please view this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1JCv4bYyWE

Contact Sara Lehmann by email @saralehmann21@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, April 27, 2010.

Yosef Rabin writes

We have a very big opportunity to make an impact, it seems Zevulen Orlev together with Eitan Cabel are restarting discussions regarding the Heritage List. Har HaBayit (Temple Mount) has not yet been added to the list, which is a travesty. We have someone on the inside Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander who is in contact with MK Orlev and would like to bring him a petition by next week with no less than 10,000 signatures on it. Please urge all your lists to sign and actively encourage everyone they know to sign the petition as well. Perhaps we can even exceed the 10,000 mark. The petition is in Hebrew and English and should therefore be sent out to Hebrew and English lists. We have a very good opportunity to the Har an issue, please help in this regard.

Click here to link to the petition

Thank you for you help.



The battle for the future of Jerusalem has begun! While many people are beginning to cry out against the division of Jerusalem and against and a freeze on Jewish construction, it appears as if the heart and center has been forgotten. Like a human body if you kill the heart, the rest of the body will quickly wither away, and so it is with the Temple Mount and the Land of Israel.

The Holy Temple Mount is the heart of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, and as the old saying goes "He who controls the Mount shall control Jerusalem". If we have no right to the Mount than we certainly have no right to communities like Ramat Shlomo. If we have no right to the Mount than we do not even have a right to the Western Wall, for the sanctity of the wall derives from the Mount. In fact the Arabs have already begun to call the Western Wall the "Al Buraq Wall" or the wall to which Mohamed allegedly tied his horse. This situation has led to a disastrous situation.

From the very place that the Temple priests brought the holy sacrifices, Arabs now gather for picnics. From the very place that the Levites sang the sweet praises of the Lord, the Muslim leaders call for the death of our people and the destruction of our State. The place of Oleh Regel (pilgrimage) has become the place for Kadur Regel (soccer) by Arab children. The Arabs for years now have been continuing to erase any trace of the first and second Temples. They have turned the Temple Mount into one gigantic outdoor Mosque and from there they wage their unrelenting battle against us. In addition Jews are denied basic rights on the mount and are even arrested for crimes like moving lips or closing eyes in prayer. The Arabs properly understand the symbolism that goes along with controlling the Temple Mount.

The Book of Haggai states, "Then came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet, saying: Is this the time for you to dwell in paneled houses, while this house sits in ruins?" As Israel capitulates to America and enforces a building freeze in Judea and Samaria and now Jerusalem the words from Haggai ring loudly in our ears! Since the liberation of the Temple Mount in 1967 there has been an ironclad freeze on anything Jewish on the Mount. No Jewish prayer or study and certainly no building. By abandoning the Temple Mount to the enemy, we essentially handed them the keys to kingdom. If a Jew may not pray or have free access to the very place where his Temple stood, then what possible right could he have to even Tel Aviv, which is but one hundred years old. The world must also understand that if the radical Muslims can take over the ancient and sacred Mount in Jerusalem, they will have no problem usurping any other capital they like, including Washington DC.

Everyday more and more decrees are created by the Israeli police making it more and more difficult for Temple Mount activists to work. Activists are regularly harassed by police and special security agents. Emails, phones and websites are carefully and constantly watched; this very letter will most likely be read and analyzed. Freedom of speech for Temple Mount activists simply does not exist and many lay leaders and rabbis, are simply afraid to get involved for fear of persecution. I have heard this from top rabbis and leaders in Israel. If Jews outside of Israel do not begin to protest this, it will not end and will even get worse. We urgently need Jews and lovers of Israel to help us fight this battle; we must save the Temple Mount and Jerusalem along with her! The Prophet Isaiah states "For the Sake of Zion is will not be still, for the Sake of Jerusalem I will not be quite", words are not enough we need concrete action, now more than ever! We must create serious facts on the ground, and if we cannot do that, we will lose it!


Please urge your congregations, family and friends to protest this injustice loudly! The preservation of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem is the responsibility of every Jew across the world; no one can abstain from this responsibility. If we lose the Temple Mount and Jerusalem, the future generation will not forgive us and neither will generations of the long and bitter 2,000 year exile who never relinquished the hope that they might one day return. The Psalms states "Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, may all those that love thee prosper"; this is both a command and a guarantee. The command is to pray for Jerusalem and the guarantee is that those who do so will prosper.

Come and prosper with us!

Yosef Rabin
Spokesman to North America
HaTenua LeChinun HaMikdash
(Organization for Renewal of the Temple)

Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Doc Milton Fried, April 27, 2010.

How is it that a school of higher learning would do something this dumb? Perhaps the Wildcats should consider renaming the SAT's in honor of themselves.


This goes beyond appalling and needs to be rescinded. If this trend continues this only gives validity to the ultimate purpose behind what Muslim's have planned for this country.

This week the University of Kentucky removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended" the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it. It is now more than 60 years since the Second World War in Europe ended.


This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!

Now more than ever, with Iran among others claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets. This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide! Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it around the world.

Please send this e-mail to everybody you know and ask them to continue the memorial chain.

Please do not take this lightly by ignoring what has just taken place.

It will only take you a minute to pass this along. Please do it.

Contact Dr. Milt Fried by email at docmiltfried@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, April 26, 2010.

This below was written by Joseph Rabin. who writes

I just got a message from Rav Yeshayahu Hollander that MK's Orlev and Cabel are reviving discussion on the "Heritage List". Since we have a person who is in contact with Orlev we must press the petition now more than ever. It is both in Hebrew and English and I would very much like to see it reach the 10s of thousands by next week so that we can send it to Orlev and perhaps really kick start some discussion. The Mount must be included in the Heritage Lists now!

Please send this Petition asap to all your lists and stress that this is urgent.


Open Letter to US Jewry:

The battle for the future of Jerusalem has begun! While many people are beginning to cry out against the division of Jerusalem and against and a freeze on Jewish construction, it appears as if the heart and center has been forgotten. Like a human body if you kill the heart, the rest of the body will quickly wither away, and so it is with the Temple Mount and the Land of Israel.

The Holy Temple Mount is the heart of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, and as the old saying goes "He who controls the Mount shall control Jerusalem". If we have no right to the Mount than we certainly have no right to communities like Ramat Shlomo. If we have no right to the Mount than we do not even have a right to the Western Wall, for the sanctity of the wall derives from the Mount. In fact the Arabs have already begun to call the Western Wall the "Al Buraq Wall" or the wall to which Mohamed allegedly tied his horse. This situation has led to a disastrous situation.

From the very place that the Temple priests brought the holy sacrifices, Arabs now gather for picnics. From the very place that the Levites sang the sweet praises of the Lord, the Muslim leaders call for the death of our people and the destruction of our State. The place of Oleh Regel (pilgrimage) has become the place for Kadur Regel (soccer) by Arab children. The Arabs for years now have been continuing to erase any trace of the first and second Temples. They have turned the Temple Mount into one gigantic outdoor Mosque and from there they wage their unrelenting battle against us. In addition Jews are denied basic rights on the mount and are even arrested for crimes like moving lips or closing eyes in prayer. The Arabs properly understand the symbolism that goes along with controlling the Temple Mount.

The Book of Haggai states, "Then came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet, saying: Is this the time for you to dwell in paneled houses, while this house sits in ruins?" As Israel capitulates to America and enforces a building freeze in Judea and Samaria and now Jerusalem the words from Haggai ring loudly in our ears! Since the liberation of the Temple Mount in 1967 there has been an ironclad freeze on anything Jewish on the Mount. No Jewish prayer or study and certainly no building. By abandoning the Temple Mount to the enemy, we essentially handed them the keys to kingdom. If a Jew may not pray or have free access to the very place where his Temple stood, then what possible right could he have to even Tel Aviv, which is but one hundred years old. The world must also understand that if the radical Muslims can take over the ancient and sacred Mount in Jerusalem, they will have no problem usurping any other capital they like, including Washington DC.

Everyday more and more decrees are created by the Israeli police making it more and more difficult for Temple Mount activists to work. Activists are regularly harassed by police and special security agents. Emails, phones and websites are carefully and constantly watched; this very letter will most likely be read and analyzed. Freedom of speech for Temple Mount activists simply does not exist and many lay leaders and rabbis, are simply afraid to get involved for fear of persecution. I have heard this from top rabbis and leaders in Israel. If Jews outside of Israel do not begin to protest this, it will not end and will even get worse. We urgently need Jews and lovers of Israel to help us fight this battle; we must save the Temple Mount and Jerusalem along with her! The Prophet Isaiah states "For the Sake of Zion is will not be still, for the Sake of Jerusalem I will not be quite", words are not enough we need concrete action, now more than ever! We must create serious facts on the ground, and if we cannot do that, we will lose it!


Please urge your congregations, family and friends to protest this injustice loudly! The preservation of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem is the responsibility of every Jew across the world; no one can abstain from this responsibility. If we lose the Temple Mount and Jerusalem, the future generation will not forgive us and neither will generations of the long and bitter 2,000 year exile who never relinquished the hope that they might one day return. The Psalms states "Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, may all those that love thee prosper"; this is both a command and a guarantee. The command is to pray for Jerusalem and the guarantee is that those who do so will prosper.

Come and prosper with us!

Yosef Rabin
Spokesman to North America
HaTenua LeChinun HaMikdash (Organization for Renewal of the Temple)

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com or tedbdl1@israpundit.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, April 26, 2010.

"Obama — Stop Pressuring Israel" was the rallying cry of the day, as over 2000 supporters of Israel gathered in front of the Israeli Consulate in New York City on Sunday afternoon, April 25th to express their views on the current strain in relations between the United States and Israel. Organizers of the rally had expected thousands more to attend but the inclement weather kept many away.

The rally was sponsored and organized by the Jewish Action Alliance, an pro-Israel activist organization that is renowned for championing issues of Jewish security. Beth Gilinsky, the spokesperson and chief strategist of the Jewish Action Alliance said, "We are outraged that President Obama is scapegoating Israel and wants to expel Jews from their homes in Jerusalem. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton display more anger about a Jewish family building a home in Jerusalem than Iran building a nuclear bomb." Expressing the sentiments of those in attendance at the rally, she said, "Vast segments of the Jewish community will not tolerate the President's continuing attacks on Israel. Grassroots Jewry will not be silent."

Noticeably absent from the lengthy roster of organizations endorsing this rally were the major American establishment Jewish organizations such as the World Jewish Congress, the ADL of B'nai Brith, the American Jewish Congress and the United Jewish Appeal. It has been suggested that these liberal Jewish organizations are supportive of President Obama's agenda in the Middle East and don't want to damage their relations with the current administration. Amongst the plethora of organizations endorsing and participating in the rally were, Stand With Us, a college campus activist organization that spotlights hate speech against Israel, Christians and Jews United for Israel, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Artists 4 Israel, Z Street, The Jerusalem Reclamation Project, The Center For Defense of Democracies, the AISH Center, AMCHA; Coalition for Jewish Concerns, The Jewish Political Education Foundation and the Endowment for Middle East Truth.

Radio talk show host Steve Malzberg and columnist Rabbi Aryeh Spero served as the masters of ceremony as they introduced a litany of speakers representing a broad spectrum of both Jewish and non-Jewish support for Israel. Rabbi Yaakov Spivak of Monsey, NY, a longtime Jewish activist, radio talk show host and a Daily News columnist intoned, "President Obama, we're here today to tell you something. In Warsaw, they told Jews where we could build, in Lodz they told Jews where we could build, in Paris they told Jews where we could build. You will never tell us where to build in Jerusalem. We are home and Israel is our country. You are not our landlord and we are neither a vassal state nor a banana republic. Our mandate to be here today is none other than our holy Tanach, our bible which says, 'For the sake of Zion I will not be silent and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be quiet."

"The Jewish people are G-d's chosen people" said Rev. Michael Faulkner, an African American minister representing the New Horizon Church. "I remind those in the Obama administration that those who bless the Jewish people will be blessed and those who curse the Jewish people will be cursed. Israel is the only stable, democratic ally in the Middle East and this relationship must be preserved and protected. The strength of the land of Israel and the Jewish people lies with their G-d and I call upon all Jews to return to the mandate of the Almighty G-d of Israel and His holy Torah" he said

Holding aloft signs saying, "Jerusalem: Israel's United and Eternal Capitol", "Hillary Clinton: Pressure Iran, Not Israel", "Obama: Stand Up for America, Stop Bowing to Saudi Kings!" and "Obama: Jews Will Not Be Silent", the rally participants passionately expressed their anger at the shift in US foreign policy as it pertains to Israel. Jackie Donney, 55, a Christian supporter of Israel who traveled from Newton, Pennsylvania to attend the rally said, "Look, we all know the background of Barack Obama. He is a disciple of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, one of the greatest haters of Israel and America. I think it is downright sinful that Obama has placed such tremendous pressure on Israel to make major territorial concessions in the name of a false peace. The Palestinian government is an Iranian proxy and such is bent on the destruction of Israel and the Western world. Just look what happened when Israel forcibly evicted Jews from Gush Katif. It didn't bring peace and now the US is demanding that Israel relinquish parts of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. I say, 'Never, Never, Never'".

Another rally attendee, Rabbi Joseph Rosenbluh of the Young Israel of Vandeveer Park in Brooklyn said, "In our Tehillim (the Book of Psalms), we learn that our ultimate salvation lies with our Almighty G-d. It is up to all Jews to ferociously cleave to Hashem (G-d), to walk in His ways and to follow His commandments. In every generation we find that there is no shortage of Jew haters and other miscreants who seek our destruction. There is a new Pharoah in town (Obama) who does not know Joseph (the Jewish people) and we comprehend from our history that G-d will deal with our enemies if only we acknowledge His majesty and glory."

A formidable contingent of Hindu and Sikh supporters of Israel was also present at the rally. "We understand all to well that a policy of appeasement towards Islamic radicalism will never bring peace to Israel or the civilized world, declared Satya Dosapati of the Hindu Human Rights Watch. "As Hindus, we have been massacred by Muslims for thousands of years. If President Obama really believes that isolating and demonizing Israel and publicly humiliating Israel's prime minister is not emboldening our Islamic enemies, then something is really wrong. Israel is a peace seeking nation and we unequivocally support their right to their homeland. The world must realize that if Israel falls then the entire world will come under the domination of a blood thirsty Islamic caliphate", he continued.

Meir Rosenblatt, of Passaic, New Jersey said, "At the most recent AIPAC convention, Secretary Clinton said that Israel must relinquish Judea and Samaria in order to maintain both a democratic and Jewish state. It is clear that Israel is sitting on a demographic time bomb that is all too real. 20 years ago there were only two Arab members of Knesset and now there are 10. The Arab birthrate is skyrocketing while the Jewish birthrate is not. There is no educated Jew that can honestly say we weren't warned that this would happen. Rabbi Meir Kahane, of blessed memory spoke of this back in the late 1970s and everyone called him a racist and a fascist because they didn't want to hear the painful truth. Now we have boxed ourselves in a corner because we didn't listen to his prescient message."

Helen Freedman of the Americans for a Safe Israel said, "There is no way to establish peace with those who call for your destruction on a daily basis. That is exactly what the Palestinian propaganda campaign is all about. Lies, half-truths and distortions. AFSI is promoting the idea of "Shalom" (peace) through the concept of "Shalem" (a whole Israel). There can only be peace through strength and security. When the Arabs realized that they could not prevail against Israel militarily, they embarked on a course of diplomatic destruction and we are here to speak truth to the canards that they espouse."

Other speakers included Joan Peters, author of the critically acclaimed book, "Of Time Immemorial", Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America, Dr. Herbert London of The Hudson Institute, New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind who represents the 48th assembly district in Brooklyn and a stalwart Jewish activist and supporter of Israel, radio talk show host Curtis Sliwa and founder of the Guardian Angels, Faith McDonnell of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Joy Brighton of Stop Shariah Now, Rabbi David Algaze of the World Committee for the Land of Israel, Tamar Edelstein of Crown Heights Women, Bhupinder Bhurji of the Naamdari Sikh Foundation, Lori Lowenthal Marcus of Z Street, State Senator Reuben Diaz, Susan Cohen of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Mallory Danaher of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Narain Katarian of the Hindu Human Rights Watch.

Contact Fern Sidman by email at ariellah@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Morse, April 27, 2010.


Ben Kilgore, Jesse Segovia
Great Northern Media Relations

BOSTON, MA — April 23, 2010 — Author Chuck Morse, in his timely new book "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism" released this week by World Net Daily Books, claims the Obama Administration's naive and aggressive push for a two-state solution in the Israel-Arab conflict is threatening the security of Israel and jeopardizes what peace exists today in the Middle East. "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism" is being released as President Shimon Peres of Israel announced that Syria is supplying to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, SCUD missiles capable of hitting any target in Israel.

Morse's new book shows how the Nazi strain of terrorism infected Arab politics in the 20th century and continues to guide radical Islam and to expand into all sectors of Arab and Islamic society in the 21st century. Morse's book provides a comprehensive look at World War II events involving the Middle East including the emergence of the Arab leader Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem as a key Nazi collaborator intent on destroying Israel in its fledgling stages.

Morse said President Obama appears to be encouraging Israel's sworn enemies with his remarks and actions towards Israel, and that the Syrian military actions appear to be a direct result of President Obama's indulgence of anti-Israeli elements.

Morse contends that President Obama is the most recent in a long line of well meaning liberal western leaders who mistakenly believe appeasing aggressors leads to peace. Hitler, having been encouraged by liberal British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, worked with the Grand Mufti during the war years in developing the Muslim Brotherhood as a pro-Nazi spy network in the Middle East. Morse's book contends that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned such groups as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda, has never been de-Nazified.

Referring to today's radical Islamists and their unwitting supporters, Morse states "their anti-Semitic Utopian world order pretensions and their virulent anti-democratic bias are philosophically in the same place as their Nazi counterparts."

Morse says further that treaties such as the Oslo Peace Initiative delivered to the world by President Clinton in the 1990s did not work and will never work. "I no longer support the Oslo process," says Morse. "It is dead. There will not be another Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.

"There are already twenty four sovereign Arab states, many of them rich in oil and natural resources" said Morse. "The Palestinian Arabs of Israel have legitimate concerns but creating another state within Israel's present borders portends national suicide for Israel. Israel should openly declare that there will be no further withdrawal from any territories in which it now resides and that its borders are set for all time" said Morse.

"Palestinians in Israel should receive dual citizenship in both Israel and their respective regional cantons. Israel should invest in those cantons towards improving the quality of life for the Arab residents. It should be declared openly and unapologetically that Israel is a Jewish state, and that Israel should first and foremost promote and protect its Jewish identity."

After two thousand years of exile, the Jewish people have re-established sovereignty in the lands promised to their forefathers in the Bible. The voices of Muslim moderates who have supported the modest and proper aspirations of the Jews of Israel have too often been silenced by radicals. It's time for Israel along with moderate Muslims to stand up for what is right and what is fair. "The free world is confronted once again with a gathering world struggle for existence that threatens apocalyptic proportions just as it was during the emergence of the Nazis," Morse added.

Chuck Morse is an accomplished author of several books dealing with issues affecting Israel. He is a renowned radio talk show host where he co-hosts "The Fairness Doctrine" along with Dr. Patrick O'Heffernan in his home region of New England and was a candidate for US Congress in the 4th District of Massachusetts in 2004.

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, April 26, 2010.

Martin Indyk

To avoid misunderstanding, I must say at the outset that I am not interested in Martin Indyk per se, if only because I do not regard him as worthy of my attention. But since pundits take Indyk seriously, perhaps they may be enlightened if I use him to reveal the basic cause of Israel's and America's malaise. Hence, a brief bio of Indyk is necessary, for which Wikipedia will suffice.

Indyk was born in 1951 to a Jewish family in England, but grew up and was educated in Australia. He graduated from the University of Sydney in 1972 and received a PhD in international relations from the Australian National University in 1977. He immigrated to the United States and later gained American citizenship in 1993.

He has taught at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He also served as special assistant to U.S. President Bill Clinton (whose administration, according to military theorist and former U.S. Army Colonel Ralph Peters, was "the most cowardly administration in history," having failed to react vigorously to terrorist attacks on U.S. forces abroad, a failure leading to 9/11.)

Returning to Clinton adviser Martin Indyk, he also served as senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the United States National Security Council. While at the NSC, he served as principal adviser to the President and the National Security Advisor on Arab-Israeli issues, Iraq, Iran, and South Asia. He served two stints as U.S. Ambassador to Israel, from April 1995 to September 1997 and from January 2000 to July 2001.

Writing in the New York Times, and interviewed by Israel Army Radio on April 22, Indyk blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the rift with the Obama administration. He went so far as to say "Israel has to adjust its policy to the interests of the United States." Since I am anything but a fan of Netanyahu, this report should not be deemed a defense of Bibi.

Notwithstanding Indyk's education and his experience in the American executive department, he appears abysmally ignorant of facts documented in American sources and confirmed by U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye and former Chief of U.S Air Force Intelligence George Keegan that dollar for dollar, Israel gives more to the U.S. than the U.S. gives to Israel — to say nothing of the overt and covert U.S. military aid to Israel's enemies, including the Palestinian Authority.

Like his Washington handlers, Indyk has long advocated a Palestinian state, even though one does not require military expertise to arrive at a former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff conclusion that such a state would endanger Israel's existence. This is why Netanyahu insists that an Arab Palestinian state must be demilitarized and barred from forming alliances with any Arab regime.

Never mind that no Palestinian leader would survive a day if he accepted such terms. Consider only the fact that Indyk wants Israel to negotiate with the PA, whose mentality and behavior have been shaped by Islamic scriptures permeated by murderous hatred of "infidels," especially Jews. Hence, I am not impressed by Indyk's academic credentials and experience in the Clinton government, no more than George Orwell was impressed by the British intelligentsia of the 1930s which held posts in the Chamberlain government.

When Indyk served as Clinton's ambassador to Israel, Israeli conservatives called him a "court Jew." Such labels are not helpful. We know court Jews in America bend over backwards to avoid the canard of "dual loyalty." Israel pays a price for this "political correctness."

For a Democrat like Clinton, whose presidential campaign funding depended very much on Jewish donations, his appointment of Indyk was "religiously" as well as "politically" correct. And since Yasser Arafat was reportedly the most frequent foreign guest at the Clinton White House, Indyk's endorsement of a Palestinian state made him a virtual ally of Arafat.

But what is "political correctness" if not a label descriptive of someone who willfully avoids taking a candid position on controversial political issues? To put it plainly, "political correctness" is a euphemism to describe a person lacking intellectual integrity or moral courage. But this label short-circuits serious thought about the factors that have shaped Indyk's mentality.

Would it be proper to regard him simply as ignorant of the bellicose and mendacious nature of Arab-Islamic culture? But how is this possible given his fields of study at various universities? Can it be that his mentors were dominated by moral or multicultural relativism — the same doctrine that has influenced Barack Obama?

Like other "politically correct" democrats, Indyk tends to "mirror image" — sees Arabs as he sees him own peace-loving face in a mirror. This may explain his inability to take the bellicose nature of Arab-Islamic culture seriously. Perhaps he imbibed the academic doctrine of "conflict resolution," which reinforces the natural bent of diplomats — a doctrine that ignores the enormity of evil in the world? There are legions of such people in academia — especially at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities, where moral relativism and pacifism flourish.

This might explain why Indyk ignored Arafat's remark that "peace for us means the destruction of Israel." It might also explain why a person tainted by multicultural relativism cannot factor into his evaluation of Islam the significance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vow to "wipe Israel off the map," even though that Muslim leader sent tens of thousands of Iranian children to walk across and thereby explode Iraqi minefields in the Iraqi-Iranian war. (By the way, Ahmadinejad he was a recent guest of Columbia University!)

Hence, it is reckless folly to dismiss Ahmadinejad's maledictions as mere rhetoric, as smug academics teach their students. The genocidal imprecations of Arabs and Muslims vis-a-vis Israel and America underlie what Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have called the "clash of civilizations" — which means, to any person unaffected by academic obscurantism: It's either them or us." Does Indyk deem these renowned scholars ignoramuses or "extremists"?

Even more important on a practical level than Lewis and Huntington is Ralph Peters mentioned earlier. In two books, Fighting for the Future and Beyond Terror, Peters cautions us not to negotiate with terrorists — and the Palestinian Authority is nothing if it not a terrorist organization bent on Israel's annihilation. I assume the learned Mr. Indyk has read the PA's genocidal charter. If so, he seems to construe it as mere rhetoric for the masses.

Let me therefore urge him to study the extraordinary erudition and worldwide experience of Michael Radu, especially Radu's recent book Europe's Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West. What's left of Europe is a "ghost" — nations disembodied by the multicultural relativism of their ruling elites (academics and politicians, judges and journalists). No wonder Barack Obama has been called an "empty suit."

Of course, my remarks will have no impact on those who take civilization for granted. Like overindulged children, our decision makers and diplomats do not really understand — because they have not been taught to understand — how much hard work and stamina, how much self-sacrifice and heroism, are required in each generation to defend civilization against its enemies. Read Lee Harris to learn why. Or think of how much it cost in blood and treasure to save Europe from barbarism in the wars of the last century — a barbarism no less monstrous than that promised by totalitarian Islam.

Perhaps Ralph Peters, Michael Radu, and Lee Harris are beyond Mr. Indyk's limited comprehension. I doubt men of their "politically incorrect" views are required reading at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities. I wonder if any academic today — despite all the drivel about academic freedom — can remain at his post if he were to explain, in scholarly terms, using Islamic documents, why it is futile and fatal to negotiate with the self-professed enemies of Israel and America, be they Fatah Palestinians or Iranian mullahs.

Since Martin Indyk surely does not want America and Israel to become mere "ghosts," I wonder what he would say after reading Raymond Ibraham's essay on the Islamic art of dissimulation, "Taqiyya," a military doctrine best revealed by Ibrahim in the Winter 2010 edition of the Middle East Quarterly

Some readers may accuse me of arrogance by criticizing a man of Indyk's academic and governmental background. But I feel obliged to do so not because I am a former officer in the U.S. Air Force who studied under Leo Strauss, a classical political scientist without equal in the twentieth century. No: you don't need to be a soldier or a scholar to discern the enormity of evil confronting America and Israel. So I am not impressed by America's erstwhile ambassador to Israel. Indeed, he reminds me of Nietzsche's remark about German intellectuals: "great learning and great stupidity often go well together under the same hat."

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 26 April 2010,

Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at pauleid@netvision.net.il or list-owner@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Asher Eder, April 26, 2010.

This was written by Jacob Chinitz, who lives in Jerusalem.


I disagree furiously with the article, Einstein, Obama and Netanyahu — April 25.It attempts to be a super sophistaced leap over temporal and ideological chasms in order to identify the first two figures with the cultural Zionism of Ahad Haam, as opposed to the political Zionism of Herzl. The thesis proposed is not only mistaken in terms of the classic debate, namely, that cultural Zionism cannot exist without political Zionism, and political Zionism cannot exist without nationalism and militarism.

But even in terms of Einstein's thinking itself, much can be said in negation of his pacifism and anti-nationalism and his fear that a Jewish State would undermine Judaism. For example, when he gave up his German citizenship, did he apply for a world passport, or for an American passport? If he really believed in pacifism, why did he send a letter to President Roosevelt advising him to develop the atom bomb? Apparently, his anti-nationalism and pacifism were overcome by his anti-Nazism and his pro-Humanism.

Applying the same crisis decisions to the State of Israel and Zionism today, is it not obvious that cultural Zionism cannot exist without the nationalism that Einstein feared, and that nationalism cannot exist without political and military Zionism? Were the Arabs willing to accept a Jewish homeland in cultural terms? Were they ready to accept a pacifist Jewish State? Would there have been a haven for the remnants of the Shoah without Israel? Would there be a Hebrew University in an Arab Palestine?

Obama is not a cultural Zionist or any kind of Zionist. He has not and will not call himself that. He is an anti-nationalist, willing to sacrifice the pre-eminence of his own United States, in favor of an appeasement of Islam expansionism. He is willing to risk the destruction of the Israel he claims to love by depriving it of the right to build in the City of David, and the right to defend itself against terror, rockets and delegitimization.

Contact Asher Eder by email at avrason@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 26, 2010.


Israel has declared a buffer zone of 150-300 meters from the 1967 armistice line into the Gaza Strip. The reason is that terrorists came to the armistice line to plant bombs.

Residents of Gaza and members of International Solidarity Movement protested by challenging the IDF order, entering the zone, and moving toward the armistice line. Israeli troops fired warning shots. The Gaza medical coordinator said that six demonstrators were wounded.

Militant groups say attacks on Israeli patrols in Gaza are defensive, and an effort to protect what by law is sovereign Palestinian territory, but in reality is under Israeli military occupation. (IMRA, 4/25/10).

Which "militant groups" is not stated. Neither is the law that they claim sovereignty. Gaza was unallocated territory under the Mandate. Egypt illegally seized it in 1948, but the legal status remained as unallocated, not under anybody's sovereignty. Arab claims about legality usually are without basis and should be treated with skepticism as propaganda.

Constantly attacking by rockets fired into Israel and by bombing and shooting at Israeli troops inside Israel at the border is not "defensive." It is true, that after thousands of terrorist attacks from Gaza, Israeli troops now fire at Arabs who ignore their warnings and approach the fence. Most of the time, those who approach, do so to plant bombs.

Based on experience with the Palestinian Arabs alleging casualties that did not occur and blaming the IDF for pre-existing casualties, and claiming wounds from warning shots but withholding medical evidence, the claim that witnesses confirmed the injuries in this case is not persuasive.

Israel must have been tempted to rescind the order to maintain the sterile zone, to avoid the ensuing negative publicity. Nevertheless, it held firm. This time it places a higher priority on keeping terrorists from injuring its own people.

It is unfortunate that farmers suffer because of what the terrorists do, and the terrorists try to escape blame by shifting it to Israel. But it is Israel that is defending sovereign territory.


Here is an excerpt from a typical Army news release that provide background for the prior article on the Gaza war zone:

"Earlier today, during an operational activity near the security fence in the central Gaza Strip, Engineering forces discovered three land mines planted in the ground, thus thwarting an attack against IDF soldiers."

"The presence of Palestinian civilians in the area adjacent to the security fence in Gaza is used by terrorist organizations as cover for their activities, including planting explosive devices, planning terrorist attacks and attempts to kidnap IDF soldiers. For this reason, the IDF considers this a combat zone." (IMRA, 4/25/10).


Christoph Schultt of Spiegel Online, a German media outlet, interviewed Israel's chief military censor, Sima Vaknin-Gil. Here is the gist of it.

Does having a military censor mean that Israel is not democratic? Once the Defense Minister appoints the censor, the censor operates independently of the Army and mostly with civilian news examiners. Security officials rarely contact, and cannot overrule, the censor.

[My comment: The U.S. imposed military censorship during WWII, without becoming undemocratic. Censorship's extent, nature, and penalties for violation determine whether the censorship contradicts claims to being a democracy.]

In case of doubt, does the censor automatically support security rather than journalism? The Supreme Court ruled for supporting security in a direct conflict, but the standard is, "imminent certainty of actual harm to state security." The chief censor had served in military intelligence, and thinks that past censorship was rather liberal. Arab censorship is much stricter. The Israeli censor imagines what the news would enable foreign intelligence agencies to do.

The censor's office receives thousands of items a month. A few can take months to review. 80-85 percent are passed as is, 10-15% are required to have certain changes, usually just one change, and 1 percent are barred totally.

What recourse has a journalist to contest the censor's ruling? The matter is reviewed by a troika: (1) A judge or other public representative; (2) Someone from a different branch of the Israeli media, i.g., from radio when the issue involves print journalism; and (3) A member of a security agency. The journalist tends to side with the protester. The journalist can appeal to Israel's High Court.

The present censor experiences only a third of the challenges as in the past. Now it is 1.5 times a year. These cases arise either to contest censorship or because of violation of censorship. Penalties for violation are light — reprimands or fines. The Israeli media do not like to be accused of violating censorship, so they try to be careful. Most Israel journalists censor themselves, because they are security conscious.

Israeli journalists thought that the gag order over the Army documents theft case was over-censorship. Actually, the gag was ordered by a judge, not the censor. Gag orders are meant not to spoil a confidential ongoing investigation.

[In that case, national security was involved, because the stolen to secret documents could help enemy intelligence defeat Israeli troops. The U.S. has gag orders on criminal cases, too.]

One of the stolen documents published was an argument that the Army had violated a court order to arrest, not kill, certain Palestinian Arab suspects. The Haaretz article passed censorship over the objections of security agencies. The censor did not think the article harmed national security.

Foreign publications can evade Israeli censorship by publishing outside its jurisdiction. True, but enemy intelligence agencies do not give much credence to foreign reports. They prefer Israeli reports, which are subjected to censorship. The censor sometimes plays on enemy skepticism by requiring Israel journalists to write, "as reported in the foreign media."

The censor confirmed that Spiegel Online often is more accurate than Israeli reports, but that is the exception. Spiegel's reporter never submitted documents to the censor, but never was called into the censor's office. The chief censor explained that they are well aware of Spiegel articles and find them rarely dealing with military issues, mostly with political issues. Those are not censored (IMRA, 4/25/10).


Secretary of State Clinton says that the U.S. will still seek engagement with Syria until if finds that Syria actually did ship Scuds to Hizbullah in Lebanon.

She said, "We would like to have a more balanced and positive relationship with

Syria." "We would like to see Syria play a more constructive role and engage in an effort to resolve its outstanding conflict with Israel." (IMRA, 4/25/10).

To think that Syria, an imperialist country allied with fanatical Iran, would be constructive and try to resolve a conflict without conquering its enemy is childishly naïve. A conspiracy buff would add that notion to all the other foreign policy blunders by the Obama administration and conclude that the blunders, like those in domestic policy, are designed to bring the U.S. down. Such a buff prefers to see a plot rather than conclude that Obama's radical ideology is an all-around failure.


Israel's PM Netanyahu accused Iran of deceiving Iran about Israeli military intentions, in order to goad Syria to start a war. Problem is, once Islamist propaganda gets repeated enough, even the propagandists believe it 4/25/10).

The Soviet Union used to do that with the Arab states it had armed. The Arabs believed the Soviets.


Iran's President Adhadinejad is coming to Zimbabwe to open its trade fair. The Zimbabwe regime's coalition partners object (IMRA, 4/25/10).

(A.P. photo/ Tsvangiryai Mukwazhi)

This news comes on the heels of news that Iran is trading with Zimbabwe, oil for uranium. It starts to look as if Iran is cultivating this failed state. The Evil Axis has more initiative that the U.S., hobbled by unrealistic ideologies, poor intelligence, and cumbersome decision-making.


Wyoming man returns to wife from Kuwait gig (AP/ Jerret Raffety)

The Kuwaiti Students' Union held a rally in support of the war by Hamas against Israel. Citing Islamic religious authority, they said this is a general war of religion and not limited to the Arab-Israel conflict. They urged Kuwaitis to form their own Hamas. That is the Salafi view.

They also said that negotiation would not work and they cannot reconcile with Israel. They consider Abbas too weak for war. They said they never would recognize Israel.

They accuse Israel of stealing Arab antiquities (IMRA, 4/25/10).

What Arab antiquities in Israel? I don't recall seeing any in my many visits to archaeological sites and visits. The artifacts are mostly Hebrew, a few Canaanite, and some Roman. The Arabs did not arrive the Dark Ages, well after ancient times. The wall around the Old City of Jerusalem is the later, Turkish wall, built atop an earlier wall. Unfortunately, in their extensive excavations on the Temple Mount, the Muslim Waqf destroys ancient Jewish artifacts, then denies there are any.

Abbas also said he never would recognize Israel, at least not as to being legitimately a Jewish state. That means he cannot make genuine peace with it.

The Kuwaiti Salafists, like Hamas, do not pretend the conflict is territorial.


Israeli Defense Minister Barak had destroyed the foundations of houses for the sons of members of two kibbutzim in the Jordan Valley, in Judea-Samaria.

The foundations had almost been completed, when PM Netanyahu froze construction in Judea-Samaria for Jews who had not already started construction. By "started," he means gone beyond the foundation.

On learning of the freeze, the two kibbutzim suspended construction, and promised to wait for the end of the freeze. They kept their word. Nevertheless, Barak had the foundations destroyed. He claimed he did it to placate President Obama.

They reacted by quitting Barak's Labor Party. Most kibbutzim are leftist and favored the Labor Party (IMRA, 4/25/10).

I checked with an informed Israeli source. He confirmed that the freeze did not authorize the Defense Minister to destroy initiated but suspended construction for which building permits had been issued. Barak acted outside of his authority. He did the same with a religious/public building, which category was exempt from the freeze. His Labor Party claims to stand for law and order.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Olivier Guitta, April 26, 2010.

A spate of deportations marks a tougher stance toward Christians in once-tolerant Morocco.


PARIS, France — The days of Christians in Morocco may be numbered.

A wave of so-called proselytizing, that has reportedly converted tens of thousands Muslims into Christians, has prompted authorities to clamp down on Christian residents.

Over the last several weeks, more than 50 Christians from the U.S., the Netherlands and South Korea have been deported by Moroccan authorities. Some long-time Christian residents were not allowed back in the country.

The most high-profile operation took place in an orphanage called the Village of Hope, when 16 foreign Christians running the center were told they had two hours to pack up and leave the country. Kids they cared for cried, not understanding why their 'parents' were being taken away.

The orphanage had been operating for 10 years without any problems. What changed? Authorities appeared to be reacting to claims made by an extremist imam, who accused the orphanage of not respecting adoption procedures.

In most deportation cases, authorities don't even give a reason, though it's usually clear that those being deported are suspected of proselytizing. In fact, the proselytizing charge applies only to non-Muslims.

Even though Morocco is a much more tolerant country than, say, Saudi Arabia in terms of freedom of religion, it nonetheless imprisons anyone trying to "shake the faith of Muslims" for up to three years.

The timing of this clampdown may prove to taint Morocco's image for some time to come, given that it took place during the first summit between the European Union and Morocco pertaining to a renewal of ties, and also while U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, Sam Kaplan, was preparing his annual human rights report. Unsurprisingly the report stated that the embassy was "disheartened and distressed" about the expulsions.

A similar, though smaller, clampdown took place in 2005. The Moroccan press warned of the "greatest danger": American evangelical missionaries allegedly going around the country, from major cities such as Casablanca, Rabat, Marrakech and Fez to remote areas in the mountains or the countryside, to convert Muslims.

Why is Morocco developing a harder stance toward Christians? King Mohamed VI is responding to the pressure of not only Islamists but also from other conservative parties.

Already in 2005, Abdelhamid Aouad, a nationalist member of parliament, raised the issue on the floor of parliament, asking the minister of Islamic affairs what the government was doing about the massive evangelization underway. Repeatedly the minister told him that there was nothing to worry about.

Aouad declared, without proof, that the evangelists? ultimate goal was to convert 10 percent of the Moroccan population by 2020. An Islamist center mentioned that 150,000 Moroccans had been converted by Christian missionaries. Both unfounded allegations are clearly being used as scare tactics to shape public opinion.

Hard statistics are tough to get, but there are allegedly between 150 to 800 missionaries and from 7,000 to 58,000 converts in Morocco. The discrepancy in numbers can be explained by the fact that missionaries and converts have had to go underground in order to stay protected.

The regime has devoted time and energy to fight off this supposed wave of conversion through for example a zero tolerance policy and the creation of a cell devoted to monitoring the phenomenon.

While the plight of foreign Christians is bad, the one of Moroccan Christians is even worse. The Moroccan constitution guarantees the free practice of all religions and King Mohamed VI was crystal clear when he stated that people of the three religions — Islam, Judaism and Christianity — can freely and safely express themselves in the kingdom.

But Moroccan Christians are banned from entering official churches and have to pray in hiding. They also have to be married and buried under Muslim law.

The weekly Moroccan magazine Telquel rightly pointed out: "Do we have the right in a country that calls itself modern to reduce to silence thousands of Moroccans"?

Morocco's tolerant image suffers. The regime's tough policy on Christians is petty politics — and it plays right into the hands of Islamists who advocate an end to the semi-freedom of religion in place in Morocco. This turnaround is not worthy of the Moroccan kingdom.

Olivier Guitta is a security and geopolitical consultant based in Europe. You can view his latest work at www.thecroissant.com/about.html. This article is archived at
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/ 100420/christians-morocco-persecution

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, April 26, 2010.
This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis). Contact him by email at imra@netvision.net.il and visit his website: http://www.imra.org.il

Maariv correspondent Daliya Mazori reports in today's edition that members of Kibbutz Almog and Beit Ha'arava in the Jordan Valley say that they are abandoning the Labor Party in protest of the demolition on Thursday of foundations for homes for the sons of Kibbutz members at the instruction of Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

The foundations were almost completed prior to the construction freeze and the kibbutzim promised not to continue construction until the freeze ended — and to date honored their word.

DM Barak ordered that the foundations be demolished because they were not completed before the freeze.

"He insisted that they be demolished. We met with Barak several times. I told him, we honor the law and won't play around, but please leave the foundations alone. He stood his ground. The claim we heard from him was that Obama wanted to see that construction is being demolished everywhere it takes place and not just in the settlements." Mordechai Dahman, the head of the Megilot Dead Sea Regional Council said.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rev. Barbara Sexton, April 25, 2010.

The UCC (United Church of Christ) has a long history of being anti-Israel. But, even the UCC saw that it was in hot water with its prejudiced stance(s) and decided to make a show (on paper at least) of 'changing things...to be a little more compassionate towards Israel'
(http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000399.html) This happened at the infamous Synod 2007.

Don't let any UCC resolution fool you, for anti-Israel, anti-Semitic sentiment is alive and well in the United Church of Christ. Yes, the UCC actually harbors those who 'hate the land and the peoples of Christ's birth and life'. Not only do I not agree with this, but I cannot understand how anyone calling themselves 'Christian' can do such a thing! If it weren't so disturbing, it would be amusing that a group which so carelessly labels people as 'racist and homophobe' cares so little for anyone outside of their progressive-lib circle, all while touting their welcoming 'culture'. It's ironic. It's sad. It's pathetic. And it's wrong.

This is the denomination which spreads the racial hate of Rev Jeremiah Wright, Rev Otis Moss and cohorts while they decry and defame anyone who is 'doesn't support UCC polity and policy'. The 'inclusive and affirming' culture the UCC is so proud of is a ruse. The truth is that contrary to what the UCC says, anyone moderate or conservative need not apply for membership or expect to be treated decently unless they are 'mute', donate lots of money and keep any moderate-conservative opinions they may have to themselves!

People can lie to people, but it is sheer folly to even pretend to lie to God. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the UCC in a most insidious way, for they don't even acknowledge their own prejudices. The denomination (movement) I once defended manifested yet more hate yesterday, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, of all days.

No acknowledgements and nothing even like common decency or trying to not mortally wound people ever entered the mind of UCC The Rev. Frederick A. Felger(ret.) of Omaha Palestinian Rights Task Force of Nebraskans for Peace today:
(http://omaha.com/article/20100412/NEWS0802/704129983) He just had to vent his prejudice yesterday as many in the world honor Holocaust Remembrance Day. He's just keeping on as 'retired' UCC clergy often do with their pensions secure, prattling on and on, still mired in the mindset of a bigoted age gone by.

Maybe Rev Felger has hardening of the arteries of the brain like Rev. Wright must have when he gets off with his radical anti-American and anti-white spew. I don't know. All I do know is that the UCC, no matter what they say, fool fewer and fewer every day. Their bank accounts show it. They're so desperate to 'regroup' and get money anyway they can that they even have a new television commercial 'set to go viral' (UCC words) any day now. So be it.

We'll all be judged. I am content that I am at a place where I need no longer defend the indefensible, praise God. I am free and 'still speaking'.

God Bless and Keep His Own

Rev Barbara Sexton is a minister and a biochemist. Contact her at barbaraksexton@aol.com This article is archived at
http://dearoneshealingministry.blogspot.com/ 2010/04/omaha-ucc-pastor-attacks-holocaust.html

To Go To Top

Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., April 25, 2010.

When it comes to "nation building", I have stated over and over, that the infidel does not get to dictate to Muslims what Islam is. This is not a knock at our great troops, it is just that they warriors, and not magicians. The centuries long Shiite vs. Sunni feud, will also not change because we want it to. Besides the Shiite vs. Sunni problem, Iraq has also become a Christian persecuting country, and things will get worse when the troops leave. It is time to face the reality that the Western world is not going to transform the Islamic world. We must now protect ourselves here at home, and contain Islam. To do this we need to end all financial aid to Islamic countries, end their immigration, and officially ban Sharia Law. If any Muslim then calls for Sharia, they are to be arrested, and deported if possible. All Sharia loving Muslims, are to be looked upon as enemies of the state. Just as Nazis were.

This below is called 'Shiite cleric calls on followers to defend mosques' and was written by Rebecca Santana.


BAGHDAD — An influential anti-American Shiite cleric called on his followers to defend themselves and places of worship after deadly Baghdad mosque bombings but urged self-restraint to avoid giving the U.S. military an excuse for postponing withdrawal plans.

{The] statement signaled growing impatience among Shiites over continued bombings by insurgents and the government's failure to protect them.

Friday's bombings — most targeting Shiite places of worship as crowds were at prayer — killed 72 people in Iraq's bloodiest day so far this year in an apparent backlash by the Sunni-led insurgency after the slaying of the top two al-Qaida leaders last weekend.

Nobody claimed responsibility for the attacks, but Iraqi officials were quick to blame al-Qaida in Iraq, which frequently targets Shiite mosques and processions in a bid to stoke new sectarian bloodshed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgents were fighting back after the deaths of their two leaders.

Al-Sadr, whose forces have frequently clashed with the Americans, issued a statement late Friday calling on "believers" to join the Iraqi army and police "to defend their shrines, mosques, prayers, markets, houses and their towns."

He stopped short of mentioning the Mahdi Army, his once-powerful militia, which used to respond to such attacks with raids on Sunni areas. Several advisers said al-Sadr was offering his assistance to the government in a rare show of magnanimity to al-Maliki.

The two men were once allies but became rivals after al-Maliki backed U.S.-Iraqi offensives in 2008 that crushed al-Sadr's fighters and forced him to declare a series of cease-fires.

The cleric, who is widely believed to be based in Iran, has re-emerged as a prominent politician and a potential kingmaker after his followers fared well in the inconclusive March 7 parliamentary vote. That left al-Maliki and his secular rival Ayad Allawi jockeying for allies to give them the necessary majority support to govern.

The protracted political wrangling has raised fears of sectarian violence akin to that seen at the height of the war. U.S. and Iraqi officials have acknowledged that insurgents maintain the ability to stage high-profile bombings while noting the Shiites have not resumed retaliatory attacks.

A Sadrist who won a seat in the new parliament, Hakim al-Zamili, emphasized that al-Sadr's statement was not meant to supplant the Iraqi military or put armed supporters on the streets.

Al-Sadr urged Iraqi leaders "not to be pulled toward the malicious American plans that intend to pull Iraq into wars and fighting in order to find the pretext for staying on our holy lands." He appeared to be appealing for a renewed commitment, despite continued violence, to stick to a deadline for all U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Al-Zamili — himself once imprisoned for alleged links to Shiite death squads although the charges were eventually dropped — said he and other Sadrists had to intervene when the Iraqi military arrived on the bomb scene Friday because people in the neighborhood were so angry that he feared a serious altercation between residents and military personnel.

Weeping and wailing crowds marched in funeral processions Saturday in the vast eastern Baghdad slum of Sadr City, where the worst of Fridpuay's violence occurred, and Shiite leaders called for three days of mourning. Women in black cloaks comforted crying boys, and anguished men held posters of clerical leaders as they marched.

Al-Sadr's office erected a large mourning tent close to where the bombs exploded, with prayer mats still stained with blood left on the street. Few Iraqi security forces were deployed. Persistent violence has cast doubt on the government's ability to secure the country as U.S. forces pull back.

"The government, I hold the government responsible," said Najim Abdul-Hussein, who works near one Sadr City blast site. "There is no stability. That's why these attacks are increasing."

Quotes About Islam

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

"Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!' Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: 'Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.' Islam says: 'Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.' The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

Sir Winston Churchill

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step..."

John Facino, Sr. is with Wake up American! (wakeupamericans@comcast.net).

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-7, April 25, 2010.

1. 'Break the Silence' Speaker: Obama's 'Alice-in-Wonderland' Gov't
by Hana Levi Julian

A former aide to New York State Governor George Pataki slammed the Obama administration's treatment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the State of Israel in a prelude to Sunday's "Break the Silence' rally, set to begin at 1:00 p.m. (EDT) outside the Israeli Consulate in Manhattan.

The event will take place rain or shine, according to organizer Beth Gilinsky, head of the Jewish Action Alliance.

Among those on the podium will be Jeff Weisenfeld of Bernstein Global Wealth Management, a long-time leader in New York's "mainstream" Jewish community who for years was also active in the National Committee for Jewish Education. Weisenfeld spent four years as chief of staff in the city administration of former Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat before becoming an aide to Governor George Pataki, another Republican.

Speaking late Friday afternoon in an interview with Israel National News, Weisenfeld called the current diplomatic crisis "the biggest accidental or deliberate miscalculation in American-Israeli relations made by any American president." He added that the Obama administration's overtures to the Muslim world, and the contrast with its hostility to the State of Israel, had transformed the U.S. executive branch into a "complete Alice-in-Wonderland government. I don't want to make light of it here," Weisenfeld said with some sarcasm, "but it's like Purim, when Mordechai becomes Haman, and Haman becomes Mordechai."

He reserved special criticism for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Special Presidential Adviser David Axelrod, both traditonal Jews in the Obama administration who are among the president's closest aides. "I had positions like theirs, I worked for a governor, a senator... I always made sure that I was representing the Jewish community to the governor, and the governor to them. But there are some who see their power as an end in itself. They don't want to tell the boss when he's wrong. And they are the worst kind of people to have in government," Weisenfeld said.

"Islam has evolved backwards, has become more violent than perhaps it was even in its inception, since they did not have the weapons then, that they have today. And you have Emanuel and Axelrod, who have bad judgment, and who do not see the need to fight this moral equivalency."

Weisenfeld also noted that most "mainstream" Jewish community organizations did not — and could not — officially sign on to sponsor Sunday's rally for fear of retribution from the Obama administration. "The mainstream groups are about access and response to a direct threat from the White House.

"The [Jewish] Federations and their beneficiaries and subsidiaries have been warned by Rahm Emanuel to stay away from public criticism of the president on Israel. But unless the weather is horrendous," he added, "there will be an abundance of "establishment-affiliated" people. Maybe we can wake up this president and pull him back from the abyss."

2. Schumer Blasts White House on Israel Policy
by Hana Levi Julian

Schumer Blasts White House

U.S. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and a leading Demcoratic Congressman have strongly criticized Obama administration policies against Israel. New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who once worked for Sen. Schumer and is the fiancéof a Muslim aide to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also came out swinging.

"The appropriate response was a shake of the head — not a temper tantrum," Rep. Weiner said. "Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, not a punching bag. Enough already."

Sen. Schumer told listeners on the Nachum Segal Show in New York that the White House stance on Israel has been "counterproductive". The senator, who faces elections in the fall, said he had told White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel weeks ago that he would take a public stand if the State Department did not back down from its "terrible" treatment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

"This has to stop," Schumer said he told the White House.

Schumer said there was an internal "battle" going on in the White House between members of the president's staff. "One side agrees with us, one side doesn't, and we're pushing hard to make sure the right side wins — and if not, we'll have to take it to the next step," he said.

"Palestinians don't really believe in a State of Israel," Schumer noted. "They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.

"If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, 'Why should we negotiate?' [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations," Schumer added.

This was apparently the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for the senior senator, who until now has been one of Obama's closest allies among the Jewish Democrats. Schumer was referring to a briefing in which the State Department spokesman said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words, but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

Up to this point, Schumer had been largely silent about the growing hostility of the Obama administration towards the State of Israel, despite numerous calls by grassroots groups for legislators to stand up and support the Jewish State.

The contention of the State Department that the so-called "unbreakable bond" between Israel and the U.S. could now depend on the pace of talks with the PA, however, was the red line for Schumer.

He explained, "That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans — Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew — would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don't retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded Friday, "We have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people. You heard General [James] Jones speak about that earlier in the week. We have said that from the beginning of the administration. I don't think it is a stretch to say we don't agree with what Senator Schumer said."

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 25, 2010.

Confirmation that peace is not around the corner here. And confirmation of the error in thinking — as Obama insists — that failure to achieve this peace is what holds up action on Iran.

Jonathan Spyer, a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, has written a piece about the fact that it is quite unlikely that there will be reconciliation between the PA and Hamas:

"The split in the Palestinian national movement is ultimately a function of the broader strategic situation of regional cold war. It is thus likely to continue for as long as this regional reality persists."

Spyer quotes Hamas leaders in Gaza who make it clear that "there is now no process under way toward ending the Palestinian political divide.. On the ground, meanwhile, the rival Ramallah and Gaza Palestinian authorities are entrenching themselves."

What is more:

"...Fatah is currently in a process of severe decline. The movement failed to embark on a major project of reform following its election defeat in 2008. As a result, it remains riven by factionalism, and corruption. It is also, increasingly, irrelevant."


As Spyer describes the situation, there are those states loosely allied with the West and the US, and an Iran-led "resistance bloc" of states and movements.

"Hamas is able to maintain its sovereign enclave in Gaza as a result of the willingness of Iran to arm and finance it. The Gaza enclave serves Iran's purposes well."

At the same time, "The West...has itself in turn been prepared to create, finance and underwrite a version of Palestinian politics and governance — that of Fayyad — which is to its liking, once it became clear that the Palestinians themselves were not going to do this."

Spyer calls Fayyad "in effect an appointee of the West." He represents no political bloc within the PA.


Spyer sums up:

The proudest achievement of PLO and Fatah leader Yasser Arafat was the establishment of a single, authoritative Palestinian national movement not beholden to or dependent on any outside power. Such a movement no longer exists. The split represents a profound change in Palestinian politics, which calls into question many of the most basic assumptions regarding the conflict which have become received wisdom, in Israel and the West over the last couple of decades." (emphasis added)


We can hardly be surprised, then, that PA president Mahmoud Abbas, after meeting with US envoy George Mitchell, declared in Ramallah that he strongly opposes a Palestinian state with temporary borders.

There will be a stumbling block for Abbas every time. As is apparent, he is simply without the strength to enter negotiations.

Mitchell came here with expectations of starting those "proximity talks." Expectation in this regard has now been considerable diminished.

How long will it take before we are told that it's our fault, and if only we had frozen construction in Jerusalem the prospect of talks would be much brighter?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, April 25, 2010.

This was written by Liran Kapoano and it appeared April 19, 2010 in the American Thinker.

..."So the next time someone tries to throw the nonsensical argument that sometimes Israel just needs some "tough love" to get it "back on track" or that treating the Jewish state like an immature child that needs be made to sit in the corner, is somehow beneficial to anyone — tell them to go argue with these 50 retired admirals and generals."


Liran Kapoano writes:

In response to the recent ridiculous treatment Israel has gotten from the Obama administration, a group of about 50 retired United States generals and admirals put together the following letter urging him as well as Congress and the general American public to recognize how truly intertwined Israel's success is with America's. Here, is the unedited letter, directly from the officers:

Israel as a Security Asset for the United States

We, the undersigned, have traveled to Israel over the years with The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). We brought with us our decades of military experience and, following unrestricted access to Israel's civilian and military leaders, came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to the United States and its policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. A strong, secure Israel is an asset upon which American military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel is a democracy — a rare and precious commodity in the region — and Israel shares our commitment to freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.

Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their neighbors was clearly articulated. Thus we view the current tension between the United States and Israel with dismay and grave concern that political differences may be allowed to outweigh our larger mutual interests.

As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through the prism of American security interests.

The United States and Israel established security cooperation during the Cold War, and today the two countries face the common threat of terrorism by those who fear freedom and liberty. Historically close cooperation between the United States. and Israel at all levels including the IDF, military research and development, shared intelligence and bilateral military training exercises enhances the security of both countries. American police and law enforcement officials have reaped the benefit of close cooperation with Israeli professionals in the areas of domestic counter-terrorism practices and first response to terrorist attacks.

Israel and the United States are drawn together by shared values and shared threats to our well-being.

The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology across the Middle East and Asia, and the ballistic missile technology to deliver systems across wide areas require cooperation in intelligence, technology and security policy. Terrorism, as well as the origins of financing, training and executing terrorist acts, need to be addressed multilaterally when possible. The dissemination of hatred and support of terrorism by violent extremists in the name of Islam, whether state or non-state actors, must be addressed as a threat to global peace.

In the Middle East, a volatile region so vital to U.S. interests, it would be foolish to disengage — or denigrate — an ally such as Israel.

Lieutenant General Mark Anderson, USAF (ret.)
Rear Admiral Charles Beers, USN (ret.)
General William Begert, USAF (ret.)
Rear Admiral Stanley W. Bryant, USN (ret.)
Lieutenant General Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.)
Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.)
Admiral Leon Edney, USN (ret.)
Brigadier General William F. Engel, USA (ret.)
Major General Bobby Floyd, USAF (ret.)
General John Foss, USA (ret.)
Major General Paul Fratarangelo, USMC (ret.)
Major General David Grange, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Tom Griffin, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Earl Hailston, USMC (ret.)
Lieutenant General John Hall, USAF (ret.)
General Alfred Hansen, USAF (ret.)
Rear Admiral James Hinkle, USN (ret.)
General Hal Hornburg, USAF (ret.)
Major General James T. Jackson, USA (ret.)
Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Herb Kaler, USN (ret.)
Vice Admiral Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.)
General William F. Kernan, USA (ret.)
Major General Homer Long, USA (ret.)
Major General Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.)
General Robert Magnus, USMC (ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles May, Jr., USAF (ret.)
Vice Admiral Martin Mayer, USN (ret.)
Major General James McCombs, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (ret.)
Rear Admiral W. F. Merlin, USCG (ret.)
Rear Admiral Mark Milliken, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Riley Mixson, USN (ret.)
Major General William Moore, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC (ret.)
Major General Larry T. Northington, USAF (ret.)
Lieutenant General Tad Oelstrom, USAF (ret.)
Major General James D. Parker, USA (ret.)
Vice Admiral J. T. Parker, USN (ret.)
Major General Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.)
Vice Admiral James Perkins, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Brian Peterman, USCG (ret.)
Lieutenant General Alan V. Rogers, USAF (ret.)
Rear Admiral Richard Rybacki, USCG (ret.)
General Crosbie Saint, USA (ret.)
Rear Admiral Norm Saunders, USCG (ret.)
General Lawrence Skantze, USAF (ret.)
Major General Sid Shachnow, USA (ret.)
Rear Admiral Jeremy Taylor, USN (ret.)
Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.)
Lieutenant General Lanny Trapp, USAF (ret.)
Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN (ret.)
General Louis Wagner, USA (ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas Wilson, USN (ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert Winglass, USMC (ret.)
Rear Admiral Guy Zeller, USN (ret.) www.jinsa.org
signatures as of April 7, 2010

So the next time someone tries to throw the nonsensical argument that sometimes Israel just needs some "tough love" to get it "back on track" or that treating the Jewish state like an immature child that needs be made to sit in the corner, is somehow beneficial to anyone — tell them to go argue with these 50 retired admirals and generals.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 25, 2010.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. See others of his graphics at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 25, 2010.


Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas has a new line on Israel and on the U.S.. He said that, besides negotiations, the P.A. should hold dialogs with all Israeli factions unconditionally. He also piggybacked onto President Obama's new line that resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict is of strategic importance to the U.S..

Abbas used all the right-sounding words: "U.S. strategic interest," "entire world," "historic moment," "to create the conditions for a just, balanced and sustainable solution," "Palestine is for the Palestinians," "Israel trying to obstruct this solution," Israel "needs courageous leadership," it would gain "peace." (IMRA, 4/24/10).

The whole line is false. Contrary to the impression Abbas is trying to give, it also is duplicitous.

Jihadists do not enter dialogs sincerely. They are too fanatical to consider anything but advancement of jihad.

Many challenges confront the U.S.. The Arab-Israel conflict is a minor one for the U.S., but it is part of the same jihad movement that challenges the U.S.. The U.S. national interest lay in defeating jihad, not helping the Palestinian Arab jihad contingent gain sovereign war powers.

Reference to "entire world" is what my high school civics teacher called bandwagon propaganda. Popularity is not evidence of sense.

"Historic moment" applied to the non-aggression pact between the Nazis and Soviets, leading to seizure of independent countries.

"Just, balanced and sustainable solution" means the Arabs' solution, which is unjust and imbalanced. Israel would not be sustainable — that's the whole idea.

"Palestine is for the Palestinians" means what? Palestine is the conquerors' name for the Land of Israel. In the years preceding Israeli independence, the Jews there were called "Palestinians." The Arabs were known to be Arabs, much like Arabs elsewhere. Just a couple of decades after that, the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza renamed themselves after the conquerors' name for the Land of Israel. Now they say, "Palestine for the Palestinians," a fake nationality.

And what is "Palestine?" The area of the Mandate includes Israel (and did include Jordan). The Jews of Israel call themselves Israelis. Does "Palestine for the Palestinians" mean that the PLO wants to control Israel? Actually, apparently unbeknown to the State Dept. and President Obama, the PLO and Hamas do want to control Israel. That means no peace!

Israel is trying to obstruct peace negotiations? How can that be, when it was the Arabs who set onerous, one-way conditions for holding negotiations, and Israel that set no conditions? PM Netanyahu said, let's negotiate. The Arabs said no, we have conditions. Therefore, the Arabs were obstructing negotiations. But like the futility of dialog with jihadists, Nazis, and Soviets, negotiations with jihadists would be futile.

"Courageous leadership" if Israel succumbs to foreign pressure to make fatal concessions to the Arabs? Sounds like a combination of cowardly and foolhardy leadership. Beware when one's enemies praise a certain course of action!

"Gain peace" by giving up one's holiest site, one's main water source, strategic depth, and secure borders without which one is vulnerable to invasion, while those enemies retain the ideology of hating enough to try again to conquer?

Abbas is engaging in false packaging, making the product seem taller. After such a display of duplicity, Israel really should refuse to negotiate with his regime. One cannot make peace with a regime trying to deceive.


Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote an article described as, "A scholarly examination of White/Black responsibility for historic U.S. Black slavery."

His point is that 90% of the slaves were captured for the slave traders by African rulers, themselves. By "African rulers," Prof. Gates implies black Africans. Since the rulers sent their own children abroad for education, and thousands of slaves made it back to their own countries, the "dark continent" was not unenlightened about conditions for the slaves. Therefore, blacks share responsibility for slavery. Some black African rulers have apologized to American blacks for the crimes of the rulers' ancestors (IMRA, 4/24/10).

I disapprove of apologizing for what others did wrong. It is enough for me to acknowledge what was wrongful.

The article omits another party responsible for slavery: Muslim Arabs. The Arabs had black slaves and European slaves, the latter captured by pirates from North Africa, against whom the U.S. once had a small war. For some time, the Arabs rounded up slaves and acted as middle men for the Western slave traders. Elements of racial contempt, extreme cruelty, mass murder, and jihad figured in the Arab slave trade.

In our time, Muslim Arabs have engaged in slavery, particularly in Sudan. At a Manhattan rally against radical Islam that I reported a year ago, one of the speakers present had helped free some of those slaves.

Why did Gates omit this major factor, past and present? He thinks that President Obama's racial mixture offers an opportunity to resolve the question of who was responsible for slavery. But Gates forfeited the opportunity to include the Muslim Arabs as a major party responsible.

For a while, antisemitic demagogues, such as Louis Farrakhan, accused Jews as being disproportionately in the slave trade. The facts showed otherwise. An exhibit on slavery at New York Historical Society refuted the canard. Antisemites try to blame the Jewish people for everything. Unfortunately, the jihadists feed the non-Muslim antisemites' paranoia.

For the record, Islam does not approve of slavery, but Muslim leaders did not stop it.


Iran gave up its quest for a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, it told other diplomats. "Iran was heavily criticized in February at the 47-member council's first review over its handling of human rights." Human Rights Watch approved of Iran's decision (IMRA, 4/24/10).

Apparently that dictatorial, jihadist kettle was too black for the black pots at the UN.


The U.S. has been working on countering nuclear weapons. It has not given much attention to chemical and biological weapons of mass-destruction. The Obama administration has not nominated a representative to the Chemical Weapons Convention in the Hague.

Chemical and biological weapons of mass-destruction could more easily be acquired by terrorists. Experts consider them more likely to be used against the U.S.. Biological weapons are as destructive of life as nuclear weapons.

Al-Qaeda may be seeking a means of attack to match or surpass that of 9/11, but it also may favor a series of smaller attacks that degrade the U.S. economy (Keith Johnson, Wall St. J., 4/23/10, A2).

Syria is known to have advanced chemical and respectable biological weapons capability.

I would add a fourth weapon of mass-destruction: hacking of the Internet. Hold on. Imagine if power plants are put out of order, and we lose the electricity on which modern industry and home life runs! Imagine if hacking prevents the military from coordinating!

The U.S. is known to be slow to put resources into countering hackers. The recent spate of attacks provided a warning. Our solons should have figured out the need for defensive measures long ago.


What does liquidating terrorist leaders accomplish? As you know, anti-terrorist forces recently slew several al-Qaida leaders. U.S. officials and media described that accomplishment as a major blow to those organizations. Was it?

Removing some leaders who have developed skills and contacts probably deals a blow, but not a decisive one. Large jihadist movements replace fallen leaders. The jihadist ideology that spawned those leaders remains intact, generating more terrorists. The U.S. needs to find ways to attack the ideology (MEFNews, 4/23.


Before one calls an area "occupied," one should know the definition of "occupied." The Geneva Conventions defines it as the forces of one country ruling all or part of another, sovereign country.

That definition does not discuss whether the occupation be legal or illegal. That is a separate matter. It hinges on whether the occupier was the aggressor or whether the state of war has ended but the occupiers' forces remain contrary to the expressed demand of the occupied country.

Leaving an area is one way to end occupation. Another way is to annex the area. Annexation by an aggressor is illegal. Annexation by the victim of aggression, in order reasonably to prevent further aggression originating from the annexed area is legal.

In 1948, Egyptian and Jordanian armies, among others, started a war on Israel. In doing so, they invaded and seized the now disputed Territories of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. They had committed aggression. Illegal as their act was, they were not considered occupiers. That is because the territories they seized were not part of a sovereign state.

When, after the Arabs made acts of war in 1967, Israel captured those Territories. Most people prefer to call Israel an occupier of them, but Israel is not, for the same reason Egypt and Jordan were not. The double standard in calling Israel an occupier is ideological and ignorant, not based on law.

Israel also acquired, in self-defense, the Sinai and the Golan. While it held them, it legally occupied the Golan and perhaps the Sinai. Perhaps the Sinai, because Egypt's title to the Sinai was weak. Israel relinquished the Sinai but eventually annexed most of the Golan. After two Syrian invasions and many bombardments from the Golan, Israel justifiably annexed the Golan for national security. By annexing the Golan, Israel ceased to occupy it.

Security Council Resolution 242 recognized Implicitly Israel's right to annex, by stating that in a final peace agreement, Israel should withdraw form territory, meaning some territory. In other words, Israel may annex some territory, too, in order to obtain secure borders and because the area is part of the Jewish homeland. (So was the Golan, originally in the Palestine Mandate.)

Israel did withdraw from the Sinai and part of the Golan. Israel thus satisfied 242, but the Arabs did not. The Arabs contesting Judea, Samaria, and Gaza did not make a final peace agreement. Some readers keep insisting that Israel violates UN resolutions, not stating which and how. They may not realize that many Resolutions and the Road Map require reciprocal action by the Arabs. The Arabs do not reciprocate.


lias Issa, a Palestinian Arab from Judea-Samaria, has formed a Palestinian Zionist Organization. He considers the Palestinian Authority terrorist, and urges the world to shun it and support the Jewish people.

His website advises that most Palestinian Arabs do not believe in peace but in eradicating the Jewish influence or presence from Israel, itself. A new Palestinian Arab state therefore would be a terrorist state. Most of the world does not realize this.

The organization cites a number of Palestinian Arabs who have come to the same conclusion.

The website objects to the abuse of Palestinian Arab children in encouraging them to become terrorists (Arutz-7, 4/22/10).


As reported earlier, Judge Goldstone expected not to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah, for it would draw large protests against his anti-Israel UN report. This standoff has been resolved.

South African Jews groups agreed to meet with him afterward, and he could attend the bar mitzvah, its privacy undisturbed.

South African Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein had written the prior week that whoever wants to come to services and pray to God should be welcomed non-judgmentally. The Chief Rabbi also commented that the UN report "has unfairly done enormous damage to the reputation and safety of the State of Israel and her citizens."

Richard Goldstone retorted in the same newspaper that he was "dismayed that the chief rabbi would so brazenly politicize the occasion of my 13-year-old grandson's bar mitzvah to engage in further personal attacks on me." (Barry Bearak, NY Times, 4/25, A10.)

The chief rabbi was un-politicizing the bar mitzvah, by separating it from the political issue. His criticism of the UN report was not personalizing the issue but sticking to the issue. If the report were as unfair as alleged, as my earlier articles demonstrated, then Goldstone has invited strong criticism. Goldstone's retort seems further indication of a non-judicial temperament by the former ranking justice of South African courts.


Amenian President commemorates (AP/Hayk Badalyan, Photolure)

President Obama marked the anniversary of the Turkish Armenians' mass-deaths at the hands of the Turks 95 years ago. By calling the event "atrocities," he went too far for Turkey and insufficiently far for Armenians. Both sides criticized him. Turkey contends that its relationship with another country should not be judged by third parties for political reasons.

As a candidate, Obama sided with the Armenians and sought the votes of American Armenians. As President, he no longer uses the word, "genocide" that Armenians want to hear. Earlier, he did advise them that his view remains the same. Obama explains that he muted his commemoration, so as not to roil delicate negotiations between Armenia and Turkey for a reconciliation treaty.

The treaty has run into its own snag. Armenia suspended ratification, because it believes that Turkey is trying to pressure it to reach a peace agreement with Azerbaijan (Peter Baker, NY Times, 4/25, A10).

Ironically, one of Obama's chief campaign attractions was his promise to end the partisanship and polarization in the U.S. and likewise the anti-American sentiment abroad. Instead, he has further polarized the U.S. with nasty, personal partisanship uttered in the same breath as he calls upon Republican Members of Congress, against whom he has just made excessive accusations, to be non-partisan. He means, in the Muslim manner, that they should make peace on his terms and by subordinating themselves to his ideology. He was not elected to institute his ideology of all-consuming government.

He was elected partly to improve America's reputation abroad. The decline of America's reputation had been exaggerated and unfairly to President Bush. The exaggeration was exploited by pre-existing anti-Americanism and a perceived decline in U.S. power, to justify itself. Bush was accused unfairly or incorrectly of wrongdoing, and was not credited for the liberty he helped some countries get and the dissidents he got freed from jail. By contrast, according to Bari Weiss, Wall St. Journal, 4/24/10, A11, Obama abandoned dissidents and helps developing dictatorships that happen to be anti-American. He betrays U.S. allies and appeases U.S. enemies. Since those enemies have an anti-American ideology, he cannot be said at least to be making new friends.

It is true that the Armenian deaths have become a politically correct issue, rather than a scholarly one. People are called to account if not 100% on one side or the other. The subject is not discussed rationally or in detail. I'm surprised that no references are made to U.S. statements at in the early 1900s. Turkey would counter that those statements were made out of context of war and rebellion.

It would be unfortunate if belligerence over long past issues inflames belligerence over contemporary issues.


The Pentagon denies accusations that veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are neglected and abused by its trauma care units for veterans. Here is what the veterans and their families report.

Veterans have seen buddies killed, even burned to death. So they get nightmares. Some, however, have brain damage.

The families claim that the veterans assigned to the trauma care units are overdosed on medicine and under-treated for psychological trauma. Such troops get some psychological counseling or treatment once a weak, but are alone for long stretches. Meanwhile, they are prescribed several psychological medicines to which many become addicted or from which they escalate to heroin. They are treated like soldiers by sergeants who are particularly strict on patients confused by the medicine. The sergeants berate the patients for not making roll call and the like. Sergeants have admitted considering the patients as malingerers, rather than as suffering from ailments needing treatment. Nurses have objected to the way sergeants treat the ill.

Patients find their incarceration useless and worse for them to bear than combat. They prefer to leave. They have a relatively high rate of suicide and crime (James Dad, Dan Frosch, New York Times, 4/25/10, A1).

There probably is some exaggeration or misunderstanding in these account, but have a general ring of truth. My Dad told me that historically, countries to not treat their veterans well. These veterans suffer for having defended our lives. We are obliged to do what we can to make them whole.

Surely this issue requires a national investigation, a real and expeditious investigation. We must know how true the allegations are. Then we need to know and apply remedies.

First we should strive to reduce the trauma. It may be increasing because the military has learned to save more lives, but those lives were saved from a damaging condition.

We know that the military and its budget reacted slowly to the lack of sufficient armor to protect troops. Decision makers need a faster and more reliable way of getting the combat troops' viewpoint about the problems they face.

We also know that due to keeping our military rolls much lower than our need, the same troops who face terrible conditions on each tour of duty get more tours than formerly. This exploitation reflects selfish conservation of funds in behalf of lobbied subsidies for lesser desires but more politically powerful ones. And the tours stretch out, because we don't plan our wars enough.

The article did not say whether the non-coms who order the vets around were themselves combat veterans who might be expected to understand the stress and wounds of combat and the resulting mental disorders. Those non-coms at least need training in psychological needs of their patients. Perhaps the nurses' decisions should take priority over the non-coms'.

The treatment sounds like typical big government and big institutional care.

The trauma units need more person-to-person treatment. The country as a whole has a shortage of medical personnel. Nevertheless, we get more and more government controls that keep payment to practitioners low, thereby increasing the shortage.

The usage of so many medicines, and their costs, should be investigated, too. What do they accomplish? Are they appropriate for each patient? Or are they a means of warehousing people, the way some nursing homes do, for lack of staff?

Many people monitor our war effort in the hope of keeping our troops' behavior nobler than our adversaries'. Let them monitor our soldier rehabilitation effort, in the hope of keeping it as humane as our civilian hospitals!


President Obama has invited Palestinian Authority head, Abbas, to visit him in Washington. Obama has, in effect, been ignoring Abbas' violations of the peace agreements against inciting to violence and committing violence.

Meanwhile, people think that Obama is less strident about criticizing Israel. Obama has, in effect, been ignoring Abbas' violations of the peace agreements against inciting to violence and committing violence (Arutz-7, 4/25/10).

Obama condones the party that violates the peace agreements, and condemns the party that does not violate the peace agreements.


Mugabe alongside new suitor (AP/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)

Iran secretly contracted with Zimbabwe to buy uranium ore from it. Payment is to be in oil. This contract would violate the UN sanctions on Iran. Iran would gain unsupervised access to material that can be used to make bombs (Arutz-7, 4/25/10).


A second Iranian nuclear scientist has requested political asylum, in the same month. This one asked to go to Israel. The prior one resettled in the U.S. (Arutz-7, 4/25/10).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., April 24, 2010.

The trouble with the peace process is that it is rigged against Israel. It is a vehicle forced on her by the international community to enable it to impose its will on her.

It all started with UNSC Res 242, which established the principle of land for peace. Just how much land or peace was not described. It was left to the parties to each cut a deal. This resolution in no way threatened Israel because she was left with a free hand to define what she considered to be "secure" borders. In the meantime, she was authorized by the U.N., by virtue of this resolution, to remain in occupation.

Over the years, the U.S. forced Israel to participate in a "peace process" that kept limiting her negotiating room. Today she is faced with accepting the Saudi Plan (1967 borders and a divided Jerusalem) or having it imposed on her.

This is so even though both houses of Congress have in the past supported a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In April 1990, the House, with the Senate concurring, passed a resolution acknowledging that "Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel" and expressing the belief that "Jerusalem must remain an undivided city. It did so recognizing that "since 1967[,] Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel" and because of "ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem [that] raise concerns in Israel that Jerusalem might one day be redivided."

In 1995, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses. It provided that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999." It went so far as to cut appropriations to the Executive by 50% for certain purposes until such time as the Embassy was opened.

This legislation was at odds with the constitutional power of the president to conduct foreign policy and to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory. All presidents since its passage have exercised their waivers semi-annually to postpone this legislation.

It seems reasonably clear that Congress cannot usurp the power of the president to make foreign policy. Israel's liberation from this deadly process depends solely on Americans taking back their country. A new president could overrule the State Department and endorse the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

You will recall that President Truman thwarted his State Department and instructed his Ambassador to the U.N. to be the first to recognize Israel. Richard Holbrooke, in a fascinating article titled "Washington's Battle Over Israel's Birth" explains the tug-of-war between two groups: President Truman and Clark Clifford favoring recognition on the one side, and Secretary of State George C. Marshall and his entourage at the State Department favoring a U.N. trusteeship instead of partition on the other.

Secretary of Defense Forrestal explained to Clifford what motivated his group: "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other. Why don't you face up to the realities?"

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. (The more things change, the more they remain the same.)

Holbrooke concluded:

But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.

But Holbrooke himself begged to differ:

Truman's decision, although opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment, was the right one — and despite complicated consequences that continue to this day, it is a decision all Americans should recognize and admire.

A recent bipartisan poll commissioned by The Israel Project found that "[b]y an 8 to 1 Margin, Americans Say U.S. Should Side with Israel in Conflict with the Palestinians." Yet Obama and the State Department have a polar opposite view.

Governor Palin has described Obama's foreign policy effectively as kissing up to our enemies and dumping on our allies, particularly "our most treasured ally, Israel."

Just in the past week, 327 congressmen signed a letter to Secretary Clinton, above mentioned, reaffirming support for Israel in these terms,

The United States and Israel are close allies whose people share a deep andabiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism and share an important strategic relationship. A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East ...

...and expressing "deep concern over recent tension." In other words, Obama was being blamed for the tension and was expected to end it. The letter also said that "we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program."

Unfortunately, this letter was silent on Obama's plans to divide Jerusalem. It would be of great value in the battle for Jerusalem now being waged by Israel if both houses would once again reaffirm their desire to have the U.S. recognize a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

There is a headwind blowing in U.S. national politics, and Israel can surely benefit from it. At the moment, the headwind is fueled by the anger over the passing of the health care bill and the growing debt and deficits. But it goes beyond specifics to general anger over Obama's apparent Marxist and Muslim proclivities manifested in his policies.

"Take back our country" means return it to our constitutional, capitalistic, and Judeo-Christian roots. This movement will embrace a united Jerusalem as Israel's capital in a heartbeat.

While President Obama is not about to oppose the State Department, the next president could, particularly if he or she campaigns on the issue. Governors Palin and Huckabee are already on record in support of a United Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The problem is that the Saudis have the U.S. over a barrel of oil. When P.M. Sharon formed a government in 2001, he sent his son to advise Arafat that Barak's deal was off the table and that Sharon could envision a process whereby the Palestinians might end up with forty-five percent of the occupied territories, but not Jerusalem.

Bush 43, on taking office in 2000, decided not to get involved with a peace process as President Clinton had done. For the Saudis, this wasn't good enough.

It appeared that the United States had made a strategic decision to adopt Sharon's policy as American policy, or so the Crown Prince understood.

He sent Prince Bandar to Bush with an urgent message: "Starting today, you go your way and we will go our way. From then on, the Saudis will look out for their own national interests."

Within thirty-six hours, Bandar was on his way to Riyadh with a conciliatory response from Bush. When Bandar returned, Powell cornered him.

"What the f*ck are you doing?" witnesses recall Powell asking. "You're putting the fear of God in everybody's hearts here. We've all come rushing here to hear this revelation that you bring from Saudi Arabia. You scared the sh*t out of everybody."

As a result of this exchange, Pres Bush made his vision speech in June '02 in which he supported a Palestinian state subject to many preconditions. Ten months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq with Saudi blessing, and one week later, the Roadmap was announced, which included the Saudi Plan calling for a Palestinian state with '67 borders subject to minor changes and East Jerusalem as its capital.

Sharon first reacted to the new American direction by saying that Israel was no Czechoslovakia, and then he never mentioned it again. He decided to cut his losses. He announced the Disengagement Plan from Gaza, thinking it would strengthen Israel's hold on Judea and Samaria. He even got Bush to issue a letter in '04 acknowledging that "[i]n light of the new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be the full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Obama has now rejected that letter as binding and is pushing for the Saudi Plan. Obviously, the Saudis and Obama will not give up on East Jerusalem for the Palestinians.

Israel must continue to claim Jerusalem — all of it — as its undivided capital. Obama will be left with no option but to abandon Israel so far as his executive powers permit him. Should the S.C. go so far as to attempt to impose a solution, it will have in effect abrogated the Roadmap, thereby freeing Israel of it. Obama may not be prepared to go this far, what with Nov. '10 elections looming and presidential primaries a year later.

In addition, Saudi Arabia is pushing America to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This is a more pressing concern for them. So far, Obama has not agreed.

Other factors that may force the peace process to the back burner is a possible third intifadah or war with Hamas or Hezbollah, or an Israeli attack on Iran.

Israel must withstand the pressure to give into Obama's demands. The upcoming elections will ameliorate the pressure, and hopefully the next president, probably a Republican, will end the pressure altogether.

Republicans should pledge themselves in these upcoming elections to make America energy-independent within ten years by exploiting all available sources of energy. It can be done. It's the only that way Americans can fully take back their country and rid themselves of Saudi pressure both at home and abroad.

Without the Saudis making trouble, America and Israel are natural allies.

STILL WAITING FOR MAY 14TH: The good and just of "We the people..." have allowed this usurper to become the leader of the relatively free world. On May 14th, perhaps a correction can take place. For the sake of the United States of America, I pray that James David Manning and all those who support this cause are able to pull it off and crush this demon...

John Facino, Sr. is with Wake up American! (wakeupamericans@comcast.net).

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, April 24, 2010.

Below is the reason why you have to join the Columbia Obama trial in May in NY If you cannot attend let others know and perhaps they can attend.

To download the invitation: http://atlahmedianetwork.com/

View invitation: http://atlah.org/pdf/ciaColumbiaObamaTrial_v2.pdf

Pastor James David Manning's invitation to attend the greatest trial in American history.

C.I.A * Columbia Obama Sedition And Treason Trial
Date: May 14-19
Trial Location: ATLAH World Missionary Church
38 West 123rd Street
ATLAH, New York City, N Y 10027
Tel.: 877-777-0734

About Pastor James David Manning:



I think it is TRULY remarkable that the press can find every woman with whom Tiger has had affairs in the last few years, with photos, text messages, recorded phone calls, etc.

Not only that they know the cause of the family fight, but they even know it was a wedge from his golf bag that his wife used to break the Escalade window. Not only that, they know which wedge!

However, this is the same press (or is it?) that cannot locate Obama's official birth certificate, or a copy of any of his papers while in college, or how he paid for Harvard education, or Michelle Obama's college thesis on racism while at Princeton.

Don't you think this is truly remarkable?  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 24, 2010.

OK — here's a winning idea: The wanna-be arab invaders (arab invaders=the "Ai-Ai") can be settled in the lands the arabs stole from the Jews when the Jews were driven from their native homes in the surrounding arab states. Tell Mitchell and Hillary to put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Israel can & must demand restoration of all lands recognized 90 years ago as the Jewish Homeland. Study Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international Law: The Legal Foundation of the Borders of Israel under International Law. Shimon Peres, supposedly a Jew, collaborated with the Euroids and helped the US and Europe violate international law. Which means that all of these violators are culpable and must be held accountable. Of course this will make certain wealthy Jews very uncomfortable, but tough noogies. The future of Israel and its sovereign rights cannot be sacrificed on the altar of (their) commerce and the law is on Israel's side. Always was.

Viva to Israel from the SC4Z (Secular Christians for Zion)


Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 24, 2010.


Mitchell and Abbas. Arafat upper left. (AP/Mohammed Muheisen)

The controversy over Syrian arming of Hizbullah continues. It has been discussed apart from the strategic menace it represents. Unless people understand whence it came and what it means, they will not understand where it is going and which means to take.

Decades ago, the PLO was allowed to operate in Jordan, with which it had an agreement committing the PLO to recognize the Hashemite government's authority. Mistake #1.


The PLO broke that and all hundreds of its other agreements. The PLO, of which Abbas' Fatah faction was the main constituent, rose up against Israel and Jordan. Both governments failed to take decisive action and eradicate the whole terrorist gang. Mistake #2.

Arafat was able to flee to Lebanon.


(AP/Mohammed Zaatari)

Lebanon offered itself as a haven, setting itself up for the same betrayal by the PLO as had Jordan. Mistake #3. The government of Lebanon reached an agreement with the PLO. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, in Lebanon, as in Jordan, Arafat set up a state within a state. He challenged governmental jurisdiction; his men raped and extorted.

Worse, the armed PLO upset Lebanon's confessional balance of power, weighing in on the Muslim side to set off a long and costly civil war with the Christians. The Lebanese had an advanced banking and commercial system and a cosmopolitan side that the civil war did much to ruin.

As if to the rescue, Syria dispatched an army to keep order. Syria made an agreement to leave if asked. Once in, wouldn't get out. Syria skillfully helped each side pare down the other side's forces, until Syria dominated. Syria then milked the Lebanese economy, sending at least a million workers into it and pulling resources and products out of it.


Back to the PLO. The PLO used Lebanon, as it later used the Territories, as bases from which to attack Israel. Israel responded in proportion to the attacks, leaving the PLO intact. Mistake #4.


In Beirut, Armenian Lebanese protest Turkey (AP/Hussein Malla)

Upon realizing that the PLO would continue attacking and that attacks would get worse, Israel reacted with the first War in Lebanon. The IDF pursued the PLO, but Arafat withdrew into Beirut, which he held as a civilian shield. The world, lacking moral standards, did not condemn the PLO for that war crime. People quibbled over whether Israel were justified in attacking, because the faction that last raided Israel was not directly controlled by Arafat. Once inside Lebanon, the IDF found that the PLO buildup was worse than anticipated. It had stocked underground supplies for whole divisions of troops.

At one point, an IDF trooper had Arafat in his gun sight. While he was asking permission to fire, Arafat got out of sight. Mistake #5, failure to have a clear and strong rule for killing the enemy.


Defense Minister Sharon was tough against Israel's enemies then, before he turned his military genius against his own people in Gaza. He bombarded the PLO areas. It was a legitimate military objective under international law, which would hold the PLO responsible for civilian casualties.

The U.S. and others pressured Israel into a deal letting Arafat sail to Tunis, where, like Napoleon in Elba, he could plot his return. Mistake #6.

Israel kept its agreement, and did not sink the ship. Mistake 6 ½?


In that war, Shimon Peres wanted the government to fail, because it was headed by the opposing party. He campaigned against the war without justification. He seems to have sabotaged the war or at least support for it. Peres was not tried for treason, so he has continued the practice into and through Oslo. Mistake #7.


The Lebanese initially welcomed the IDF as their liberators. Having achieved what it could, the IDF should have left. Instead, it overstayed its welcome. Mistake #8. Lebanese opposition grew. The Shiite militia, AMAL turned on the IDF. That gave the IDF something to do, but it still could have evacuated.

The Lebanese initially welcomed the IDF as their liberators. Having achieved what it could, the IDF should have left. Instead, it overstayed its welcome. Mistake #8. Lebanese opposition grew. The Shiite militia, AMAL turned on the IDF. That gave the IDF something to do, but it still could have evacuated.


Israeli occupation gave the somewhat more radical militia, Hizbullah, its opportunity. It grew. To protect Israel from Hizbullah, Israel occupied southern Lebanon and supported a Lebanese militia led by Christian officers but with many Muslim troops, who held Hizbullah off.

Nevertheless, the few Israeli casualties were complained about by the Left, giving Prime Minister Ehud Barak an excuse for withdrawal. Barak was much decorated but one of the bungling generals in a Lebanon War, and who appeared to have helped Peres sabotage the war. He ordered a religious unit into ambush, instead of following Sharon's plan for trapping a sizeable portion of the Syrian Army. Mistake #9.


Barak did not just withdraw, he fled. He gave his troops and his Lebanese allies no notice. The Lebanese Free Army offered to soldier on, even free the rest of Lebanon, if Israel supplied it. Winning is not what the Israeli Left wants. Barak refused. He did not even turn over Israel's heavy weapons to the Lebanese Free Army, but left them for Hizbullah. As a result, the IDF and its allies actually ran. Mistake #10.

Israel let the Lebanese Free Army people into Israel, but they felt mistreated. Those who were caught by Hizbullah were imprisoned. This not only hurts Israel's cause, it discourages alliances.


Israel let Syria build up Hizbullah to be not only a bigger menace to Israel, but also to reassert Syrian influence in Lebanon. Mistake #11.

When Hizbullah amassed an arsenal of thousands of missiles and fortified the border, it fired some missiles and kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, provoking another war. The world did not like that. The world was willing for Israel to endure constant raids, but not for Israel to try to eradicate the menace.


An incompetent labor leader as Defense Minister, an incompetent PM Olmert, and an incompetent Foreign Minister Livni, Israel sent forces into Lebanon ill-equipped and with conflicting assignments constantly revised by the incompetent Ministers. They depended too much on the Air Force which cannot do the job by itself. They finally sent in a major land forced when knowing that the UN was preparing a ceasefire. Mistake #12.


The Arabs witnessed IDF incompetence, even though the IDF did rout Hizbullah. President Bush, who up until then mostly supported Israel, must have seen that Israel's government was defeatist and that he could not count on it to destroy regional terrorism. He had delayed a UN resolution to give Israel time to destroy Hizbullah, but Israel failed to do so. Was that when he gave up on Israel and let the anti-Israel Secretary of State Rice run his Mideast policy? Mistake #13.


Foreign Min. Livni helped devise the armistice agreement, which relied upon UNIFIL to enforce it. Her defeatist regime then withdrew from Lebanon. Mistake #14 — Hizbullah battered but unbowed, had no intention of complying with the Security Council resolution. The resolution was watered down and interpreted weakly after Israel signed. UNIFIL did not enforce it, though it claimed it did. Livni and Olmert falsely claimed to have achieved a great victory in Lebanon.


Hizbullah demonstrated its Islamist orientation rather than its pretended Lebanese nationalist orientation, by admitting it sought to impose a caliphate upon Israel and by finding pretexts for claiming that, despite a UN finding that Israel no longer was occupying Lebanon, it was still occupying it. Hizbullah also refused to disband on the grounds that it needed to defend against a possible Israeli invasion. Actually, if not threatened, Israel does not invade.

In violation of the UN resolution, and without Israeli interference, Iran and Syria rearmed Hizbullah with more than double the number of rockets and more heavy weapons. Now Hizbullah has become an army and, in combination with other enemies, poses an existential threat against Israel. Mistake #15.


A series of mistakes in ideology and competence brought us to the present impasse. Terrorist proxies form a protective umbrella for Iran's nuclear development, which, in turn, would be a protective umbrella for proxies' aggression.

While Syria shows its hand against Israel and Lebanon, and assists insurgents fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, urges Israel to make another withdrawal, from the Golan. Assad of Syria would consider this a reward for his intransigence.

Indyk thinks this would satisfy Syria enough to stop its hostility and aggression. Not on this planet and not with the Mideast cast of fanatical and greedy imperialist characters. The same was true of appeasement with the Nazi and Communist cast of fanatical and imperialist characters. Follow Indyk's recommendation and make mistake #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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/ x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, April 24, 2010.

From: Alan L. Edelstein
Friday, April 23, 2010 9:10 PM

Dear Mr. President:

After 40 years as a registered Democrat (following in my father's and his father's footsteps), I just dropped my affiliation. I did it because of your policies on the Israel-Palestinian dispute and your apparent attitude and approach toward Israel. Simply put, I feel misled and hurt by what you have done and I am searching for tangible ways to express my feelings that will hopefully cause you to change course.

You should know at the outset that I am not one of those hardliner "don't give up an inch, all of Biblical Israel belongs to Jews" Jews. Although I do think that the Jewish people have a superior historical claim to Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I do know that the Hashemite rulers of Jordan have no more claim to that country than anyone else who was handed a kingdom in exchange for support in a war, I have always supported territorial compromise, just as all Israeli leaders of every major party from Ben-Gurion forward have accepted such compromise.

Thus, I supported the Camp David I process (can you imagine where the Palestinian nation would be today if the Palestinians had accepted that one), the Oslo process, Barak's Camp David II offer, the Taba enhancements, the Lebanon pullout, the Gaza pullout, and the Olmert Camp David II/Taba enhancements-plus offer made to President Abbas just last year.

I just wish the Palestinians would have accepted one of these offers, or at least counter-offered rather than just walked away or, worse, resorted to violence. I also wish that your Administration and all of the pundits that seem to feel only one side should be pressured in this process would remember who keeps making the offers and the unilateral gestures and who fails to accept them or counter offer. Indeed, if Chairman Arafat or President Abbas had said "yes" or "yes, but" to any of these offers, the current nastiness over "settlements" would never have occurred.

You should also know that I am not one of the persons that believe the President and the U.S. have to agree with Israel on every point in order to be a friend of Israel and to garner my support. After all, we both know that nations aren't really "friends." Who is kidding who on that one? Nations have interests and support other nations when it is in their interest to do so. For a whole variety of reasons, U.S. presidents and members of Congress, reflecting the sentiments of a large bipartisan segment of the population, have always deemed it in the U.S. interest to generally support Israel. That does not mean that there have not been differences along the way, sometimes made public, but more often, as befitting "friends," handled privately.

So, why did I drop my registration as a Democrat after all these years, a decision not without angst for me and one that would have caused my late father, a loyal supporter of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and all that they stood for, much heartburn? Because you have shown me that you are not a "friend" of Israel and, intentionally or not, you misled me and a lot of other people when you represented yourself to be a friend. Plus, your unfriendly behavior is telling others that perhaps it is time to be less supportive of Israel, to take advantage of it, to weaken it. Here are a few of the reasons I feel this way:

  1. A friend doesn't forget all of the history demonstrating a willingness to compromise outlined above and put the entire burden on one party to make concessions without even getting the other party to sit down at the bargaining table and at least recognize the existence of his friend.

  2. A friend doesn't use one stupid gaffe of the timing of a mid-level decision, nothing close to a final decision, to cause a major blow-out, which looks much like an attempt to either cause a change in his friend's government or to give a green light to other governments to pile on. A friend doesn't mix up West Bank settlements with existing Jewish neighborhoods without any Arab population that are situated between two Jewish neighborhoods. Once the Vice-President resolves the situation while staying on the mission of reassuring Israelis regarding Iran (something important to the U.S.), a friend does not then make the issue into one of the biggest fights in the history of relations between the two friends.

  3. A friend doesn't direct his Secretary of State to call the Prime Minister and engage in a 43 minute conversation complete with characterizations reserved for your worst enemies, demands, timelines, and threats of a change in relationship because of one unfortunate incident handled well by the Vice-President. A friend's Administration does not then leak the details to the media.

  4. A friend does not engage in behavior such as this that, wittingly or not, signals to the other side that a new day has arrived, that the nature of a relationship has changed, that the time is right for sitting back and demanding more without offering anything, that the friend cannot rely on the friendship, that the friend is vulnerable to being isolated and alone in its defense.

  5. A friend, wittingly or not, does not insinuate that Israel's ostensible intransigence rather than those who keep rejecting offers is the reason for the lack of progress in negotiations and is thereby somehow responsible for jeopardizing the lives of American military personnel. If American personnel are indeed in jeopardy because of the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a friend doesn't blame the democratic country that has withdrawn from territory and has made offer after offer. A friend moves quickly to get the Palestinians to come to the table and negotiate, rather than manufacturing excuses for them not to negotiate. A friend knows that this type of false innuendo and insinuation about Israel's blame for jeopardizing American lives quickly morphs into one of the old favorites of Jew-haters everywhere: blame the Jews. A friend understands that Jews are extremely and justifiably sensitive about this.

  6. Finally, a friend doesn't, by making such a huge and unnecessary public crisis out of an ill-timed but relatively low-level decision about a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, signal to members of Congress, other nations, and the Democratic Party and others that the tide is changing, that it is perhaps time to re-evaluate their relationships and attitudes.

Mr. President, after doing all of this and more that demonstrates your unfriendliness toward Israel, you and members of your Administration then modified a bit and started talking about what a great friendship you feel toward Israel. Perhaps acting not like a friend one day but saying you are a friend before and after the actions has some meaning in the diplomatic world. In my world it simply means you are not a good friend, a reliable friend, a trusted friend.

Obviously, Mr. President, if you believe what you are doing is in the best interest of the American people (something I disagree with), then you will pursue it, and you should. However, you should not have, intentionally or not, misled me and many others by saying you were Israel's friend and you should not continue to confuse the matter.

I am afraid, Mr. President, that your actions are leading the nation, the world, and my Party of 40 years toward a new, very unfriendly and dangerous attitude toward Israel. One of the few ways I have of registering my objection and my strong feeling that you misled me is to drop my registration as a Democrat. I hope that you or some future leader of the Party will demonstrate a friendship toward Israel that will allow me to feel comfortable re-registering with the party of my father and grandfather.

From: Boris Celser
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:58 PM

That's crap.

Edelstein says he is not one of those who refuses to give an inch and he supports Oslo and territorial compromise, Gaza pull out, Camp David II, Taba, anything goes, it's OK to expel everybody. Well, tough luck, now we have "nice" Jews blaming Obama, other "nice" Jews blaming the "settlers", and other "nice" Jews a la Edelstein dividing Jerusalem, getting out of the Golan, J&S, out of everywhere.

But he came up with a new term, referring to Jewish surrender, I mean, concessions: "enhancement-plus" offer to Abbas. I hadn't heard that one before.

For 20 years the farm is being given away, piece by piece, by Democrat and Republican presidents. Every US president merely continues to push for more concessions because he knows he will get it. So now he ends by saying he is deregistering himself from the Democrats, but hopes to register again. Very, very impressive. Obama must be shaking with fear.

If the Palestinians had accepted, if Chairman Arafat had said yes..., he goes on and on.

He is a government affairs consultant in Sacramento, he says. No wonder California is broke. Maybe Obama will invite him to join his Jewish gang at the White House. If you can't beat them, join them.

A Martian visiting Earth and reading his letter would have thought that Obama is the first and only American not to be a friend of Israel.

Poor Martian. It could never understand "American national security interests". Or most earthling Jews, for that matter.

The ghost of Martin Buber is still among us.

Jews are like cholesterol. There is good and bad cholesterol. Look at the total cholesterol and it is easy to see which side is winning.


From: Bill Narvey
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:45 AM


I take serious issue with your negative views of Alan Edelstein and his sincere and heart felt letter to President Obama.

I know you and many other Jews do not agree with Edelstein's apparent views on what would be an acceptable settlement of the ongoing low grade Israel vs. Palestinian/Arab war and his apparent approval of past American Presidential policies that have sought to pressure Israel into such kind of peace settlement.

I too have my concerns in that regard and have made those views known.

That should take nothing away from the significance of Edelstein's change of heart. Obama's outrageous treatment of Netanyahu/Israel, his increasingly apparent antipathy towards Israel and his obvious shifting of American policy to weigh even more against Israel, obviously is too much for Edelstein's stomach to bear.

Edelstein was amongst the 78% of American Jews who voted for Obama. Those numbers of Jewish Obama supporters have been falling, in the main due to Obama's new Middle East policy to curry favor with the Arabs and Muslim world which efforts have translated into his appeasing their anti-Israel sentiments and his more obviously turning against Israel, which runs counter to the majority American support for Israel.

Obama presaged his increasing tilt against Israel last July when he advised the Jews he invited to the White House for a briefing, that he intended to put more distance between the U.S. and Israel. He has since been putting those words into action. Many Jews including myself, fearfully foresaw the strong likelihood that Obama would, if elected take the positions we now see him taking as regards Israel.

Now is not the time to denigrate the Edelsteins for their having supported Obama and past Presidents whose words, policies and deeds weighed against Israel in a number of respects.

That Edelstein has now chosen to act on his changed views regarding Obama, should be applauded, just as those Jews formerly in Obama's camp, who have turned against him, should be applauded and encouraged to publically take the kind of action that Edelstein has taken.

With such kinds of public denunciations of Obama by Jewish former Obama supporters, more Jews and non-Jewish friends of Israel will likely join the growing number of Obama defectors.

As many of you know, a number of Jewish organizations led by Beth Galinsky of the Jewish Action Alliance have organized an important rally for Israel in New York City for tomorrow. That too hopefully will not only send a strong message of disapproval to Obama but, it will also help to persuade more Jews who were amongst the 78% that voted for Obama, to turn their backs on him.

Perhaps something good might come out of Obama's insulting treatment of Netanyahu/Israel.

Jews who were previously supportive of the American policy and vision for a 2 state peace solution, who have seen that vision turn ugly with Obama, might now be moved to re-evaluate their views and come to see that unless Palestinian/Arab intractable Jew/Israel hatred and rejection of Israel's right to exist cannot be eradicated, the chance for a 2 state peace solution that is safe, secure and stable for Israel and the Palestinians, is more a mythical hopeless dream then a dream that has a realistic potential to be realized.

Bill Narvey

From: Boris Celser
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:06 AM


Sorry, but it is looking like too little too late. The Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago, if you know what I mean. Enough excuses.

I know you do, but on top of it add 2,000 dead Israeli Jews plus thousands maimed, and let's not get going on the attacks and destruction outside Israel.

Edelstein can write a million letters to Obama, I don't care. But I disagree on the implications that he (and so many others) were doing right by supporting all the withdrawals, evacuations, and expulsions, that caused trauma and misery, which accomplished nothing other than destroying families, suicides, marriage breakdowns, depression, unemployment, homelessness, and it is still going strong. Plus a scud missile or two. Not to mention that MKs were bribed to pass Oslo to start with.

Obama may be the worst president for Israel, but he didn't initiate the surrender program. Others did, and one picks up where the other has left. Not difficult, since US presidents change, but the Israelis in charge are the still the same and will be around long after Obama has left the scene. Chronologically speaking I could be Peres's grandson (barely), and he may still outlive me and remain in power.

Our BBloved Israeli PM says Jerusalem is the eternal capital, blah. blah. blah, but then says if divided Hamas and Iran would be there attacking west Jerusalem. The implication is that should Hamas and Iran disappear in smoke, then Jerusalem could be divided, it may not be so eternal a capital, after all. These implications always come back to haunt Israel.

Easier to deal with Democratic Obama than with Republican Bush Senior, 1000 points of light, plausible deniability, and the like. A world run on slogans, but where's the beef, and where's the birth certificate? All I know is where the "sacrifices for peace" are.

I will lecture you over coffee next week.

From: Bill Narvey
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:30 AM

My my Boris, you really are a nattering nabob of negativism, to quote Spiro Agnew.

Don't dwell on the past. That was then. This is now.

Jews such as Alan Edelstein, who doubtless always were concerned about Israel and wanted the best for her, even if that best was defined differently then you would define it, are coming to see that whatever fate Israel has, it is best that Israel not put her fate or faith in President Obama.

I would think that you would see that as a positive as I do.

Yes, next week over coffee you can lecture me and I will berate you for looking back and not forward.


From: Alan L. Edelstein
Sent Saturday: April 24, 2010 13:29


To correct one misimpression you apparently have: I never supported an American president putting pressure on an Israeli government to take a particular position. In 40 years of Israel advocacy, I always supported the position of the elected government of Israel. I adhere to the old-fashioned idea that those that send their children to defend and protect Israel should be the ones to make the decisions regarding policy, and the role of Jews in the diaspora is to open mouths and wallets in support. I have had many arguments in the Jewish community about this. I have argued with my left-leaning friends that while they might not support the policies of Shamir or Begin, they can still explain and defend Israel's thinking and refrain from criticizing. I have argued with my right-leaning friends that, while they might not like the Sharon government's decision to pull-out of Gaza, given that they live in the safety of Sacramento, they should be supporting Israel's decisions rather than driving around Sacramento with orange ribbons on their cars, trying to change Israel's decisions and thereby deciding where Israel's soldiers will serve. Mr. Celser may not have liked the positions and decisions of Israel's government, but as an American Jew, I supported them and the country.

One other note for Mr. Celser: you might want to think about how you talk about other Jews, particularly those who support Israel.

From: Boris Celser
Sent Saturday April 24, 2010 13:52

Nabob? Of course, Bill, my greatest source of wealth is having you around, and I mean it. But with this sophisticated language now everyone knows you're a lawyer by training. I am at a disadvantage.

Thanks for your letter, Mr. Edelstein, the issue is your views, unfortunately shared by most Jews, and not your character. If I may paraphrase Sadat after making peace with Israel, "I am already in so many people's death lists I could paper my living room walls with them".

You are kindly invited to meet Bill and me for coffee, although Bill's choice of Java is not all that sophisticated. My manners have deteriorated after watching MKs "debating" each other for so long.

Please accept a little something I wrote in 07, where my views are put forward in a more indirect way.


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

Alan L. Edelstein is a governmental affairs consultant and advocate for 30 years. Heis a resident of Sacramento and lives part of the year in Jerusalem. Contact him at ae@edelsteinstrategies.com.

Contact Bill Narvey at wpnarvey@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, April 24, 2010.

"Bill Clinton Explains How Middle East Utopia is Just Around the Corner, Just Tell Israel and Palestinians How to Make Peace"


It's truly amazing what some people say about the Middle East without anyone noticing the inaccuracies and contradictions. An interview former President Bill Clinton gave to the ABC news' program "This Week" is a wonderful example of this situation.

As a friend of mine who's a policy analyst just put it in evaluating another, roughly similar article: "Everyone should have views that approximate reality. There's still plenty of room for argument within that space."

I will now show, point by point, how almost everything Clinton said, however, is outside that space. Still, Clinton-who was an okay president-is savvy enough to make one terrific argument which shows he really does understand the shortcomings of Obama Administration policy.

Of course, as a fellow former president, a Democrat, and husband of a certain secretary of state, Clinton isn't going to trash the current government's stances. But his statements force him into saying some very silly things. I will give you one point for each of them you spot. Read each paragraph, think of one or more major problems with it, and then read my analysis.

"If [Obama] decides to [issue his own peace plan], I will support it," said Clinton, suggesting that such an action would be like what he did at the Camp David meeting and later in the Clinton peace plan, both in 2000.

What's wrong with this?

Answer: Clinton did not really present his own peace plan in either case. On both occasions, he was presenting a plan which he had cleared with Israel's prime minister. This was appropriate since the Israeli government had agreed to make some major concessions if it received certain things in return. In sharp contrast, however, Obama would be proposing a plan demanding Israeli concessions which not only hasn't been approved by Israel's government but which the president knows it would oppose.

Incidentally, as we will see in a moment Clinton knows-despite his support-that this is a serious mistake. If the president puts forward a plan both sides will reject he does no good and ends up looking very foolish. Moreover, what about Clinton's own experience: offering a great deal to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and watching them turn it down. Shouldn't he be warning Obama — and his spouse — more about how the PA is unwilling or unable to make peace?

Next, what's wrong with this:

"We need to do something to deprive both sides of any excuse not to engage in serious negotiations."

Answer: If the goal is to get talks going, the way to do so is not to propose a comprehensive peace plan which both sides will certainly reject but to start with small things on which they can agree. To put forward such a plan would be the best "excuse not to engage in serious negotiations" of all!

But, by the way, might it be relevant that the PA has refused to talk for 15 months while Israel's government has been ready to meet during this entire period? So Clinton knows Israel is not looking for any excuse not to engage in serious negotiations. The PA is. But to be "even-handed," Clinton is covering up for PA intransigence. And who should know better about PA intransigence then the man who was humiliated by Yasir Arafat's refusal to make peace in 2000?

At this point, Clinton does give some good advice: "The current Israeli government, with its current coalition, almost certainly would reject it. And the argument is that that makes us look weak." Right. Why put forward a plan that's going to be rejected. The Obama Administration already looks dangerously weak. Once both sides reject its plan, things will really be at a dead end.

But soon we are back in fantasyland. So what's wrong with this:

Clinton said that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would vastly reduce the level of terrorism in the region: "Half of the energy coming out of all this organization and money-raising for terror comes out of the allegations around the unresolved Palestinian issue."

What's wrong with this?

Answer: Suppose you are the kind of Arab who supports terrorist groups politically and gives them money. Would a two-state compromise agreement make you stop doing that? Of course not, you would say that the Palestinian Authority had betrayed the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, while the United States was a horrible enemy that had destroyed the chance for destroying Israel and creating a Palestinian Muslim Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

Consider Hamas. If an agreement was made leaving it aside, would it fold up? Stop terrorism? Cease receiving money? Lose all popular support? Forfeit the backing of Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhoods? And how in Hades are you going to have and implement such a solution without the Gaza Strip?

See if you can spot the pattern: King Abdallah of Jordan made a deal with Israel and was assassinated. President Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt made a deal with Israel and was assassinated. President Bashar Gemayel of Lebanon made a deal with Israel and was assassinated. Ah, "President" Mahmoud Abbas, please just sign right here and terrorism will just disappear. Nothing to worry about!

What planet is Bill Clinton living on if he believes this? Well, he probably doesn't believe it.


"If there were a Palestinian state working in partnership...it would be a whole different world. All the Arabs would identify with Israel. They'd have a political and economic partnership. The whole economic basis in the Middle East would shift from oil to ideas."

What's wrong with this? (This is an easy one.)

Answer: First, it assumes a Palestinian state would be at total peace with Israel and would want to cooperate with it. This ignores Palestinian politics, public opinion, the composition of the Fatah leadership, and the large minority of those supporting Hamas and other radical groups (25 percent in the West Bank at minimum) who'd reject any such thing. It is quite possible (and that's putting it conservatively) that the Palestinian government would support (or even sponsor) continuous incitement to destroy Israel and view it as an enemy; cross-border raids; and requests for foreign Arab military aid. To analyze an Israel-Palestinian agreement as operating perfectly is a leap of faith far beyond any Olympic record.

Then there is the equally awesome assumption that a bilateral agreement would make all that cultural-economic mistrust and hatred disappear overnight in Arab states. Egypt has been at peace with Israel for more than three decades with attitudes not changing. What about Muslim hatred of a Jewish state in the region and Arab nationalist horror at the idea of Israel's continued existence? Arab states would still fear Israeli strategic and economic domination. The naïve idea of a Middle East shifting from oil to ideas, of the Arab rulers or masses "identifying" with Israel is not something that a former president should suggest as serious. It's not something any rational adult should predict.

Here's another one:

"Look at what the Saudi Arabians are doing — building six new towns. The UAE wins the international competition for the clean energy agency, and they're going to build a carbon-neutral city in the UAE. And nobody thinks about this. Dubai is the only country, with huge amounts of imported workers, that's actually passed legislation to give these immigrant workers a better deal in the Middle East. And they've got women in the government; they have a joint public-private decision-making process. Nobody knows anything about it. Why? Because of the Palestinian-Israeli thing."

What's wrong with this?

Answer: Before saying anything else, it should be noted that Clinton has reportedly received a lot of money from Dubai, including millions for helping the ruler make investments and advising Dubai on its controversial attempt to buy a company managing U.S. ports. Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interests for him to talk about how great that place is and not even mentioning its recent financial collapse?

But back to the political issues. Well, of course people do know about events in the Gulf. But these are wealthy states rolling in oil dough. There's a lot of poverty in other Arab countries and developments in the Israel-Palestinian issue will have no effect on that. Equally, there's a lot of dictatorial regimes holding down populations which are not ready — to cite the words of a Jordanian king decades ago — to act like the Swiss. And in each country there's a life-and-death battle between regimes and revolutionary Islamists.

If anything, an unpopular peace agreement — and that's what it would be — is going to inflame these internal conflicts rather than soothe them. Indeed, if we see how Arab regimes use the conflict to distract passion and attention from getting rid of themselves, removing the conflict would increase instability in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other places.

No, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is not the only problem, nor is the idea that if Arabs read more about how great Dubai is they would want to spend their time building nice environmentally cool cities instead of engaging in radical rhetoric or activities.

So what is Clinton talking about when he says, "Nobody knows anything" about this stuff? Is he implying that the Israel-Palestinian conflict will go away and millions of Arabs are going to say: Wow! Now I get it! Let's have democracy, moderation, and equality for women!

But what about the Islamism thing, and the dictatorship thing, and the nationalist thing, and the Sunni-Shia thing, and all those other little things? Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the only factor keeping the region from being a utopia? Clinton suggests that it is.

Another one: If there was an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, "How could the Syrians stay out there alone-cooperating with the Iranians, and letting Hizballah people travel through Syria, and doing all the things they do?"

What's wrong with that?

Answer: Where to begin! There's no real reason that the Syrians can't "stay out there alone." One reason is that they've been doing so for decades, regarding their siding with Iran against other Arab states. Another reason is that they won't be alone even among Arab states and political forces. They have Iran on their side, the strongest single Muslim-majority state in the region and soon to be a nuclear power. They have Hamas (which rules the Gaza Strip) and Hizballah (which runs much of Lebanon and has veto power over the government) and many other allies in that country. They sponsor the Sunni Iraqi insurgents and can depend on a huge slice of Arab and Muslim opinion. They also would have Qatar, Yemen, and Libya, while the Egyptian and Jordanian Muslim Brotherhoods would join forces with them, too.

The Iranians, Syrians, and many others would all denounce the agreement as treason. Oppositionists would try to assassinate any Arab leader who went along with it. There would be riots in every Arab capital.

Clinton seems to speak here as if he has no idea what makes Arab politics different from those in Western Europe.

If you think six of Clinton's statements were right you can be a high-level Western policymaker; five right, a leading mainstream media pundit; four right, a professor of Middle East studies.

If, however, you understand why the six points made by Clinton which I highlighted were wrong you can write a blog just like this one, have no influence, and receive no honors whatsoever. None of the points you make will be repeated on television or in the most prestigious newspapers.

But there's a consolation prize: History will prove you to be right.

Optional note: Please understand that there is absolutely nothing about any of the above arguments that is liberal or conservative, left or right. It is all sheer analysis of regional politics and political culture. These are conclusions that everyone should be able to reach no matter what their personal viewpoint, party affiliations, or nationality. There is no greater disservice one can do to one's people (or audience) than to feed them nonsense which will lead to serious strategic indigestion later.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

This article is archived at
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/ bill-clinton-explains

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, April 23, 2010.

The New York Times recently announced Obama Speech Signals a U.S. Shift on Middle East.

"When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a "vital national security interest of the United States," he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

[..] "Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure" — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

To show that Obama was not alone in this, it buttressed his message by quoting from Sec'y Rice, Gen Patraeus and Martin Indyk. It might just as well have quoted from The Baker Report, Z Brzezinski and Sec'y Clinton.

Actually this shift was a long time in coming. There have always been voices in the administration that viewed Israel as a liability rather than an asset.

Richard Holbrooke pointed this out in his recent article, "Washington's Battle Over Israel's Birth," He quotes Secretary of Defense James Forrestal who made his case for non-recognition by saying "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other. Why don't you face up to the realities?" He concluded, "[To] this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States."

Then as now, Israel was opposed by "the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews, [including] the publishers of both the Post and the New York Times."

The problem that these anti-Zionist forces had was that the American people strongly supported Israel and AIPAC was too powerful to take on. So they developed a plan to undermine AIPAC and discredit Israel.

The first salvo of which was the indictment of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC in 2005 for espionage related charges. The case was dropped four years later but the damage had been done to them and to AIPAC. To show how politically motivated the charges were James Kirchip wrote in WSJ,

"If the offense were really criminal, half the Beltway press corps could be indicted. Mr. Franklin's mishandling of classified documents deserved sanction, but 12 years in jail is far worse than the misdemeanor and fine meted out to former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger for stuffing secret documents in his clothing."

Then, in 2007, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer and Walt, was published. Its central thesis was that but for domestic politics, the US would have abandoned Israel long ago. They viewed the Israel lobby, AIPAC, as far too influential for America's good. Israel was a liability rather than an asset. They totally ignored the vast power of the Saudi Lobby.

An alternative to AIPAC was needed to counter or undermine its influence, so in April 2008, J Street was formed. George Soros backed them as he did Obama.

It was necessary to cast J-Street as pro-Israel so the term had to be redefined. Thomas Friedman, Jeffrey Goldberg and Jeremy Ben-Ami each took up the challenge. I took their arguments to task in "Redefining "What it means to be pro-Israel".

Thus the groundwork was laid for Obama's "tough love". He is not just undermining and weakening Israel in the name of being "pro-Israel" he is also attempting to undermine the support of the American people for Israel by suggesting that a settlement of the dispute satisfactory to the Arabs is in America's strategic interest or that Israel's intransigence is costing "US blood and treasure".

During the cold war with the USSR, no one doubted that Israel was a strategic asset to the US. Similarly today with the growing influence and power of Iran, Israel is a strategic asset in Iran's containment and possibly her defeat. But in Obama's world view, he would have opted out of the cold war as he is opting out of standing up to Iran. He prefers appeasement to confrontation. Thus Israel becomes a liability or a sacrificial lamb. He wants Israel to appease the Arabs rather than to confront them.

Caroline Glick recognized the stupidity in saying that the US had a strategic interest in achieving peace rather than in keeping Israel strong so she just wrote, "The strategic foundations of the US-Israel alliance." Paraphrasing her article could not do justice to the extremely strong case she makes. She also makes the point that not only is America better off with a strong Israel but so are the moderate Arab states. They recognize that Israel is not a threat to them and in fact, is a force for stability in the area. She also makes the point that "the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America's most vital strategic interests in the Middle East."

Beyond Israel's strategic value, it is correct to say Israel does not "cost U.S. blood and treasure". No US soldier has lost his life, fighting for Israel. On the other hand many Israeli soldiers have lost their lives fighting common enemies of both the U.S. and Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The US has not been drawn into any conflict because of Israel as Obama suggests. The US is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because she perceives it in her national interest to do so. In fact should she leave Iraq as she presently intends, she is comforted by the fact that Israel is still in the ME and capable of protecting American interests and of ensuring stability in the area. It takes America six months to mobilize an invasion force of 500,000 whereas it takes Israel only 72 hours to do the same. Furthermore if Israel wasn't there to protect Jordan, the US would have to be in Jordan.

Israel's expertise and technology is shared with the US resulting in a great reduction in U.S. casualties first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

Amb Yoram Ettinger's A Two Way Street highlights the importance to America of Israel's contribution by referencing these quotes,

"Israel's contribution to US military intelligence is greater than all NATO countries combined."

Former Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig, a former Supreme Commander of NATO, refers to Israel as "the largest, most battle-tested and cost-effective US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single US personnel, cannot be sunk and is located at a most critical area for US national security interests."

Once again, I can't do the article justice by paraphrasing it.

In response to Obama's treatment of Israel, a group of about 50 retired United States generals and admirals recently wrote a letter to Obama in which they expounded on "Israel as a Security Asset for the United States" urged him as well as Congress and the general American public to recognize how truly intertwined Israel's success is with America's.

As we know, the US hired private military contractors to assist in the fighting in Iraq. They formed an organization, Private Military Contractors and it published this major report, "Israel Assists US Forces: Shares lessons learned fighting terrorists. Fallujah Success capitalized on IDF Know How".

Dr Steve Carol, the author of Middle East Rules of Thumb: Understanding the Complexities of the Middle East, compiled an extensive list of the many benefits flowing to the US from the relationship and he included this reference,

"General George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence has publicly declared that "Israel is worth five CIA's." He further stated that between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants. During the same period Israel provided the U.S. with $50-80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the U.S."

The case for Israel's strategic value is so overwhelming, one wonders what is motivating Obama and his minions. He is spending an enormous amount of political capital on this and for what? The Arabs aren't spending any political capital or anything else for that matter.

This week Gen Jones acknowledged

"I can also say from long experience that our security relationship with Israel is important for America. Our military benefits from Israeli innovations in technology, from shared intelligence, from exercises that help our readiness and joint training that enhances our capabilities and from lessons learned in Israel's own battles against terrorism and asymmetric threats."

It seems there has been a change of policy in the last few days. Assure Israel of America's undying love and support so it can be forced to accept the Saudi Plan.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com or tedbdl1@israpundit.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Dann, April 23, 2010.

Revelations about anti-Israel NGOs funded by the New Israel Fund and the Peres Center for Peace are the tip of the iceberg.



A motion to investigate the New Israel Fund (NIF)by Israeli MK Otniel Schneller was withdrawn because of "intense pressure." Other MKs may try to hold hearings, but if anyone does take up the issue, it won't be easy. Investigating the NIF will expose not only Kadima, Labor, and anti-settlement and anti-Israel organizations, but their connections to Israeli politicians — especially President Shimon Peres, his Peres Center for Peace, and its supporters.

The Peres Center has quietly backed NGOs through a network of relationships and meetings. It organized a conference of Palestinians and anti-Israel NGOs in Florence in June 2007, which included B'Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, Yesh Din, Peace Now, and others. Ron Pundak, president of the Peres Center, was the host. Former MK Avrum Burg, a founder of Peace Now who recently urged Israelis to acquire foreign citizenship, gave the keynote.

The Peres Center supports a host of NGOs, like the Palestinian-Israeli Peace NGO Forum, and other organizations that demonize and delegitimize Israel. Peace NGO organizes demonstrations against Jews living in eastern Jerusalem, like those in Sheikh Jarrah.

The NIF works with the Council for Peace and Security, a small but vocal group of anti-settlement former IDF officers and prominent Israelis, including former Justice Aharon Barak.

Of the 123 NIF grantees, half are Arab or pro-Arab organizations with political agendas.

The NIF is funded by many foundations (in addition to multi-million dollar Ford Foundation grants). These include Bronfman, Cummings, Blaustein, Dorot, Kaplan, Sandler (ex-owners of Global West banks and major supporters of Human Rights Watch), Arnow, and others.

The NIF International Council — composed of prominent individuals, most of whom oppose Israeli settlements — includes former U.S. Secretary of State Martin Indyk; Yoram Peri, former advisor to Yitzhak Rabin and ex-editor of Davar; Yehudit Karp, former deputy attorney general; Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, VP of the Israel Democracy Institute; and former Minister of Justice David Libai.

PM Netanyahu may or may not order an investigation, but this would be limited, since his coalition and their supporters include some of the very people who would be exposed.

Many NIF-sponsored NGOs advocate what is called an "alternative narrative": Israel (i.e., Jews) is illegally occupying and stealing Palestinian land; Israel is a racist, apartheid country; Israel persecutes, oppresses, and humiliates Arab Palestinians, the "indigenous people of Palestine," which was invaded and occupied by European Jews; Israel deprives Palestinians of dignity and justice and subjects them to daily humiliation.

Through their extensive influence in business, finance, media, and politics, the NIF and the Peres Center have created an interlocking directorate of anti-settlement NGOs and their supporters around the world. With mega-funding, media influence, and political support, they can distort issues and promote agendas behind the scenes. Camouflaged as "human/civil rights/peace organizations," pro-Arab NGOs are engaged in presenting false and misleading information that serves to demonize and delegitimize Israel. This does not mean that all individuals involved support anti-Israel activities, but they sit at the same table and provide them with an aura of respectability and authenticity.

Wielding enormous influence in Israeli society, this elite group influences higher education and policymaking, shuttling back and forth between government, academia, business, and the legal profession. They are the enablers that allow anti-Israel NGOs to function, and — aided by a compliant media — to assert their agenda.

With the rise of post/anti-Zionism among Israelis, and the struggle between Israelism and a more pronounced Jewish ideology, the attraction of religious Zionism threatens the dominance of the secular elite. In order to preserve their power nexus, that elite seeks to crush all opposition. They can do this physically by destroying settlements or ideologically by portraying Jews who live there as fanatical, anti-human/civil rights, oppressive, cruel, violent, and uncompromising.

The NIF and the Peres Center for Peace are leading this crusade.

Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, April 23, 2010.

This was written by Youssef M. Ibrahim and it appeared in
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.6052/pub_detail.asp. Youssef M. Ibrahim is a journalist whose articles have appeared in the New York Sun and New York Times.


It is not easy to belittle Aaron David Miller's renunciation of what he described as "False Religion of the Mideast Peace'' in his essay published in Foreign Policy.

Framed in impeccable logic with unchallenged knowledge from a man who more than any other senior U.S. official has led our Middle East peace camp ever since 1978, that's a big deal. Miller served as special envoy and senior advisor on the Middle East for 30 years across Republican and Democratic administrations reporting directly to several presidents.

Miller's despair is more poignant coming from a Jewish senior American policy-maker, one of many who deeply sympathized with Arabs and Palestinians, so much he once accused a fellow Jewish peace-maker, Dennis Ross who is now a special advisor to the president, of being "Israel's lawyer!"

When such a man now turns around to say the peace process is dead; that the Obama administration is wrong pressuring Israel; and the U.S. has become tone-deaf to more important strategic threats including the Iranian nuclear issue, his thesis and his warnings demand attention. They will get plenty as the questioning is just beginning within the professional Mideast peace making-establishment and its lobbies. So what happened? What went wrong in that tortured peace process?

Typically, the coolest answers come from military men.

In the same issue of FP no less a figure than General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command in 2001 and 2002 who worked closely with Mr. Miller said just about everything did. And what's worse he said we are repeating it all over again.

"We should realize what doesn't work: summits, agreements in principle, special envoys, U.S.-proposed plans, and just about every other part of our approach has failed. So why do we keep repeating it?'' Gen. Zinni asks.

Undaunted, the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are forging ahead with a new Broadway production of the same failed show dotted with "indirect talks'' because Palestinians do not want to face Israelis, more edicts to stop construction of settlements which Israel will roundly ignore, along with a panoply of international conferences and more special envoys.

The folks who have been there and back, people like Gen. Zinni and Miller and historian Michael Oren, currently Israel's ambassador to the U.S., as well as a sizeable number of Egyptian and Jordanian experts who for obvious reasons do not voice their skepticism openly in their politicized Arab world, are in fact saying that the paradigm of peace has shifted. We are working off an obsolete database.

Forty years is a long time, especially in the Mideast where many countries are 50 to 70 years old. In other words the picture of 1979 — when Egypt and Israel signed a peace accord under the gaze of a U.S. president and the mid 1980s when Jordan and Israel signed — is not the same in 2010.

Antagonists out there today are not nation states alone. They now include armed militias such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. To use the famed expression of the late Egyptian diplomat Tahseen Bashir, making peace now involves dealing with "tribes with flags,', a practically impossible task. That is part of the new paradigms.

Another is lack of leadership. Until Mideast leaders of the caliber of late Egyptian president Anwar El Sadat, Yitzhaq Rabin and Menachem Begin of Israel and the late King Hussein of Jordan who are now all dead — two of them at the hands of assassins — emerge, there is not much leadership out there strong enough to strike deals and make them stick.

Paradigms-wise, furthermore, the Soviet Union is gone, robbing that Mideast challenge of its Cold War exigency.

The new enemy rising to challenge America is not an unresolved dispute between Israelis and Palestinians but Islamic fundamentalism that rejects all western concepts of modernization and equal rights for women and citizens. Its tentacles run out of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, ironically all three categorized as friends of the U.S.

Finally, as paradigms go, strategically and tactically speaking, the US has no closer ally in the world than Israel. We could not operate in the Middle East without Israeli assistance and our population, the grand majority of Americans and their representatives in Congress, would never allow Israel to stand alone under attack. This is a basic fact of political life in America that the Obama White House understands too well.

Speaking as an Arab-American, I welcome the protection that Israel's existence as a minority Jewish state in the Muslim Middle East projects for other minorities including some 25 million Christian Arabs under extreme pressure, 30 million Kurds and other tribal or religious populations who must live free of persecution. Israel stands as a symbol that it is possible to have a multi-cultural tolerant Middle East.

What Miller and Zinni and more analysts are asking is why therefore is this administration expanding such extraordinary resources to resolve what clearly has recessed to a minor strategic threat when far greater menaces loom?

As Miller pointed out on CNN in an interview with John King: Would Obama become the first US president on whose watch Iran turns into nuclear power? He also wonders, correctly, if Israeli's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would accept to be the first Israeli prime minister to let this happen.

Another primary strategic concern for the U.S. is the ongoing disintegrations of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

What indeed is our strategy in Iraq should civil war break out again as it seems? How do we define winning there? And, will thousands of American forces in Afghanistan do baby-sitting for a decade, or longer?

These appear indeed pressing issues with not a single indication of an American strategy.

On the Israeli side, one can assume the country can take care of itself militarily and otherwise. It has matured to a nation of 7.5 million including 1.5 million Arab Israelis who are not as unhappy as their Palestinian brethren suggest and would, if pressed, more likely opt for an Israeli quality of life. Israel just hit a per capita income level of around $35,000, putting it squarely in the higher ranking of the industrialized western living standards, with an economy bigger than all neighboring countries. It has never lost a war and can still win any.

Beyond this, the best strategy for the White House when it comes to those Middle East "tribes with flags'' may be benign neglect. When you think of it, despite predictions of dire consequences and World War Three out there, the Middle East dispute has survived with various accommodations quite well for 100 years already.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, April 23, 2010.

This is by Daniel Greenfield.
It is the Friday Afternoon Roundup — 'An Afternoon of Golf and Treason' — on the Sultan Knish website
(http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/04/ friday-afternoon-roundup-afternoon-of.html).


Off on another vacation, after a round of golf after skipping the Polish President's funeral, Obama showed his commitment to saying things while doing nothing, by condemning Arizona's immigration bill, as unhelpful. Which considering his party's plans for mass legalization of illegal aliens, it no doubt is.

While Obama is hunting for another Republican Senator besides Lindsey Graham to back ObaMigration (TM), the usual folks are condemning the bill. Their key criticism seems to be that it will result in racial profiling. The logical outcome of this argument however would be to ban virtually all preventative or suspicion based police work, as studies show that everything from stop and frisk to highway stops usually involve a higher percentage of minorities. And in fact civil rights groups have used this exact argument against them.

The logical solution however is not to ban preventative policing, but to fight racism and bigotry among law enforcement personnel. That goes for enforcing all the laws, including Arizona's immigration bill. Because if preventative policework is illegal, then the only function of law enforcement becomes to investigate crimes after they are reported. Some libertarians might indeed embrace such a scenario, but very few liberals would, as it would also mean ending inspections of factories and products.

Legal Mexican-Americans and immigrations are among the biggest victims of illegal immigration moving through the Southern border, particularly in the border towns, where crime and drug violence have spiked, and the social services funding isn't there. Democrats champion legalization, not out of benevolence, but because they want a population with little means of social advancement, who will be dependent on government largess. This cynical policy is the same reason that Europe has been flooded with Muslim immigration by left wing parties.

While Obama would very much like to push through ObaMigration, as it would shove millions of new Democratic voters onto the voting rolls, and wipe out states like Arizona, which are already struggling with the economic toll from illegal immigration through Mexico. (Through mind you, more than from.) The economic realities of such a bill however would be far more explosive than ObamaCare — and if the Obama Administration really wants to see the Tea Party movement take hold nationally, that would be the way to go.

But meanwhile Obama himself and a number of Illinois political figures, including Dick Durbin, are being subpoenaed by Blagojevich's lawyers, who are determined to make this as much of a political spectacle as possible. Of course the probability of this going anywhere is very low, but the public should be reminded of the fact that this was all one gang, and that this is the Culture of Corruption that Barack Hussein Obama's political career sprang from, like a weed from the moist dirt.

Because there's always lies on top of lies and corruption on top of corruption. Peeling back one layer of the rotten onion, just leaves that many more underneath.

Case in point...

A top Senate Republican on Thursday accused the Obama administration of misleading taxpayers about General Motors' loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was only able to repay its bailout money by dipping into a separate pot of bailout money.

Sen. Chuck Grassley's charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout — also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.

"It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Don't worry we'll get our money back... it'll just still be our money. That's the way it's always worked, to be fair. But it's still repugnant.

And speaking of repugnant... Senator Schumer meanwhile has stepped forward on JM in the AM to be mildly critical of the Obama Administration's pressure on Israel, while trying to excuse it at the same time.

Like every politician, Schumer tries to highlight his own role as an advocate, which points up the fact that this is more about his campaign than anything else. He's essentially making the argument that voting for him will mean having a strong advocate with influence on the White House. This is of course a load of equine byproducts, as the Obama Administration dislikes Schumer, who took away Princess Caroline's Senate seat, and Schumer dislikes the Obama Administration which kneecapped Hillary. Obama can't entirely ignore Schumer, but he won't be paying too much attention to him.

That said Schumer demonstrates that he does know what's going on. He tries to minimize the problem as growing pains with a new Administration that hasn't realized that the Palestinian Arab Muslim side has no interest in honestly negotiating. In doing so he misrepresents history, Clinton himself admitted at the time that he only realized at the very end of his term, that Arafat had been leading everyone on. But the very fact that Schumer felt pressed to step forward, suggests the situation behind the scenes may be even more ominous.

And unsurprisingly, the Obama Administration responded with a putdown of Schumer...

The Obama administration pushed back on Friday against critical comments made by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) accusing the president of having a "counterproductive" policy on Israel.

Asked by the Huffington Post about the remarks during the morning's gaggle, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied: "I don't think it is a stretch to say we don't agree with what Senator Schumer said."

Boker Tov Boulder has the latest poll of Jews, which shows marked disapproval of the Obama Administration.

American voters disapprove by 44 to 35% of the way the President is handling the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.

Jewish voters disapprove 67 to 28%.

I suspect the Q poll was done with more depth, insofar as covering a broader section of the Jewish community.

Also to readers in New York, there will be a rally in support of Israel and/or in protest of the Obama Administration's actions on Sunday.



A Rally in Solidarity with Israel, Sun, April 25, 2010

TIME: 1 PM LOCATION: Israel Consulate, 2nd Ave between 42nd and 43rd St,

Turning to the Republican side, some people are impressed by a statement put out by Rand Paul that seems to be Pro-Israel. But the first thing to remember is that Ron Paul's people briefly tried to sell him as Pro-Israel too in many of the same terms... namely that Ron Paul would leave Israel alone.

Walter Block of the Mises Institute authored an open letter to Jews arguing that foreign aid was bad for Israel and that under Ron Paul, the US would no longer try to control Israel's foreign policy. And promoted Jews for Ron Paul, an organization that turned out to be a fraud. More curiously, Block claimed that Ron Paul might actually triple foreign aid to Israel's enemies, which would destroy them.

But the first problem with the Pauls is not Israel. It's America. The problem is that they support Islamic terrorists because they've identified with the entire worldview of the far left and far right, which claims that the US government is run by a vast conspiracy, and that Muslim terrorists are just blowback as a result of our foreign policy. Which is a fancy way of saying that they believe that if they can overthrow the "American Empire", everything with Islam will be hunky dory.

Rand Paul has spoken in those terms before on the Alex Jones show. Like his father, he identifies more with Al Queda and Iran, than with the US.

While some of Ron Paul's Jewish supporters tried to claim that he would leave Israel, because he believes in respecting the sovereignty of other countries, in fact he attacked Israel for going after its kidnapped soldiers, something that was not taking place inside US borders. Essentially Paul was making the same argument then that Obama is making today, that Israel's actions affect the US, which gives him the right to demand that Israel stop defending itself.

He hasn't made that argument for Saddam Hussein, because like much of the far right and far left, free nations take a beating, while Muslim ones get a free pass. So while a libertarian President who ended foreign aid and stopped interfering in Israel's own war on terror might be a godsend, the Pauls are coming at this from a whole other perspective.

But now Rand Paul, the jolly chap who said

"Iran feels threatened because we have troops in Iraq and troops in Afghanistan... we have to understand their perspective, that they feel threatened." ...and favored releasing captured terrorists back on the battlefield is supposedly pro-Israel. And I buy that as much as I buy that he's suddenly in favor of keeping terrorists locked up, when back in 09, it was a different story

Rand Paul "couldn't agree more" with those who believe Guantanamo has "significantly damaged the reputation of the United States" and who want to "see it shut down."

SO WHILE Rand Paul's statement is very nice, it's also a complete break from everything that's come before it, aside from the paragraph about foreign aid, which is left over from Ron Paul's own campaign for office. And when a politician comes out with a radically new position, I have to believe that his old position is the real thing.

Furthermore as others are pointing out, Rand Paul has endorsed Adam Kokesh, which means getting in bed with Code Pink, a radical left wing org tied to Obama and Hamas of all things.

Bubba has gone into great detail on Adam Kokesh in an open letter. Here are a few brief excerpts, but the entire thing is worth reading

Mr. Kokesh joined the Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW) in February 2007, at which time he was 25 years old. The IVAW was formed by the Vietnam Veterans Against War (VVAW), the now infamous group formed by John Kerry in 1970, and responsible for the fraudulent maligning of our Vietnam veterans at the Winter Soldier Conference in 1971.

As an active member of the IVAW, Mr. Kokesh was involved in numerous anti-military activities and actions. While executing these actions, Mr. Kokesh knowingly made common cause with a wide array of other well-known, radical anti-America and communist groups. The list of these other groups includes, but is by no means limited to, the following:

Code Pink
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
United for Justice and Peace
Communist Party of America
Muslim Brotherhood
Black Panthers

In cooperation with the above-named groups and the IVAW, Mr. Kokesh: participated in multiple anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC, and other cities throughout the country; organized and incited violent demonstrations at military recruiting stations; participated in an initiative to encourage active duty soldiers to desert their military post; and, organized and participated in a Winter Soldier Conference 2, an effort designed to malign and undercut the morale of our soldiers who were fighting and dying on the battlefield.

And to top it all off Genuine GOP Mom provides a visual aid of Rand Paul and Adam Kokesh's associations.

click here.

This along with Rand Paul's record is disturbing stuff that some Republicans have chosen to shrug off because Sarah Palin is on good terms with Rand Paul and campaigns for him. Well Palin is also on good terms with Lindsey Graham and campaigns for McCain. I'm not going to critique her motives, but it's clear that she doesn't have a purity test when it comes to the politicians she supports.

CONTINUING THE roundup, Debbie Schlussel posts PBS's disturbing look at pedophilia in Muslim Afghanistan

Turkey is trying to use its Turkish Muslim diaspora in Germany to subvert the country.

Obama has cut funds to promote Democracy in Egypt by 50 percent

And disgracefully enough, Michael Steele appeared at Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference. But so did one of Obama's mentors, who claimed that Sharpton is Obama's link to the streets.

Just to remind everyone of who Al Sharpton is. Sharpton led racist attacks on Jews and Asians, including the Crown Heights Pogrom in which there were three fatalities. Sharpton is no different than David Duke.

And while the media rants on about Tea Party violence, Obama's link to the street is a hate group leader.

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, April 23, 2010.

This was written by Alan M. Dershowitz: "J Street has gone over to the dark side."
Flash for Dersh — J Street was born on the dark side) ... It appeared in Front Page Magazine


J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be "a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby." It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.

This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.

It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that's why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm's way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.

It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state does, but what it is: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn't do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel's actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan — which they are not — then the only logical solution would be Israel's disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.

Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel's "good" actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel's "bad" actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel's actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.

Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to the New York Times on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:

"An analysis of the Obama administration's calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel's future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests."

Although Ben-Ami doesn't explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase "critical to...American strategic interests," is a well-known code word, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.

In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered "pro-Israel." The argument is also anything but "pro peace," since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.

Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel's security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don't want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, April 23, 2010.

This is an interview with Dr. Marvin Belsky of HRCARI (Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam.


As the exponential growth of radical Islam continues to present an ever increasing danger to the future of Western civilization, there are those concerned individuals hailing from diverse backgrounds, nationalities and religions who are outraged by this pernicious threat and are determined to do something about it. The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam is one such organization. Founded in May of 2009, the HRCARI has held numerous political demonstrations, rallies and seminars aimed at bringing about a collective awareness of the perils of Islamic extremism. I sat down with Dr. Marvin Belsky, one of the founders of HRCARI to hear more about the goals and objectives of this most important group.

FS: Can you tell us about the genesis of HRCARI?

MB: Basically, the HRCARI is a movement whose time has come. As radical Islam flourishes unabated, there are very few political organizations who are willing to take a pro-active stance in order to oppose it. Terrorism is on the rise and human rights abuses in Muslim countries are seldom featured in the news. The liberal establishment, the Western academy and the media seem to be controlled by multi-cultural relativists who have become apologists for Islamic radicalism. We found that many people from many different backgrounds are seething with indignation about the deafening silence on this subject and have personally been adversely affected by such extremism. They wanted to do something about and as such HRCARI was born. Our organization is a "rainbow coalition" comprising a number of different groups including Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, and even ex-Muslim dissidents. Our first official rally against radical Islam was held in May of 2009 in Times Square and featured members of families of 9/11 victims as well as those activists who have been speaking and writing about this threat for years.

FS: What is your background as it relates to activism and what inspired you to become involved?

MB: I am a retired medical doctor; an internist and a Jew. I grew up in a family that was very concerned about the rise of right wing fascism in Europe prior to World War II and the growth of the Nazi movement, so I learned from a young age that it is imperative to speak out against movements that can and will have catastrophic consequences.

FS: You mentioned human rights abuses that occur in Muslim countries. Can you expound upon the details of that?

MB: On January 19th, HRCARI participated in a large demonstration outside of the United Nations in New York protesting the murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt several weeks ago. The Christian population of Egypt in only 9% and for many years now, they have been relentlessly harassed and murdered by certain elements of the Muslim population. Over the years, more than 22 Coptic priests were murdered and it doesn't stop there. Murders of Christians and other "infidels" are commonplace in Muslim countries and the world stands in abject silence.

Moreover, abuse of women is rampant in Islamic culture as is evidenced in the alarming escalation of "honor murders" of women who are accused of allegedly transgressing Sharia law. Any woman who wishes to become more "Westernized" or to divorce her husband, or who has been raped, or who wishes to marry someone of her choice rather than someone that her family selects is subjected to barbaric treatment, including murder. Not only does this take place in every Muslim country, but has taken place throughout Europe and in North America. Western feminists who choose a "politically correct" posture and don't want to be viewed as racists remain silent while women's lives are hanging in the balance.

Another group that has seen their share of human rights abuses are Hindus and Sikhs. For hundreds of years, Muslims have engaged in heinous murders of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India and those who are not murdered are subjected to forced conversions to Islam. Such atrocities against Hindus include targeted attacks against their temples, open theft of Hindu property, and rape of young Hindu women.

FS: What is HRCARI's position on Israel and the murders of Jews by Muslims throughout time?

MB: We are strongly supportive of Israel and stand with her in battle against Muslim violence. Clearly, Jews have been subjected to the savagery of Islamic persecution since time immemorial. We have called upon the world to rise up in righteous indignation over the existential danger that the Iranian nuclear threat represents for Israel and we have vociferously condemned such heinous terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, the PFLP, and other movements of that ilk. At our rally in Times Square, we had a young Israeli man speak, who survived an Islamic suicide bombing in Jerusalem and he told of other such attacks and how they have wreaked havoc on Israeli society. When Jews are wantonly murdered in their own country by their avowed enemies, that does not bode well for Jews around the world. While the international community consistently condemns Israel as an "apartheid state", no one ever raises their voices about how Jews are "persona non-grata" in Muslim countries.

On Tuesday evening, March 9th, the HRCARI staged a counter-protest in front of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Manhattan, when we learned that a plethora of anti-Israel organizations would be protesting against the The Friends of the Israel Defense Forces fundraising dinner that was held there. We assembled about 100 people who also represented such organizations as Z Street, Americans For a Safe Israel, Stand With Us and the Zionist Organization of America. We countered the bald faced lies and propaganda of Israel's detractors who claimed that the IDF massacred civilians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. They called for an end to US support for Israel and claimed that the Obama administration was pandering to the Israeli lobby. We know that the IDF is the most moral fighting force in the world and that the infamous Goldstone report is replete with lies and distortions and has been discredited by the United States. The events of the last weeks illuminate the fact that the US and the Israeli lobby do not always see eye to eye and the strain in relations between the two countries will most likely embolden the forces of Islamic extremism.

We are also one of the organizers of a pro-Israel rally that will take place on Sunday, April 25th outside of the Israeli consulate in New York City. We will be sending a clear message to the Obama administration that there are Jews who are outraged by the nefarious shift in US foreign policy as it pertains to Israel. Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capitol of the Jewish state and as such the government of Israel has every right to build homes for its Jewish residents there.

The facts cannot be disputed. Israel is a vibrant democracy that protects the rights of their Muslim citizens, while Jews are afraid to walk in their own streets or ride their own busses. Such media outlets as The New York Times, which is the "bible" of liberal activists, does not report the truth about Israel and in effect, enables Islamists to be more effective, along with such groups as The Human Rights Watch. We work with an organization called "Get Out The Facts" which raises awareness amongst those who are apathetic or misinformed about Israel and they were instrumental in protesting the incessant propaganda against Israel.

FS: Who are some of the personalities and groups that are associated with HRCARI?

MB: Our board members include Dr. Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, Andrew Upham, a noted attorney and Satya Dosapati of the Hindu Human Rghts Watch. We also work with Simon Deng, a freed former slave, Mohamed Yahya, leader of the Muslim Darfur group Damanga, noted author and women's rights advocate Dr. Phyllis Chesler, Rajinder Singh Khalsa and Bhupinder Singh Bhurji representing the Sikh community, Hindu human rights leader Arish Sahani, anti-slavery activist Pastor Gerald Bell, Beth Gilinsky, longtime activist in human rights, and head of the Alliance for Interfaith Resistance, and Narain Kataria, of the International Foundation of Bangladeshi Hindus.

We also work with many Christian Zionist organizations including the Christian Action Network who take an active role in spotlighting persecution of Christians throughout the world. Other groups that we align ourselves with are: 911 Families for a Secure America; ACT for America, Long Island/Manhattan; AIR — Alliance for Interfaith Resistance; the AISH Center; the American Coptic Union; Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI); the Alliance of Iranian Women; AMCHA-Coalition for Jewish Concerns; the American Center for Democracy, Americans for Peace & Tolerance and the Zionist Organization of America.

Contact Fern Sidman by email at ariellah@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, April 23, 2010.

This was written by Caroline Glick.

It explains why a strong Israel is essential for US national security. Its author is one of the foremost commentators on Middle East affairs.


Israel's status as the US's most vital ally in the Middle East has been so widely recognized for so long that over the years, Israeli and American leaders alike have felt it unnecessary to explain what it is about the alliance that makes it so important for the US.

Today, as the Obama administration is openly distancing the US from Israel while giving the impression that Israel is a strategic impediment to the administration's attempts to strengthen its relations with the Arab world, recalling why Israel is the US's most important ally in the Middle East has become a matter of some urgency.

Much is made of the fact that Israel is a democracy. But we seldom consider why the fact that Israel is a representative democracy matters. The fact that Israel is a democracy means that its alliance with America reflects the will of the Israeli people. As such, it remains constant regardless of who is power in Jerusalem.

All of the US's other alliances in the Middle East are with authoritarian regimes whose people do not share the pro-American views of their leaders. The death of leaders or other political developments are liable to bring about rapid and dramatic changes in their relations with the US.

For instance, until 1979, Iran was one of the US's closest strategic allies in the region. Owing to the gap between the Iranian people and their leadership, the Islamic revolution put an end to the US-Iran alliance.

Egypt flipped from a bitter foe to an ally of the US when Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1969. Octogenarian President Hosni Mubarak's encroaching death is liable to cause a similar shift in the opposite direction.

Instability in the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan and the Saudi regime could transform those countries from allies to adversaries.

Only Israel, where the government reflects the will of the people is a reliable, permanent US ally.

America reaps the benefits of its alliance with Israel every day. As the US suffers from chronic intelligence gaps, Israel remains the US's most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US's enemies in the region.

Israel is the US's only ally in the Middle East that always fights its own battles. Indeed, Israel has never asked the US for direct military assistance in time of war. Since the US and Israel share the same regional foes, when Israel is called upon to fight its enemies, its successes redound to the US's benefit.

Here it bears recalling Israel's June 1982 destruction of Syria's Soviet-made anti-aircraft batteries and the Syrian air force. Those stunning Israeli achievements were the first clear demonstration of the absolute superiority of US military technology over Soviet military technology. Many have argued that it was this Israeli demonstration of Soviet technological inferiority that convinced the Reagan administration it was possible to win the Cold War.

In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements — often developed with US support — are shared with America. The benefits the US has gained from Israeli technological advances in everything from medical equipment to microchips to pilotless aircraft are without peer worldwide.

Beyond the daily benefits the US enjoys from its close ties with Israel, the US has three fundamental, permanent, vital national security interests in the Middle East. A strong Israel is a prerequisite for securing all of these interests.

America's three permanent strategic interests in the Middle East are as follows:

1 — Ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region to global consumers through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.

2 — Preventing the most radical regimes, sub-state and non-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

3 — Maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region.

A strong Israel is the best guarantor of all of these interests. Indeed, the stronger Israel is, the more secure these vital American interests are. Three permanent and unique aspects to Israel's regional position dictate this state of affairs.

1 — As the first target of the most radical regimes and radical sub-state actors in the region, Israel has a permanent, existential interest in preventing these regimes and sub-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

Israel's 1981 airstrike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor prevented Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite US condemnation at the time, the US later acknowledged that the strike was a necessary precondition to the success of Operation Desert Storm ten years later. Richard Cheney — who served as secretary of defense during Operation Desert Storm — has stated that if Iraq had been a nuclear power in 1991, the US would have been hard pressed to eject Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army from Kuwait and so block his regime from asserting control over oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.

2 — Israel is a non-expansionist state and its neighbors know it. In its 62 year history, Israel has only controlled territory vital for its national security and territory that was legally allotted to it in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which has never been abrogated or superseded.

Israel's strength, which it has used only in self-defense, is inherently non-threatening. Far from destabilizing the region, a strong Israel stabilizes the Middle East by deterring the most radical actors from attacking.

In 1970, Israel blocked Syria's bid to use the PLO to overthrow the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Israel's threat to attack Syria not only saved the Hashemites then, it has deterred Syria from attempting to overthrow the Jordanian regime ever since.

Similarly, Israel's neighbors understand that its purported nuclear arsenal is a weapon of national survival and hence they view it as non-threatening. This is the reason Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race.

In stark contrast, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a regional nuclear arms race will ensue immediately.

Although they will never admit it, Israel's non-radical neighbors feel more secure when Israel is strong. On the other hand, the region's most radical regimes and non-state actors will always seek to emasculate Israel.

3 — Since as the Jewish state Israel is the regional bogeyman, no Arab state will agree to form a permanent alliance with it. Hence, Israel will never be in a position to join forces with another nation against a third nation.

In contrast, the Egyptian-Syrian United Arab Republic of the 1960s was formed to attack Israel. Today, the Syrian-Iranian alliance is an inherently aggressive alliance against Israel and the non-radical Arab states in the region. Recognizing the stabilizing force of a strong Israel, the moderate states of the region prefer for Israel to remain strong.

From the US's perspective, far from impairing its alliance-making capabilities in the region, by providing military assistance to Israel, America isn't just strengthening the most stabilizing force in the region. It is showing all states and non-state actors in the greater Middle East it is trustworthy.

On the other hand, every time the US seeks to attenuate its ties with Israel, it is viewed as an untrustworthy ally by the nations of the Middle East. US hostility towards Israel causes Israel's neighbors to hedge their bets by distancing themselves from the US lest America abandon them to their neighboring adversaries.

A strong Israel empowers the relatively moderate actors in the region to stand up to the radical actors in the region because they trust Israel to keep the radicals in check. Today's regional balance of power in which the moderates have the upper hand over the radicals is predicated on a strong Israel.

On the other hand, when Israel is weakened the radical forces are emboldened to threaten the status quo. Regional stability is thrown asunder. Wars become more likely. Attacks on oil resources increase. The most radical sub-state actors and regimes are emboldened.

To the extent that the two-state solution assumes that Israel must contract itself to within the indefensible 1949 ceasefire lines, and allow a hostile Palestinian state allied with terrorist organizations to take power in the areas it vacates, the two-state solution is predicated on making Israel weak and empowering radicals. In light of this, the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America's most vital strategic interests in the Middle East.

When we bear in mind the foundations for the US's alliance with Israel, it is obvious that US support for Israel over the years has been the most cost-effective national security investment in post-World War II US history.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul LadeMain, April 23, 2010.

Rahm Emanuel should be dealt with the same way Mubarak did when the US State Dept. tried to muscle him. Mubarak told the US to go stuff it and stop meddling into Egypt's internal affairs. Egypt draws down billions in US aid and subtly threatens to go haywire if the money stops. You think Israel cannot do the same? Well, think again. Israel can behave badly, too. Rahm should be reminded that if he dares to back Israel into a corner, he will be responsible for whatever unhappy surprise happens next. And please, Israel, learn how to speak English so that you correctly understand the nuances of US behavior in order to create and apply it to your own more effective propaganda. And yes, any number of middle eastern states can wreak havoc with the canal and Mediterranean shipping. And create the same havoc with the canal as Egypt. If the US loses Israel as its friend, it will be up a creek because the Saudis will betray the US even more overtly than it does now and all hell will break loose throughout the region should Israel be diminished or destroyed.

Rahm should be told to take his snipped nose and poke it into Saudi Arabia. With his manic energy, he should be able to do wonders with the Sharia morals police. Tell him to go to Riyadh and first bring decency to Saudi Arabia before he dares lecture Israel about how to behave toward the arab invaders. (We don't refer to them as "palestinians" because that's what they're not and never were. We call them the Ai-Ai=arab invaders.)

We hope all of you bought your copy of Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law. Get your copy at www.amazon.com. The title is: The Legal Foundation of the Borders of Israel under International Law. International law established that the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland encompass not only Gaza and the West Bank, but also most of the Golan Heights and all of the lands that the Britz unlawfully severed from the Jewish Homeland and handed to the Hashemites. In so many words, Prof. Grief urges Israel to enforce international law and to do so immediately by renouncing the ultra vires acts of its foolish (or quite possibly bribed) leadership — Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak — see Grief at page 195) or be prepared to be extinguished by a thousand cuts. The US violated international law and can and must be held accountable not only for Israel's sake but for the sake of the American public. Also, read Craig Unger's book: House of Bush — House of Saud — The Secret Relationship between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties.

We have told you many times that the Oslo Accords are void because there was no meeting of the minds — an essential component of any agreement or treaty. Prof. Grief amplifies the basis for renouncing Oslo with his brilliant analysis of international law and how it was enacted to preserve the Jewish Homeland. Read the book! Well written. Fast reading.

Prof. Grief's arguments are sound. His analysis of international law is brilliant and correct, as is his advice: Israel has the power to renounce the Oslo Accords and must do so immediately. This might very well take a more intelligent and a much stronger-spined leadership than Israel has now. Israel needs a leader as wily as BHusseinO but with more moxie. Shimon Peres is a blathering fool who has managed to deceive and bluff his way into power. He should be selling used cars in Poland. It's disgusting to hear him blather endlessly about the suffering of Israel when it was he who brought it on the suffering and the killing of Jews with his determined obeisance to "the other". The arabs see him as a fool. They flatter him to his face, feed him snacks, pour him his favorite libations ... and laugh at him behind his back.

Rahm Emanuel, BHO's tool, can be dealt with. Hillary is a woman scorned but too avaricious to divorce her husband for consorting with his young Jewish slut. So, instead, and just like a woman scorned, she aims her fury at the Jewish Homeland. Unfortunately, Israel harbors seditionists and fools, which makes it all the more easier for Hillary to administer collective punishment by spilling her bile on Israel. She spits like a cobra, serving herself and her ego instead of the people of the US.

Just remember that a mongoose can vanquish the cobra — just be sure Israel is the mongoose. Meanwhile, we Americans are rising up to muck out our own stables. Not an easy task because our media is as polluted as Israel's.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We are not politically correct because we have freedom of speech. We are the majority, silent no more. We support Israel because Israel is a shining boulder blocking the path of Islamic imperialism. We want a larger boulder, not a smaller, weaker boulder. We need a mountain, not a pile of sand.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 23, 2010.


Dana Barnett of Israel Academia Monitor (IAM) says that the number of active Israeli anti-Israel academics had decreased greatly, from 360 to 70. She attributes this largely to her organization publicizing the professors' anti-Israel agitation.

Most of the professors do not want their countrymen to know of their actions. Some do want the publicity, because they earn money writing against Israel. The universities with the most professors doing this are Tel Aviv University and Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba.

These academics are paid by the government they urge foreign countries to boycott. Some of them earn another living by denouncing Israel. "Some of them have left Israel, they write books with all sorts of anti-Israel accusations, and they sell like hotcakes... Many people are thirsty for any dirt about Israel; even the most bizarre ideas can become big hits."

The professors write mostly in English, to reach foreign audiences. European pro-Arab organizations recruit Israelis to accuse their country of being an apartheid, imperialistic power meriting boycott." (Arutz-7, 4/22/10).

The foreign, Israel-bashing organizations and publications don't want the facts. They present the Israeli professors as authoritative. Their audiences assume that because they are Israeli, they know what they are writing about. It is not so much that the audiences are naïve, as that they believe what they want to.

Some of my own readers also skim over the facts. They believe everything adverse to Israel unquestioningly; they question everything that refutes the adverse points.

JORDAN ATTACKED, BUT FROM WHERE AND BY WHOM? Jordan's port of Aqaba was attacked by a rocket, but from where? [Across the bay from Aqaba is the Israeli port of Eilat. The two ports, fairly close to each other across the water, also are connected by flat desert land.] When the rocket struck Aqaba, it was felt in Eilat as if it landed there. Israelis looked for damage and shrapnel. At first, people thought the firing came from within Jordan. Now they reckon it came from some terrorist cell in the Sinai (Joshua Mitnik, Wall St. J., 4/23, A15).

Note the confusion over the rocket's launch site! Note the ignorance, at least for now, over who fired it and who supplied it! Suppose the rocket bore nuclear explosives.

Against whom would Jordan, or Israel if it had a hair-trigger response, retaliate? Would the attacked country retaliate against the cell? City destroyed, cell destroyed in retaliation. That would be an underwhelming response. It would be easy to mistake which organization and which supportive terrorist state were responsible.

In a sense, any terrorist state would do for retaliation. All are enemies of mankind. At one point, Pres. Bush thought that if attacked, the U.S. might retaliate against all. But if the wrong one were attacked, then the right one will have gotten away with the attack. There might well be another attack from it.

One answer would seem to be to keep materials of mass-destruction secure and in responsible hands. However, Iran and Syria arm terrorist organizations irresponsibly. Iran has 21st century technology in the hands of fanatics with a 7th century ideology. So, whereas, say, Ukraine, tries to be responsible about its materiel, Iran and N. Korea are not.

This would mean that Iran and N. Korea must be disarmed of weapons of mass-destruction. No small undertaking!

Even a responsible country may suffer pilferage. We can take the best measures available, but never be fully secure. We have got to modernize these backward ideologies.

We also must eradicate terrorist organizations. That is difficult when Saudi Arabia indoctrinates in their ideology, Pakistan trains them, the Internet directs them, the West refuses to identify them, and the U.S. even subsidizes some of them.

As for Israel, next time it is in full combat with a terrorist organization, it must eradicate it to the last man, prisoners accepted. No more defeatist approaches or reliance upon UNIFIL!

The attack on Jordan shows once again that no country is exempt from the Frankenstein that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan created. Muslims are major victims of Islamist terrorism.

This is a teaching moment. Is it also a learning moment?


The Jewish National Fund (JNF) raised the money needed to clean up the Alexander River that straddles Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.).

Nablus had poured untreated sewage into the river, stinking it up and menacing an aquifer serving both the P.A. and Israel. Downstream in Israel, a couple of Israeli towns added to the river's pollution.

The JNF project has been going on for some time, requiring cooperation by the P.A. with Israel (Rhonda Spivak, Winnipeg Jewish Review).

In the early years, the P.A. refused to cooperate on this kind of issue.


Pres. Omar al-Bashir, wanted man. (AP/Abd Raouof)

Candidate Obama had urged the U.S. to press Sudan to cease what the International Criminal Court has labeled crimes against humanity. He became less insistent, upon entering the White House.

Currently, the Sudan held an election that the U.S. defends as reasonable but "flawed." The killings are much abated and the regime is negotiating with rebels.

The big question is whether the regime will allow or honor the January referendum, in which the southern, more Christian, animist, and oil-bearing half of the country could secede and become independent. If not, the government would resume war and genocide.

Sudan never has been punished for its crimes against humanity, though President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has been indicted for it. The U.S. ratification of his election got him to boast that the U.S. is in his pocket. Will he assume from that indulgence that the U.S. also would be unconcerned about renewal of the war? (Nicholas D. Kristof, NY Times, 4/22, A29.)

Periodically the regime negotiates truces with rebels. Each time, the international reaction is relief and hope that peace is building. Then hopes are dashed when the war resumes, usually by the government. Truces are an old ploy of jihadists who need a respite or the enemy has grown stronger. Most of the world does not understand this tactic, although the rise of jihad in country after country warrants widespread study of jihad.

When a U.S. ambassador expressed unconcern about Saddam's quarrel with Kuwait, Saddam took that as endorsement of him, and he invaded Kuwait. That drew the U.S. into war. When Pres. Truman declared South Korea "outside the U.S. defense perimeter," North Korea took that as permission to invade, which it did. Official U.S. statements bear consequences.

Obama's foreign and domestic policy seems to be concern for enemies, contempt for friends.


"Israel Rebuffs U.S. Plea on Building" is the headline of today's Wall St. Journal report on the U.S.-Israel rift. U.S. officials involved are not taking PM Netanyahu's refusal to bar housing for Jews in annexed parts of Jerusalem as his final answer. After all, they say, they did get him to agree to a number of other concessions (Jay Solomon and Charles Levinson, 4/22, A10).

The diplomats have confirmed what many commentators warn Israeli leaders about, that appeasement of the State Dept. no more satisfies it than does appeasement of dictators. When Israel makes a concession, the State Dept. then demands another. The Arabs act the same way. Better not to start making unilateral concessions.

Notice also that the U.S. relentlessly demands what the Israeli government has explained is against its rights or national security. This is nagging. The Israeli government might tell the State Dept. to demand something of the Arabs that would bolster Israeli national security. Ask the State Dept. why it demands that Israel, which welcomes immediate, direct, and unconditional final status negotiations, must prove willingness to negotiate, but the State Dept. does not demand that the Arabs, who refuse immediate, direct, and unconditional final status negotiations, must prove willingness to negotiate.

The U.S. refuses to recognize the validity of Israel's annexation of parts of Jerusalem. It does not indicate why, but the popular and incorrect supposition is that a country may not annex territory gained in war. The hypocrisy is that most countries have done that, both for legal and illegal reasons. The inconsistence of applying the supposition to the Palestinian Authority is that if not for its terrorism, it would not be considered much for sovereignty. The PLO shot its way into its claim. It started wars, and to appease it, it is offered territory.

(For more on U.S.-Israel rift, click here)


Convention of unreformed Fatah (AP/Nasser Shiyoukhi)

Hamas reportedly is infiltrating the ranks of Fatah troops in Judea-Samaria. It secretly recruits them. It also gains people's cooperation in smuggling arms into the Judea-Samaria part of the Palestinian Authority. Fatah men helped a doctor smuggle in funds for acquiring weapons. A recent acquisition was hundreds of assault rifles.

This is the same strategy that Hamas used to subvert and then conquer Gaza from the many thousands of Fatah troops. In that coup, Fatah casualties were relatively low, about 100 on both sides, because most Fatah men stood aside and let Hamas take over.

The U.S. has trained young Fatah men militarily for a force that the U.S. says is intended to fend off Hamas (Arutz-7, 4/23/10).

Abbas has threatened to use U.S. arms against Israel, if Israel does not submit to his demands, demands with which, if Israel did comply, would end its existence. The U.S. calls him "moderate."

Hamas has boasted that it would turn against Israel the weapons that the U.S. furnishes Abbas forces to fend off Hamas. It made the same boast in Gaza, before taking over and doing what it boasted it would do. The U.S. refuses to believe Hamas.


Most people concerned about the assault of jihad on civilization focus on the violent attacks all over the world. They may not realize the non-violent subversion of the West that also is occurring.

David A. Rusin, director of the Islamist Watch unit of Middle East Forum is trying to rouse people to perceive and resist the stealth type of jihad. For Americans, the bad example is Europe, where stealth jihad has gone far [abetted by declining non-Muslim births, a much bigger Muslim population than in the U.S., and less devotion to Western civilization and liberty than in the U.S.]. However, he says, "we see radical Muslims working within the system in the United States using the media, the courts, and the government, trying to impose aspects of Islamic law into our system and into our lives. They try to win certain privileges for Muslims and try to shut down criticism of Islam."

The danger to free speech and press is rising. Islamists use lawfare to inhibit publishers of works critical of jihad.

Muslim states have gotten the UN Human Rights Commission to pass resolutions urging governments to restrict speech that groups consider offensive.

[Muslims consider statements opposing jihad offensive, even if those statements are objective and political, not religious, and vital to national defense. There is a tendency to call objective criticism of activity by Muslims hate-speech, and not consider Muslim bigotry against other groups, including calls for murder, as hate-speech.

Westerners value tolerance and diversity so much, that they withhold their own criticism of adverse Islamist agitation and action against them.

American campuses are beset by a sub-culture that is anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-Israel, a sort of multi-cultural fundamentalism. Believing that all cultures are equally valid, they won't criticize the lack of freedom under radical Islam and the atrocities committed by it. In other words, to a large extent, jihad is perpetrated without much resistance.

Rusin explains another reason for American's naïve attitude. "The major media not only distorts the news, but they give you some of it and hold some of it back.

When the Bush and Obama administrations try to work with U.S. Muslims against terrorism, they select Muslim organizations that work with terrorism against the U.S. (Arutz-7, 4/23/10).

When jihad softens up its enemies from within, those enemies find it harder to gird against the assault from without. The softening up process depends, as you can see, upon ignorance and misguided idealism


An immigrant from Afghanistan pleaded guilty to a plot to bomb New York City. His confession stated that he and two others residing in Queens, New York, went to Pakistan, to volunteer to attack GIs in Afghanistan. Their goal was to revive Taliban control, so as to establish "the perfect justice of Allah."

In Pakistan, Al-Qaeda leaders told them to return to New York and commit suicide bombings there. The returned, prepared, and were caught.

Zarein Ahmedzay, who confessed, said, "And I believe that the real enemies of this country are the ones destroying this country from within." "And I believe they are the special group, the Zionist Jews, I believe, who want a permanent shadow government within the government of the USA." (William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick, NY Times, 4/24/10, A15.)

I'm learning from that confessed attempted murderer that Muslim suicide bombers trying to murder thousands of innocent people in my, American city are not the real enemies of the U.S.. The real enemies are unidentified people who commit unidentified crimes.

When the Taliban ruled before, they murdered dissidents, threw thousands of women out of work because they were women, and barred females from school. That was not divine justice. Amazing how the human brain can attribute its ugly deeds to a perfect god! Afghanistan suffered from Taliban rule, not divine rule.


Denounced family in mourning. (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

Here are three examples of ultra-secularist Israeli hatred of religious and nationalist Jews and betrayal of their own country:

1. A young soldier stole military secrets for Haaretz to publish [and kept them insecurely].

2. A bookstore practically gave away a pamphlet which calls residents of Judea-Samaria "brainwashed, hypnotized zombies... "Think of gangs of randy youths going to screw the country. The young generation of settlers forgot what it is to be Zionist." http://goo.gl/pyel

3. The deputy editor of HaAretz magazine, called the Peretz family, who just loss a second son in combat [and who lived in an outpost] 'a family of Jihadist Fascists.' 'I don't want an army that G-d loves. For that I may as well move to Iran."'

4."'...a corruption and fraud scandal,' "including a former mayor and deputy mayor of Jerusalem, a bank chairman, leading industrialists, and" "former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. (Olmert 'offered the Arabs almost everything they asked for, including over 95% of Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem. One can only wonder what he was offered in return.)'" (Hebron Jewish community, 4/23/10)

The Jews whom the pamphlet denounces in uncivil nastiness characteristic of the Israeli far Left are indeed Zionists. The same cannot be said of those in or in agreement with Haaretz, who hate most of their fellow Jews, favor murderers of their people, and try to give much of the country to enemies who want to eradicate the whole Zionist enterprise. It takes a great deal of non-thinking indoctrination to espouse those notions.

To denounce so intemperately a family who just sacrificed a second son in active national defense is hardly idealistic. Such talk is what is fascistic. No facts are adduced to show that the family is jihadist. That is not what religious and nationalist Jews are about. They disagree with the Left but do not hate people for it.

As for real jihadists, Haaretz is "understanding" about them. Isn't that being emotionally twisted?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, April 23, 2010.

This was written by Moshe and Abigail Belogorodsky on Anat Kamm, Ayalla Procaccia and democracy in Israel.


I must admit that I completely missed the beginning of the Anat Kamm story. I had absolutely no idea what my friend Israel was talking so exitedly about.

Anat who?? No, I haven't heard of her.

Come on, buddy, even you must have heard of her. She's all over the news! — he sounded truly amazed by my ignorance.

The more I read about the story, the more details became public knowledge — the angrier I became. At first, that anger was almost theological, intellectual, devoid of fire. I was angry at the Israeli Left, at Anat's teachers and mentors. She was a product of the distorted and perverted ideology of my fellow Israelis who care more about the civil and humanitarian rights of their enemies than about the survival of their own people.So utterly filled with self-hate, they can indeed come to call acts of self defence against a vicious enemy — a war crime.

And I was angry at the media. They tried so hard to make her into a hero. What beautiful willingness for self-sacrifice, what courage to stand up for her beliefs, what deep caring for other human beings. She, the treaterous thief, became the defender of democracy, of the freedom of speech. She was an ideological criminal! Dalia Dorner — who in the past used her job as a Supreme Court judge to express her extreme leftist ideology — came out in all-out defence of Kamm. "We should not arrest the journalists" she cried, because "such an arrest would intimidate other journalists from doing their job well.And it will hurt the democratic image of the State of Israel". Dornerdid not see any need or value in acts which would deterr people from stealing highly classified military information, information which — if published — endangered lives of many people in Israel.

Although the story was troubling, even scary, I must admit I did not loose any sleep. After all, the Shabak and the police caught Anat and are keeping her locked up, far away from any possibility of causing further danger to the security and well-being of the Israeli public. They have the necessary legal tools to keep her in jail — even prior to her conviction in court — in order to keep all of us safe.

And then came the real shock.For the past 3 months and up till this very day Anat Kamm is at home !! Even though she didn't return the documents she stole, and even though she may still have the CD which had all the documents on it, and even though she could theoretically transfer those documents to anyone she wished — no one deemed the situation dangerous enough to put Anat in jail untill the end of the legal process against her..

I was puzzled, amazed, lost. I kept thinking there was some mistake. Surely there was a good reason why Shabak did not keep her in jail. Or maybe it was some sort of mistake on the part of police and the State prosecutor. Then I read that the head of Shabak said they treated Anat's case with "silk gloves".

I thought, naively, that maybe Anat's parents were Shabak agents themselves. That would explain Shabak's willingness to release Anat to their custody. Her folks will do the job of keeping her out of further trouble and keep us all safe at the same time. But my assumption proved false. Her parents were regular people, just like me.

That's when this story became personal for me, when my anger became real. I kept wondering: how did Anat"s father, Mr. Kamm, pull it off? How did he succeed where I failed? What values did he instill in Anat that brought him victory where I tasted the bitter fruit of defeat? Or maybe it wasn't a questoin of values. Maybe it was his parenting skills, his superior pedagogical techniques that so impressed everyone?

You see, my daughter Chaya was also deemed a danger to public security and the State. Five years ago, at the age of 14, she was arrested during an anti-disengagement demonstration and accused of speaking rudely to a policewoman. She was brought before the juvenile judge in Tel Aviv, not far from where an 18 year old Anat was living at the time. The State prosecutor in our case asked the judge to keep my Chaya in jail until the end of the legal proceedings against her. On what grounds? Chaya was,you see, an ideologically motivated criminal. And because of her ideology she was unstopable. And dangerous to public and the State.

What was so dangerous about this girl? She participated in another non-violent civil disobedience demonstration a month before, was arrested, and released to yeshuv arrest, which forbade her from going to a similar demonstration. And now she disregarded that prohibition and refused to sit quetly while her friends were being thrown out of their homes. Thus, in the words of the prosecutor, her danger to the security of the State and the public was clear. Incredibly, the judge accepted this ridiculous argument. In counter-argument I asked the judge to release my daughter to a full house arrest. I promised that we would keep her under 24/7 supervision. To no avail. The judge decided that we, the parents, could not be trusted to keep our dangerously criminal child from harming the Israeli public. She sent Chaya to jail, to await her trial. We appealed this outrageous decision, and our case went all the way to the Suprerme Court of Israel. Ayalla Procaccia was the judge who heard our case there. When I found out that Ms. Procaccia was to be our judge, my heart fell. Ms. Procaccia is well known for her extreme leftist views, both before she came to the Supreme Court and during her work there. She accepted the prosecution's arguments. My 14 year old Chaya was indeed an ideplogical criminal. Her crime was "especially hard because it demonstrated utter disregard towards the law.Such behaviour cannot be treated lightly by the court, no matter what ideology stands behind such behaviour. Freedom of speech and demonstration is the very symbol of democracy, as long as it remains within the confines of the law. Once it oversteps those boundries set by law, it becomes anti-democratic, seeking to impose by force those ideas that are deemed illegal. We must sent a clear message that no legitimacy will be given to act of law-breaking, done with the purpose of promoting a social or political ideology of any sort" Ms. Procaccia went even further, stating that "the illegal, disregardful behaviour of the accused leaves me no choice but to remove her from the ideological environment that pushed her into breaking the law" Not only did Ms. Procaccia refused to release Chaya to house arrest, she refused to release her to any place in Yehuda and Shomron! As a result of all the above Chaya spent 40 days in jail — before her trial even started.

Last week the State prosecution finally decided to ask the court to change the conditions of Anat Kamm's arrest and place her in jail due to her apparent danger. Nu, better late than never.You can understand the relief I felt when I found out that it was Ms. Procaccia who was going to hear the case. Surely, she would know the right thing to do. I even faxed her office the copy of Chaya's protocol, just in case Mr. Procaccia forgot any details.

Well — it didn't work. I read Ms. Procaccia's decision regarding Anat. I am not a legal expert, and Procaccia's legal acrobatics are incomprehensible to me. But the bottom line of her decision was painfully clear: Anat can stay home! She is somehow less dangerous to the public than my Chaya was.

And now I am really scared. And the same questions keeps popping up: How could a person who is so clearly one-sided, so willing to shamelessly use her position to advance her own political agenda — how could such a person have the power to decide the fait of the citizens of this country??

Isn't it time for the Knesset Law Committie to hold a discussion regarding the simple question:

How could a person like Ayalla Procaccia remain on Supreme Court??

Isn't it time for each one of us, citizens of Israel, to demand an answer to this question???

Moshe Belogorodsky

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 Yaacov Levi, April 23, 2010.

This was written by Derek Cling and it appeared in Arutz-7 (IsraelNationalNews.com).


David J. Rusin is a former astrophysicist who is now the director of the Islamist Watch of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based foreign affairs think tank. He recently spoke with Israel National Radio's Tovia Singer about educational work he is doing with Islamist Watch to raise awareness in the United States concerning the internal threat of Radical Islam.

Rusin explains that 9/11 was an eye-opener for him, motivating him to give up astrophysics and pursue a career in combating Islamic Fundamentalism.

He warns about the non-violent manifestations of Radical Islam as perhaps being one of the Western World's biggest threats. "Violent Islamism, terror attacks... are only part of the story," he says, "There's also what you might call a slow-motion, or stealth Jihad, which, rather than trying to blow up the foundations of our country and our civilization, seek to chip away at those foundations slowly from within."

Muslims take on US from inside

He also looks at Radical Islam in Europe and sees another warning sign that the United States and the rest of the world should take seriously. "Many of the problems with radical Islam are more advanced in Europe," Rusin admits. However, "we see radical Muslims working within the system in the United States using the media, the courts, and the government, trying to impose aspects of Islamic law into our system and into our lives. They try to win certain privileges for Muslims and try to shut down criticism of Islam."

Islamist Watch tries to rally the support of moderate Muslims, "who believe in their faith, but who also believe in tenets of freedom and liberty," in order to stand together against the threat of Radical Islam. "There is such an Islamist current in mainstream Muslim organizations in this country," Rusin explains, "that a lot of moderates are starting to step forward and say 'we need to be a little bit more proactive here.' At Islamist watch, one of our chief priorities is to promote these individuals and organizations, and promote their message."

Rusin and his organization are also concerned with governmental support going to the radical Muslim groups, rather than the moderate ones. "When you look at Muslim groups in the United States," he says, "it is the more radical Muslim groups that have risen to the surface. These are the groups, unfortunately, that both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration always seek out when they want to do their outreach to the Muslim community.

'A big negative change'

"There is a long track record, at this point, of the Obama Administration pursuing policies that have been detrimental to our conduct of the war on terror. We're [the U.S. -ed.] not even mentioning radical or extremist Islam in our national security documents. This is a big negative change from previous years where the Bush Administration's defense and national security strategies specifically talked about militant Islam as the number one threat facing this country."

When asked what non-violent threat concerns him most in America, he answers 'free speech', which he believes is "under threat like never before on a number of different levels." Some examples of ways in which free speech is under threat, says Rusin, "is the UN Human Rights Council passing resolutions urging member governments to restrict speech that might be deemed offensive to certain religious groups, and one facet of 'law fare', the use of predatory lawsuits to try to silence researchers and activists looking into or opposing radical Islam."

An even more ominous threat to free speech, according to Rusin, is something he terms "self censorship — the belief that tolerance and diversity trumps everything and we have to try and make sure that we do not offend anybody, and therefore, we do not say the things that need to be said."

The academic world also seems to be encouraging Radical Islam, he says. "There is a strong Anti-American, Anti-Israel, anti-Capitalist culture prevalent in academia," he explains, "There is also a very strong strain of multi-cultural fundamentalism, the belief that there truly is nothing that separates us from other cultures — no culture is better than any other culture. They are not comfortable speaking out against the atrocities that we see committed in the name of radical Islam and the lack of freedom that we see characterizing societies that are governed by radical Islam."

Campus Watch

Rusin explains that the Middle East Forum is trying to speak out against these concerns with a project called Campus Watch. "It looks at Middle East studies in the United Sates," he explains, "with an eye towards criticizing and improving them." He admits, however, that "the academic world is very, very difficult to combat.

Islamist Watch believes that the mainstream media need to be combated by alternative forms of media. As Rusin relates, "The major media not only distorts the news, but they give you some of it and hold some of it back. There are great innovations that the new media has presented, such as talk radio, cable television, and most importantly, the Internet and the blogosphere. These alternative sources fill in a lot of the cracks that the major media outlets would prefer to go unfilled."

"9/11 opened my eyes", he concludes. "It made me question what's going on in the world. It made me see that the liberties that are so precious to us are under threat. 9/11 woke a lot of people up, and we remained awake for a year or two, but then we started bickering, and finally, we started forgetting. I hate to say it, but it may take something terrible to happen in order to open many of the eyes that have been closed."

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, April 22, 2010.

This comes from www.unwatch.org


5 resolutions against Israel, only 3 for rest of world combined

GENEVA — Despite the U.S. having joined the UN Human Rights Council, the 47-nation body today showed that attempts at reform have so far failed. Continuing past practices, the council concluded its main session of the year by slamming Israel in five separate resolutions — more than the total dedicated to the rest of the world combined.

The anti-Israel resolutions, each vigorously opposed by the U.S., turned a blind eye to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, and created a series of new committees and other mechanisms to perpetuate the biased Goldstone Report — whose lead supporter in the region is not the Palestinian Authority, but its fundamentalist rival, Iranian terror-proxy Hamas.

UN Watch took the floor to denounce the one-sided resolutions. When we expressed the simple truth that the Goldstone Report has no basis in fact and only legitimizes and emboldens terrorists — as British Col. Kemp testified, and as this new 349-page document proves with photographic evidence — the President of the council, Belgian Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen, exceptionally decided to issue a response. He called UN Watch's remarks "derogatory" and ruled that they "cannot be accepted."

At the same time, however, it is instructive to know what is acceptable at the UN. The Human Rights Council this week freely circulated a statement by a Libyan-linked group that falsely accuses Israeli doctors of a racist plot to steal Palestinian organs — without making any objections.

Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, April 22, 2010.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield. It is archived on Greenfield's website:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/04/ russia-georgia-and-islamic-terrorism.html


It is no secret that Russia is the world's biggest non-Muslim sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Russian weapons and rubles flow into Iran and Syria, and from there to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Russian personnel train the Iranians, who in turn train Iraqi Shiite terrorists on the best way to kill American soldiers. While the US was getting ready to take down Saddam Hussein, Russia was using its best delaying tactics in the UN, while rushing its top of the line weapons into Iraq. Putin knew that Saddam was finished and that Iraq's debt to Russia would never be paid. Nevertheless the doomed Saddam got the best the Russian armories had to offer in order to kill as many American troops as possible. After the invasion, Russian officials would boast of the increased demand for their weapons in the Muslim world.

In Lebanon, once again Russian weapons flowed to Hezbollah (the Party of Allah) terrorists. Top of the line Russian weapons destroyed Israeli tanks and killed Israeli soldiers. And once again Russian officials boasted about their weapons being behind it all. And when Israel pulled out, Russia sent two detachments of its Chechen Muslim troops to Lebanon.

According to President Putin, the Chechens, as Muslims, will find it easier to "establish contacts with the local population" (Interfax, October 10). Alu Alkhanov, president of Chechnya's pro-Russian administration, observed: "Importantly, all of these men strictly observe the Muslim rites which will play a role in Lebanon"

Remember Russia's Chechen Muslim soldiers, because you'll see them again soon. This time marching into Georgia.

The Cedar Revolution failed. the radical Islamists of Hizbullah became a major player in Lebanon's new order. Which meant that Iran and Syria were major players. Which meant that Russia, which stood behind them both, was a major player again. And all it took was a few thousand dead.

Meanwhile Putin and Medvedev are not just supplying weapons to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the rest of the elite in Iran, but providing them with nuclear technology. Technology that puts Iran on track toward a nuclear bomb, which when detonated over Israel will not only remove the biggest obstacle in Russia's longtime plans to control the Middle East, but to execute a Second Holocaust as well.

Some people may wonder, how in the wake of Beslan and the numerous bombings by Muslim terrorists on its own soil, can Russia continue to support and work together with Muslim terrorists? The answer is that Putin and his merry band of ex-KGB operatives, do not object to Muslim terrorists. They like them a lot, they helped train them, they continue to supply to them — so long as they're not fighting against Russia.

Talgat Tadzhuddin with Vladimir Putin

Putin, like nearly every Russian leader before him, views Muslim terror as a valuable strategic tool. Russia's tightly controlled mosques preach Jihad... they just preach it against Russia's enemies, as when the Supreme Mufti of Russia, Talgat Tadzhuddin, called for a "single-'(Russian)-Orthodox Islamic' Jihad against the empire of Satan" when the US overthrew Saddam Hussein. Unlike Putin's critics, he didn't end up in a jail cell, strapped down in a psychiatric hospital or dead of a suspicious suicide. Perish the thought, here he is with Vladimir Putin. And he remains well funded by the Russian government.

Russia fights against Islamic seperatists, in order to control them and turn them into loyal subjects and troops again, as was done during the days of the USSR. And Russia's campaign in Chechnya is not about fighting Islamic terror, but about consolidating its hold on all the countries it used to control. And those campaigns are not limited to Muslim regions, but Christian ones as well. They include the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia... and Georgia as well. Because Christian or Muslim, it makes no difference to the Ex-Communists in power. They are determined to once again rule over them all.

Russia's KGB masters have used many tools to achieve their objectives. They've employed blackmail, intimidation, poison, election fraud, street violence and of course outright invasion by Russian "peacekeepers". But above all else, the KGB has excelled at one tool — propaganda.

And so we come to Georgia once again. Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 failed to achieve its goals. But that doesn't mean that Vladimir Putin has decided to take a break and spend all his time, posing and primping with tigers, karate outfits and rap stars for the adulation of his own government controlled media. The FSB/KGB propaganda machine, which over the last few years has accused Georgia and President Saakashvili of every conceivable thing is now trying to plant stories claiming that Georgia is in league with Muslim terrorists against Russia.

As the world's largest non-Muslim sponsor of Islamic terror, Russia accusing anyone else of collaborating with Muslim terrorists is already obscene. Numerous top ranking KGB defectors, including former KGB General Oleg Kalugin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former head of Romania's intelligence service, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, and others, who have stated repeatedly that Russia was behind much of the world's Islamic terror and that it continues to play that role today. They have even drawn connections between Al Queda and the KGB/FSB. While these allegations are debatable, Al Queda's number 2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri spent some time in Russia, and ex-KGB agents have alleged that he was trained by them.

But let's put Russia's own extensive ties to Islamic terrorism on hold for a minute, and focus on the situation in Georgia.

Russia's assault on Georgia is a virtual carbon copy of the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia. Like the Clinton Administration, Vladimir Putin used phony claims of ethnic cleansing to invade Georgia in order to force the independence of two regions with sizable Muslim populations inside Georgia. Essentially it was a mirror image of what happened in Yugoslavia, except this time Russia was the invader, Georgia was the victim, and rather than Kosovo and Croatia — the two statelets in question were, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. (South Ossetia is a "country" of some 50,000 people which is only recognized by Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and former Sandanista terrorist leader Daniel Ortega, which should tell you something right there.)

Now Russia is spreading claims that Georgia is in league with Muslim Jihadis and plotting against it. There's one problem with that. Georgia is a mostly Christian country, while both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that hold sizable Muslim minorities. Do Muslim terrorists really want to prevent independence for two regions that demographically are much more Muslim than Georgia?

Especially when the Mufti of Abkhazia, Timur Dzyba, has called on the Muslim world to recognize Abkhazian independence and laid out extensive plans for Islamizing it by importing Muslims from Turkey.

Muslim troops.

In fact it was Russia who took its Muslim Chechen troops and marched them into Georgia. Those Muslim soldiers carried South Ossetian flags, (you remember that thriving nation of 50,000 people, whose independence Russia was fighting for.) And who were those Chechen troops fighting for Russia under a South Ossetian flag? They were former Chechen Muslim terrorists and guerrillas who switched sides and fought for Russia under Sulim Yamadayev as the Vostok Battalion.

Sulim Yamadayev, a Muslim thug, had been responsible for numerous gruesome atrocities committed by him and under his command. His men were known for the classic Muslim beheading, as well as carrying out gruesome tortures on their bodies while hiding the bodies. In Georgia, this battalion of Muslim throat-slitters participated in the murder, rape, plunder and abuse of Georgian Christians in a pogrom designed to ethnically cleanse the city of Gori.

It was Putin who brought Muslim terrorists in uniform into the heart of Georgia, to rob and kill, backed by the full might of the Russian military. It was the Russian Government that did it in order to carve out two parts of Georgia with a sizable Muslim minority, and turn them into full fledged countries. And all of this was done under the command of the GRU, the Russian foreign military intelligence directorate created by Leon Trotsky, that has long since become an object of horror to anyone in the region.

Unlike the Russian propaganda about their intelligence services seizing a briefcase from a dead terrorist that supposedly contained notes incriminating the Georgian government — these are all facts. (These are the same intelligence services which report that people in their custody somehow keep committing suicide.) They are events that large numbers of people witnessed. They are part of the historical record. They represent information that can be researched independently without relying on the Russian security services or their Western stooges.

But let's continue exploring the credibility of their accusation that it is Georgia, not Russia that is allied with Muslim terrorists.

Russia's attempt to carve up Georgia was enthusiastically endorsed by Muslims.

The support of Russia's actions on the part of the Islamic community of the Caucasus and several other Muslim states shows that the Islamic world still remains Russia's staunch ally despite the virtual isolation of the country on the part of the West. There is no other European country that can boast of such a position in the Muslim community, representatives of the Islamic clergy of Russia, North Ossetia and Abkhazia said during their meeting with reporters.

When President Medvedev officially announced the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Muslim clergy of the Caucasus was one of the first communities to have approved the Kremlin's decision. Muslim clergymen congratulated the people of the two republics on their long-awaited independence and urged the world Islamic community to follow Russia's example.

"I would like to address the Islamic world to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, deputy mufti of Abkhazia, Timur Dzyba said.

Timur incidentally has big plans for Islamizing Abkhazia by importing millions of Muslims from Turkey. Turkey's Islamist government and Ahmadinejad in Iran, have both pledged to cooperate with Moscow in "rebuilding" Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Russia's military and political actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are likely to have another unintended consequence: they are likely to make it easier and more attractive for Muslim ´migr´s from the North Caucasus to return there and change the ethno-religious balance not only in these two republics but in the region more generally.

At present, Muslims constitute approximately 35 percent of the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but both Muslim leaders there and analysts in Moscow say that the new situation which has arisen in the wake of Russia's moves in Georgia is certain to increase that figure, possibly to the tipping point of more than 50 percent.

In an interview given to "NZ-Religii" and published today, Timur Dzyba, the mufti of Abkhazia, said that Muslims in his republic — including Abkhaz, North Caucasians, Tatars, Bashkirs and Turks — have been able to maintain their share of the population in recent times but now expect to expand it.

All this is unsurprising as Muslims in Georgia had been complaining that President Saakashvili was "Christianizing" Georgia by placing a cross on the flag and inserting too many of the country's past Christian values. Of course under an Abkhazian state, in which Russia will help funnel Muslim immigrants to expand the territory under control, that won't be a problem;

During the Soviet period, Abkhazian Islam became weaker, but it would seem that since the fall of the USSR, the establishment of links between Abkhazians of Georgia and descendants of Abkhazian immigrants in Turkey has somewhat favoured an Islamic revival.

And eventually Georgia will go the way of Abkhazia as well. That is Putin's plan.

As a Christian country surrounded by Muslim countries, Georgia has made attempts to reach out to them. Less so than most Western European countries. What it has not done, is employed Muslim terrorists in its armed forces — as Russia has. It has not financed and armed Muslim terrorists, as Russia has. It has not provided nuclear technology to Muslim terrorists, as Russia has. It does not control mosques which preach Jihad against the United States — as Russia does.

After all the horrors perpetrated by the KGB, anyone who takes claims made by the same people who were in the KGB as fact... sight unseen, is making a profound mistake. And anyone who supports the side of the ex-Communist thugs who not only tortured innocents, trained terrorists, assassinated dissidents in the past — but are still doing it today, need to ask themselves if they aren't playing Dhimmi to monsters who filled mass graves every bit as enthusiastically as the Nazis did.

But if anyone wants evidence of a meeting between a top leader in the South Ossetian war with Islamic terrorists, that's easy to come by.

In 2006, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met with Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal. That same year Vladimir Putin invited Hamas leaders to visit him in Moscow, and stated that he does not consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.

These are not secret revelations from intelligence sources, but open stories in major media outlets of top Russian officials meeting with and welcoming Islamic terrorists.

I do not believe that the Serbian people, despite their closer ethnic ties to Russia than to Georgia, would want to see what was done to them, done to another country in their name. In fact a major Abkhazian site uses NATO's actions in Kosovo as a precedent for what Russia is doing in Georgia. Is that really what anyone who is outraged by NATO's actions in Yugoslavia wants to support?

Nor is arguing for Russia's partition of Georgia, any kind of counter-Jihad effort. Russia's goal is to create two states that will have larger Muslim population percentages than Georgia as a whole. And those populations are meant to continue expanding through repatriation from Turkey. That means Russia will eventually have created its own Kosovo out of parts of Georgia. How in the world is supporting the party that used Muslim troops and is creating countries where Muslims will eventually become a majority, counter-Jihadist?

And to dismantle the last leg of this stool, the Obama Administration is not supporting Georgia at the expense of Russia. In fact the Obama Administration has turned its back on Georgia, in favor of a reboot with Russia. Obama snubbed Saakashvili in favor of Putin's pet, Medvedev. Obama had earlier compared the Russian invasion of Georgia, with the US invasion of Iraq. So opposing Georgia and supporting Russia is not the anti-Obama line — it is Obama's line. You are not opposing Obama, if you support appeasing Russia and betraying Georgia. You are supporting Obama.

When McCain looked into Putin's eyes, he said that he could see three letters, KGB. Ask yourself. Do you see what McCain sees, or do you see what Obama sees?

Because beyond the politics, there's the question of conscience. While the countries involved are far away, this debate carries a burden of flesh and blood. Russian propaganda claims that Georgia is in league with Muslim terrorists operating in its territory, and that Georgian leaders are actively involved in planning attacks on it. Russia has tried to sell this same line before, but it has implications far beyond plain propaganda. By promoting and distributing this claim, those who do it are providing Russia with a casus belli for invading Georgia, the next time a terrorist attack happens in the Caucasus.

Do you remember Russian tanks suppressing the uprising in Hungary? Do you remember them in the streets of Prague? Do you want part of the responsibility for those tanks in the streets of Tbilisi? Do you want the Muslim butchers of Gori roaming through a peaceful city, robbing, raping and murdering? Because this is not academic. This is not just about words in which no one gets hurt and we all go home afterward. This is about a totalitarian country which has murdered hundreds of reporters, imprisoned dissidents in psychiatric hospitals and jailed their lawyers, carried out assassinations worldwide, that is now determined to conquer a country it once controlled. And it wants to use you to do it.

We may not always do good, but we can always refuse to collaborate with evil. That is our choice. For those brave Russians and Jews who defied the KGB in Soviet times, this was a dangerous and costly choice. For us it is as easy as doing the right thing.

Supporting Russia's campaign against Georgia does not hurt the Jihad, it helps it. It does not hurt Obama, it runs in tandem with what he is already doing. It does not reject NATO's actions in Yugoslavia, it copies them and endorses them. But above all else, there's a simple question to be answered here.

Do you want to help the KGB thugs who provided Saddam with the weapons used to murder US soldiers? Who are providing Iran with nuclear technology in order to commit genocide? Who are the largest non-Muslim state sponsoring Islamic terrorism?

We always have the ability to do the right thing. To refuse to collaborate with evil. To refuse to be Dhimmis for either Islam or the KGB. That is the power of moral choice. That is the power of doing the right thing. That is the power of refusing to collaborate with evil. That is the power of being free. Because the power of evil comes from its ability to seduce you, to trick you, or to finally compel you to serve its ends. The power of good comes from refusing to do its bidding. And that is why only those who refuse to collaborate with evil, are truly free.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 22, 2010.


New Yorker was sentenced to more than 10 years for attempting to send money to a terrorist training camp (Wall St. J., 4/20, A1).


The State Dept. summoned Syria's acting ambassador to explain the news of Syria furnishing Hizbullah with Scud missiles. The U.S. considers such missiles destabilizing, changing the regional balance of power. The U.S., however, does not confirm that the missiles were made available to Hizbullah. Syria denies doing it. Syria calls the U.S. complaint a search for a pretext for an Israeli attack on Lebanon (Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 4/20, A 17).

Considering past Hizbullah and Syrian aggression, and the imperialist purpose of jihad, then If those weapons do change the balance of power, the U.S. should understand that Israel must strike them before they become operational. Israel relinquished the opportunity to destroy Hizbullah in favor of a Security Council resolution to protect Israel from future Hizbullah threats by keeping Hizbullah from rearming. But Hizbullah did rearm, and UNIFIL troops did not stop it.

If the U.S. were seeking a pretext, it would not state that its information is uncertain. Syria, like the Palestinian Arabs, usually offers a conspiracy theory to explain events to its advantage as the other side seeking pretexts.

An earlier report was that Syria is training Hizbullah in operation of the Scuds, but that it is keeping the Scuds near the border, so they can be brought into Lebanon as soon as wanted.


"Israel weighs merits of solo attack on Iran" is the title in Wednesday's Wall St. Journal of news making the same main points that my article did yesterday.

Israeli raiders would have to pass through Iraqi territory controlled by the U.S. Air Force or territory of countries the U.S. considers allies, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The Israeli government must consider whether such a raid would result in Iranian raids on U.S. bases in the region. The Journal also mentions threatened Iranian blocking of oil shipments and giving more aid to insurgents fighting U.S. forces.

The article mentions Iranian retaliation, including by ordering its proxies, Hizbullah, Syria, and Hamas, to fire on Israel. The article also mentions the effect of a raid on relations with the U.S.. Therefore, the question is not whether Israel is required to seek U.S. permission, but whether U.S. permission would be advisable and whether the raid would pay.

Israeli Army opinion is divided on this issue (Charles Solomon, 4/21/10, A13).

Yes, Iran may order its proxies to retaliate. How long would Iran not order its proxies to open fire even if Israel does not raid Iran? When Iran gets nuclear weapons, it might feel it could send its proxies into action with impunity. The proxy concern is not a strong argument.

President Obama seems to be not just souring, but ending U.S. relations with Israel. Israel should be more concerned about alienating the U.S. people, which would have consequences that outlast Obama. Israel should have been weaning itself from dependency on the U.S.. Why don't its leaders?

The U.S. is the ally of many countries that are not its ally. That includes Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia finances most international jihad, and does it with money paid by the U.S. for oil. Saudi Arabia is America's greatest enemy. It does nothing for the U.S. but subversion.

Turkey was a great U.S. ally. Its government has become Islamist and an ally of Iran and Syria. It made the U.S. invasion of Iraq difficult, giving Saddam more time to prepare. To be fair, the U.S. condoned Kurdish terrorism against Iraq. That was a deadly betrayal, in behalf of the wrong cause.

Iran, nuclear armed, would make more trouble for the U.S. and the other Gulf states. Therefore, its ability to choke off the oil supply, one of the reasons for the first Gulf War, would get stronger. This makes the argument lean toward removing Iran's nuclear capability sooner, rather than later. And destroying Iran's navy to protect shipping lanes. That is the war that the U.S. would have gained more from, than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It is sad to say, because most Iranians are decent people, but they are in the grip of rulers who are a world menace.

How effective would a raid be? Experts believe that a raid would delay Iran's development of a nuclear facility, but Iran would resume its efforts. Where does that leave us? Raids repeated every two years? Would they succeed, every two years? Would Iran get long-range missiles that destroy U.S. cities? What toll would Iran take earlier?

The best solution would be regime change and relief of tensions. Second best would be a mainly U.S. war that knocks out Iran's defenses and offenses now, a raid that destroys the obvious and accessible nuclear facilities, and that finds and destroys Iran's other nuclear facilities and scientists. This prospect is even more agonizing than just a raid.

The U.S. is out of money. Its President is more interested in trying to mollify Islamist fanatics who continue their war preparations. The question of who should do what is much more complicated than what faced Israel when it raided Iraq's nuclear reactor so many years ago.


Ground Zero in NYC. Is U.S. waiting for worse? (A.P. /Mark Lennihan)

A Defense Dept. report estimates that Iran could develop ICBMs capable of reaching the continental U.S. within five years, if Iran got foreign help (Arutz-7, 4/18/10).

Rogue and mercantile states probably would help Iran gain a hellish potential. They helped it develop nuclear capability unnecessarily of dual use and even for just military use. Five years is not long from now. Suppose the estimate is an under-estimate?

Some readers deny Iran's military intent. They assert that this intent and capability has not been proved. It has been proved. They point out that Iran claims it is peaceable and that the IAEA has not outright declared Iran a developer of military nuclear might. These doubters rely upon the caution of the bumbling IAEA, whose treaty has proved a failure more than once in this world of cheating.

The deniers ignore Iran's years of duplicity and violation, findings that some of its development can only be military, findings that other development went out of its way to be of dual usage, non-peaceable threats issued, utilizing terrorism, and the rulers' ideology of regional and then world hegemony for radical Islam using any method and regardless of how many casualties it inflicts and upon whom, innocent or not.


President Obama is doing more to reach out to Muslims. President Obama "appointed the White House's first Muslim adviser, Egyptian-born Dalia Mogahed, who supports and has defended the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which expressed views in support of Hamas and the radical Muslim Brotherhood."

Obama has been bringing Muslims into the U.S. government while eschewing open identification with Islam. During his election campaign, he kept Muslims at arms length. Now he plans a trip to Indonesia, where is reaching out would be publicized. The question is whether Indonesians will welcome him as a fellow Muslim (Arutz-7, 4/21/10).

In Islamic doctrine, someone who starts out as a Muslim, as Obama did, is not allowed to convert to another religion, on pain of execution. If Indonesians greet him as a Muslim, would Obama object? What would happen to happen to his presidency, if he does not?

For one thing, Obama would be recognized as a deceiver, and all his many other inconsistencies would be recalled and considered a cumulative description of his character. Deception, coincidentally or not coincidentally, is another Islamic principle in dealing with infidels. Is that Obama's principle? Is he really bringing into the U.S. government Muslims who approve of pro-terrorist and terrorist organizations as a means of goodwill or as a means of subversion? If for goodwill, he is naïve.


Hamas gunment administer justice. Who does it to them? (AP/Nasser Ishtayeh)

Hamas declared that it will continue to execute what it calls "collaborators." It does not care what human rights groups say about it.

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA observes that Hamas may be executing critics, and covering its repressive measure by falsely labeling them "collaborators." (Arutz-7, 4/18/10).

Informants in Gaza may be voluntary, paid, or coerced. They tip Israel off about the movements of terrorists. As a result, Israel can intercept or capture or kill terrorists. This spares innocent lives. Like pirates, whom international law deems the common enemies of mankind, so are international terrorists.


1. On Israeli Army Radio, ex-Ambassador Martin Indyk accused PM Netanyahu of preference for a nationalist government over friendship with the U.S.. "Take on the President," or "take on his right wing," Indyk challenged Netanyahu, in the New York Times. Indyk characterized the nationalist Ministers as ones "who oppose peacemaking." He warned that U.S.-Israel relations are at stake, and that Israel had better accommodate U.S. "interests" if it needs U.S. aid.

REBUTTAL TO 1. In giving Netanyahu a choice of a nationalist government or friendship with the U.S. government, ex-Ambassador Indyk is attempting to dictate formation of a compliant Israeli Cabinet. What temerity! How undemocratic! Can't persuade? Coerce! Who coerces, is no friend. Now how much credence should one give to Obama's birthday message to Israel about the unbreakable bonds between the U.S. and Israel? Obviously, Obama is trying to deceive Israel.

Indyk accuses the nationalist Ministers as opposing peacemaking. How defamatory! Of course they want peace. But they found by deadly experience, that what Indyk proposes has led to war. One could properly assert that Indyk, in effect, opposes peacemaking.

2. Indyk was answered in part by MK Katz, who depicted him as prepared to sacrifice his people to his masters. Katz cited Congress, which acknowledges Jerusalem as Israel capital, where it may build.

REBUTTAL TO 2. Katz is right that some twisted Jews indulge in betrayal. He is on more persuasive ground by noting that Congress agrees with Israel on Jerusalem, so Indyk is not speaking for Americans and is serving a master who, if Congress is right, is not serving the U.S..

Indyk misses the main point, that both the U.S. and Israel are under attack from the same jihad, should coordinate their response, and the U.S. should not undermine Israel. Obama, in undermining Israel, undermines the U.S..

3. Indyk previously urged that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) be given de facto sovereignty over Jerusalem [no restriction to a portion of Jerusalem was mentioned]. Israel had foreseen that that was what the building freeze was intended for.

REBUTTAL TO 3. In urging Israel to cede Jerusalem even before negotiations, he is condoning the P.A. indoctrination in hatred of Jews and desire for seizing all of Israel, P.A. incitement to violence, and P.A. arming for war. Under the Oslo Accords that Indyk commends, the P.A. vowed to end those abuses that lead to war. Indyk thus demonstrates that to the Arabs, if not also to the State Dept., the purpose of Oslo was not peace but to take land from Israel without reforming the Arab drive for holy war. Like others who pretend that Fatah is decent, Indyk overlooks the effect of Iranian aid to Fatah, mentioning only Hamas' subservience to Iran.


4. PM Netanyahu sent a substitute to the nuclear conference, Indyk insinuated, so he wouldn't have to show Obama lack of an answer to Obama's demand to freeze new building announcements.

REBUTTAL TO 4. Netanyahu has not said why he did not attend the nuclear summit. Lack of knowledge does not stop Indyk from assigning a motive. I believe that Netanyahu did not want to be snubbed again. He may have smelled a trap, which often has been discussed publicly, that in such a meeting, Obama would gang up on Israel to demand that it give up its nuclear capability.

The motive Indyk suggests is peculiar. If Obama invited Israel to a nuclear summit in order to corner Netanyahu on an irrelevant housing issue, that would be improper and Netanyahu was wise to have avoided the meeting. Contrary to what Indyk implies, Netanyahu has given Obama an answer on the housing issue. Obama has his answer, and any further demands upon Israel over it would be badgering. This is the ugly side of what U.S. voters thought an attractive candidate for President.

5. Indyk also claimed that Netanyahu's absence left "Obama "holding the bag to take on the task of trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program that Israel says threatens its very existence. The former ambassador claimed that President Obama succeeded in "persuading China to join in a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran," although he did not refer to China's outright rejection of harsh sanctions, particularly in the energy sector."

REBUTTAL TO 5. Absurd is Indyk's claim that Netanyahu's absence left Obama alone to handle the Iran nuclear weapons issue. It smacks of hysteria. That is aside from the fact that Israel sent its top nuclear official to represent it. What help could Netanyahu provide? Would he use Israel's moral authority on Iran, an authority that Obama has done much to besmirch, and using morality to which Iran does not adhere?

Claiming that Obama got China to agree to sanctions, when it agreed to nothing that might impel accommodation by Iran, is further demagoguery by Obama. He deceives his own people on matters of national security. Obama takes a lot of credit for his non-accomplishments. Obama, like Pres. Bush when he named his environment-wrecking bills with euphemisms such as "safe forest" and "pure air" and "clean water," also puts forth proposals in the name of something good the proposals take the opposite tack on.

6. By not resolving the Arab-Israel conflict, Indyk claimed, Iran can use its Hamas and Hizbullah proxies to provoke conflict with Israel. If Israel offered Syria the Golan, Obama could isolate Iran.

REBUTTAL TO 6. The government of Iran would utilize its terrorist proxies no matter what Israel does, because its enmity toward Israel is not based on what territory Israel holds but on the existence of Israel as non-Islamist. Syria would grab the Golan all the more capable of taking over the rest of the Levant. One would think that an experienced Ambassador would know that. They all pretend not to. They all pretend to be acting on principle. Appeasement is their real principle, duplicity their method, and ignorance of history their qualification.

7. Indyk cited the Oslo Accords as a paragon of Israeli concessions. But the Oslo Accords enabled Arab terrorists to murder hundreds of Israelis and fire thousands of rockets at Israel (Arutz-7, 4/18/10).

REBUTTAL TO 7. Since the Oslo Accords that Indyk sets as the model led to thousands of casualties and wars, one should understand that his expansive proposals would lead to tens of thousands of casualties and wars.

As ambassador to Israel, Indyk was high-handed and peremptory. Apparently he has not changed. What is eating him? Why is he so false and vicious?

If antisemites were rational, the example of Martin Indyk, an Orthodox Jew, a naturalized American citizen, would show them that Jews do not all stick together, that some are anti-Zionist, and that their anti-Zionism is almost unhinged and ill-serves the U.S. Since antisemitic variety of anti-Zionism is a psychosis, examples and facts make no impression.


A complicated, interesting, and precedent-setting case of alleged discrimination has arisen about a Christian students club at University of California Hasting College of the Law. Both may New York newspapers reported on it, but I thought there was more and consulted the Middle East Forum, which had scooped them, to get more information. Let's follow these sources in sequence.

Hastings College has a rule, aligned with California law, intended to bar discrimination by student clubs. According to a New York Times editorial, the Christian club there instituted a requirement in 2004 that members sign a statement of faith that would prohibit non-Christian and gay students from joining. Hastings found the club in violation. It barred the club from its funding and facilities. The college also has a policy of promoting diversity.

The club claims that the college is violating its freedoms of speech and religion. The Times responds that the club could form informally. Federal district and appeals courts upheld the college. The Court of Appeals explained that the college rule was "viewpoint neutral." It imposed the same, reasonable openness on all student groups (4/19/10).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, April 22, 2010.

Surrendering an ally is no strategy at all, says this columnist. He also finds insights into Obama's view of the world — and its results.

This was written by Wesley Pruden, a columnist for The Washington Times.


Barack Obama has come up with an interesting strategy for dealing with the evildoers of the world. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Surrender your friends, if necessary.

He wants to make Israel, our oldest and only reliable friend in the Middle East, the guinea pig to see whether the strategy works. What appeared to be a minor flap between old friends only a fortnight ago now looks like an exploitable opportunity for the man who learned about who's evil in the world from a crazy Jew-baiting preacher in Chicago.

The public scolding of Israel and the warning that it must make nice with those determined to "wipe it off the map" are now revealed to be tactics in the plan to make the Middle East over in a way to please the Islamic radicals. The observant among us have seen this coming. America's true friends — Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Norway and Poland in addition to Israel — have been getting the back of Mr. Obama's hand from the day he took his oath. The commitment to constitutional government and the ancient traditions of intellectual freedom that make up the cultural heritage of the West have been snubbed when not ignored, the natural allies of America lectured to when not insulted.

We're told that it's not nice, and maybe even racist, to notice that Michelle Obama, the elegant first lady who does so many things well, has cultivated her husband's talent for strategic snobbery. She once conceded that she only became proud of America when her husband got to the brink of the presidency, and in a remarkable video of a 2008 appearance that surfaced only this spring, she told of their visiting "his home country in Kenya." Unless she was conceding that she, too, is a "birther," she meant that Kenya is his ancestral and cultural home. This could explain a lot, and it certainly offers insights now into his determination to discard the Israelis in the affections of Americans and replace them with nations alien to the affections of most Americans. Why retain an emotional attachment to the sources of American law and literature when you could bow to the Saudi king and court the leaders of Iran, Syria and Venezuela?

Nothing would please the enemies and adversaries of America — the "outliers," in the trendy term of the moment — like putting the Jews in their place. Mr. Obama and some of his wise men, particularly in the State Department, which has traditionally looked for occasions to lend a hand to the Arab tormentors of Israel, now see their opportunity to impose a "settlement" of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Obama finally put his game in play this week when he told a press conference that resolving the conflict was "a vital national security interest of the United States." Describing the conflict in these not-so-vague terms gives him the opportunity to prescribe any solution, however malignant or fanciful, just that way. The president, any president, must put the "vital national security interest" of the United States first and foremost. Who could argue with that?

Presidents before him, Democrat and Republican, have regarded Israel's right to survive as unquestioned and inviolate, bound up with America's own traditions of democratic government, and Mr. Obama continues to pay lip service to the American vow to defend Israel's right to survive. But lip service is not much defense against rockets, gunfire and suicide bombs and the contempt of the despots of the world. Conflicts like the continuing small-bore war in the Middle East end up, the president says, "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure." Anyone can see where that argument goes.

This is of a piece with the remarks of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, to Congress that "the lack of progress" in the Middle East creates a "hostile environment" for the United States. True enough, and the general's frustration is understandable (and shared). Wars have always been dangerous places to be, which is exactly why we send soldiers to such places. If only the Germans had not been so hostile, the Americans and the British could have had a day at the beach on D-Day. Alas, hostile the environment was, and there was no picnic. But the civilized world can be glad it never occurred to President Roosevelt to surrender France.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, April 22, 2010.

Amid all the fanfare this week as Jews worldwide celebrated the State of Israel's 62nd birthday, there was one central item that was prominently and conspicuously missing from the agenda. And that, oddly enough, was aliyah.

As I suggest in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, one of the greatest sources of frustration and failure when it comes to encouraging Jews to move to Israel is the silence of rabbis on this critical point.

Diaspora rabbis can and should do more to advance and promote aliyah, especially among the more committed and observant, and I suggest a number of simple steps they can take in this regard.

Indeed, it is time for the intense longing for Zion embodied in our daily and Sabbath prayers to be translated into a concrete plan of action for North American Jews, and this is where rabbis can step up and make a difference.

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

Michael Freund


Jews around the world this week commemorated the 62nd anniversary of the momentous rebirth of the Jewish state in the land of Israel with all the pomp and ceremony warranted by such a meaningful day on the calendar.

Across North America, Federations and Jewish community centers held lectures and celebrations, youth movements convened a range of special activities, and synagogues played host to festive services of prayer and thanksgiving.

Participants waved blue and white flags with pride and downed falafel with abandon as they expressed their love and admiration, albeit from afar, for the historic undertaking known as the State of Israel.

And this, of course, is at it should be. The return of the Jewish people to our land and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty are the two greatest miracles of the modern era, so it is only natural that Diaspora Jews would see fit to venerate this turn of events.

As the late Rabbi Ben-Zion Uziel, who served as Israel's first Sephardic Chief Rabbi from 1948 to 1954, wrote in his last will and testament, "Our generation has been granted a great and wonderful privilege in the revelation of the hand of the L-rd, hidden and mighty, on behalf of His chosen people, gathering our exiles and bringing them to their patrimony till we have become a people dwelling in its own land".

Indeed, if that isn't worth celebrating, then what is?

But amid all the revelry and excitement this past Tuesday in places such as New York, Toronto and Los Angeles, there is one central item that was prominently and conspicuously missing from the agenda. And that, oddly enough, was aliyah.

It is, so to speak, the Zionist elephant in the room, a painfully obvious subject which Diaspora Jews are aware of but few wish to touch, because it raises so many awkward and uncomfortable questions about the future.

And while immigration to Israel from North America has been steadily on the rise, thanks in part to the admirable work of the Nefesh B'Nefesh organization, the few thousand brave souls who make the move each year still represent just a fraction of a portion of a small sliver of the Canadian and American Jewish communities.

There are surely many reasons for this, and it is easy to point the finger at causes such as a lack of basic Zionist and Jewish education or the misplaced priorities of various national Jewish groups.

But I'd like to direct attention in an entirely different direction, to what I see as perhaps one of the greatest sources of frustration and failure when it comes to encouraging Jews to make aliyah, and that is the silence of rabbis on this critical point.

Sure, communal rabbis have their hands full already. Just keeping their congregants Jewishly-involved and motivated presents a great challenge for many in the free societies of the West.

But as the spiritual and educational leaders of their communities, Diaspora rabbis can and should do more to advance and promote aliyah, especially among the more committed and observant.

It is time for the intense longing for Zion embodied in our daily and Sabbath prayers to be translated into a concrete plan of action for North American Jews and this is where rabbis can step up and make a difference.

By taking a few simple steps, rabbis can help raise the aliyah consciousness of increasing numbers of Diaspora Jews.

These could include establishing a Rabbinical Aliyah Council, which would coordinate aliyah-centered programming and initiatives at synagogues across America.

By coming together in such a forum, rabbis would be sending an important message to their congregants underlining the centrality of aliyah and placing it squarely on the national Jewish agenda.

It would also serve as an impetus and a reminder to rabbis that they need to tackle this crucial issue.

Synagogues around the country should also devote a special Sabbath each year to the theme of aliyah. A fortuitous time to do so is when the weekly Torah portion of Lech Lecha from the book of Genesis is read in which our father Abraham became the first Jew to move to Israel.

That can be the launching point for sermons, discussions and panel sessions on the history, theology and ideology behind going home to Zion.

Synagogues could also establish an Aliyah Wall of Honor, highlighting members of the local congregation and community who have made the move. This would underline communal respect and admiration for those who make aliyah, and project a sense of aspiration and purpose to members of the younger generation.

There is of course a need for more materials to be written in English on the religious and Zionist reasons for moving to Israel, and for bonds to be strengthened between immigrants and the communities they left behind.

This will serve to strengthen the position of aliyah in the mindset of more Jews, and lend further legitimacy to the idea of considering it as an option.

Rabbis have a central role to play in making this happen, and they would do well to learn from the example in the Talmud of Rabbi Zeira.

One of the Amoraim, Rabbi Zeira was born in Babylonia but longed for the Land of Israel. Prior to moving, he spent a hundred days fasting to forget the methodology of study he learned in the Exile in order to make a fresh start once in Israel (Tractate Berachot 57a).

And when he reached the Jordan River, Rabbi Zeira was so eager to enter the land that he crossed through the water without bothering to remove his clothes.

When a passerby mocked him, Rabbi Zeira replied, "Why shouldn't I be impatient when I am pursuing a blessing which was denied even to Moses and Aaron"? (Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Shevuot 35).

If only we saw a similar level of impatience among the rabbis of North America and the West.

Nonetheless, centuries later, the blessing of which Rabbi Zeira spoke is still here, awaiting us all, in the Land of Israel. Now is the time for the rabbis to encourage Jews to pursue it.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He has served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=173654

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 22, 2010.

Or, possibly, less than half-way. Not a total cave from our prime minister. He's taken one good stand, on one very important issue. But for the rest?

It's official from the prime minister's office: the US gov't has been told that we will not be freezing construction in Jerusalem. This follows several public statements the prime minister has made lately regarding the fact that there would be no freeze in Jerusalem.

However, there apparently have been concessions on other issues "demanded" by Obama. These are not being reported by the officials in the prime minister's office — who seem to have restricted themselves to the good news. What I'm reading comes from US sources and should probably be considered fairly accurate. But none of this is official.

What bothers me the most (although it all bothers me) is that US sources are saying we've agreed to delay construction in Ramat Shlomo for two years. This, if true, would be a sop to the Obama administration for the "embarrassment" caused by an announcement of planned construction there while Biden was visiting. Obama extracting his due, or something. Blood-boiling, for we had and have a right to build there. Young couples who need housing will be paying the price.


Then, according to the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu agreed to several other things, including: "the release of Palestinian prisoners, easing the flow of goods into Gaza, and the removal of more roadblocks in the West Bank. Israel also said it would expand the area of responsibility for Palestinian security forces in the West Bank."

We need to wait for official confirmation of all of this. Prisoners to be released? How many? Only without blood on their hands? With how much of their sentences remaining? Roadblocks removed? Which ones? And so on...


But I would like to address one issue now, and that is the expansion of area of responsibility for Palestinian security forces.

It made the news yesterday that the IDF has drafted plans for a "pullback to pre-intifada lines," should our government agree to this.

In the heady days of Oslo, when we were supposed to be giving the PA latitude to manage its own affairs, we pulled out of major PA cities in Judea and Samaria. But then the second intifada saw horrendous terrorist attacks emanating from the areas where we were no longer in control. And so we launched Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 and went back in. It did the trick. And since then we've maintained the right to go in for security reasons. Nightly, we do operations that keep matters in check.

Of late, there is supposed to be an improvement in the capabilities and professionalism of these PA security forces, as they are being trained on the US dollar, under the supervision of Gen. Keith Dayton. What you've been hearing from me, and will continue to hear from me, is that these forces do not cut it. They will not consistently and reliably take out terrorists.

And here we have it as part of the news report from the JPost yesterday:

"The Post has learned that the IDF brass, particularly the Central Command, have recommended not carrying out such a withdrawal.

"'The IDF's freedom to operate everywhere is extremely important in keeping terrorism down to a minimum,' the senior defense official said. (emphasis added)

"As proof, the official referred to a recent IDF operation in Jenin, during which troops arrested two top Islamic Jihad operatives. Operations in Jenin are still carried out, the official said, despite the 'Jenin Model' program that saw the deployment of US-trained PA forces in the city and Israel's decision to scale back its operations. "'We still operate there whenever we believe there is a threat,' the official said."

One would not know this from certain reports that extol the excellent performance of the PA troops. But it's exceedingly significant information.


Now, I do not believe that the current concession with regard to IDF pullbacks (if there is such a concession) would return us to the "pre-intifada lines." It would be more modest than this. And yet...

Decisions such as this are made by political and not military leaders — the civilian government decides how the army will operate. That's how a democracy functions. However, in our particular situation there is a very precarious balance — one that I've been watching with enormous unease and considerable anger for years: What plays well politically or diplomatically — let me rephrase this: that a particular government may perceive as playing well politically or diplomatically — may not be what is in the best interests of the security of the Israeli populace.

We hear meaningless platitudes about balancing the "legitimate security needs" of Israel with the "legitimate desires of the Palestinian people for a state." To "advance peace," innocent lives are put at risk, and sometimes lost. And who cares?

We should watch this situation closely, and scream loudly when necessary.


I do not minimize the horrendous pressure being put on Netanyahu by an American regime that is either hostile or indifferent to our legitimate interests. I would have preferred a blanket "no" across the board from our prime minister, but I knew that wasn't going to happen: it's a question of seeing how much has been conceded.

Left still up in the air is the very important issue of whether Netanyahu will accede to Obama's demand that the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria be extended beyond its original 10 months (which brings us to September). Netanyahu has promised faithfully again and again that there would be no extension. I'm uneasy that there is no word on this yet. There will be hell to pay here if it is extended.


Also to be watched is reference I've picked up in some quarters to discussions about permitting PA institutions to operate in eastern Jerusalem. That would be a horrendous, for it would de facto would give the PA a foot in our city. But I have no confirmation of anything with regard to this.


And one proviso here, which I share with a modicum of reluctance: Akiva Eldar has a piece in Haaretz that says Netanyahu is only pretending to refuse to freeze building in Jerusalem, while he will in fact stop all tenders for new construction unofficially. According to Eldar, the US is privy to this, and the PA will accept it.

I find it hard to believe this on several accounts. One being that the PA would not have sufficient "face" satisfaction with such an arrangement (i.e., it wouldn't be clear to the world that we had backed down). Then there is the fact that Elder, far to the left, may promote the story that fits his perception of how it "should" be. But this is not the first time we've heard this. For whatever it is or is not worth.


The bottom line here, when all is said and done, is the refrain repeated regularly by US officials that if there are going to be much needed "peace negotiations," it's up to us to give more. And more. And more. A one-sided and unreasonable demand that doesn't acknowledge what we've done.

Consider this from National Security Advisor Jim Jones:

"It is time to begin those negotiations and to put an end to excuses. It is time for all leaders in the region-Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab-to support efforts for peace."

Excuse me? Who is it that is refusing to come to the table? Why the false equivalence?

High level diplomats from Israel and the US have been huddling to work out details of various matters, and Envoy George Mitchell is due here this evening.


Sometimes, I review the news, and in response to one item after another I have an impulse to say, "Nah, this can't be. Would you mind repeating that?"

Take, for example, the information that came out yesterday that, at least for the "near future," a military strike is "off the table" for the US. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing, "Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions."

Nah, she couldn't have said that. But, alas, she did. Engagement? After everything, she mentions this again? And the foolishness of telling Iran that military action is not a possibility, even if it's true. The foolishness of not letting them worry and wonder.


But this business of engagement is really big with the Obama administration. Today, Secretary of State Clinton again defended the decision to send an ambassador to Damascus in spite of the "deeply disturbing" reports about Syria supplying Hezbollah with Scud missiles. Said she:

"We have a long list of areas that we have discussed with the Syrians and we intend to continue pushing our concerns, and we think having an ambassador there adds to the ability to convey that message strongly and hopefully influence behavior in Syria."

Influence behavior in Syria? You think she'd mind repeating that again?


But hey, this is good compared to some of the things Clinton says. The statement of hers, below, made at an event recently, could take your breath away. I believe she actually said this with a straight face:

"...and I sometimes look at the President when I'm with him and talking about some issue or another, and think about a grandfather [Obama's] who marched in Patton's Army and a great-uncle [Obama's] who helped to liberate Buchenwald. And I know how rock solid and unwavering his commitment is to Israel's security and Israel's future."

This folks, constitutes my joke for the day. This is a "laugh so I don't cry" situation.


From the Obama administration and friends I'm picking up three main themes with regard to what's happening now. One is a solemn declaration of devotion to Israel's security. Thus, for example, there is a letter that Obama just wrote to Alan Solow, Chair, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in which he speaks about "[America's] special relationship with Israel that will not change," and the intertwining of American and Israeli security issues.

The second is the acknowledgement that only the parties can make peace, and that the US cannot impose it. Even Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel has come out with a statement about this not being the right time to advance a plan.

However, there is another thrust that simply will not go away: And that's the linkage of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, and the ability to stop Iran. That logic has it that the Arab states are so upset that the Palestinians don't have a state that they won't help stop Iran. An Iran that terrifies them, it should be noted. And Palestinian Arabs for whom they care not a fig.

Thus does Jim Jones say:

"One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas."

It's a crock. And he's got it backwards: If Iran is taken down, the power of Hezbollah and Hamas to do damage will be reduced.


From several quarters I'm picking up an interesting analysis of Secretary of State Robert Gate's secret memo, exposed by the NYTimes this week, stating that the administration has no real plan B on Iran. This memo was originally described as a "wake up call" to the government.

But no, say some, this is an attempt by Gates to set the record straight for history with regard to his position on Iran — a cover-his-rear tactic that will likely be followed by his resignation.

See a video clip with John Bolton on this:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/04/ understanding-gates-memo.html

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Isi Leibler, April 22, 2010.


The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power
Author: Melanie Phillips
Format: Hardcover, 280pp
Pub. Date: April 2010
Publisher: Encounter Books
Format: Hardcover, 280pp
ISBN-13: 9781594033759
ISBN: 1594033757

Award-winning columnist Melanie Phillips, recipient of the Orwell prize for journalism in 1996 and author of acclaimed Londonistan, has written an explosive new book systematically exposing chapter and verse of the hypocrisy, cant and blatant falsehoods which currently dominate much of contemporary Western thought. The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle Over God, Truth and Power will leave readers breathless as they follow her perceptive and ferocious exposéof the strains of insanity inherent in the "correct" attitudes currently being promoted by politicians, pseudo-academics and much of the Western media.

The book encompasses an extraordinarily wide range of prevailing public perceptions, which Phillips methodically demonstrates as not merely being utterly false but frequently deliberately fabricated as a vehicle to promote bizarre agendas. In addition to the author's commendable writing skills, what makes this book particularly impressive is her almost renaissance mastery of a multitude of complex issues — combined with a knack for communicating them in a form that most readers are able to comprehend.

In addition, she substantiates her assertions with research backed by meticulous documentation.

Phillips strongly repudiates the commonly accepted view that faith and reason are incompatible, persuasively demonstrating that in many cases the opposite is true. Her central thesis is that the trivialization of religious belief, rejection of the Judeo-Christian heritage and post-modernism, have all combined to erode the foundations upon which our civilization is based. This in turn created a vacuum which opened the floodgates for the emergence of a host of irrational cults and weird, even insane conspiracy theories.

Some of the bizarre examples cited by Phillips include the wacky belief that Princess Diana was assassinated to prevent her from marrying a Muslim; Tony Blair's wife belief in the transcendent properties of stones and the utilization of her and her husband's hair and toenails to detect signs of "poisons and blockages" in their bodies; the allegation that AIDS was created in a CIA laboratory; the pagan practices of the "Kabbala" followers of Madonna, the icon of Western modernity, who wear red threads on their wrists to ward off the evil spirit and meditate on stem cells to achieve immortality of the body; the allegations that the 9/11 attacks were either created by the Mossad or were an inside job by the Bush administration; and the "post religious mythology" inherent in the hubris and narcissism employed in the Obama election campaign.

THE MORE significant practical implications of these trends are reviewed as separate sections of the book. The opening chapter titled "The Myth of Environmental Armageddon" deals with global warming which has swept the planet. Phillips ruthlessly dissects the lies and distortions employed to promote what she regards as one of the greatest scientific scams of the modern age, "reminiscent of a medieval witch-hunt," with dissenting scientists being hounded from their posts by the equivalent of a secular inquisition.

In relation to the Iraq war, she alleges that irrespective of the rights and wrongs of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, the chattering classes have concocted bogus conspiracy theories in which legitimate differences over a divisive war have been reduced into accusations of a plot by neoconservatives to promote the interests of Israel. She claims that the UN and its Human Rights Council, which most Western progressives regard as the arbiter of acceptable behavior, exemplify the reversal of reason by "putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse."

She explains why the United Kingdom has emerged among the vanguard of countries which have repudiated rationality and reason.

A number of chapters are devoted to the most extreme example of the denial of reality — the double standards and shameless bias reflected in the attempts to demonize and delegitimize the embattled Jewish state. In the chapter titled "The Jihad against Western Freedom," Phillips highlights the double talk and refusal to relate to reality in the Middle East. She concludes that it is a byproduct of the lack of determination by the West to resisting new forms of "soft totalitarianism" in which the onward march of Islamic aggression is compromised, with the US becoming marginalized and the war on terror vilified.

Phillips points to the bizarre linkages and alliances forged between these irrational elements with conflicting agendas. They include veteran leftists, purported campaigners for human rights, neo-fascists and Islamists who have merged to form "the red-black-green-Islamic axis."

The World Turned Upside Down is a courageous expose of many of the myths and fallacies which are being imposed on us and which our society has absorbed.

One is not obliged to endorse each of the extraordinary individual case studies selected to recognize that Phillips makes a highly convincing case to substantiate her broad thesis about the corruption of rationality which now dominates much of liberal society. She is effectively sounding a clarion call for reversing the tidal waves threatening to overwhelm Western civilization by the collapse of modernity and rationalism in which verifiably false statements are continuously reiterated, while truth and lies, right and wrong, victim and aggressor are all reversed. Phillips warns that this brainwashing is threatening to lead us into a new anti-rational dark age.

In a concluding chapter summarizing her findings, Phillips observes that today as during the Middle Ages, if universalism has become the accepted dogma, Jews (substituted by Zionists and Israelis) have again become the contemporary heretics to be burned. "It was the Jews who gave the world the concepts of an orderly universe, reason and progress — the keys to science and our modern age. In repudiating Jewish teaching and its moral codes, the West has turned upon the modern world itself. The power of reason offers no protection against bigotry... Today it is once again among the most progressive and enlightened people... the secular rationalists and the most liberal Christians, who march behind the banners of human rights and high minded conscience, that one finds the most virulent hatred of Israel and medieval prejudice against Jews... In turning upon the State of Israel — the front line of the defense of the free world against Islamist assault on modernity — the West is undermining its defense against the enemies of modernity and the Western civilization that produced it. The great question is whether it actually wants to defend reason and moderation anymore, or whether Western civilization has now reached a point where it has stopped trying to survive."

This cri de coeur is a stunning and thought-provoking book that should be read by all who seek to understand the sources of the malaise of this generation in Western society.

Contact Isi Leibler at editor@WordFromJerusalem.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, April 21, 2010.


Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 21, 2010.


The modern reincarnation of the State of Israel has less than 1% of the land in the Mideast and 2% of its population. Despite being arid, it is the only country that started this century with a net gain of trees. It also is the only Mideast country whose Christian population has grown in the last 50 years, and is the only Mideast country where Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have the franchise.

A world leader in medical technology and in certain other fields, Israel has the world's highest percentage of university graduates. Consequently, Israel has the world's highest per capita number of scientists and science papers, doctors, and books published. Israel has developed life-saving medicines, cellular phones, the first anti-virus technology, and voice-messaging. Are you sure you want to boycott Israel?

Reconstiuting the Jewish state may seem the greatest achievement — no other nation has returned to its homeland. Equally momentous are the unique revival of a dead language, Hebrew, and the resurgence of Torah study.

Israel also is the country that draws the most adverse UN resolutions. "Of the 175 U.N. Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 U.N. General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel (Arutz-7, 4/20/10).

Why not have two UNs, one specializing in Israel, the other for the rest of the world? The second set might accomplish something.

The annual celebration is of the successes mentioned, including the liberation and survival of millions of Jews. But the Left still maintains a grip on Israeli society. This grip, combined with the malaise of centuries of powerlessness, insinuates guilt over self-rule, appeasement of the enemy, and hostility to self-expression by one's own nationality and religion. The religiously observant have a sense of purpose that the secularists lack. Will Israel survive?


Turkey offered to buy certain types of weaponry from Israel, but Israel declined. Israel is reviewing offers from Turkey case-by-case. This caution is due to Turkey's increasing Islamist hostility to Israel. Turkey no longer lets the Israeli air force train over Turkish territory and refuses to participate in joint exercises with Israel (Arutz-7, 4/20/10).

Israel is too small for proper maneuvering of its air force. If it relinquished Judea-Samaria, which juts into Israel's waistline, leaving just 9 miles depth, Israel would not be able to maneuver much at all. Such a withdrawal would guarantee unsafe borders. What would more likely tempt the repeated Arab aggressors to attack Israel than to guarantee it unsafe borders? For a speck of a country in a hostile region, that is the type of problem that the State Dept. does not mention when it labels its demands for Israeli withdrawals a "peace process."


The New York Times compared the records of Obama and Bush on treatment of Islam. The newspaper's conclusion was that Obama has made a great change from the Bush administration. Daniel Pipes disagrees. He said that Bush tried hard to please the Muslims, too.

Bush inserted a Koran into the White House library, for symbolic significance. He held an annual Ramadan end-of-fast dinner with invocation by an imam. Bush called Islam a religion of peace and the American struggle against radical Islam just a "war on terrorism." Bush encouraged more Saudis to enter the U.S. and denied airport security officials the right to check into people's religion.


The Obama administration has been holding meetings with prominent Muslims and Muslim associations on counter-terrorism, security, foreign policy, and unrelated domestic policies. Muslims are gaining the satisfaction of being consulted. They persuaded the government to admit onto our shores Muslims whom the Bush administration had barred, such as Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib. They influenced the switch to a new airport screening procedure that replaces ethnic profiling with individual risk profiling. The U.S. claims that the new procedure is more effective.

Critics accuse the Administration of making Muslims tied to foreign terrorists or with an Islamist agenda seem legitimate. Example: senior White House adviser Jarrett, who gave the keynote address at the annual conference of the Islamic Society for North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland charity case, its leaders having been convicted of conveying money to terrorists. Example: political appointment if several Muslims, including Rashad Hussain as ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, though in 2004 he had criticized anti-terrorism prosecutions as political (Andrea Elliott, NY Times, 4/19, A1).

There seems to be much interlocking connections between Muslims who purport to be democratic and tolerant and organizations that advocate and finance terrorism. Does the U.S. government realize this?


GIs at hideout of slain al-Qaida In Iraq leaders (AP)

Al-Qaeda has devised a new method of terrorism. It rents houses and stores, plants bombs in them, and then blows them up. It has wounded hundreds of people in Baghdad this way (Jordan Times, in IMRA, 4/19/10).

This is a moral outrage in the name of religion, which adds insult to injury.


Jordan is subsidizing run down schools in eastern Jerusalem, attended by Arabs. Jordan's Minister of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs Abdul Salam Abbadi said that the program "would play a dynamic role in protecting the Arab and Islamic identity and empowering future Palestinian generations." (Jordan Times, in IMRA, 4/19/10).

Any implied effect on Israeli sovereignty?

One could interpret the subsidy as benign, but since the Arab Muslims are in a jihad against Israel, one probably should interpret that as aggressive.


Egypt said it appreciates the annual $2 billion U.S. subsidy, but wants to change its relationship with the U.S., and want to reduce U.S. aid. The two countries recently signed an agreement for the U.S. to boost trade with Egypt and investment in it. Egypt is interested in investment in nuclear power (Egypt Daily News, in IMRA, 4/19/10).

Other Arab states also are starting nuclear power industries.

Nuclear power industries are the stepping stone to nuclear weapons industries. Armageddon, here we come!

The body of the article did not contain a time limit or a statement about ending U.S. subsidy.


Ethan Bronner, Jerusalem Bureau chief of the New York Times wrote an article about the mood in Israel on its Independence Day. He gave about equal attention to clear statements of opposing views. Thus, one side said the problem is the "settlements," and the other side said that the Arabs oppose Israel because of its very existence [as a non-Muslim state].

The article describes the Israeli daily, Haaretz, as "the newspaper that serves as the voice of the shrinking political left in this country." (4/20, A9.)

Prof. Steven Plaut has called it also the Hebrew voice of the Palestinian Arabs.

Now, if the Left is shrinking, how come polls taken or interpreted by the Left claim that most Israelis agree with it on how to deal with the Arabs?

Polls have two aspects from which unscrupulous demagogues or careless people generate confusion: (1) Asking the wrong questions or asking the right questions with misleading wording; and (2) Misinterpreting results or quoting from them in a biased way.

Why is the Left shrinking? Because Israelis are coming to realize that the Left's policies of withdrawal fail, get them killed, and make peace less likelier.


Israeli security officials differ on whether they need U.S. permission to raid Iranian nuclear facilities (Wall St. J., 4/20).

One factor is how close is the U.S.-Israel alliance? U.S. snubbing of Israel, one-sided treatment against Israel, and once-sided denial of the right to purchase U.S. weaponry make Obama seem more an adversary.

Another factor is the U.S. stake in its forces in the Gulf area. They would come under fire. Israel would want to give the U.S. advance notice, but may worry that the U.S. would sabotage its mission, given that Obama's advisers are hostile to Israel and somewhat vindictive. For example, Brzezinski urges Obama to have Israeli raiders shot down!

A third factor is whether Israeli planes would need to fly over Iraqi air space to reach Iran. The U.S. still has air bases around the region, and might not want to recognize Israeli planes as friendly.

Thus Obama instills uncertainty into foreign policy just he prolongs the recession by instilling uncertainty into domestic policy on medical costs and taxes.


Iraqi forces claim to have killed the two top leaders of Al-Qaida in Iraq. This important success, coming after a spate of terrorist attacks, would raise Iraqi government prestige, perhaps enough to help it retain power. It also would make it seem easier for U.S. forces to withdraw, as the U.S. plans to.

U.S. forces provided the intelligence for the raid. During the raid, a U.S. helicopter crashed, killing an American. Iraq claimed to have killed those two before, so the U.S. is testing their DNA. Their loss would reduce the effectiveness of Al-Qaida in Iraq, down to a few thousand fighters and restricted in where they can operate (Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall St. J., 4/20, A1).

Isn't it true that DNA can prove only that someone of those men's families?

Al-Qaida has been able to recover soon from losses of previous leaders.


Obama and Saudi King (AP/Ron Edward)

President Obama has halved the U.S. subsidy for democracy in Egypt and Jordan. Egypt objected to it. Such aid goes for election-monitoring and anti-corruption drives. The U.S. still affirms it supports democracy abroad [though it opposes the Hondurans' exercise of democratic rights to expel their constitution-violating President].

Egypt, for its part, is working on legislation to require NGOs to register and to deny some of them registration for reasons of security. As a result, the head of the Andalus Institute for Tolerance and Anti-violence Studies, which promotes democracy among youth and trains bloggers and new media writers, may have to close.

The U.S. has been reducing the proportion of civilian aid to Egypt (Associated Press via Egypt Daily News, in IMRA, 4/19/10).

To be fair, movements for democracy can enable radical Muslims groups to latch on to national protests in order to take over for itself. What should the U.S. do, give no help to a corrupt regime or help the people overthrow it and have elections which the well-financed and well-organized radical Muslims may win?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, April 21, 2010.

Every Holocaust Remembrance Day and every Independence Day the public and the world Jewish community is subjected to a soft barrage of messages. The central thread in them is that the Holocaust is not a unique event, that Jews are exploiting their genocide in some way and that the Palestinian Nakba ("tragedy" of 1948) is somehow linked or equivalent to the Holocaust.

This degradation has at its core a supposedly positive message: The Holocaust was a universal event from which all humanity must learn and the Palestinians can better understand the Jews if they think their Nakba is like the Holocaust and if the Jews also accept this. Last year one of the messengers was Bradford Pilcher who titled his article in the on-line magazine Jewcy: "The Holocaust... not just for the Jews."

Pilcher tells us that the Jews practice "one-upsmanship" by daring to think of the Holocaust as an event that affected them and did not equally affect others such as homosexuals and Roma. He writes, "We shouldn't be drawing up borders between Jewish suffering and others'" because otherwise the Holocaust will reflect merely our "bitterness."

This year the message began on March 23 with the revelation that Hanna Yablonka of Ben-Gurion University and head of the Education Ministry's advisory committee on history studies had claimed "studying details of the Shoah has no educational value" and merely constitutes a "pornography of evil." There is no use in people learning "how Jews were murdered, the stages of the final solution."

The next day she was one-upped by an unnamed senior figure in one of the institutes for Holocaust studies who claimed "there was too much emphasis on the Jewish aspects of the Holocaust." Haaretz writer Anshel Pfeffer followed with an editorial entitled "The Holocaust isn't just about the Jews." Pfeffer asked if "Jews [can] honestly demand to reserve sole usage rights of the Holocaust for political purposes?" The Holocaust "has an immense universal meaning as well."

THE ATTEMPT to de-Judaize the Holocaust is quite shocking, as much as it is tempting and ultimately false. The 2001 BBC/HBO film Conspiracy, starring Kenneth Branagh, depicts the Wannsee conference of 1942 in which the Nazis decided on the final solution. The film follows the transcript kept by leading executioner Adolf Eichmann. In it the word "Jew" is used multiple times per minute in a meeting that lasted 85 minutes. Other groups persecuted by the Nazis are not mentioned, except for a short reference to the euthanasia program used against mental and handicapped patients.

The Wannsee conference participants might be annoyed to think their plans for murdering the world's Jews was not about the Jews, but had some nebulous universal message. Perhaps they would also smile in satisfaction at the thought that the people they attempted to exterminate debate whether the extermination was about them at all.

What is more perplexing is if one considers that it is the Holocaust, alone among the tragedies of the world's peoples, that's bent and degraded into a "universal message." The same well-meaning person who wants the Holocaust to have a broad "human" message is the same one who bows his head in sorrow during Black History Month and sobs crocodile tears for African-American slaves. Does anyone honestly ever claim that slavery in the US is anything but a story about African-Americans, the evils done to them and the lasting affects it has had on the US and blacks?

Does anyone attempt to take the Armenians out of the Armenian genocide, except the Turkish government which denies it? And does the Palestinian's Al-Kuds daily ever have editorials telling its readers that the "details" of the expulsion of the Palestinians is unimportant for educating the youth and that "the Nakba isn't just about the Palestinians"? No. The "Nakba" is about the Palestinians and no one denies that, even if they don't agree with how the Palestinians memorialize it.

Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset, demands that the 1904 genocide of the Herero, an African tribe, be referred to as a "holocaust" much as Robert Fisk of the Independent speaks of an Armenian "holocaust." It seems everyone gets their holocaust except the Jews. Why is it the Jews alone must have one of their central traumas turned into a universal story that applies to everyone?

People accuse Israel and the Jewish people of, in the words of Burg, "expropriating and monopolizing" the Shoah. Pfeffer speaks of a "Zionist reading of the Holocaust that cannot be the only one young Israelis are offered." Muhammad Barakei, who was lauded for recently claiming that Arab schools should teach about the Holocaust, claims there is a "commercialization of Holocaust Remembrance Day and [an] attempt to commercialize it for Zionist purposes."

They have gotten it wrong. The Shoah is not a "Zionist narrative," it is Jewish narrative.

No one expects that other nations should not understand the Holocaust in their own terms. Of course non-Jews should understand it in a universal or personal manner. But why should Jews have it stripped from them at the same time?

No one wags a finger at African-Americans and tells them to stop "monopolizing" slavery. The Pfeffers and Yablonkas could learn from the Palestinians in this respect. They could learn that the details are important and that national tragedies are, well, national and should stay that way.

Seth Frantzman is a PhD researcher at Hebrew University.

This appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, April 21, 2010.


Martin Indyk

Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, castigated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in The New York Times and on Israel's IDF Army Radio, saying the prime minister prefers a nationalist government over being friends with the United States.

"Netanyahu must make a choice: take on the president of the United States, or take on his right wing," Indyk wrote in the Times. If he continues to defer to those ministers in his cabinet who oppose peacemaking, the consequences for U.S.-Israel relations could be dire."  

MK Yaakov Katz

National Union chairman and Knesset Member Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz sharply criticized Indyk, stating that the "Diaspora has succeeded in creating a Jew like Indyk who is prepared to see the destruction of his people on the sacrificial altar of the masters whom he serves."

"We survived Pharaoh, and we will survive Indyk."

MK Katz charged that the former ambassador is "totally disconnected from the U.S. Congressional majority that [acknowledges] Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and has the democratic right to build in all of its neighborhoods."

Indyk had previously called for the de facto recognition of Palestinian Authority sovereignty in Jerusalem, which Israel fears would be the effect of the American demand for a freeze on building for Jews in areas of the capital.

Under the headline "When Your Best Friend Gets Angry," Indyk charged in the Times that "one suspects" that Prime Minister Netanyahu stayed away from U.S. President Barack Obama's recent "nuclear summit" because "he does not have an answer to President Obama's demand that he freeze new building announcements" in united Jerusalem.

Indyk repeated his reasoning on IDF Army Radio Wednesday morning, saying that if Israel needs aid from the United States, it needs "to take into account America's interests" and distance itself from the government's largely nationalist coalition.

In both the article and interview, Indyk tried to link an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, based primarily on demands of the Arab world, with solving the Iranian nuclear threat and the American-led counter terrorist war in what he called the "greater Middle East." He pointed out that the United States has committed 200,000 American troops to fighting terrorism while Prime Minister Netanyahu allegedly ignores American policy that the Arab-Israeli struggle is a problem for American security.

Indyk wrote that Prime Minister Netanyahu's absence from the nuclear summit left President Obama holding the bag to take on the task of trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program that Israel says threatens its very existence. The former ambassador claimed that President Obama succeeded in "persuading China to join in a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran," although he did not refer to China's outright rejection of harsh sanctions, particularly in the energy sector.

"The inability to make progress on the Palestinian [Authority] issue...gives Iran the opportunity to use Hamas and Hizbullah as proxies to provoke conflict with Israel, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seen as the hero," according to Indyk.

The former envoy also reasoned, "Nothing could better help Obama to isolate Iran than for Netanyahu to offer to cede the Golan [Heights]. Given Israel's dependence on the United States to counter the threat from Iran and to prevent its own international isolation, an Israeli prime minister would surely want to bridge the growing divide."

Indyk referred to Israel's refusal to halt building for Jews in parts of Jerusalem that the United States does not recognize as under Israeli sovereignty. He called on Prime Minister Netanyahu to follow the steps of former prime ministers Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, who surrendered the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and a Jewish civilian and military presence in the Gaza region.

According to Indyk, Begin and Sharon acted in order to maintain friendship with the Carter and Bush administrations and Netanyahu should do the same.

He also recalled favorably the famous handshake between former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, orchestrated by Rahm Emanuel, who now is President Obama's White House Chief of Staff. The handshake heralded the Oslo Accords, which were followed by dozens of Arab suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and wounded thousands of others.

The former ambassador also made no reference to the cold peace with Egypt, whose President Hosni Mubarak has refused to visit Jerusalem except for the funeral of Rabin. In his article, Indyk did not mention the thousands of rockets and mortar shells that rained down on Israel following the expulsion of Jews and withdrawal of troops from Gaza, as well as from the smuggling border with Egypt.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, April 20, 2010.

For worldwide distribution, the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) yesterday published a press release that misrepresented the one-sided nature of the UN Human Rights Council's permanent investigative mandate on Israel, currently held by Richard Falk, who happens to be America's leading promoter of 9/11 conspiracy theories. To counter this global legitimization of injustice, UN Watch responded today with the following letter to OHCHR spokesman Kevin Turner.

This below was written by Hillel C. Neuer, Executive Director of United Nations Watch in Geneva.


April 20, 2010

Dear Mr. Turner,

United Nations Watch is an accredited NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC and an active contributor to the discussion on the Human Rights Council.

We write to ask for the correction of a significant error in a UN Media statement published yesterday by the OHCHR, and diffused throughout the UN system, in which you were listed as the contact person. The text stated that Mr. Richard Falk "is mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."

This statement is incorrect. The unchanged mandate as spelled out in Article 4 of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/2 is as follows: "To investigate Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967."

The mandate as you described it would be of universal application to all actors, be they Israeli or Palestinian. The mandate as it is actually is, however, applies only to Israeli actions, with violations presumed in advance. As I am sure you will agree, there is a substantial difference between the two.

Indeed, on 16 June 2008, current mandate-holder Richard Falk acknowledged the one-sided nature of the mandate, saying it was open to challenges regarding "the bias and one-sidedness of the approach taken." He added: "With all due respect, I believe that such complaints have considerable merit." Several states expressed themselves on the matter, however no change was made. The summary is available here.

Likewise, Mr. Falk's predecessor, John Dugard, noted in an August 2005 report that the mandate "does not extend to human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority."

Finally, the one-sided nature of the mandate has been criticized by many democracies, including the European Union, as well as by human rights NGOs. For example, on 11 July 2008, Amnesty International stated that, "The current mandate's focus on limitation to Israeli violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories undercuts both the effectiveness and the credibility of the mandate."

Amnesty noted that the current mandate "fails to take account of the human rights of victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed by parties other than the State of Israel" — i.e., the mandate excludes all violations, including acts of incitement or terrorism, by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian actors.

I know that the UN Secretariat, the OHCHR and the media department are committed to providing accurate information to the media and the larger public, and assume that this was an oversight.

In light of the above, we ask that you issue a correction to the media who received the above release, clarifying the actual mandate, and to make the necessary changes on the relevant UN websites.

I am copying here the office of the Special Rapporteur, as well as several Member State and media representatives.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director
United Nations Watch

You can support UN Watch by contributing here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bob Kunst, April 22, 2010.

Shalom International and Zionist Organization of America spearheaded a Rally of 60 at the White House to protest President Obama's verbal attacks on Israel in advance of their planned summer time Million Mensch March, 6/6/10 in Washington, D.C..

Shalom International was again at the White House on Monday at Noon, on 4/19/10, Israel Independence Day of 62 years and also over 5000 yrs. of age, which is our agenda.

In both days and thousands at the White House, we only hd 3 negatives thrown at us. The rest were supportive.

It has been an enormous week since I last wrote.

Today is our 250th rally/event since Oct. 2007 and we have done 1161 news interviews that has broken the silence, reached millions and is moving the grassroots off their behinds to go on the offensive.

To say that the situation is dire is an understatement.

Last week at our Pembroke Pines Rally, we had 3 rabbis from Century Village among the 15, great support from traffic and one 'zeig heil' from a kid. Moses (lou), with long flowing white beard had a sign: "Let My People Stay" and got everyone's positive attention.

Last week I also spoke at the 'Tea Party' in Ft. Laud., with 1000 there and we also had our table to collect names and get our buttons out, including our new one: "Throw The Bums Out". Had a great reaction to my speech and it was video-taped and will send that out shortly.

I reminded the crowd that Iran had told the U.S. that if it were attacked by Israel, that it would 'nuke' the U.S. and where was Obama and gang on this declaration of war? As usual kicking Jews and Israel, their favorite pasttime.

Then the Jordanian King stated that war with Syria and Hezbollah was 'imminent'. You remember how Bush, in league with Saudi Arabia, forced Israel to stop attacking Hezbollah and got the U.N. to be on the truce line so that heavy weapons would no longer get to Hezbollah.

You can always trust the UN and any agreement from the Arabs, so that now Hezbollah has over 40,000 heavy missiles and Syria just gave even bigger ones from Iran to Hezbollah. To reward Syria, Obama sent an ambassador to 'negotiate' their doing a 'no no'. Yawn! Meanwhile, they keep pushing Israel to give up the Golan to make sure they are even more insecure and defenseless when attacked.

This week, Bill Clinton decide to be an even bigger jerk, as usual, in calling the 'tea party' folks, 'Timothy McVey Wannabees'. McVey,was that Nazi who killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City 15 yrs. ago. Clinton has joined in the attack on anyone who disagrees with Obama, as being a racist, nazi and violent, ad nausem.

The Left thinks only it needs to be fascist and have the only dialogue, meaning they couldn't win a legitimate argument, while attacking all dissent. Sound familiar... as the whole stinking mess since Oslo, two-states, land for peace,etc. has been one-sided and no debate and only they have the answer the rest of us have to swallow. Is there a more insecure and enslaved group out there, posing as the Judenrats they have always been?

This is the same Bill Clinton who had Arrafat over into the White House, now the Muslim House, more times than Monica Lewinsky. Bubba had no problem supporting real terrorism then, while putting down those who disagree with this maniac at Pa. Ave. now.

Not to be outdone in insanity, Def. Sec. Gates says this week, that Obama has no policy regarding Iran and nukes. Duh! Shocked, are we? This phoney Messiah has wasted nearly two years playing this game, of obsession in treating East Jerusalem as a settlement, while the 5 yrs. to a nuke, is down to one year or perhaps in a few weeks, or they may already have it.

Obama is stuck on stupid or just plain evil. Let's vote on it.

On Tuesday, we met with National Parks Police, Secret Service and Metropolitan DC Police to formulate our "Million Mensch March" on 6/6/10 and below is the new statement and agenda as we line up key speakers. Please get it out to everyone and please donate to make it happen, either on paypal or by mail to: "Defend Jerusalem", P.O.Box 402263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140.

Now, one more reality check which is this statement below from a friend in Canada, who gets to the bottom line on the schtetl mentality, which is, without question the biggest problem we always have.

We're taken for granted in all the efforts we are successful at, while the major organizations keep getting the funding to dump on Jerusalem and Israel.

We plead for going on the offense and visibility as key to telling our story for 5000 yrs., and we get only token reaction, while the anti-semites are on the hunt for all of us, starting at the Muslim House on Pa. Ave and spreading again across the planet.

We show we aren't afraid and we are visible and wish to share this experience, except that so many wish to live in fear, hide and blame everyone else but themselves for the mess we are all in and they've helped to create by allowing it in the first place.

It's why Israelis and Jews are expert in everything but telling their own story and doing the necessary propaganda war, that is mostly AWOL. We have been blessed with doing 1161 news interviews that's reached millions, but if the BBC poll they did is right, Israel is liked by only 19% of the global public. If that is true then why do you continue to fund the very organizations that should be telling our story but don't and instead are allowing the Jew-hating to grow?

For those willing to fight back and not go into those gas chambers silently, we are with you. We are you. Why not us getting your support? We are the best of the best and we struggle so hard and pioneer these answers and yet the 'excuses', that would fill a library are used on why not to get involved on any of the levels we offer.

Until you give up this enslavement, the crisis will only get worse as we head into this '2nd Holocaust.'

Yours in Shalom,
Bob Kunst
Pres., Shalom International

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, April 20, 2010.

"Once, there was a time" when I believed in National Geographic and in the British medical Journal The Lancet. I did not think they traded in propaganda, but in science and nature photography. But that was back in the era of the musical Beatles. Now, my views have changed. Reality has forced my hand. National Geographic cannot be trusted about Israel or about Christians in the Arab world. And, The Lancet leaves much to be desired on many subjects.

Some years back, I had an interesting "brush" with The Lancet over the issue of the unfortunately named "Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome" (CFS), also known as "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis" — an illness which The Lancet's man, Dr. Simon Wessely, considers a mere psychiatric disorder, a form of hysteria which cognitive therapy should be able to cure within twelve weeks. I and many others totally disagree with his point of view. In fact, an explosive but still unpublished journalistic account of the "Blood Feud" on this subject is right now in my hands. Written by Mindy Kitei, she documents the "transatlantic battle raging over the role of the newly discovered retrovirus in patients with CFS."

In any event, I had completely forgotten all about this until someone sent me a more recent 2010 piece in The Lancet, "Intimate-Partner Violence in Gaza and the West Bank," in which six researchers claim that they have documented an increase in Palestinian wife-beating — and that it is due to the alleged Israeli occupation. (Unfortunately the full article is available only to subscribers.) Thus, once again, the Israelis — or the Israeli right to defend itself — are to blame. The indigenous practice of wife-beating and the increase in political Islam are not blameworthy.

So, I instantly wrote a piece which challenged the so-called study and sent it to The Lancet; in turn, they suggested that I write a Letter. And so I did. And then I waited and I waited. In the interim, I joked that it may be taking the six researchers (the lead researcher is at Harvard) all this time to rebut the critiques.

Well, it took more than two months — but The Lancet finally published my letter together with other letters and the obligatory, long-awaited authors' response. Here is my letter:

The study by Cari Jo Clark and colleagues is more propaganda than science. For example, Clark and colleagues write: "Occupation policies... affect family connectedness, depriving women of regular contact with their families who might otherwise intervene to prevent intimate-partner violence." On the contrary. Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim families very often do not intervene when a husband is beating a wife. Both the husband's family and the wife's own family view this as a husband's right or as a wife's fault.

The study has many other weaknesses. First, Clark and colleagues focus only on violence among married couples and omit routine violence against daughters and sisters, including honour killings, even though a 2008 study that specifically addressed honour killings among Palestinians was available.2 Second, they established no baseline, and had no control group in terms of intimate-partner violence in the Arab Middle East where there is no Israeli occupation (eg, in Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia). Third, Clark and colleagues do not acknowledge that, in shame and honour societies, surveys and statistics about domestic violence are unreliable since women are punished for reporting it. Fourth, they do not attempt to measure intimate-partner violence in Sderot, Israel, where civilians have endured 8000 rocket attacks from Gaza. Finally, they do not factor in the effect of Gaza being "occupied" by an increasingly fundamentalist Hamas and the fateful consequences for women, which include forced veiling and child arranged marriages.

Thus, the study attempts to blame Israel for the indigenous violence against women that is a feature of Arab and Muslim societies, especially today, when they have been radically fundamentalised.

Is this worth doing? Hell, yes. 'Twould be better if thousands of us did similar things every day. But, is it wise to always be on the defensive, always in the position of responding, not initiating? Hell, no. And that's why Israel should set up a War Room for Propaganda, a massive but coordinated Office to debunk all the Lies and Blood Libels and to systematically keep putting out the truth.

America and Europe have a harder task. Our most distinguished professors and journalists are themselves putting out the Islamist disinformation, are themselves advising our president about the Middle East, the Muslim world, the nature of jihad, and Islam. How do we defeat or at least counterbalance this? Where do we start?

Well, right here of course. And on the Internet. And in parlor meetings, at tea parties, on any air-wave that will have us. Maybe we have to raise the money to have a new global channel that will not accept any Arab oil money. How about that?

Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). This article is available on her website at
www.phyllis-chesler.com/757/ israelis-palestinian-wife-beating

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 20, 2010.


A small group of leftist, apparently active duty Israeli officers, called "Council for Peace and Security," takes part in politics without being punished. For breaching separation of military from civilian activism, right-wingers get punished. On Sunday, Israeli Memorial Day, the Council took out a front page ad in Haaretz, bearing a theme, "If WE behave like a 'partner' — then a 'partner' from the other side will be found."

The fallacy of that slogan typifies what is wrong with Israel. The fallacy is to assume that if Israel is nice to the Arabs, the Arabs will respond with peace-making. The proposition has been disproved many times over the decades.

Recently, Israel left southern Lebanon to Hizbullah and abandoned Gaza to other terrorists. Result: thousands of rockets bombarded Israel. For many Israelis, this demonstrated the failure of appeasement and of the Left that advocates it.

Even more shameful, mere Palestinian Arab rock throwing led Israel to endorse Oslo in 1993, whereby Israel "imported an Islamofascist terrorist army of its sworn enemies into the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem." The Oslo Accords boosted Israeli casualties.

"The military brass was louder than the media in demanding a unilateral unconditional surrender of Israel in Lebanon and relinquishing of the Golan to Syria. Military intelligence has never quite gotten around to the point where it discovers that the PLO is a genocidal terrorist group and that there are no longer any differences between the Hamas and the PLO, if there ever were."

For the Far Left, proof of failure does not change its position. The Far Left simply urges still more appeasement. That Left runs from reality to make-believe and from courage to cowardice, not perceiving the change. When Oslo started, Israeli leaders hugged Palestinian Arabs who murdered many Israelis and continue to hate Jews. Lost are Israeli self-respect, rationality, and determination to survive.

The resemblance of Memorial Day, which commemorates Israel's fallen troops, to Holocaust Memorial Day, is another example of what is wrong with Israel. Israel has lost its perspective. The Holocaust was a hundred times as deadly as all of Israel's wars, together. It is one thing to honor soldier's sacrifice, but another to take it out of proportion, as Israel does during its wars.

During that Lebanon war, Israel was losing perhaps two soldiers a week. Israeli withdrawal enabled Hizbullah to position 40,000 rockets that now pose a strategic danger to Israel. But the Establishment panicked over the low casualties, and exchanged them for the potential of high casualties. [Current news anticipates another Lebanon war by summer.] This is defeatism.

"Here we are, 66 years after the Holocaust, and the country is still gripped with the Grand Oslo Delusion, still trying to 'negotiate'with the Palestinian Nazis instead of achieving total military victory over them, afraid to follow the lead of the Americans in Fallujah and Afghanistan." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/19/10.)

Withdrawal from Lebanon also betrayed Israel's Christian and non-Hizbullah Muslim allies, instead of helping them free Lebanon.


More terrorist attacks, but U.S. troops departing (AP/Maya Alleruzzo)

What happens to Iraq when U.S. forces leave? This question is being asked, particularly by the Sunni minority. Already, Iraqi forces control the streets. By summer, only 50,000 GIs will be left in the country.

Dozens of men in a village west of Baghdad bear welts from beating and electric shock administered by Iraqi troops. The troops interrogated them over an assault that killed five soldiers. "These things can destroy the whole security situation," said Hamid ObaidSahar al-Hamdani, a tribal leader in Radwaniyah. He foresees national collapse.

Now the Sunnis feel themselves caught between a largely Shiite insurgency that still picks on them, and a largely Shiite Iraqi Army that picks on them (Washington Post in IMRA, 4/20/10).

Iran and Syria encourage insurgency.


Bill Clinton (AP/Business Wire)

As the White House considers whether to impose its own plan upon the Arabs and Israel, former President Bill Clinton "strongly" encouraged it to. He said, "We need to do something to deprive both sides of any excuse not to engage in serious negotiations." Clinton has talked this over with the President, Chief of Staff, and Secretary of State (Wall St. J., 4/19/10, A8).

Bill Clinton put it as if he were even-handed. Experience shows that U.S. officials are even-handed when criticizing the Arabs, as if Israel merits the same criticism. It usually does not. Certainly Israel does not in this issue. Israel has agreed to negotiations unconditionally. The Arabs refuse to negotiate.

The former President shows himself biased in favor of the Arabs. Shouldn't he be more reticent, inasmuch as the Arabs have been paying him a fortune for brief lectures and have been contributing mightily to his library, while complaining that Gaza Arabs are suffering financially. The Arab largesse seems like a payoff. Clinton seems more like a paid agent of the Arabs working in collusion with an anti-Israel White House. One can imagine what kind of pact such a White House would try to impose. Real peace would require an honest broker.

But even an honest broker cannot make fanatical jihadists keep the peace, regardless of what they sign.


Bombed Isabela City in Basilan province (A.P./ Al Jacinto)

The Philippines have a problem similar to Yemen's. Both countries have two rebellions at the same time. This strains the military.

The Philippines suffer from both a Maoist rebellion and a jihadist rebellion. As elections approach, the government is cracking down on the Maoists. Civil rights groups contend that the government and the militias it armed are arresting and abusing innocent people in the name of repressing the Maoist rebellion. The rebellion has only a fraction of the gunmen formerly (James Hookway, Wall St. J., 4/19, p.16).

It is difficult to tell from the report whether the NGO complaints are valid or, as in Israel, are a cover for improper behavior that the government properly tries to halt.


Abetted by the U.S. ambassador, some rather leftist Congressional staffers met with Honduran Cabinet Members and tried to press them on domestic matters. The ambassador still is reacting resentfully against Honduras for having prevented a Chavez-like coup and expelling a would-be caudillo after he had been instituting repressive measures against opponents, and then standing up to Obama's pressure to restore the ally of Chavez to power (Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Wall St. J., 4/19, A17).

What does Obama and his radical allies among Democrats in Congress have against pro-American democrats and in favor of anti-American dictators?


One of the far-Left, anti-Israel propaganda NGOs financed by the New Israel Fund is B'Tselem. The head of B'Tselem's information department, Lizi Sagie, claims that Israel is devoted to Nazi values. What doe she suggest?

Lizi Sagie suggests making peace by destroying Israel and by Jewish women forbearing from child bearing, to prevent their babies from becoming soldiers.

B'Tselem was a source of data used by the Goldstone mission in accusing Israel of war crimes (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/19).

Sounds as if she has Nazi values. This is typical of the political NGOs subsidized by New Israel Fund.

Judge Goldstone's mission was not very careful from whom he gathered information, or was this deliberate? New Israel Fund is not very discriminating about whom it subsidizes, or is it?

Do contributors to NIF who think they are helping Israel know how virulently anti-Israel are the main organizations NIF subsidizes? (For more on NIF, click here.)


The Obama administration has make a mild statement that Syria should stop arming Hizbullah, while undermining any sense of determination about it by "engagement with Syria." Syria recently accelerated its arming of Hizbullah with heavy weapons. Syria is more than letting arms through, it is training Hizbullah in their use.

Syria's hurry is to prepare Hizbullah to head off Israeli Army retaliation against Syria through Lebanon when either the U.S. or Israel were to raid Iran's nuclear facilities or Iran decides to pre-empt the raid by having Syria and Lebanon attack Israel first.

Israel had warned Syria that if the surface-to-surface missiles it is providing Hizbullah crosses into Lebanon, Israel would take that as a threat and destroy them. Syria therefore is stockpiling them at the border and training Hizbullah how to use them. It would not take long to distribute them in Lebanon, when Syria and Iran want to.

Syria also is training Hizbullah commando forces to seize part of northern Israel, so Israeli forces advancing on Syria would have to turn back and liberate its own towns (Winston Mideast Analysis and Commentary, 4/19 from DEBKAFile).


More terrorist attacks, but U.S. troops departing (AP/Maya Alleruzzo)
protesters take cover. (AP/Hatem Moussa)

Israeli top brass and the secret service find that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) finances the weekly protests that could turn violent. The Israeli officials are seeking ways to block its funding of riots. One official said that PM Fayyad uses sophisticated financial means to bring in the necessary funds.

PM Fayyad of the P.A. directs the riots. Israeli officials have warned him to stop. Fayyad then sent aides to calm the people down.

There also have been Jewish civilian attacks on Arabs' cars and mosques. That can inflame the Arabs back up (IMRA, 4/19/10). http://www.imra.org.il/

Fayyad is following the advice that North Vietnam had given to Arafat: Fight, talk, fight, talk. Violence stimulates Israeli negotiating concessions.

The Army seems to have adopted the incorrect Arab and State Dept. view that the weekly protests were not violent. Protesters engaged in fire-bombing and stone-throwing. That is violent. It could be more violent, but people got wounded.


Homaidan ali Al-Turki was convicted in Colorado for forced slavery and sexual abuse. Such cases are growing in number.

A Colorado appeals court confirmed the conviction. It found that a particular juror, whom the defense accuses of prejudice, did not express anti-Muslim or anti-Arab sentiment before serving nor did post-trial comments "unequivocally express actual bias against defendant or his religion."

Nevertheless the Saudi government has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief claimed that Al-Turki's conviction resulted from bias. The brief complained that the court failed to question the juror about bias and refused to allow other to. Further, "In light of the prevalence of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment in the United States, this case was one in which there was a 'significant likelihood' that racial, ethnic, and/or religious bias might taint jury deliberations and impair the jurors' ability to be fair and impartial."

The brief showed no evidence for its allegation of widespread American bias against Muslims and no relevance to this particular case. The Supreme Court let the State ruling stand.

It is odd of Saudi Arabia to discuss discrimination in the U.S., when Saudi Arabia is a theocracy that treats non-Muslims and women as second-class citizens. The Department of State's 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices elaborates. Saudi judges may disregard testimony of Shiites, non-Muslims, non-practicing Sunnis. Women's testimony is deemed worth only half that of men. (Aaron Eitan Meyer, http://www.islamist-watch.org/)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 20, 2010.

Last night it was fireworks, as well as various ceremonies and celebrations. Today there were impressive jet formations overhead. Oh, and we cannot forget the barbecues (mangal). This is traditional for Independence Day. Every park is full.


I want to remind people about the NYC rally this Sunday, April 25, at 1:00, in front of the Israeli Consulate, 2nd Avenue between 42nd and 43rd Streets.

What I failed to mention last time (with apologizes) is that the chief organizer is Beth Galinsky, Jewish Action Alliance.

Wonderful if you can attend, but also very important is getting your various organizations to officially sign on or send a contingent of support. The silence of many of the establishment Jewish organizations is deafening. It's time for all those who care to ask what is going on and make as much noise as possible.


Then I wanted to mention another event of significance:

The European Coalition for Israel (ECI), in conjunction with the Canadian Supporters for Israel's Legal Rights (CASILER), is going to be commemorating the 90th anniversary of the signing of the San Remo Resolution, on April 24th and 25th. (Yes, the 24th is Shabbat, and Shabbat arrangements are being made for observant participants.) This event will be held in San Remo, Italy, on the site of the original Conference.

Most of you have never heard of this, I have no doubt. It is an historical event of importance that has slipped through the cracks of Jewish awareness. What I speak about regularly is the Mandate for Palestine of 1922, in which the League of Nations conferred upon Britain responsibility for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The San Remo Resolution set the ground legally for the Mandate. Its proceedings solidify Jewish rights to all of the land between the River and the Sea.

Information on this wasn't available soon enough to alert people who might consider attending. I think the idea blossomed relatively spontaneously. A second event may follow next year, with a great deal more lead time in announcement. In any event, as to the proceedings and issues involved, you will be hearing more from me.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, April 19, 2010.

Is Obama choreographing Israel's demise or are he and Netanyahu playing an intricate and well-concealed game of good-cop/bad-cop with the anti-Israel world?

1.) Obama intentionally turns a minor and irrelevant bureaucratic mis-step (the 1600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo announced during Biden's visit) into a major international crisis. For a good summary and critique, see: Nevet Basker, Myths and Misperceptions: the facts behind the controversy surrounding the new construction in Jerusalem, 3.23.2010,
http://www.standwithus.com/app/inews/ view_n.asp?ID=1371

2.) Obama's employees (Secretary of State, Veep, other cabinet members and advisors) turn on Netanyahu ferociously in public.

3.) Mainstream media mis-represent Petreaus regarding the effect of Israel's construction in Jerusalem on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and do not recant until New York Times 4/14/2010
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/ world/middleeast/15mideast.html?ref=world)

4.) Obama's manufacturing this crisis hardens the PA's political stance and gives Abbas an excuse to boycott Netanyahu's offers of negotiations (for analysis see: Alan Dershowitz, Obama's Victim: the Peace Process, Front Page Magazine, 4.5.2010,
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/05/obamas-victim-the- peace-process/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_ campaign=d0e8a0cd02-RSS_ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email)

5.) Then we discover by accident (not from mainstream media) that Obama has indirectly told Arab leaders to heighten violence against Israel
(http://www.worldnet daily.com/ index.php? pageId= 134569,3.31.2010, Aaron Klein, Obama encouraged Palestinian 'resistance'). So we see violence targeting Jews aimed at pressuring Israel into splitting Israel's capital.

6.) Suddenly we have a resurgence of violence all over Israel with Arab-Israeli citizens stoning and firebombing Israeli cars in the Galilee, Jerusalem, and the Negev; and suddenly even Israel's holy sites cannot be repaired or rebuilt without arousing violent and potentially lethal Arab rage. (re the Hurvah synagogue reconstruction, YNet News 3/15/2010,
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/ CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3863184,00.html)

7.) And just as suddenly we have renewed terror attacks in the west bank too (update — 21:14 01/04/2010, Shin Bet: Terror-related attacks on the rise in March, Ha'aretz,

8.) And suddenly we have a resurgence of Bedouin usurpation of Israeli land, and Bedouin violence against Israelis (Caroline Glick's, Israel's unwavering Guardsmen, Jerusalem Post, 3.26.2010.

9.) And suddenly we have renewed violence from Hamas with qassam attacks ("Gaza terrorists pound southern Israel with mortars," Israel
Today, 4/7/2010.

10.) And some of Obama's vacationing bureaucrats unofficially and illegally, but openly, initiate talks with Hezbollah and Hamas.

11.) Meanwhile, Obama renews overtures to Syria by re-instating the US ambassador to Damascus, even as Syria re-declares its loyalty to Iran and openly supplies missiles to Hezbollah.

12.) And even king Abdullah 2 of Jordan starts to jump on the newly legitimized anti-Israel international bandwagon when suddenly he announces that he regrets his father's making peace with Israel, says Israel is the core problem, says that Israel must do what Obama says; even as we learn that 20% of his country's GDP is propelled by the very successful industrial development cooperatives established between Jordan and Israel 15 years ago as an outgrowth of King Hussein's 1994 peace with Israel ("Business with Israel pays off in Jordan," AP, 4/13/2010, in Israel Today,
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid= 178&nid=20857; but cf. Glick's interpretation of Abdullah's words as his "rooting for the Jewish state" in "Israel, the Strong Horse," World Net Daily,

13.) Obama makes it clear that he has no intention of stopping Iran's quest for WMD capacity. But he does seem hell-bent on ending Israel's WMD capacities.

14.) And just to make sure that Iran gets the message, he declares that the USA will never use nuclear force if attacked by non-nuclear means. So now it's ok to attack us with biological or chemical WMDs, and the attacker can rest assured that we will not hit back with nuclear WMDs...but rather with conventional forces which run the risk of being every bit as inept and unsuccessful as our conventional forces have been at times in Iraq and Mogadishu and Afghanistan, and against the Taliban and against el-Qaeda. So now Iran can attack us and not worry, as long as they don't use WMDs. It's beginning to look like Obama wants Iran to have the bomb (Wall St. Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023038 28304575180174254392294.html?mg=com-wsj, REVIEW & OUTLOOK. Iran, Israel and the Bomb: Sorting the real, from the phony, nuclear proliferation threats" APRIL 13, 2010; and cf. also Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor, "US Allows Iran its nuclear vision," The Australian, 4/3/2010 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/us-allows- iran-its-nuclear-vision/story-e6frg6zo-1225849035756)

15.) And just to make sure that the jihadist world gets the message...he bans the use of the terms "jihad" and "Islamism" in the State Department

16.) And now, as perhaps an unintended consequence, Taliban forces for the first time have attacked the US Consulate in Pakistan. Old Arab proverb: when the cow stumbles, the knives come out.

17.) Meanwhile, Obama ignores the obviously provocative timing of the PA's naming a Ramallah square after a major mass murderer Arab terrorist on same day that Israel released the announcement about Ramat Shlomo.

Obama is silent about the PA's naming a street in Ramallah after another major Arab mass murderer.

Obama seems to find no cause for criticism of the PA's corruption and mis-use of American and other funds, as exposed by a Palestinian Authority female official (Maayana Miskin, "$12 Billion to PA Had No Economic Impact; Where Did it Go?"
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/ 136772)

Nor does he seem to have any problem with the umpteenth time that the Palestinian leadership simply folds its arms in defiance and declares its refusal to negotiate. ((Palestinian Leaders Do It Again! Throw Away Opportunity Obama is Giving Them and Poke Him in the Eye, 4/12/2010, Barry Rubin, Rubin Reports)

All of the above, and the increases in terror attacks and Syrian rejection and Iranian insults....all go unnoted and without response; as though they were not an impediment to peace; as though Syria were not the cause of hundreds of USA soldiers' deaths in Iraq, as though Iran were not a major destabilizing force in the Middle East.

What do we conclude? I see two possibilities:

A.) Obama is engaged in an incredibly sly and intricately choreographed sub-rosa strategy of "good cop — bad cop" with Netanyahu. All of the pressure is planned and agreed upon in advance. Netanyahu will, at the right time, succumb to the pressure and Obama will declare victory. He will then turn to the Arab states and the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah and say: "see...I have brought Israel to its knees...right where you want it. Now it is your turn. Now that I have delivered Israel, you must make peace!" So at this mini-armageddon juncture, there are two possibilities. If, succumbing to Obama's pressure, the Arab states and terror entities agree to sit down at the negotiating table and work out a viable peace agreement with Israel, then Israel and Obama and the Arab sides and the Palestinians have won. But if the Arab states and terrorist entities refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist in the Middle East as a Jewish state, refuse to end the terrorism and incitement, refuse to make peace.... Then Obama can say: "OK, you had your chance. I did everything you wanted but you are still obdurate in your terrorism and war and violence and rhetoric of annihilation and diatribe of destruction and genocide.....so now it is time for the USA to do what it takes to stop you guys from acquiring WMDs and genociding Jews." Then Israel and the USA and the West win, and the Arab states and Arab terrorists and Palestinians all lose.......big time.


B.) Obama is the Manchurian candidate and really does want Israel to be destroyed; or, at least, as did Kissinger in his day, he wants Israel to be bloodied and bowed so it will be more congenial toward USA demands and more vulnerable to American pressures. In this scenario, Israel will become a USA pawn, a vehicle for advancing USA strategies and political goals in the Middle East, including prodding Abdullah ibn Saud to lower the price of oil, put the kaybosh on the OPEC idea that the oil market will switch from US Dollars to Euros, and stop funding global terrorism. In this scenario Obama really does want Iran to become a nuclear power, or at least he wants to rid the world of Israel as a nuclear power. In this scenario, by pressuring, intimidating, and blackmailing Netanyahu, Obama forces Israel to do and to be exactly what he needs: either a reluctantly compliant junior partner in Obama's ideologically driven vision of peace in the Middle East by abetting an Arab victory; or a scape-goat upon whom to blame it all if his push for peace at Israel's expense fails.

It is important to recall that Obama desperately needs a victory now. His foreign policy actions toward North Korea, Iran, Russia, China and Venezuela have all failed miserably. Those failures have strengthened our enemies and alienated our friends and allies all over the world. Even his victory in the health care legislation is pyrrhic at best. Much of the rank and file in the USA are up in arms about the way in which the legislation was pushed through and the unknown problems that lurk in the 1200 pages of Obama's bill which, in all likelihood, no congressperson has read. These international failures and the domestic de facto failure of his health care bill may lead to a Democratic Party upset in congress in November. Only a major victory, like peace in the Middle East, or, failing that, some sort of major Arab declaration of alliance with the USA after Israel is framed as the recalcitrant and obdurate antagonist, can provide him with the stature he needs to earn the support of the American electorate for Democratic candidates in the next election.

Naturally, I'm hoping for option A....but as my feisty paternal old grandmother of blessed memory used to say: "hope is not a contraceptive!!"

To contact the President,

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 Steven Plaut, April 19, 2010.

In some ways it is a depressing period in Jewish history. The American Jewish Diaspora community, or at least the non-Orthodox bulk therein, is in the process of committing cultural/national/religious suicide. Most American Jews are indifferent to their Jewishness; intermarriage is close to and may be above 50 percent; and the dominant "religion" of the American non-Orthodox Jews is the pseudo-religion of Liberalism-as-Judaism, its chief tenet being that Judaism is nothing more nor less than the political agenda of American Liberals. The Reform movement, the Deconstructionist Reconstructionists and many Conservatives (as in Conservative synagogues) are simply religious liberals, with political liberalism as their dogma.

The "defense" organizations, American Jewish Congress, Bnai Brith, et al, are also largely devoted to the practice of political liberalism as pseudo-religion.

And then we have the chattering classes in Israel — the media and intelligentsia and literati — devoted to seeing Israel weakened and dismembered through the Oslo process of national suicide.

In these days of frustration, I think there is one idea that we should bear in mind. And that is that the Zionist movement has many fantastic accomplishments under its belt, one of the most important of which is that Zionism forced a major change in the nature and expression of anti-Semitism.

Not that anti-Semites are really any different when they hide behind the mask of anti-Zionism. These are the same gutter bigots, the same people who refuse to acknowledge that Jews are humans, that Jews are entitled to rights and equality. But they have been forced to express their bigotry differently.

This should be obvious any time you observe the campus anti-Semites of the Left, the Arab fascists and the self-hating leftist Jewish Uncle Toms demonstrating against Israel.

For centuries, the slogans of the anti-Semites were that Jews were racially inferior, intellectually inferior, cowards, money-grubbers, killers of God, sub-humans. But observe the main slogan of anti-Semites today: The Jews are mean. They are mean to the poor Palestinians.

Ooooh, soooo mean.

What a marvelous transformation! The main calumny thrown at the Jews is that they are bullies, meanies. What greater accomplishment of Zionism could be imagined?

Of course, this does not mean that the anti-Semites really think that the Jews are mean or cruel to the "poor" Palestinians. The anti-Zionists do not give a damn about the Palestinians, and the last thing they care about is Arab human rights. This is why they have absolutely nothing to say about the treatment of Arabs in Arab countries or by the Hamas' Gestapo.

When Saddam Hussein ordered Kuwaiti civilians to be forced to drink gasoline and then had his troops shoot into their bellies to make them explode (to the cheers and laughs of his stormtroopers) there was not a single anti-Zionist who expressed disapproval or concern. The anti-Zionists know perfectly well that Arabs are treated a thousand times better in Israel (and this would be so even if one were to believe all their accusations and allegations of mistreatment) than are Arabs in Arab countries.

The anti-Semites lament supposed Israeli mistreatment of the "poor" Palestinians because they think this is an effective way to delegitimize and undermine the existence of Israel. In other words, they are motivated by hatred of Jews and not by any compassion for Palestinians. They seek to see Israel destroyed, not the Palestinians enfranchised, or rather their only interest in Palestinian enfranchisement is as a tool to endanger Israel's existence. Of the enormous Arab territories of the

Middle East, almost twice the land mass of the United States, the only place where they suddenly are concerned for the welfare and civil rights of Arabs is in Israel. The other Arabs, as far as they're concerned, can go to hell. And if they can accuse Israel of violating Arab civil rights (never mind that their accusations are false and invented) then they can pretend to be compassionate and interested in peace, not gutter bigots who hate Jews.

The anti-Semites have lost their ability to march about and accuse the Jews of ritual murders and similar medieval libels (at least outside the Arab media and Counterpunch magazine). Such things would make them laughable in the West. No one outside the Arab world takes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as anything other than an embarrassment for anti-Zionists. Hence they have seized onto a new propaganda tactic, complaining that the Jews are oh, so mean and cruel — and bullies to boot.

At long last — after two millennia of exile — to be accused of being bullies! To leave the anti-Semites with no more effective weapon than heaping invective upon the mean Jews!

For this one must say a blessing of thanksgiving, a shecheyanu. And often.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by TERESINKA PEREIRA, April 19, 2010.

Of course we have to live

with the other egos

openly, confessing

in every corner

the impotency of our dreams.

Then we have to share


the out of step planet,

the earthquakes in love

and the few minutes of lucidity

and tenderness.

Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Asher Eder, April 19, 2010.

A Reminder in these difficult times


Throughout the centuries, historians, philosophers and anthropologists have struggled with the notion called Israel more than with nearly any other topic. While attempting to place Israel within the confines of conventional history, they experienced constant academic and philosophical frustration. Any definitions they suggested eventually broke down due to serious inconsistencies. Was Israel a nation, a religion or an altogether mysterious entity which would forever remain unexplainable? By some it was seen less as a nation and more as a religion; others believed the reverse to be true. And there were those who claimed that it could not fit into either of these categories.

It was clear to everyone, though, that "Israel" did not fit into any specific definition or known scheme. It resisted all historical concepts and generalities. Its uniqueness thwarted people's natural desire for an explanation, since explanation generally implies arrangement in categories. Anything that flies in the face of such an attempt is alarming and terribly disturbing. This fact became even more obvious once Titus the Roman forced the Jews out of their country, and specifically after the collapse of the Bar Kochba rebellion. It was at that moment that the Jew was hurled into the abyss of the nations of the world. Since then, the Jew has been confronted with a new condition: ongoing insecurity. While mankind has always faced moments of insecurity, it is the Jews who have been denied even the smallest share of the dubious security that others possess. Whether Jews were aware of it or not, they always lived on ground that could, at any moment, give way beneath their feet.

In 1948 Israel once again became a country. But many forgot that while it became a country once more, it was not only a country. All the other dimensions, such as nationhood, religion, mystery, the lack of definition and insecurity continued to exist. Today, the people of Israel do not find themselves exclusively in the land of Israel, and instead of one Israel the world now has two. But the second new Israel has until now been seen as responding to the demands of history, geography, politics and journalism. One knows where it is. At least one thinks that one knows where it is. But it becomes clearer and clearer that this new and definable Israel is now seriously on the way to becoming as much a puzzle and mysterious entity as the old Israel always was. In fact, it already is.

Throughout its short history, the State of Israel has gone through the most mysterious events modern man has ever seen. After an exile of nearly two thousand years, during which the old Israel was able to survive in contradiction to all historical criteria, it returned to its homeland. There it found itself surrounded by a massive Arab population that was and is incapable of making peace with the idea that this small mysterious nation lives among them. After having experienced a Holocaust in which it lost six million of its members, it was not permitted to live a life of tranquility on its tiny piece of land. Once again, the Jew was denied the right to feel at home in his own country. From the outset Israel was forced to fight its enemies on all fronts. It was attacked and condemned for defending its population and fighting for its very existence.

Over the years it had to endure the international community's policy of double standards. Today, as in the past, when it calls for peace it is condemned for creating war. When it tries as no other nation to avoid hurting the citizens of the countries that declared war on it, it is told that it is more brutal than nations that committed and still commit atrocities against millions of people. Simultaneously and against all logic, this nation builds its country as no other has done, while fighting war after war. What took other nations hundreds of years it accomplished in only a few. While bombs and katyushas attack its cities, and calls for its total destruction are heard in many parts of the world, it continues to increase its population, generate unprecedented technology and create a stronger and more stable economy. But the more it succeeds, the more its enemies become frustrated and irritated, and the more dubious Israel's security becomes. The more some nations aspire to destroy it, the more the world is forced to deal with this small people and its survival capacity. By now its news occupies more space in major newspapers than any other political issue or general topic — as if to say that its dubious security and irritating population are at the center of world history.

Jews must ask themselves what this non-classification really signifies. Is it due merely to lack of vision and insight on the part of the nations? Is it that Jews could really fit into a system but the nations have not yet allowed them entry? Is it a negative phenomenon? A temporary one, until it will rectify itself in the future?

We have only one way to comprehend the positive meaning of this otherwise negative phenomenon — the way of faith. From any other viewpoint, the inability of Jews to fit into any category would be intolerable and a meaningless absurdity. What we need to understand is that the Jews' inability to fit into any category is the foundation and meaning of their living avowal of Israel's uniqueness. Israel's very existence is the manifestation of divine intervention in history to which Israel must attest. In Israel, history and revelation are one. Only in Israel do they coincide. While other nations exist as nations, the people of Israel exist as a reminder of God's involvement in world history. Only in Israel is humanity touched by the divine.

The realization of this fact has become modern Israel's great challenge. Its repeated attempts to overcome its geographic and political insecurity by employing world politics will not work. Driven by its desire to overcome its insecurity, it wavers from geography to nationhood, appealing to its history and religious culture while unable to find a place that it can call its existential habitat.

Reading Israel's prophets, we see how they warned against such false notions of security. They predicted that Israel would perish if it would insist on existing only as a political structure. Yet it can survive — and this is the paradox of the reality of Israel — as long as it insists on its vocation of uniqueness.

Israel was summoned to remind the world of God's existence, not only concerning religion but as a historical reality. There is no security for Israel unless it is secure in its own destiny. It must assume the burden of its own uniqueness which is nothing other than to assume its role as God's witness. And it must draw strength from this phenomenon, especially in times such as ours when Israel's very existence is again at stake. Once it recognizes its uniqueness, it will — paradoxically — enjoy security and undoubtedly be victorious.

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, April 19, 2010.

The turn-around in US foreign policy with regard to Israel is an indicator of changing mind-set in the American administration. Ever since the assumption of the US Presidency by Barack Hussein Obama, there has been a significant shift in the US attitude towards Israel. Like FDR's New Deal that sought to rescue the American economy from disaster, the Obama administration is likewise trying to affect a "new deal" as far as American foreign policy is concerned — but at the point of sacrificing humanity itself.

Of late, America seems to have realized that having close ties with the Arab/Islamic world is more important than keeping in with the Jewish State and that, in the long run, is likely to pay more dividends to meet America's future economic and strategic needs. One reason for this "pragmatic" shift in policy is that of a growing immigrant Muslim electorate in America itself, which American politicians (either Republican or Democrat) can't afford to ignore. Besides, there are many Islamic organizations in the U.S. The largest of these groups is the American Society of Muslims (ASM), the successor organization to the Nation of Islam, once better-known as the Black Muslims. The American Society of Muslims accepts the leadership of Warith Deen Mohammed. This group evolved from the Black separatist Nation of Islam (1930-1975). This has been a twenty-three year process of religious reorientation and organizational decentralization, in the course of which the group was known by other names, such as the American Muslim Mission. The number of members in the organization is between 2-3 million.

Apart from catering to the wishes of this growing vote-bank, there has also been a feeling in some quarters that the events of 9/11 were perhaps the outcome of America's close ties with Israel that has long been the cause of widespread resentment among Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere. America's consistent support to Israel in the long-drawn Israeli-Palestinian conflict was seen as counterproductive to the former's national interests, and this argument has been exploited not only by Muslim lobbyists but also by right-wing Anti-Semite groups who highlight the case of Jonathan Pollard as an Instance of "Jewish" perfidy. The latter advocate a "clean hands" approach by severing all ties with Israel.

The international situation has also not been up to America's expectations. Caught in the cross-fire between Iraq on one hand and Afghanistan on the other and America's NATO partners less and less willing to contribute human and material resources (that has of late triggered a political crisis in the Netherlands), the latter is trying desperately to secure the support of regional powers (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) by cozying up to them. Then there is also the question of the newly emerging countries with vibrant economies like India, China, Brazil and South Africa, who have not only gathered rich economic harvests by continuously upgrading their human and material resources, but are also trying to acquire "sensitive", yet cost-effective and sophisticated technology by collaborating with Israel, that is not particularly to the US's liking. The acquisition of the Israeli Phalcon radar by both India and China is a case in point. This new challenge has not gone down well with the Americans who use one ploy or the other to keep its trading "partners" in leash. Thus in order to demonstrate that America has alternatives other than Israel in West Asia, and to keep the oil flowing in order to keep the American economy afloat, Obama made the historic Cairo Speech at the University of Cairo on June 5, 2009 speaking of "coexistence and cooperation" between Islam and the West (read the United States), and thereby sought a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims."

Recently, he has been in the news calling upon Israel to stop building settlements in East Jerusalem (as if Israel is building settlements in New York!). Coming as it does in the heels of the Goldstone Report, the Obamasque stance of trying to restrain Israel to refrain from housing its own citizens in a land that is rightfully theirs is a damning indictment. Hereupon, Joe Biden had to be rushed to Israel with a reprimand for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This attitude shows how low have the mighty fallen. The United States has radically departed from its position of statesmanship to that of petty politicking that augers ill for the free world. It is an appeasement of one form or the other. A little noise here and there calling for "tighter sanctions against Iran" and threatening countries like India for collaborating with Iran on the pipeline issue is going to do no good other than encouraging enemies and alienating friends.

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, April 19, 2010.

This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh, columnist for the Jerusalem Post. It is archived at


Were it not for Israel's presence between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Fatah and Hamas would most likely be dispatching suicide bombers and rockets at each other.

And they would perhaps still be throwing each other's supporters from the fifteenth and sixteenth floors of tall buildings had not Israel, in the summer of 2007, helped Fatah members and their families run away from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

This is not a conflict over which side will bring democracy and good government to the Palestinians so much as it is a power struggle over money and power.

The fight between Hamas and Fatah is not a power struggle between good guys and bad guys: it is a rivalry between bad guys and bad guys.

Fatah leaders hate Hamas to a point where they are even prepared to ally themselves with the "Israeli enemy" to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Hamas government. During Israel's last massive military operation in the Gaza Strip over a year ago, Fatah officials provided Israel with valuable intelligence that resulted in the killing of many Hamas operatives.

A state is not something that Palestinians should expect Binyamin Netanyahu or Ehud Olmert or Shimon Peres to give them on a silver platter. A state is something that the people earn by standing united and establishing good government and proper institutions and infrastructure, as well as democracy and a strong economy.

The only way to make progress towards peace is by insisting that the Palestinians first get their act together.

What is the point in signing any agreement with Mahmoud Abbas or Salam Fayyad when we all know that the two men have no control over the Gaza Strip?

And who said that Abbas or Fayyad, who are regarded by a large number of Palestinians as "puppets" in the hands of the Israelis and Americans, would ever be able to sell a peace deal with Israel to a majority of Arabs and Muslims?

While Fatah has been seeking the help of the Israelis, Americans and Europeans to get rid of Hamas, the Islamic movement continues to rely on Iran, Syria and Qatar to undermine and discredit its rivals in the West Bank.

The power struggle began almost immediately after Hamas came to power in January 2006. Backed by the US and some European countries, Fatah, which never came to terms with its humiliating defeat in the election, set as its main goal the task of overthrowing Hamas.

Instead of drawing the conclusions from its defeat and putting its house in order, Fatah chose to do its utmost to return to power by any means. Attempts at that time to topple the Hamas regime backfired and triggered a mini civil war that resulted in the entire collapse of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip.

When the war ended without the removal of Hamas from power, a number of senior Fatah officials expressed disappointment that Israel had not "finished the job."

The biggest mistake the Americans and Europeans made back then was to allow Hamas to participate in the election unconditionally. Hamas should have been told that if it wished to contest the vote, it must accept three conditions: renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and honor all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel.

The international community finally did wake up and present Hamas with these three conditions. But then it was too late because the Islamic movement had already won in a free and democratic election that was even supervised by former US President Jimmy Carter.

Now, the two rival Palestinian parties, which have been at war with one another since the former US Administration and many European governments drove the Palestinians into a parliamentary election in 2006, seem determined to pursue the fight to the last Palestinian.

This dirty civil war has thus far claimed the lives of nearly 2,000 Palestinians, most of them innocent civilians, while thousands of others have been injured.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas is reported to have killed or imprisoned many Fatah loyalists over the past three years. Human rights organizations recently expressed concern over the Hamas government's intention to start executing "collaborators" — many of whom are believed to be Fatah men.

In the West Bank, hundreds of Hamas members and supporters are being held in Fatah-run prisons without trial. Dozens of Hamas-affiliated charities and educational institutions have been closed. Thousands of civil servants suspected of being Hamas supporters have been fired by the Palestinian Authority government.

In this war, Hamas and Fatah have been using various "weapons." This war is taking place not only on the ground, but also in the media. The two sides have established countless Web sites that are almost entirely dedicated to attacking one another.

It is hard to see how the "peace process" could ever move forward when the Palestinians are too busy fighting each other. The gap between the two Palestinian entities is so wide that they could not even reach agreement on weekend holidays. And last week hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were left in the dark for a few days because the government in the West Bank did not pay the bill for fuel that keeps the local electricity company operating.

The Hamas-Fatah dispute is an internal Palestinian affair that should be solved by the Palestinians and not the Saudis, Egyptians, Israelis or Americans.

Outside meddling in Palestinians affairs will only exacerbate the crisis.

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 Yuval Zaliouf, April 19, 2010.

Dear friends,

Finally, a senior member of the Israeli government, PM Netanyahu's deputy and member of the inner cabinet, is asking the obvious question. The question I have repeatedly asked in my bulletins to you.

Here is the pivotal article:
(http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=173302). I hope it reached President Obama, if he is willing to listen to anybody but himself.

I wish all of you, even those who are Israel's enemies,

a WONDERFUL day of celebration for Israel's independence.

After all, even Israel's worst enemies enjoy daily all the incredible achievements and inventions that flow out of Israel.

Your Truth Provider,


This was written by Jonathan Toban and entitled: "Why No Jews in a Palestinian State?" It appeared April 16, 2010 in Commentary Magazine.


One of the orthodoxies of Middle East peace advocacy is that Jewish settlements in the West Bank (which by now has come to include Jewish neighborhoods in the city of Jerusalem) are a terrible obstacle to peace. You see, so long as Jews are building homes in these places, the Palestinians and their supporters can't believe in peace. So those who claim to be peace advocates insist that the number of houses and Jews in these towns and villages must be absolutely frozen as prerequisite for peace. And we are assured that, once a peace agreement is signed, this will mean without doubt that all of these settlements, including every single house and every single Jew living in the houses, must be removed. That is, we are assured, the definition of peace for Palestinians.

But a member of Israel's Cabinet has now asked a very pertinent question. Moshe Ya'alon, a former Israel Defense Forces general who now serves as Benjamin Netanyahu's strategic affairs minister, posed the following query in an interview published in the Jerusalem Post: "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews? Why do those areas have to be Judenrein? Don't Arabs live here, in the Negev and the Galilee? Why isn't that part of our public discussion? Why doesn't that scream to the heavens?" Ya'alon believes that previous withdrawals, such as the evacuation from Gaza, only encouraged Hamas and Hezbollah to raise the ante in terms of violence.

These are excellent questions. If what Israel is being asked to negotiate with the Palestinians is mutual recognition and legitimacy in the context of a cessation of violence, why can't Jews stay in the areas designated as part of a Palestinian state, just as Arabs live in Israel with full rights as citizens? Indeed, what kind of a crazy peace would create a state alongside Israel in which Jews are forbidden to live and where Arabs face the death sentence for selling property to Jews, as is currently the case in both Jordan and the Palestinian Authority?

Critics of the settlements might answer that the settlers are too extreme and too violent to be allowed to stay behind because some might attempt to sabotage the peace. Others might also point out that without the protection of the IDF, no Jew surrounded by hostile Arabs would be safe. As to the charge that violent settlers would seek to destroy the peace, that might be true of a small minority, but the overwhelming majority of settlers are law-abiding. But the fact that some Israeli Arabs were hostile to Jews didn't mean that all Arabs couldn't live in Israel. If there was a commitment to peaceful coexistence from a Palestinian government, there's no reason why most of the Jews living in outlying settlements on land closely associated with Jewish history and faith couldn't stay on. As for the threat to the safety of Jews remaining in a putative state of Palestine, that's a different question that goes to the heart of the problem.

The reason why Palestinians insist that all Jews must leave their future state is because they do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel or the Jewish presence anywhere in the land. And Palestinian political culture is so steeped in violence and hatred of Jews and Israel that it is literally impossible to believe that Jews, even if they behaved like Quakers, could live in a Palestinian state.

Moreover, Ya'alon's point about the example of Gaza is telling. Removing every Jew from Gaza didn't satisfy the Palestinians there. Not only did the Palestinians burn the synagogue buildings and the tomato greenhouses left behind by the Israelis for them to use, they immediately began to use that land for launching terrorist missile attacks inside of Israel. So long as the Arabs still view the conflict as zero-sum game in which the goal is to remove or kill every Jew, territorial withdrawals won't bring peace. If the Palestinian vision of peace — even the vision articulated by so-called moderates like Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas — is predicated on ridding the land of Jews rather than embracing coexistence, then there will be no peace.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, April 19, 2010.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at pauleid@netvision.net.il or list-owner@foundation1.org


Back in February 2005, I proposed on this program a new policy for Israel: "Kill for Peace." "Kill for peace" means (a) kill the leadership of the enemy, and (b) devastate the enemy enough to eliminate his incentive to wage war. In the long run, this will result in fewer Jewish as well as fewer enemy casualties. But the military objective must be nothing short of victory.

1. Israel's three-week military "Operation Cast Lead" in the Gaza stopped short of this objective when Barack Obama became President in January 2009. The following month, Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister, and four months later he endorsed a Palestinian state. Did he understand — did anyone understand — that that endorsement means that Israel had virtually lost the war PLO chief Yasser Arafat started in September 2000? An update of my 2005 report is needed. Again I will cite Ralph Peters Fighting for the Future (1999), adding insights from his sequel Beyond Terror (2002).

2. Peters, a retired American army Intelligence officer, who traveled and studied in dozens of countries, worked in the U.S. Executive office. He is an outstanding military theorist. What he says about U.S. foreign policy failings very much applies to Israel.

3. If there is a single power the U.S. underestimates it's the power of collective hatred. This hatred animates Israel's enemies: the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Neither Americans nor Jews understand the "delicious appeal of hatred." They do not understand "that man is a killer." Peters recalls the genocides and massacres of the twentieth century, not only in Nazi Germany, but also in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Iraq, to name only a few. He sees that at least a minority of human beings "enjoy killing." Although that minority may be small, "it does not take many enthusiastic killers to trigger a genocidal war." Israel's enemies consist of such killers.

4. Peters faults U.S. governments for sending soldiers into conflicts in which the rules imposed on them leave them practically defenseless, or ensure unnecessary casualties. Think of Iraq, but also of Israel's Second War in Lebanon. Peters wisely points out: "current military ethics are the least humane thing about us"! It's a futile and fatal ethics, for despite the extraordinary measures the Israel Defense Forces took to avoid collateral damage in Operation Cast Lead, Israel was condemned by the UN Human Rights Council for war crimes! Yes, and Hamas is rearming.

5. American and Israeli governments play by civilized rules, some encoded in our own laws or in international laws, others in long-established customs. Our enemies don't give a damn about our laws and customs. They use women and children as human shields.

6. Americans and Israelis have become "talk-talk" and "word-oriented" people while we face "action-oriented" enemies. Under the Obama dispensation, U.S. officials can't even use such words as "jihadists" or "Muslim extremists"! Although Israel has not sunk to this level of stupidity, Netanyahu's policy of "reciprocity" suggests that Arabs are like us, that they want peace, even though their leaders have repeatedly said, "peace means the destruction of Israel."

7. Of profound significance, Peters scorns the moral relativism of academia and the moral cowardice underlying "political correctness." He boldly describes Islam's rulers as "Bigoted, hopelessly corrupt, close-minded, uneducated, psychologically infantile, self-important, and incapable of dealing not only with the demands and developments of the twenty-first century, but even with the demands of the twentieth...." He remarks that "the stasis of Islamic civilization is the most colossal failure of our time ..." Islam, he avows, is "a civilization that is anti-meritocratic, that oppresses and torments women, that mocks the rule of law, neglects education, and lacks a work ethic." "Flawlessly intolerant and blithely cruel, the Islamic world does far more harm to its own people than it has done ... to the West." Peters' mind is free, discerning, strong, proud.

8. Cultural relativism emasculates the West, prevents the West from affirming its moral superiority. "We even use the wrong words to describe the Arabs who kill us." We call them "terrorists" so often that the word has lost shock-value as well as strategic meaning. Peters calls them "warriors," because he wants us to take terrorists more seriously. He speaks of different types of warriors, because if we don't understand the enemy, we won't win the war against them.

a. One pool of warriors comes from the underclass, a male who has no stake in peace, a loser with little education and little legal earning power. It's easy to recruit such warriors. These warriors are bloody savages.

b. A second pool of warriors consists of young boys and young men who join and fight for the Arab cause, and whose savagery increases with the duration of the conflict.

c. A third pool of warriors consists of opportunists who profit from the conflict. They traffic in arms and drugs. This was evident in Yasser Arafat, who was called a "moderate" by wishful thinking Jews and Americans. So they now regard Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas.

d. A fourth pool of warriors consists of true believers like Osama bin Laden. These warriors fight out of religious conviction, and become infected with bloodlust. They are the products of a failed civilization that blames the Americans and Zionism for Islam's inability to adapt to modernity. They burn with resentment and the desire for revenge.

9. Negotiation with warriors is sheer folly. We should not negotiate with warriors until they surrender. Until then, they must be killed. Nevertheless, foolish and feckless American and Israeli leaders would have us believe that all men want peace, that all conflicts can be resolved through compromise and understanding. But contrary to Obama's and Netanyahu's rhetoric, warriors have no stake in peace, would be bored by peace, would lose honor or be out of a job with peace. You find such warriors in Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

10. To compound the moral obscurantism, both liberals and conservatives talk about a war against terrorism when in truth it is a war against Islam, a culture that breeds terrorists.

11. Americans refuse to understand that certain human beings cannot accept that their culture is failing. As Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan has affirmed, Muslims don't realize that they have been conditioned by a hate-filled and pathological mode of thought and behavior. They want someone to blame for Islam's failure, and they want revenge on that someone.

12. Western elites have been so stupefied by moral relativism that they cannot think of a failed culture like Islam. They don't know how to confront "warriors whose sole motivation to refrain from killing is the fear of being killed" — nay, "since many of them love death, the only deterrent is to kill them in sufficient numbers before they kill us. You cannot bargain or compromise with warriors," says Peters. You can't "teach them a lesson."

13. But such is the pervasive influence of moral relativism in democratic societies that American and Israeli leaders want to talk to their enemies. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they continue to believe that all men want peace. This is nonsense.

14. Like overindulged people in the West, Muslims have succumbed to the desire for material possession as a substitute for practical accomplishment. This has stunted the growth of Islamic culture. Peters sees this occurring in the American welfare class. He points out that the concept of "having" has been dissociated from the concept of "earning." This fosters the notion of "victimization" in the Third World, a rhetorical weapon Muslims and liberal-leftists use against guilt-ridden colonialists and capitalists. Barack Obama is fueling this adolescent escape from responsibility. We are treating killers with compassion which only magnifies their contempt and bloodlust.

15. The policy of "kill for peace" requires devastating the enemy to an extent that will purge his incentive to wage war. I am not contemplating the devastation the Allies inflicted on Hiroshima and Dresden. But both Japan and Germany are now peace-loving democracies.

16. To conclude, ponder certain principles of Ralph Peters:

a. Military commanders should extract a clear mission statement from decision makers.
b. Impose rules of engagement that favor our forces, not the enemy.
c. Deploy more combat power than you think you need, then increase it.
d. Operate offensively, never passively or defensively, and operate continuously.
e. Do the job fast.
f. From first to last, fight and win the information war — on all fronts.

17. I would stress: eliminate the enemy's leadership as soon as possible.

18. Last but not least, America's and Israel's political leaders should inspire our soldiers with the noble idea that we are fighting for the moral truths and spiritual values of Western civilization, the source of our freedom, our dignity, our scientific progress, and economic prosperity.


*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, April 19, 2010.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, April 19, 2010.

Dear Friends,

A few hours ago, at 8:00pm exactly,sirens sounded all over Israel and people stood still for the minute of silence remembering our soldiers that fell in line of duty and remembering those murdered by Arab terrorists.

On this day of Yom Hazikaron we not only mourn the fallen, but we remember their courage and appreciate the fact that these people gave their lives in order for the People of Israel to be able to live in the land of Israel.

Each victim is a life in itself.

Each beareaved family is a world in itself.

Below we are giving you just one story of such a wonderful family, the Goodman family, who happen to be neighbors of ours and close friends to many of our Women in Green members.

The memory of the heroes who gave their lives for Israel gives us strength to continue the struggle for the safeguarding of the People of Israel in the land of Israel,

With love for Israel,

Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katsover

This below is entitled "Though difficult, bereaved family bravely sends sons to IDF" and was written by Yaakov Katz. It appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post


In a day when Israeli youths are looking to dodge military service, the Goodman brothers' decision to serve in the IDF cannot be taken for granted.

Yehuda Goodman doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. All he did, he said, was recently finish his three-year mandatory military service in the Paratrooper Brigade's elite Maglan Unit.

His younger brother, Naftali, was also drafted into Maglan — which specializes in operating behind enemy lines while using advanced technology and weaponry — in 2007, and is wrapping up his service as a sniper in a Paratrooper battalion. Another brother, "B," was drafted a year ago into the elite Duvdevan Unit, which conducts undercover arrests in the West Bank.

A fourth brother, Asher, is training for the grueling tryouts he will go through later this month with the goal of also getting accepted into either Duvdevan or Maglan.

On the surface, the enlistment of four brothers into elite combat units may not be so unique. But Yehuda, Naftali, "B" and Asher are not the first in their family to serve in the military.

Their older brother, Yosef, a fighter in Maglan, was killed in February 2006 during a complicated jump, when his parachute got entangled around the leg of his commander. As both men began to dive, Yosef cut the ropes of the parachute, saving his commander's life. Too close to the ground for his reserve parachute to open, Yosef plummeted to his death.

In a day and age when many Israeli youths are looking for ways to dodge military service, the Goodman brothers' decision to serve in some of the IDF's best units cannot be taken for granted. Until recently, siblings of fallen soldiers were automatically exempted from combat duty. If, despite their loss, they still wanted to serve, their parents needed to sign a waiver in the presence of a lawyer.

"I served in the army like everyone else," Yehuda said last week during an interview at his family's home in the Gush Etzion settlement of Efrat. "We have a country to protect, and even though my brother died in the line of duty, I am no different than anyone else who needs to serve his country."

Recently discharged, Yehuda is studying for the pre-university psychometric exam. In the meantime, he is working at the Pizzeria Efrat, which his father, Mordechai, opened when he moved his family to Israel from New York in the mid-1980s as part of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin's Lincoln Square Synagogue congregation. At the time, Ann and Mordechai Goodman had two young sons, Shimon and Yosef. Their other seven children — five boys and two girls — were born in Israel.

Ahead of the enlistment of their fourth son since Yosef's death, Mordechai and Ann provided insight into their difficult decision: to sign the waiver again and again, allowing their sons to serve in combat units.

The story of Miriam Peretz, who lost two sons in the line of duty ­ Maj. Eliraz Peretz in a clash with Gazan terrorists last month and Lt. Uriel Peretz in south Lebanon in 1998 — underscores the dangers.

"[Our sons] didn't ask us, but told us that we have to sign since they wanted to honor Yosef and continue what he had taught them," Mordechai said.

Ann added that the military gave Yosef an unbelievable amount of self-confidence, and that it would not have been right for her and Mordechai to deny their other sons that experience.

"Yosef was for the brothers greater than life," she said. "He was the first to go to the army, and he shined."

Ann recommended that young mothers have a lot of children. "This is something I never thought about when I was having babies, but now it is such a comfort to have a large family," she said. "Another bereaved mother once called it 'a cushion.' The sad possibility of losing a son in the army should encourage young mothers to have more children, so they are not left with one or no children after a tragedy — God forbid — strikes."

After Yehuda's decision, the other sons had little room for deliberation. Naftali went in next, and then "B." For Asher, the decision was obvious. When he received his draft order and saw that it was not for a combat unit, he got scared.

"I immediately called the military and found out that if my parents signed, I would get a new draft order with combat units," he said.

Mordechai and Ann said they did not feel any resentment toward the country, nor regret their decision of over two decades ago to immigrate to Israel.

"The Israeli people need to feel greater love for the land, and we have to defend it," Ann said. "I am proud that this is my country."

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org/. Write to them at wfit2@womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 19, 2010.

Today is Memorial Day in Israel and right after it comes Independence Day. I have believed for years that the best way to commemorate these days is by turning them into a battle against the loss of perspective.

Memorial Day is the more troubling of the two days. The problem is that Israelis have lost their sense of Jewish perspective to such an extreme extent, and this becomes glaringly evident on Memorial Day. Israelis are incapable of viewing their problems and that of the state within the perspective of Jewish history. In large part, this is because of the efforts of the radically secularist Israeli Left, which dominates civil discourse, the media, academia and politics, and seeks to detach all of Israel from Jewish history and to deny any connection between "Israeli-ness" and Judaism.

All of this is reflected in the whiny defeatism that dominates all thinking about the losses of life by Jews struggling for Israel's survival. It is blindingly apparent on Memorial Day.

First of all, the atmosphere of Memorial Day in Israel resembles that of Holocaust Remembrance Day — Yom Hashoah — in nearly all things: the same siren, the same closing of cafes and restaurants, the same conversion of the media into official mourners. The timing is also suggestive — Memorial Day is exactly a week after Yom Hashoah. If anything, Memorial Day is the more dramatic of the two days, as there are two sirens sounded on Memorial Day, but only one on Yom Hashoah. And this is not because the loss of soldiers is "more recent". The bulk of soldiers killed in Israel's wars, far more than half, died in the 1948-9 War of Independence, only three years after the end of the Holocaust.

The two juxtaposed days equate the Holocaust with a tragedy that is two six-hundredths its size.

Second, all sense of proportion has been lost. In all of Israel's wars, something like 21,000 soldiers and civilians died, although thanks to the Oslo team the civilians have dominated the death toll this past decade. These numbers are similar to the numbers of Jews murdered every two days in Auschwitz at the height of its "efficiency". Furthermore, the soldiers killed in Israel, of course, died in valor, defending their people and country. Their deaths were tragic, but also dignified and heroic.

Here we are, 66 years after the Holocaust, and the country is still gripped with the Grand Oslo Delusion, still trying to "negotiate" with the Palestinian Nazis instead of achieving total military victory over them, afraid to follow the lead of the Americans in Fallujah and Afghanistan.

In 21st century Israel, the fact that one or two soldiers got killed per week in Lebanon was cause for total unilateral surrender to the Hizbollah and its Syrian masters and for a panic-stricken retreat out of Lebanon to Israel's "international border". Two deaths a week of soldiers in Lebanon, deaths that indeed could have been prevented had the country's leadership the courage to do so, were thought to be sufficient reason for abandoning all rationality and determination, and for putting all of northern Israel under threat of massive bombardment from Hizbollah rockets. The Israeli flight from Lebanon produced a rain of 4000 Katyusha rockets on Haifa and Northern Israel in 2006. On the other front, Palestinians tossing rocks at soldiers in the 1980s were sufficient reason adopt "Oslo" in the 1990s, where Israel imported an Islamofascist terrorist army of its sworn enemies into the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

"Oslo" Israel is post-survivalist Israel, defeatist Israel, exhausted Israel. "Oslo" was based on a total loss in the ability of many Israelis to reason rationally, a total loss of historic proportion, a relinquishment of reality for a make-pretend imaginary universe, and a complete loss in the Jewish determination to survive as a nation. First and foremost, it was a complete loss in Jewish self-respect and dignity in Israel. Here we had the spectacle of Israeli leaders meeting, back-slapping and kissing the same Arab fascists who murdered Jewish children and only yesterday denied there had ever been a Holocaust. The same Palestinians at the same time insisting that if there HAD been a Holocaust, then the Jews deserved it. The Israeli media continue to be the occupied territory of Israel's extremist Left; the Independence Day issue of Haaretz a couple of years back featured a banner Op-Ed by columnist Akiva Eldar entitled "To the Glory of the States of Israel and Palestine," and explaining that Israel will never be truly independent until Palestine has pushed Israel behind its 1949 borders and liberated East Jerusalem. He is not even the most extremist anti-Israel writer in Israeli journalism. (Nor the most involved in espionage!)

In Orwellian "Oslo" Israel, defeatism became the greatest form of triumphalism, cowardice became the highest form of courage, and McCarthyism was the greatest expression of democracy, at least in the first few years after the Rabin assassination.

The Israeli military was as blinded by the loss in perspective as the rest of the country. The military leadership has been McClellenist since 1992, and was — if anything — ahead of the rest of the country in saying amen to the Left's vision of "Oslo" and backing the national suicidal ambitions of the politicians of the Left. The military brass was louder than the media in demanding a unilateral unconditional surrender of Israel in Lebanon and relinquishing of the Golan to Syria. Military intelligence has never quite gotten around to the point where it discovers that the PLO is a genocidal terrorist group and that there are no longer any differences between the Hamas and the PLO, if there ever were.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald Steinberg, April 19, 2010.

European democracies are spending tens of millions of euros to manipulate Israeli society and politics

Sixty-two years after the rebirth of sovereignty following 2,000 years of exile and powerlessness, the Jewish state is still struggling for real independence. Beyond the genocidal threats from the Iranian leadership and its proxies, European democracies are spending tens of millions of euros, pounds and krona to manipulate Israeli society and politics. This largely hidden European money that funds so-called "civil society" organizations, like B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Ir Amim, the Public Committee Against Torture, Peace Now and dozens more, is undermining Jewish sovereignty and the right to determine our own future.

With such large sums at their disposal, self-appointed leaders of these foreign government-funded nongovernmental organizations (appropriately known as GONGOs) often have greater influence than elected officials. They set the political agenda, promote their goals in the Knesset and UN and dominate media discussions on Israel.

For example, under the civil society façade, and using European taxpayer money, as well as donations from the New Israel Fund, B'Tselem's offices in London and Washington lobby intensely in support of the blood libels in the Goldstone Report. In parallel, the self-styled Coalition of Women for Peace promotes boycotts, divestment and sanctions and to hurt Israeli firms. And a handful of individuals in Breaking the Silence (BTS), were invited to travel (all expenses paid) throughout Europe to tell the journalists, "intellectuals" and left-wing politicians that Israel, and not Hamas or Hizbullah, is the real "war criminal." BTS films were also shown as part of Israel Apartheid Week activities across campuses last month.

IN THIS form of European neocolonialism, these groups push the policies selected by their patrons, while central topics for Israelis are given short shrift. As a result, few reports by "human rights" groups deal with Gilad Schalit, women victims of Arab honor killings or other issues missing from Europe's agenda.

This funding not only allows GONGOs to manipulate the perception of Israel abroad, but also manipulates the Israeli discourse. In the High Court, many of the cases related to core issues of war and peace, human rights and security are brought by GONGOs that receive the bulk of their funding from European governments. With huge resources, these organizations hire lawyers and run massive media campaigns. In this way, groups like B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel enjoy the unfair advantages of "repeat players" in the legal system.

A number of Israeli government lawyers received fellowships from these narrow ideological groups during their training. And some influential journalists are also closely tied to NGOs funded by the NIF and European governments. It would not be surprising to find the influence of these NGOs in the ideological education of Anat Kamm, who claimed to be exposing IDF "war crimes" when she copied secret military documents and funneled them to a journalist.

Yet, despite the power that these groups exert, neither Israelis nor Europeans know who makes the decisions to disperse this money used to promote the Palestinian narrative, demonize Israelis as war criminals and manipulate public debate. Unnamed officials in Brussels, London, Stockholm, Oslo, The Hague, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris and elsewhere in Europe control relatively large sums with no public accounting.

Every year, the European Union announces major grants under the banner of "Partnerships for Peace," the "European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights" and other programs, but the crucial details are often hidden from public view. In the individual countries, programs and budgets designed to provide humanitarian assistance are diverted to radical NGOs that promote the same anti-Israel agendas.

The standard explanation is that this European funding reflects support for peace and opposing "occupation." The US, particularly under Barack Obama, has similar goals, but does not seek to impose them by manipulating Israeli society and politics under the table, or by using Israeli groups to lobby for Goldstone. In refusing to reveal any significant aspects of its decision-making process, the EU is also violating its own transparency rules.

TO REGAIN Israel's lost independence, the first step is to provide the public this information. To this end, a group of Knesset members from a number of parties has introduced legislation that would require funding transparency — particularly regarding monies from foreign governments.

But secrecy is also power, and the NGO officials at the receiving end have mounted a disinformation campaign precisely to prevent such transparency. The legislative draft is portrayed hysterically as "the single most dangerous threat to Israeli civil society since its inception."

The NGOs fear that if they highlight foreign government funding when engaged in political activities, this might discredit them in the eyes of Israeli society.

This is exactly the public debate that is central to independence and sovereignty, and contrasts sharply with decisions made by anonymous European officials secretly doling out taxpayer funds. NGO officials also claim that the proposed law is unnecessary, and that there is already transparency under existing regulations. If this were the case, they would not be taking out large advertisements and sending floods of panicked e-mails.

After 62 years of independence, there is still much room for improvement. Some aspects will take many years, but others, such as ending the inordinate and secret influence of foreign government on core Israeli decisions, are within our grasp.

Mr. Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University. This article is from the Jerusalem Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by Baruch Tenembaum, April 19, 2010.

When I established the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, together with my late friend and former Chairman of the United States Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in the US Congress, he told me that his lifelong dream was to see his rescuer, Raoul Wallenberg, returning home.

Tom passed away in 2008, without being able to realize his goal. Yet, his legacy lives on with me and with all my colleagues, staff and volunteers, who work days and nights at the Wallenberg Foundation to document and research the legacies of Raoul Wallenberg and the other rescuers of victims of the Shoah.

The recent revelations about Raoul Wallenberg's fate might bring us a little closer to achieving Tom's unfulfilled mission, which is shared by Raoul's living relatives and by millions of people around the world.

Raoul Wallenberg was one of the greatest heroes of mankind. As a young man with a bright future, he could have chosen a different, more convenient path. Instead, he launched himself into a dangerous mission in wartime Hungary and in a matter of months, facing daily death threats from the Nazis, he had managed to save scores of Hungarian Jews from extermination.

Following his awe-inspiring feat, on January 17, 1945, he was abducted by the Soviets, together with his faithful driver, Vilmos Langfelder. None of the two was ever to be seen again.

Until a few days ago, the official Soviet version, and that of their Russian successors, has been stubbornly consistent and clearly unfounded, to the effect that Wallenberg had been executed on July 17, 1947, in the Lubyanka prison. Now, in a letter addressed to one of our members, the renowned researcher, Susanne Berger, as well as to Dr. Vadim Birstein, the FSB (the Russian Secret Service, formerly known as KGB) is acknowledging that "most likely," Wallenberg became "Prisoner Nr. 7" and underwent a thorough interrogation on July 23, 1947, six days after his alleged execution.

Back in 2006, the then Deputy Head of Mission of the Russian Embassy in Washington, Mr. Darchiev, wrote to our Foundation that: "responsibility for the death of Mr. Wallenberg lies with the USSR leadership at that time and on Stalin personally. No other authority could deal with a Swedish diplomat, representative of a neutral state, a member of the "Wallenberg House," well known both abroad and to the Soviet government."

To be sure, all facts seem to support this claim. Since the Stalinist rule was ruthless but well organized, it is highly unlikely that such a high-profile prisoner as Raoul Wallenberg could have been executed without leaving a mountain of official documents.

Back in 1976, I was abducted by a state-sponsored rightwing paramilitary gang in Argentina. These sinister people accused me of "infecting the Catholic Church with the virus of Judaism," as I have devoted all my life to foster the interfaith dialog. Thanks to my wife Perla and to my dear friend, the late Catholic priest, Father Horacio Moreno, I managed to survive and be here to tell the story.

My nightmare was over in a matter of days, but I was able to taste the impotence of being in captivity, during which I dreaded to be forgotten.

I can only imagine what Raoul has been feeling during all those years (how many?) in confinement and this mere thought breaks my heart.

As a Jew and as a human being who cherishes the values of civic solidarity, I pledged to Tom and to myself that until my last breath I would not give up my struggle to get Raoul back home.

On April 12, the State of Israel and the Jewish people will commemorate the Holocaust Martyr's and Heroes' Remembrance Day. This is a good occasion to join forces and urge President Dimtry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to grant unfettered access to the FSB archives and put a final closure to this tragic story.

Raoul Wallenberg should be allowed to reunite with his family. If he is no longer alive, he deserves to be a hero with a grave.

Baruch Tenembaum is Founder of The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation. This article appeared as an Op-Ed piece April 17, 2010 in the Buenos Aires Herald and was distributed by Comunicacion Fundacion Wallenberg (comunicacion@irwf.org.ar).

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 19, 2010.

This is being written hours before Yom Ha'Atzmaut — Israeli Independence Day — will begin. Regularly I mention this: There is a siren sounded as Yom HaZikaron fades into darkness, and we, as a nation, go from mourning the dead to celebrating the nation. Some are discomfited by this, but I find the transition moving and quintessentially Jewish, for we as a people live with pain and joy, side by side.


Sharing two videos. First, a prayer for the Israeli Defense Forces:

And then, an accounting of some of our incredible achievements:

In addition, I have placed on my website a brief description of our rights to eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Please, read it, share it with others, and bookmark it for future reference. It contains basic information that everyone should have, and which all too many are not aware of.
http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/ jewish-land/?SSScrollPosition


Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon has given a major interview to the JPost. Here I provide a couple of significant quotes:

"Those who want to continue the Oslo process, who want us to continue to give and give and give, without a Palestinian willingness to recognize our right to a national home, are cooperating with the phased plans for Israel's destruction."

"If we are seen as standing firm against the Jihadists, against Hamas and Hezbollah, that serves the US interests. And if we are seen as weak, whether in Lebanon, Gaza or in Judea and Samaria, that harms US interests."


"The phased plans for Israel's destruction"? Something else everyone needs to be aware of:

After the Yom Kippur war, after the Arabs had tried again and again to defeat Israel militarily and had found it impossible, a new approach was decided upon. The PLO instituted something called the "Strategy of Stages." (It's documented.) This means taking Israel down one step at a time by weakening her, including via diplomatic means.

THIS is what we are witness to today. For example, the insistence that we accept the Arab "Peace Initiative" is part of this. It's not about truly making peace with Israel, but rather trying to shove us back to the non-defensible '67 lines and to force us to accept millions of so-called refugees who would further destabilize us from within.

Various demands made of us by the Arabs need to be examined with a jaundiced eye: What is real movement for peace and what is motivated by intention to weaken us as a step towards our eventual destruction? When this yardstick is utilized, a great deal becomes apparent.


Because keeping Israel strong is an imperative, I turn, with considerable reluctance, to a major scandal that has made press here and abroad. This scandal deserves analysis because of two major issues:

One is the readiness of a left wing inside of Israel not to stand strong with us, but to take positions that are destructive to us. This, more than all the attacks from the outside, is a source of grief.

And then, a readiness on the part of the left — here and elsewhere equally — to always judge Israel harshly and to demonstrate an inordinate concern for Palestinian Arabs, including those who are terrorists. This needs to be addressed, particularly when crimes are committed and distortions advanced in the name of this "higher" concern.


The scandal, which most are undoubtedly familiar with, concerns the theft of classified documents by Anat Kamm, when she was working as a soldier assigned to IDF Central Command. (She had passed security clearance but the check was obviously insufficient.)

Certain media sources particularly within the States made a heroine of her, because, according to her version of matters, "I didn't succeed in changing enough things that it was important to me to change during my army service, and I thought that I would bring about that change by exposing them. That's why it was important to me to inform the public about the IDF's policies in the territories."

Well, bravo for her. She lifted 2,000 documents — downloading them to CDs and then uploading them to her own computer — more than two years ago. Documents that would put our soldiers and civilians in jeopardy were they to fall into the wrong hands. Documents that included top-secret information about IDF units and armaments, and operational plans.

Part of what was claimed in her defense — in particular by Judith Miller on "The Daily Beast" website — was that Kamm was a journalist, and Israel, in actions reprehensible for a democracy, was denying her journalistic freedoms. The fact is that Kamm didn't become a journalist (of sorts) until after she had stolen the documents — and had left the army and started working for the Walla Web portal. She stands accused of espionage.


Kamm, after her military discharge, gave the documents to Uri Blau, a reporter at Haaretz (which has behaved reprehensibly in the course of this incident).

Blau based at least one 2008 story on this material, which tipped off the Shin Bet. Israeli security put a gag order on this incident so that Israeli media could not carry the story. As I understand it, negotiations ensued with Blau who agreed to return the material as long as he wasn't required to reveal his source.

Ultimately, Shin Bet discovered it was Kamm who had lifted the documents and recently she was placed under house arrest (angering Kamm, who was attempting to protect her). Meanwhile, it turned out that Blau had returned some but not all of the documents, and he fled to London, refusing to return. The Shin Bet, which had been using soft techniques to bring Blau around is approaching this with more vigor at this point.

To the best of my knowledge, Blau has not returned and there are still documents in his possession. What is more, Kamm claimed to have "lost" one CD, so that some information is floating in an indetermination location.


Just recently, while the gag order (which has since been lifted) was still in effect, the story was broken by the NYTimes, which made Kamm a heroine.

The Times article describes what Blau had written about:

"The article by Mr. Blau at the center of the storm...focused on an episode in June 2007 in which two Palestinian militants belonging to the Islamic Jihad group were killed by Israeli security forces in the West Bank. The military said at the time that the two were killed in an exchange of fire with Israeli forces.

"Mr. Blau noted that months before, one of the militants, Ziad Subhi Muhammad Malaisha, had been marked as a target for assassination by the Israeli Army's Central Command, which is responsible for the West Bank.

"Mr. Blau's article suggested that Mr. Malaisha's killing contravened an Israeli Supreme Court ruling from December 2006 that strictly limited the circumstances in which the military can to carry out pre-emptive strikes. Haaretz printed copies of Central Command documents stating that Mr. Malaisha and two other Islamic Jihad leaders were eligible targets alongside the report."

We will leave aside for a moment the question of whether the Court has proper jurisdiction to decide how the IDF operates with regard to known terrorists. What the Court had said was that terrorists can be shot only if they cannot be arrested and if there are no others who are not targeted in range. The charge is that this ruling is circumvented by the IDF.

Blau cited the head of Central Command who said: "If the guy [who they've identified as a terrorist who's wanted] doesn't put his hands up we don't ask questions, we immediately establish contact. I don't want to have people hurt for no reason. If I know that the guy is armed and is a ticking bomb, then I want him to be hit immediately without fooling around."

Blau offered this as a condemnation of the IDF, but it depends on perspective. A ticking bomb who is armed... do you risk IDF personnel attempting to arrest him?


This, then was the "crime" of which the IDF stood accused by Blau. And it is this issue that resulted in seriously negative PR for Israel, once again.

For me it is not only an issue of a soldier breaking the law and a journalist who lied to Israeli Security. For me it also about priorities that are badly skewed and a continued attempt to malign Israel.

We're talking about terrorists here, not just any Palestinian Arab on the street. Terrorists who either have already been involved in the death of innocent Israelis or are enmeshed in a system that plans such deaths. And we are in a war with them, no matter that most do not recognize that war.

This is of a piece with the accusations made against Israel in the Goldstone Report. In the course of defending ourselves, and in spite of care taken with regard to operations, we stand forever accused of improper behavior.

For those learning of such accusations in the media, the lesson is that there should be no rush to judge Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, April 19, 2010.

This was written by Amitai Etzioni.


In 2007 I joined with several others who spent many years studying nuclear arms to form a mini consensus of the opinion that the greatest threat to our security, that of our allies, and the world, was the combination of terrorists and nukes.

To quote, "The White House, Congress, and the media have focused heavily on the so-called Axis of Evil when dealing with WMD in general and nukes in particular. Since the introduction of this term, attention has been focused on three rogue states: North Korea, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified initially to prevent Iraq from using or acquiring further WMD, sharpened this focus.

As I see it, the combination of terrorism and nuclear weapons poses a graver threat to international security": (Security First, P220).

The White House, President Obama's newly released Nuclear Posture Review, and this week's summit have shifted the focus from strategic weapons left over from the days of the Cold War (at the center of attention until and including last week) to where it belongs: to terrorists getting their hands on nukes or the materials from which they can be made.

To evaluate the outcomes of the summit, here are the hotspots that should be covered, but are not necessarily the ones that will be addressed:

1. One of the most likely places terrorists are may get what they would consider their dream ticket — and hence our nightmare — is Russia. Russia has somewhere between 3,000 and 15,000 (estimates vary) small tactical nuclear bombs. These are much less well guarded than the strategic big bombs. Moreover they are positioned much closer to Russia's borders — including those with Muslim republics — than most of the strategic ones. No treaty covers them. So far there is no sign that these arms will be even discussed during the summit.

2. Next is Pakistan. It has an unstable government and strong anti-American insurgency groups which find allies in some of the nation's forces, especially the notorious ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). The Pakistani government has rejected many American efforts to help it to better guard these arms, fearing that the United States may grab them if the Taliban and their allies take over. Let's see what the summit will do about this major challenge.

In reaction to a very unwise American policy to expand India's nuclear program, Pakistan in effect is expanding its own. So far there is no indication that this thorny issue will be faced during the summit.

3. The third source of trouble is the considerable amounts of plutonium, highly enriched uranium, and radioactive waste that lie around in many parts of the world, from Chile to South Africa. This is the area in which we are making good progress.

The U.S. does underwrite a global drive to neutralize these materials one way or another. President Obama wisely calls for accelerating this process.

It is likely to get much attention during the summit, which is like focusing on low lying fruit.

They deserved to be harvested as long as progress here does not deflect attention from those much harder to reach.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 19, 2010.

SYRIA, LEBANON, IRAQ: IRAN NUCLEAR PEACEABLE, ISRAEL SHOULD JOIN TREATY Iran hosted a nuclear conference. Attendees from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon declared that Iranian nuclear development is peaceable and must be allowed to continue. It urged that Israel join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (IMRA, 4/18/10).

Some of my readers also insist that Iran's nuclear development is peaceable. They assert this with the arguments, that Iran's development has not been proved otherwise and Iran does not threaten other countries. Is that so! Who determines this and on what basis?

Take that multi-national declaration. Why do governments make such declarations? Knowledge, allegiance, log-rolling, commercial interest, fear, or naivete. Be more skeptical! Syria is an ally and dependent of Iran. Lebanon is a satellite of Syria. Their declaration is no indicator of reality.

The surprise is Iraq long a rival of Iran. Now Iraq is trying to form a new government from political parties, some of which have ties to Iran. Iran interferes in Iraqi affairs. Iran has provided jihadists in Iraq with the roadside bombs that killed many U.S. troops. Iraq's statement also is no indicator of truth.

The question with Iraq is whether it can stabilize against jihad, maintain its independence from Iran, retain its relatively free, constitutional regime, overcome its internal feuds, and not resume its predecessor regime's imperialism and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Israel is not the only country with military nuclear capability. Pakistan and India tested nuclear weapons (Israel did not). Why did the declaration omit Pakistan, which proliferated military nuclear development, and India?

The recommendation that Israel sign the Treaty is part of a campaign to strip Israel of its deterrence even while Israel's enemies develop weapons of mass-destruction and amass huge quantities of modern conventional weapons for guess what.

Syria is known for a well-developed arsenal of chemical weapons. A second type of mass-destruction that rivals nuclear weapons is from biological weapons. Syria is known for its advanced stage in that project, too. Syria also was developing nuclear weapons under the tutelage of another scofflaw, North Korea. Fortunately, Israel destroyed its nuclear weapons factory.

Syria had signed the treaty, as had N. Korea and Iran. The treaty is called "Non-Proliferation," but facilitates proliferation. It does so by legitimizing and encouraging the acquisition of nuclear hands-on knowledge, experience, and development of a nuclear industry and by setting standards of inspection that enable countries to keep inspectors off the track. Iraq used to give inspectors false reports, bar them from major industrial areas, delay their access to other areas until Iraqis removed incriminating materials from the back door while inspectors kept waiting at the front door. Some of those countries simply did not declare certain facilities as nuclear. When the deception was detected, they cited treaty authorization for keeping undeclared areas from being inspected.

Furthermore, some aspects of civilian nuclear industry are dual use. Civilian plants have provided cover for malign radioactive tinkering. The knowledge gained from developing civilian nuclear industry goes much of the way toward preparing for military nuclear industry. This poses a dilemma. How shall the world let countries have a civilian nuclear industry, without that industry metastasizing into a military one?

The treaty may be deemed a failure. Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, and Syria all violated it. Even the mild International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) identified some violations. Hence UN sanctions on Iraq, N. Korea, and Iran. Unfortunately, the sanctions were weakened and kept weak by Russia and China, and undermined by mercantile interests. A treaty that cannot be enforced to spare millions of lives, encourages violation by those who don't care about taking millions of lives or want to take them. That is the real world!

Why would a treaty that permits civilian nuclear industrial development be violated by that cast of characters professing peaceful intent? That question, my reader-critics do not answer. They go by what evil or dubious governments declare. They do not critically analyze those statements. Analysis, if one is capable of it, might produce a conclusion that disturbs one's ideological preference.

As my have articles pointed out, certain types of development that Iran pursued were solely in a military direction. Others unnecessarily built a military capability of dual use. Use of a little logic, if one is honest about it, would draw the right conclusion.

Some people resist that conclusion, exploiting the mild and cautious wording of the IAEA. One should read between the lines of international diplomacy.

The assertion of being peaceable by states that did or do commit aggression, that foster subversion and terrorism, that engage in arms races, and that threaten other states, should be viewed with more skepticism than defenders of Iran exhibit. No common sense?

Defenders of Iran deny that it threatens other countries. The threats may come with sophistry; the denials may come with over-simplicity. Iran has made outright threats, including against Israel. Most of its threats are veiled. Like threats by the Arabs against Israel, some of Iran's threats are not direct and outright.

What do I mean? Just before and during the Arab aggression of 1947 and 1967, their military and media boasted that they would "drive the Jews into the sea" and savage the area like a Genghis Kahn. I read those boasts at the time and in history books. The Arabs learned since then to be diplomatic about it, so as not to make their wrongdoing apparent. Iran follows suit.

Should people rely, in an excessive lawyer-like approach, on deceitful crafted wording, or on the obvious emotional meaning, the real message?

Here's a tip on how to judge Arab threats. As I have explained before, Palestinian Authority leaders say that unless Israel makes certain concessions, the Arab people will commit violence. Technically, those leaders are not threatening violence. But since those leaders control gunmen and the propaganda apparatus for enraging ordinary people imbued with religious intolerance and a false belief that Israel is the aggressor, and in a culture that values violence, the leaders must be pretending that riots will arise out of their control. Adolph Hitler used to organize pro-Nazi gangs in the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia, to demand union with Germany. The demands were far from spontaneous, they were organized. The Arabs follow the Nazi lead.


Defense Secretary Gates conducted more of what seems meant like more damage control after his admission that U.S. policy on Iranian nuclear development concentrated on dialog and sanctions, but did not have a contingency plan. The Administration still asserts that it has been discussing and planning. True, but it still has adopted no plan and has no contingency.

Joint chiefs of Staff Mullen warns that a military raid on Iran may have unintended consequences.

A point reported today is that the sanctions campaign extends months beyond the deadline (Wall St. Journal, 4/19/10, A1.)

"months beyond the deadline." This is tacit admission of the failure of sanctions, still encountering Chinese and Russian obstruction. As a matter of fact, several deadlines have passed. Without strong U.S. contingency planning, dictators can test U.S. commitment and find it wanting, for years. Saddam did that. N. Korea does it. So does Iran.

If the Obama administration commitment is wanting, why? How can Mideastern countries rely upon U.S. assurances, when the U.S. has not planned its next steps? All too often, Obama snubs U.S. allies and apologizes or coddles U.S. enemies. The pattern is dismaying. What is his agenda?

Admiral Mullen has a valid point. Uncertainty is true of many wars. All the more reason to play scenarios and plan for contingency. I have observed Israeli actions that encounter difficulties and are withdrawn, as if Israel failed to account for likely opposition.


Media professor Dorit Naaman of Queens College in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, accuses Campus Watch and B'nai B'rith Canada of repressing free speech by professors who believe in Mideast peace.

She pulled that hair trigger over an ad taken out by B'nai B'rith Canada in the National Post that criticizes a conference held at York University.

In her words, "The attack on the York conference was part of a well-coordinated and well-financed trans-Atlantic strategy to prevent discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma in both the classroom and campus environment. In 2004 the Israel on Campus Coalition published a resource guide titled 'Tenured or Tenuous: Defining the Role of Faculty in Supporting Israel on Campus.' The document was prepared by Mitchell Bard, executive director of the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise, and it can be found at www.israelcc.org/resources/icc-guides.htm."

"Along with Campus Watch, which asked students to spy on their professors and track their 'anti Israeli' record on a public website, it is a shameful attempt to employ the tactics of McCarthyism to enforce the political ideology of a narrow spectrum."

A conspiracy involves working together, but Campus Watch did not sign the ad. She lumps together a few disparate and not well-financed groups and calls her false association of them "well-coordinated." This is paranoid conspiracy theory.

Classroom discussion is not a military secret. Asking students to report on it is not spying. Why can't they discuss outside the classroom the topics discussed inside? In purporting to defend professors' free speech, Prof. Naaman would deny students free speech. Therefore, she is not acting out of democratic concern but out of ideological interest.

[Campus Watch empowers otherwise helpless students to show the public what is going on in the campuses they support, what is the status of academic freedom from the student perspective, and a possible rejoinder to otherwise one-sided discourse. Some professors have abused their power over students to indoctrinate, not educate. Hence Daniel Pipes formed Campus Watch and Prof. Steven Plaut formed a similar organization in Israel.]

Ads and criticism do not repress professors' free speech. Leftist professors try to repress free speech so they have an undemocratic monopoly on speech. To call non-coercive rejoinder "McCarthist," as Naaman did, is unfounded and meretricious. As Campus Watch puts it, "We hold no governmental power; we cannot issue subpoenas; we cannot silence anyone." (Campus Watch, 4/18/10)


A bloody battle was fought at Ammunition Hill (AP/Gali Tibbon)

PM Netanyahu commemorated Israel's fallen soldiers at Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem. "He compared Jerusalem in the days of the 1967 battle of Ammunition Hill to Jerusalem of today. 'Forty-three years ago, this hill, Ammunition Hill, symbolized a wounded city, a city cut in half with a wall through its heart. But today, along the path of that wall lie train tracks that will connect Jerusalem's flourishing neighborhoods, the neighborhoods built in the decades that have passed since that day.'" (Arutz-7, 4/19/10).

Two years ago, I found the exhibit and museum there useful for understand what happened, what it was like at the time, and the results of dividing a city with the Arabs. Captions and film had English translations. I spent a couple of hours there. A guide would deepen one's understanding.

The effects of dividing the city were taken up at a smaller exhibit I visited many years ago at, pardon spelling, Tourjeman House. Not sure it exists.

The division by foreign conquest enabled the Arabs to dispossess 10,000 Jews, violate Jordan's agreement and bar the Israeli staff from Hadassah Hospital, bar Jews from their holiest site, and, in another war crime, fire upon Israeli civilians on the other side. There was little objection by the UN and by the State Dept.

Those same self-appointed guardians of human rights become almost hysterical if a Jewish family gets a court order for Arab squatters to vacate the premises purchase by the family. Human rights champions can be most hypocritical. To them, human rights advocacy is one-sided excuse for an anti-Zionist agenda.


During Israeli Remembrance Day, former Colonel Amnon Sharon told of his captivity in Syria.

He led seven tanks of reservists into the Golan Heights, in 1967, to face an invading Syrian force of 100 tanks. In the end, his tanks were destroyed, some of his troops were killed, most, including himself, were wounded, and he was captured.

For five months, Syria kept Col. Sharon in solitary confinement in a dark, cold cell in just underwear, while beating and torturing him with medieval type instruments [a war crime]. Untrained for captivity, he had to figure out by himself how to survive. He took to praying three times a day, and convinced himself that God was with him.

Then he was reunited with 24 fellow officer POWs.

He is pleased that Israel now trains special forces on how to endure captivity, but recommends that all the troops be taught how (Arutz-7, 4/19/10). http://www.israelnationalnews.com/

A couple of vastly outnumbered Israeli tank forces succeeded in holding off the superior Syrian forces. Their military pluck was greater than that of the British in defeating the Spanish Armada, and the result was just as fortuitous. Britain had the help of superior mobility and storms that sank or wrecked most of the Armada.

Now that Israel has incorporated most of the Golan Heights, such a menace is less likely, if Israel maintains sufficient standing forces and vigilance. Natural tank barriers there can keep invading tank forces from spreading out and enables defender to fight limited numbers at a time, on even terms. A similar narrow gap in the mountains enabled Spartans to hold off the huge Persian army, in ancient times.

The State Dept. is trying to restore Syrian control, which would re-open the menace in the name of peace.

For some time, the U.S. kept Jonathan Pollard naked in solitary confinement on a cold cement floor. It also relegated him to a ward for the insane, not that there was a question of his sanity. It long has denied him much medical care, even as his health deteriorates. The U.S. does not treat other Americans that badly, but why Pollard? There is more to the U.S. story here than punishing Pollard's crime for whose average sentence is 2-4 years, whereas Pollard has life imprisonment.

One expects the U.S. to treat civilian prisoners better than Syria does military prisoners.


Planes and passengers ready at JFK but grounded by volcano (AP/Seth Wenig)

Israel is a major tourist destination of Europeans. Thousands of Europeans are stranded in Israel, because volcanic ash from Iceland makes flight hazardous. The Israel Tourist agency is working hard to accommodate the unanticipated tourism (IMRA, 4/20/10).

Suppose war broke out. Foreigners could not get out of the war zone. Certain countries would lose military mobility.

I have tickets for a flight to Iceland in August. Shall I wear thick soles against the heat from magma approaching the surface? A niece in Sweden reports that the fallout has reached there. Sounds like a prelude to nuclear winter.

Last night I saw someone off at a New York airport, and heard of cots being laid down for travelers who could not afford hotels. (See photo.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Carrie Devorah, April 18, 2010.

Zionist Organization of America spearheaded a Rally at the White House to protest President Obama's verbal attacks on Israel in advance of their planned summer time Million Mensch March Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 04182010

Carrie Devorah is an investigative photojournalist based in DC. Former religion editor of "Lifestyles" Magazine, her areas of focus are faith, homeland security and terrorism. Devorah is the sister of Jewish Press columnist Yechezkel Chezi Scotty Goldberg, victim of Egged Bus 19 bombing, 1-29-04. Goldberg was a noted psychologist with expertise in at-risk youth. Contact her at carriedev@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, April 18, 2010.

The Obama and perhaps future United States administrations, for strategic military and economic reasons, will attempt to salvage a wavering alliance with Turkey, as well as create or enhance alliances with many other Middle EasTimes notes, there is a great irony to Obama's blazing anger at the Israelis and the urgency with which he views the issue. It comes at a time when the overwhelming majority of Israelis have "become disillusioned with the whole idea of resolving the conflict. Mr. Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government has long been skeptical about the benefits of a peace deal with the Palestinians. But skepticism has taken root in the Israeli public as well, particularly after Israel saw little benefit from its traumatic withdrawal from Gaza in 2005." In other words, after countless concessions made to the Arabs at Oslo, and in subsequent accords and after offers from Israel of a state comprising Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem were refused by the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008, most Israelis have finally figured out that the other side doesn't want to end the conflict. And they are baffled as to why Obama and his advisers haven't come to the same all too obvious conclusion.

But with the Obama administration now so passionately committed to hammering Israel even as it apparently neglects to take action to stop Iran's nuclear program, the question remains what will be the response of pro-Israel Democrats. As Obama draws closer to all-out diplomatic war on Israel's government, the obligation for principled Democrats to speak up in open opposition to these policies cannot be avoided. While many Democrats have sought to confuse the issue or avoid conflict with the president, stories such as the one on the front page of the Times this morning make it clear that sooner or later, pro-Israel Democrats are going to have to decide whether partisan loyalties will trump their support for the Jewish state's survival.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. 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 Rachel Saperstein, April 18, 2010.

Remaining Silent

Groups of young children huddled high upon the playground equipment in our simple park. They faced a makeshift stage on which a black backdrop blazed under yellow spotlights. A draped Israeli flag and a large cardboard candle surrounded the words 'Remember, do not forget'.

Holocaust Remembrance Eve... Our teenagers who had just returned from Poland told and retold the story of the Holocaust. They spoke emotionally for they had been deeply affected by the sights they had seen in the Treblinka concentration camp. "Some ashes, some hair, some shoes, some clothing" they intoned. "All that remained of our people." The children and adults listened, remaining silent.

At the Yad Vashem ceremony in Jerusalem Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded us that today there are those who wish to annihilate us. They say so loud and clear. The leaders of Iran pledge to complete the job Hitler began, this time with nuclear weapons. And the world remains silent. No, not silent, but accusatory of Israel. World leaders blame the Jewish State for unrest in the Middle East.

Our Jews, our ever-fearful Jews, remain silent. Our Prime Minister even feared to receive yellow roses from American Christians who care deeply about Israel. We seem to be cowering in fear waiting for the annihilation in silence.

I watched television for hours and hours listening to stories of the Holocaust. There were documentaries, films, and talk shows. Most effective was a talk by Rabbi Berel Wein. In his down-to-earth speech Rabbi Wein spoke of our need to remember our past and to be proud of our present and our accomplishments despite the hate of the world. He talked of the museums that are built to memorialize the Jewish people. "Museums," he said, "generally show a people who no longer exist and artifacts that are no longer used. Our true museums are our vibrant synagogues and Hebrew schools, our houses of learning and our Jewish homes where Jewish life exists every day of the year."

Who would have imagined that tiny Israel would become a giant in technology, in medical breakthroughs, in agriculture, in security systems, and the first to offer and deliver help to other countries in times of disaster.

Dear friends, do not remain silent. Your silence emboldens those who wish to destroy us. When anti-Semitism raises its ugly head, no one is safe. The hate begins with the Jews but rapidly spreads until it engulfs the world. Do not be afraid. Do not pretend it will go away if we pay it no heed.

No, we cannot remain silent. The children straddling the playground slides and chinning bars must know they have a future. They must not become "some ash, some hair, some shoes, some clothing."


I very warmly recommend a play, A Tiny Piece of Land, now at the Pico Playhouse in Los Angeles until April 28th. The play, by two wonderful people, describes life in the refugee camp after the Gush Katif expulsion. It is an almost unique pro-Israel voice in an ocean of anti-Israel hatred.


My Name Is Liron

Last night we held a ceremony for the fallen of Israel. Our small park was crowded with the people who once lived in the vibrant communities of Gush Katif. We came to honor our soldiers and our people murdered by terrorists.

"I never knew my father, and my father never knew me" one child said. "I have seen pictures of him and was told stories about him, but I never hugged him." Liron is the daughter of Roni Tzemach. Roni, a farmer, was first tortured then murdered by his Arab workers.

I remember that night. The IDF had been called in when Roni failed to answer his cellphone. Flares were fired into the night sky and in the dunes near his hothouses his body was found buried under refuse.

The following day we brought chairs and desks from our classrooms in Ulpana Neve Dekalim, and so was born the community of Shirat Hayam [Song of the Sea]. This was the Jewish Zionist response to the murder of a Jew.

Roni's wife was in the early stages of pregnancy with their second child. The baby was named Liron [I am Ron].

Today, Israel remembers not only its fallen soldiers but ordinary citizens killed or wounded here and abroad.

Watching the national ceremonies on television, I saw our Prime Minister talk of the children on their way home from school killed on bus 37. He spoke of those killed in restaurants, at weddings, in malls, in places where no one is certain to be safe. "They were killed because they were Jews" he said.

One of the speakers reminded us of the unique bravery of citizens who helped the victims of terror but then succumbed to their own wounds.

Moshe, my husband, both war wounded and a victim of a terror attack, talks to me quietly of his own experiences. He talks not only of the attacks but of the effort it has taken to continue with his life under the strain of mental anguish and constant physical pain. Moshe must struggle to improvise methods for doing his daily chores. With no right arm and only three usable fingers on his left hand, even the simplest tasks are a challenge. He rarely asks for help. His family and friends are in awe of him. I am proud to be his wife.

We celebrate those who have survived this devastation and continue to live, raise families and still love Israel.

We did not receive this land of Israel without the fortitude of its people, our wonderful Jewish people.

We are all Liron, or I should say Li-Israel. [I am Israel].

In a few hours Israel will celebrate 62 years of Statehood. Chag Sameach! Happy holiday!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 18, 2010.




















My articles on these subjects were vetted by a lecturer on Zionism and former history teacher.

You may wonder, "How can there be so many misconceptions?" Several answers

At the time I started studying these issues, they were occuring, freshly reported, and obvious. When past events no longer were fresh in the mind, it became easier for vested interests, in dealing with younger generations, to challenge the prior body of knowledge and understandings. Liberals, leftists, and Islamics developed ideologies that preferred a different understanding. They ensconced themselves in universities that no longer pursued truth but ideology. Newspapers turned to advocacy journalism. New historians no longer sought to find out what happened, they misrepresented what happened. Europeans indulged old bigotries, became pacifists, allowed a sense of guilt to be played upon, and refused to face the onslaught of jihad. Political correctness is used as a club to prevent dissent. Integrity has waned.


From these conflicting accounts, what is the real news? Each account is presented as if almost the whole story. Actually, we need to synthesize all the accounts to come up with a realistic situation and program.

New York City police have had community relations officers years before jihad became active. It works, to an extent. Internet has offered radical Islam powerful new opportunities. Law enforcement must adapt. Just as the Pentagon has learned it must work with local people against their common jihadist enemy, so, too, Homeland Security learned it must work with local Muslims. Many American Muslim parents do not raise their children for suicide bombing. Giving them help in dealing with their children is vital, and their cooperation with it is encouraging.

I suggest that a part of the curriculum be devoted to resisting the lure of totalitarianism or bigotry, whether of radical Islam, racism, Far Leftism, or cults and to fighting Radical Islam. The phenomenon of "sudden terrorist syndrome" resembles the changes in youth who turn to cults such as the Moonies. They feel accepted, useful to a great cause, and often are turned against society.

Some of the reasons cited for Muslim youth's attraction to Islamist recruiters are dubious. If Muslims wanted to look at their status the way other ethnic groups do, they would have to acknowledge great success in America. Muslims are more prosperous and educated than most other groups. That positive development should be gotten across to them.

If the outreach program appears to be one of appeasement, which some informal efforts by groups of citizens have been, they get exploited by terrorists to provide themselves with cover, legitimacy, and credibility. Some religious groups think they can have sincere dialog with Muslims leaders, but the ones they have dealt with exploit them.

Even Sheriff Baca, associating with a pro-terrorist organization, CAIR, can do counter-productive work. He called his congressional critic anti-American, but associating with a pro-terrorist organization is anti-American. The problem is that some law enforcement officials, and that includes the FBI and White House, fail to differentiate between moderate Muslims and terrorist organizations.

Britain is notorious for that failure. It set up a Muslim council, run by radical Muslims, to advise it on how to counteract radical Muslims! It also appeases Islamic attempts to impose Islamic law in Britain and on other matters. Britain is considered the European headquarters for radical Islamic plotting.

Outreach is not incompatible with forceful policing. My toolbox has more than one implement in it.


This time it was the turn of McLaughlin & Associates to poll U.S. Jews on Obama and Israel.

The three main types of questions were about: (1) Specific policies on Israel; (2) Approval of Obama's dealings with Israel; and (3) Whether they would vote for him.

(1) Recognize an Arab state in 2 years, whatever Israel says: 52 % no, 28% yes

Keep Jerusalem remain undivided: 64% yes, 13% no

Would a new Arab state make peace: 62% no, 19% yes

Require Arab recognition of the legitimacy of a Jewish state before negotiating: 73% yes, 15% no.

(2) Approve of Obama's handling of U.S.-Israel relations: 39% no, 50% yes.

(3) Re-elect Obama: 46% no, 42% yes (IMRA, 4/17/10).

The questions were posed in a balanced way. For your convenience, I reported them stripped down and put all the anti-Obama answers on the left and the pro-Obama answers on the right.

There is consistency within the answers about specific policies. All four show sizable majorities opposing Obama's policies.

One can understand that those polled nevertheless would vote for Obama by a slight plurality. They take other issues into account.

How does one account for voters who disapprove of all four of Obama's policies on Israel by sizable majority, but approve by a majority his handling of U.S.-Israel relations?

The discrepancy is somewhat mitigated by the percentage of Jews who now would vote for Obama falling below the percentage that had voted for him. If this be a trend, then it could reconcile the discrepancy between the opinion of his specific policies on Israel and general opinion of him.

Most Americans vote for what they perceive is in their self interest. Jews are known to vote for what they perceive is social justice for the majority, even when it impairs their self-interest. That could explain why they still would vote mostly for Obama, but not why they approve of how he deals with Israel, when his way of dealing is by castigation and double-dealing for rejecting the same policies that U.S. Jewish voters reject.

So as not to be misunderstood, although I stated that most Jews vote for what they consider social justice, but I am not stating here whether the candidate they approve is spreading social justice.


King constantly denounces Israel (AP/Mohammed Abu Ghosh)

Israel has a new military regulation on the expulsion of Arab aliens that I did not report. The change this past week was described in a confused way. I waited for clarification, rather than get it wrong. Many less patient reporters did get it wrong, according to Caroline Glick, editor of the Jerusalem Post.

Glick, at least, explains it clearly. The regulation was on the books for 41 years. The change is to permit Arabs more time for appeals.

That is not how Haaretz depicted it. Haaretz generated a storm of protest by leftists and Arabs. The newspaper wrote false and alarmist interpretations that the change gave the government the power to deport masses of Arabs from Judea-Samaria, and suggested that was its intent.

The Hebrew-language daily prided itself on getting the King of Jordan to condemn Israel for this. Ten Israeli NGOs, all financed by the New Israel Fund, demanded that the Defense Minister rescind the order. Israeli diplomats were called in to foreign government, to account for the change that they had been misled to be against civil liberties.

After having created an undeserved international scandal for Israel, Haaretz admitted its error. The result was to weaken Israel. This was a demonstration of the power Haaretz, despite its tiny circulation, has to damage Israel. Prosecutors of its reporter, who received stolen military secrets, and perhaps of Haaretz for subsidizing his hideout, may be reluctant to be properly severe (IMRA, 4/17/10).

Haaretz' power lays in anti-Zionist foreign-subsidized NGOs and foreign media taking their cue from Haaretz and acting as its megaphone. They do not check the accuracy of a story damaging to Israel's reputation. Nor does Haaretz' repeated defamation of Israel seem to damage its own reputation.

The King of Jordan has begun evicting some Palestinian Arabs, himself, under new Jordanian regulations, but it doesn't take much for him to condemn Israel.


The Israeli journalist-spy case is another example of Haaretz slanting a story for the benefit of itself and its anti-Zionist ideology. The case was under a court-ordered blackout. Haaretz exploited the blackout to clandestinely approach foreign reporters and spin the story favorably for itself and unfavorably for Israel's reputation. Foreign reporters were not prohibited from publishing the spun story before Israeli authorities had the right to disclose the truth.

Accepting what the Haaretz told them, the foreign journalists reported that Israeli police "disappeared" Anat Kamm and forced Uri Blau to flee, to protect his source, a motive considered noble in the profession. He was depicted as being hounded for revealing embarrassing personal news about IDF officers.

The source, Anat Kamm, was said to have denied stealing documents. Haaretz was depicted as defender of freedom of the press from an oppressive State.

When the gag order was lifted, out came the truth. Blau was not protecting his source. The government knew who it was. Kamm had confessed to the theft and been under arrest for four months! She was not arrested for stealing gossip but for espionage with intent to harm national security. She stole the documents not as a reporter but as a soldier on active duty.

A hacker might have retrieved from her computer Israel's "top-secret information about IDF orders of battle, units, armaments and operational orders. The result could have been the "death of thousands of Israeli soldiers and civilians."

Therefore, reporter Blau had fled "not to protect a source, but to evade punishment for possessing classified military documents in breach not only of the law but of a plea bargain agreement with the Shin Bet." Although he had lied to the Shin Bet, Haaretz subsidized his exile and pretended it was for high principle. Shin Bet had asked the court to extend the gag order, in order to give Blau time to return the documents he had promised to.

Haaretz already knew Kamm had committed treason, when it had its affiliate hire her while she still was in military service.

Kamm admitted that she had entered the Army with a goal of changing it. When she was unable to do so, she decided to expose it. The problem is that far leftist Israeli traitors such as Kamm are not isolated, but they can get an organization, such as Haaretz — backed by so-called civil rights organizations, foreign media, liberal blogs, and foreign governments who will parrot libel against Israel — to hire them, publish their stolen material, cover up for them, treat them as national heroes, and make the government suffer for prosecuting them.

The government was intimidated. The government was afraid it would be accused of restricting freedom of the press, if it rigorously prosecuted Blau. That may be how Blau got away. The gag order was to give Blau time to do the right thing, even after he demonstrated bad faith.

The Shin Bet said it will not change its criteria for vetting draftees. Religious youths still will be asked whether they would expel Jews from their houses, but leftist youths will not be questioned about their loyalty to the State and willingness to keep military secrets.

Maariv and Globes both claim that thousands of Israelis canceled subscriptions to Haaretz as a result of the Haaretz scandal. However, Haaretz real audience is not Israeli readers but that "megaphone." (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 4/17/10).


In January, Defense Secretary Gates wrote a secret memo to national security adviser Gen. James L. Jones warning that the U.S. has no military contingency plans in case Iran develops nuclear weapons.

Gates posed the problem that Iran might build nuclear weapons just short of inserting each one's last screw. Iran still could say it conformed to the nuclear treaty not to build nuclear weapons, but be able to launch an attack with another few minutes' work. How would the U.S. deal with Iran and with other Gulf states?

President Obama was asked what he would do if Iran stopped just short of having deliverable weapons. He refused "to parse" that question.

Some Administration officials deny that there is no plan. They cited lengthy discussions and scenarios (David E. Sanger, Thom Shanker, New York Times, 4/18, A1).

A discussion is not a policy; a scenario is not a detailed military plan. The denials obviously are false. Critics of President Bush who thought he lied to the U.S. about national security matters expressed themselves loud and often. The Obama administration is giving them many opportunities to do the same about it.

Administration critics long had demanded that the U.S. prepare for contingencies, not assume that negotiations and sanctions, that failed for years, would succeed now that Iran is so close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Preparedness and policy decisions are the government's responsibility.

Obama critics had suggested that if Obama wants negotiations and sanctions to work, they must be backed up by credible military plans. Otherwise they get ignored. They are ignored. Absent credible military plans, does the Administration want negotiations and sanctions to work?

When the Administration called for negotiations, Iran refused, set impossible conditions, and insulted the U.S. (without being given the Israel treatment). Still no military plan was developed. When the Administration called for sanctions, China and Russia blocked strong ones, but the U.S. still had no military option. Instead, it watered down sanctions and acted as if it did not want strong ones.

Add to the stew Obama's proposed treaty that the Russians showed would curb our defense against nuclear attack. Does the Obama Administration prefers a naively idealistic ideology to realistic national security?


The New Israel Fund celebrated Israeli Independence Day at a party in Tel Aviv. A Zionist student group, Im Tirtzu, picketed outside. Im Tirtzu claims that the New Israel Fund subsidizes anti-Israel efforts in Europe to get defenders of Israeli independence indited for alleged war crimes.

Haaretz, itself subsidizing the treason of its reporters, covered the event, mostly by denouncing Im Tirtzu for having accepted a relatively small donation from a Christian Evangelical organization. The Left has taken up that denunciation.

Another major part of the story was an interview with MK Dov Chanin of the Israeli Communist Party. Israel's Communist Party never has repudiated Communism, which murdered about a hundred million people. Chanin continues to support Arab terrorists, who also believe in murder.

Chanin condemned Im Tirtzu's criticism of the New Israel Fund as a danger to democracy. Having never repudiated Communism, which destroyed democracies, what gives Chanin the moral authority to condemn as undemocratic a minor critic of an organization supporting efforts to subvert his?

An interesting sidelight to Haaretz' criticism of ideological opponents accepting donations and not of ideological comrades accepting large subsidy is how Haaretz raised funds recently. It sold a one-fourth ownership of itself to DuMont Schauberg, a German investment company. According to Der Spiegel, the DuMonts acquired their wealth during WWII, largely by grabbing stolen Jewish property (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/18).

Is Im Tirtzu hypocritical for accepting donations from a foreign organization while criticizing NGOs in Israel for accepting donations from New Israel Fund and European governments? Superficially, yes. Profoundly, no.

The European governments and New Israel Fund finance unrepresentative, subversive organizations supporting enemies with which Israel is in de jure and/or de facto states of war. The U.S. Evangelist donation was to an organization representative of the majority in Israel that believes in national defense and survival.

Is Haaretz hypocritical for defending foreign donations to leftist and Arab NGOs and opposing a foreign donation to a nationalist Israeli NGO? The answer depends on how the issue is stated. Need to see more examples.

What about the Left's position on McCarthyism? The Left wields false accusations of McCarthyism in the hope of cowing opponents. When the Left denounces, mere criticism of it, and documented statements as McCarthyism, it misrepresents McCarthyism. The Left talks about freedom of speech, but demands that its nationalist opponents be fired or even imprisoned, including for guilt by association. That is McCarthyist.


Ghadafi with Saudi king (A.P./Abdel Magid al-Fergany)

Libya's Ghadafi can be very entertaining. He comes up with startling news and suggestions. His latest foray is about Obama, the Arabs, and Israel.

Ghadafi informs us that Obama, whose first and middle names are Arabic [that part is true], is descended [paternally] from Sudanese Arab Muslims.

The solution to the Arab-Israel conflict, according to Ghadafi, is a single state for Jews and Arabs. It should be democratic (Arutz-7, 4/18/10).

How it would be democratic or civilized after millions of foreign-born Arabs, raised on hatred of Jews, would enter, under his plan, is beyond the ken of lesser mortals than Ghadafi.

Puzzling, isn't it, that dictatorships such as Libya and the Palestinian Authority, recommend a democratic state elsewhere? Not really puzzling, when you realize that what they say is for propaganda in the West, and the West approves of democracy. So these Arab dictators say they want a democratic solution for the Jews and Palestinian Arabs that they do not introduce into their own countries.

Have you noticed that such hypocrisy is ignored in the West? Are Westerners interested in genuine solutions and peace? If so, they should tell the Arabs to turn the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) into a land of democracy, peace, and tolerance. Then the P.A. legitimately could make the offer. Should Israelis accept an offer of democracy, non-violence, and tolerance, from a society that is intolerant, violent, and undemocratic? When would it change, suddenly when an agreement is signed? What would be the Jews' prospects, as a minority in such a society?

Not mentioned is whether this amalgamated country would include the bulk of the former Palestine Mandate, Jordan.


The Irish Confederation of Trade Unions held a day-long conference on how to implement a trade boycott of Israel.

Ireland's Foreign Minister Michael Martin recently described Israel's partial blockade of Gaza as "medieval," but favored a British boycott of Israel. At the conference, however, he said, "The government does not agree with or support any form of boycott which would be completely inimical to the frank and honest dialog we have always pursued with the Israeli government." What the government does agree with is an embargo on products made by Jews in Judea-Samaria, not part of Israel

Martin said that Hamas' attacks on Israeli cities are "completely unjustified, indiscriminate and deadly attacks and added, "Hamas must also cease the insidious practice of kidnapping. I again call on Hamas to release the young Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit."

"The Irish Independent's Ian O'Doherty castigated the trade union for concentrating on a political issue while ignoring workers' day-to-day needs." He thinks the union should focus on helping members' deal with this great recession. He calls the boycott campaign "racist."

O'Doherty asks, "Does the fact that the Iranian regime has spent the last few years ruthlessly crushing their own trade union movement matter to them not a jot? No, as far as the Left is concerned, any criticism of any non-white, and in particular, Muslim country, is seen as neo-imperialism and racism." (Arutz-7, 4/18/10).

The Union did not reconcile its opposing Israel's blockade of Gaza as medieval, with its own support for boycotting Israel. I suppose its theory is that Israel is occupying Judea-Samaria, so it has no right to move its people there. I'll be discussing that in my new series, Major Mideast Misconceptions.

During boyhood, I saw a thrilling movie about the origin of "boycott." It was invented by an Irish protester, a Captain Boycott.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, April 18, 2010.

The man is a pig. One of the more under reported phenomenon in the Muslim /Arab world, vitriolic anti-Semitism that surpasses anything the German Nazis have ever done. And be assured, if the Arabs, let alone the Iranians, ever get the upper hand militarily, they would commit an act of genocide that rivals or even surpasses what the Nazis were able to get away with during WWII.


Oh, and please be reminded that the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said that there's no such thing as Islamic anti-Semitism, regardless of whether you're talking about Hajj Amin al-Husseini or Saddam Hussein.


From MEMRI, Via Sheik Yer'Mami:

President of the American Center for Islamic Research: Jews Murder Non-Jews and Use Their Blood to Make Passover Matzos...

Click here for video H/T Weasel Zippers

I want our brothers, and the whole world, to know what's going on these days, during Passover. Read Dr. Naghuib Al-Kilani's book, Blood for the Matzos of Zion. Every year, at this time, the Zionists kidnap several non-Muslims [sic] — Christians and others... By the way, this happened in a Jewish neighborhood in Damascus. They killed the French doctor, Toma, who used to treat the Jews and others for free, in order to spread Christianity. Even though he was their friend and they benefited from him the most, they took him on one of these holidays and slaughtered him, along with the nurse. Then they kneaded the matzos with the blood of Dr. Toma and his nurse. They do this every year.

The world must know these facts about the Zionist entity and its terrible corrupt creed. The world should know this.

Bloody Projection:

Islam is a blood cult. The obsession with blood is all pervasive. Accusing Jews of the worst evil in the world which they, the Muslims commit, comes with the territory: barbarism, fanatical hatred and lack of reason. Islam as a disease is (almost) incurable....

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

To Go To Top

Posted by John J. Facino, Sr., April 18, 2010.

From every angle comes hatred and re-definitions of what leaders have said and what they proclaim was said. Yet by the actions of one in a short time you know if their heart is love or hatred rooted.It appears hatred elected our president obama by a land slide. Is it truly that America is so filled with such hate? If not, tell me why this nation has over 800 new detention camps and gave Halliburton and order to build numerous more. It is not known how many gas chambers are set up for massive gassings but it is known of three on the first orders of building these camps. Two in my town are set up. each capable to hold 35,000 each. They have been staffed sense they were built. You don't get near to them


Not all people who hate Israel are anti-Semites, but there is a large crossover. Many haters of the Jewish State are actually seeking a politically correct way of spewing anti-Semitism. A perfect example of this is Bishop Desmond Tutu. Tutu is currently urging UC Berkley to divest himself from Israel, based on his years of anti-Semitism it us clear that his rationale is not necessarily any action of the Jewish State, but the method of worship practiced by most of its citizens.

How can Tutu, is vocal defender of human rights, fighter for the oppressed, winner of the Nobel Peace prize in 1984 when it still had meaning, be accused of being an anti-Semitic bigot? Read his own words:

Tutu has made some very disturbing statements about the Holocaust. He has publicly complained about what he calls "the Jewish monopoly of the Holocaust." (Jerusalem Post, July 26, 1985)Jews do own the copyright. We paid for it with more than Six Million lives, one and a half million of those were little children. During his 1989 visit to Israel, Tutu "urged Israelis to forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust," a statement which the Simon Wiesenthal Center called "a gratuitous insult to Jews and victims of Nazism everywhere." (Jerusalem Post, Dec. 31, 1989)

Tutu spreads around the anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish Lobby running the world.

People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust (Source:Monday April 29, 2002, The Guardian UK).

The liberal Israeli daily Ha'aretz (April 29, 2002), reported Tutu's remarks at a conference in Boston, quoted him as saying: "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid": "I've been deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa

Tutu accused Jews of exhibiting "an arrogance — the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support,"(Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin, Nov. 29, 1984)

After his call for "forgiving Hitler" (Jerusalem Post, Dec. 31, 1989) Tutu remarked, "If I'm accused of being anti-Semitic, tough luck," and in response to questions about his anti-Jewish bias, Tutu replied, "My dentist's name is Dr. Cohen." (Simon Wiesenthal Center's Response magazine, January 1990)

Yes Tutu I get it, some of your best friends are Jews, some of my best friends are bigoted Bishops.

Speaking in a Connecticut church in 1984, Tutu said that "the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings." In the same speech, he compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa. (Hartford Courant, Oct. 29, 1984)

This is the "mindset of the man" who is pushing UC California Berkeley to divest itself from Israel, after a vote by the Student Senate in favor of divestment Tutu wrote:

It was with great joy that I learned of the recent 16-4 vote at UC Berkeley in support of divesting the university's money from companies that enable and profit from the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violation of Palestinian human rights. Principled stands like this, supported by a fast growing number of U.S. civil society organizations and people of conscience, including prominent Jewish groups, are essential for a better world in the making, and it is always an inspiration when young people lead the way and speak truth to power.

Tutu pushes his usual argument which totally ignores the terrorism that still exists today and the "gestures" made by Israel to make peace, none of which were matched with gestures from the Palestinians. If he was really interested in human rights, he would have criticized the decision to single out Israel for condemnation, rather than any of the real human rights offenders in the world many of which are in Israel's neighborhood, such as Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

John Facino, Sr. is with Wake up American! (wakeupamericans@comcast.net).

To Go To Top

Posted by LS, April 18, 2010.

What is happening to 'justice' in our Country?!! The below is very concerning.


American Jewish leaders are expressing shock and outrage at the federal government's recommendation that Sholom Rubashkin be sentenced to life in prison for his role as an executive with the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa. It is the latest example of a prosecution that has repeatedly targeted Rubashkin for unfair treatment compared to others who have been accused of employing illegal immigrants or compromising the security of a bank loan.

Supporters of Sholom Rubashkin are being urged to sign an online petition at the "Justice for Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin" Web page here and call or e-mail Department of Justice Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison (202-514-3465; oipl@usdoj.gov and cc: pr@justiceforsholom.org), to protest the recommendations of life in prison for Sholom Rubashkin.

Those interested in assisting the "Equal Justice for Sholom Rubashkin" campaign, or in receiving call to action alerts should e-mail their contact info to info@justiceforsholom.org, or text message ICARE to 347-948-JUST (5878).

Jewish rabbinical leaders have signed a proclamation, urging their Jewish brethren to contact the Justice Department on Rubashkin's behalf, calling it a "sacred obligation of every individual to participate in this mitzvah."

The sentencing recommendation submitted by prosecutors to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa is inconsistent with sentencing of other corporate executives convicted in comparable cases. For example, Mark Turkcan, an official First Bank, was recently convicted of bank fraud involving a loss of approximately $35 million, and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. And Cathy Gieseker was sentenced to nine years in prison for bilking 179 farmers out of more than $27 million. Her motive, unlike Rubashkin and Turkcan, was greed.

Rubashkin was originally indicted for employing illegal immigrants, an offense that has been punished with probation or a short prison term. After seven superseding indictments, prosecutors chose to proceed to trial on alleged bank fraud charges in an effort to increase Rubashkin's punishment, even though interest was paid on all of the money drawn by the loan and the bank has acknowledged it received approximately $21 million in profit from the interest payments.

The bank loan was not paid in full because of the government's raid on Agriprocessors, which caused the company to declare bankruptcy. The bank "called" the loan when Agriprocessors could not continue to make its payments. The May 2008 raid included a military style raid and more than 600 federal agents. It was widely criticized for the extreme tactics utilized by prosecutors and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The raid destroyed the company and had disastrous lasting effects on the community of Postville and the kosher meat industry.

Prosecutors and the U.S. Probation Office have calculated the total offense committed by Rubashkin at level 45 under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Because the federal Sentencing Table caps at level 43, the Probation Office has calculated the total offense at level 43. An offense level of 43 is punished with a life sentence under the sentencing guidelines, which the Supreme Court held as no longer mandatory.

Rubashkin's attorneys have asked the court to impose a sentence no greater than 72 months, noting his positive history and character, his extraordinary family circumstances, and the arbitrary nature of the now-advisory guidelines used by prosecutors. They emphasize that Rubashkin's conduct was not done for personal gain, that he did not intend any loss to the bank, and that a 72-month sentence would allow the Bureau of Prisons to place Rubashkin in a facility with experience in effectively and humanely incarcerating observant Jewish inmates.

In Rubashkin's bank-fraud trial, prosecutors were allowed to present inflammatory evidence regarding the employment of illegal workers, even though the judge had previously ruled that such evidence would prejudice the jury and had severed the immigration and bank fraud charges for that reason. The charges regarding harboring illegal immigrants were eventually dropped.

Rubashkin supporters argue That prosecutors have subjected Rubashkin to more severe restrictions and potential punishment than other employers whose work premises were raided by ICE and who were found to have hired larger numbers of illegal workers. The country's largest meatpacker, Swift & Company, was raided in six different states in December 2006, and almost 1,300 illegal immigrants were arrested. No corporate official of Swift & Company has been prosecuted. RCI, International, a restaurant janitorial service operating in 17 states, was raided in 63 locations in February 2007. Its owners, who paid their employees (all illegal immigrants) in cash, were found to have defrauded the United States of more than $18 million in taxes. Its chief operating officer was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The owner of a Massachusetts manufacturer of leather goods and handbags raided by ICE in March 2007, when 326 illegal immigrants were arrested, was sentenced to one year and one day in prison."

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Belzberg, April 18, 2010.

Yom Hazikaron — the day on which Israel stops to remember its fallen: those who have given their lives in defense of the country and our nation and those who have been killed at the hands of our enemies in terrorist attacks.

Before Israel can celebrate her independence, we must pay tribute to those who gave their lives so that we could live as a free nation in our national home, and those who continue to be maimed and murdered in terror attacks occurring far from the headlines.

A recent report by Israel's General Security Service found a nine-fold increase in terrorist attacks against Israel in March 2010 over March 2009. In the shadow of the increasing terror throughout Israel, OneFamily remains all that stands between survival and collapse for the victims and their families.

At 8:00 (Israel time) this evening, April 18, hundreds of bereaved terror victims will gather at OneFamily's Jerusalem Center to share their memories and to honor those who have been lost. Please click here to view a video of last year's Yom Hazikaron Webcast with the Children of OneFamily.

Shulamit Vizelman is 21 years old. In May 2002, her father Arkady was murdered in a terrorist attack at the Netanya Shuk.

Please click here to read Shulamit's remarks for Yom Hazikaron.

Gad Deri is 30 years old. He was injured during the Second Lebanon War, and shares with us his remarks on the special importance of Yom Hazikaron and Yom Ha'atzmaut. Please click here to read Gad's message.

1376 people have been killed in terrorist attacks against Israel since September 2000. Please click here to view biographies of all those killed.

OneFamily is compling a collection of memorial websites dedicated to the memories of Israel's terror victims. Please click here to view these sites.

Please click here and here to read articles and speeches in memory of Israel's victims of terror.

OneFamily — the family every victim of terror can count on — shares in honoring and saluting the memory of those who have been killed on the battlefield and at the hands of our terrorist enemies. They have given the ultimate sacrifice so that the Jewish people can continue to live free in the Jewish homeland. With your help, their memories will continue to be a blessing for all who knew them and for the entire Jewish nation.

Contact Marc Belzberg by email at info@onefamilyfund.org and visit the website: www.OneFamilyFund.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 18, 2010.

Not Just Espionage — the Not-so-Secret Ex-Nazi Collaborators and Shareholder Partners of Haaretz

On Friday, April 16, the New Israel Fund held a big party in a Tel Aviv nightclub. Much of the Israeli Left was on hand. Outside the party a large group of students from the Im Tirtzu Zionist student group held a protest against the New Israel Fund and denounced it for being an anti-Israel radical group that funds anti-Israel propaganda. The New Israel Fund claimed its event was to celebrate Israeli Independence Day. Im Tirtzu claims that the Fund financed the attempts by anti-Semites in Europe to get Israeli army officers and politicians indicted there in kangaroo courts for "war crimes."

Haaretz, whose role in the latest anti-Israel espionage operation does not come down from the front page, ran a large news report on all this (not on its web site though, only in print edition). It of course blew up the importance of the New Israel Fund event and spent most of the article denouncing the Im Tirtzu students as supposedly radical right-wingers funded by a Christian evangelical group.

There are two important twists to this story that deserve your attention. The first is that the Haaretz reporter interviewed and published comments in the story by one of the key people at the New Israel Fund event — and that person was none other than Dov Chanin (also spelled Khenin), a Knesset Member from the hard-core Israeli communist party. That party has never gotten around to repudiating Stalinism. Chanin is an unreformed Stalinist and cheerleader for Arab terror, but was being featured at a celebration of the New Israel Fund. He is quoted at length in Haaretz as saying that the "attacks" against the New Israel Fund represent a clear and present danger to Israeli democracy, and that it is essential for all good people to rush to the defense of the besieged Israeli democracy.

Got that? A Stalinist who has never gotten around to repudiating the Soviet regimes that produced a conservatively-estimated 100 million deaths in the 20th century and which suppressed all freedoms, including the right to vote, is suddenly alarmed that students who criticize the behavior of the New Israel Fund are a threat to Israeli democracy. And Haaretz cites him as if his words deserve serious attention. Chanin by the way has a PhD in political science from Tel Aviv University — many of whose department faculty members are communists. We are sure these people granted Chanin his degree on the basis of serious scholarly research.

But there is a much more relevant part of the story. Ever since the criticism by the Zionist students of the New Israel Fund and its Chair-rhino Naomi Chazan began, the Left has been trying to discredit the Im Tirtzu students by pointing out that they accepted a small donation from a group of Christian Zionists. And the Far Left considers Christian Zionists to be cryptic fascists, not because they are Christians so much as because they are Zionists. Every single news story in Haaretz that mentions Im Tirtzu dredges up the fact that the student group accepted some money from the Christian Zionists, as if there were something horrific in that. (Wanna lay any wagers on who finances the Israel communist party and Dov Chanin that Haaretz adores so?) So does every leftist web site on the planet that mentions the group.

But there is something far more important here. On the one hand we have Haaretz attempting to discredit and smear the Im Tirtzu students in a campaign of leftist McCarthyism over a donation the students received. But THIS IS THE VERY SAME HAARETZ THAT IS NOW ONE QUARTER OWNED BY A GERMAN INVESTMENT GROUP THAT MADE ITS FORTUNE IN WORLD WAR II FROM ITS NAZI TIES AND FROM GRABBING PROPERTY STOLEN FROM JEWS!!!

In 2006 the Schoken family, which began Haaretz and still is the largest shareholder in it, sold 25% of the ownership shares in Haaretz to a German investor named group DuMont Schauberg. (It also is a major funder of the Shimon Peres Center!) Now according to the leading German news magazine Der Spiegel, the DuMont family amassed the lion's share of its wealth during World War II, in no small part by grabbing property stolen from Jews. Der Spiegel wrote that although the family tends to depict itself as a victim of the Nazi regime, it essentially profited from it. Der Spiegel also claimed that the DuMonts used a front group to secretly grab up stolen Jewish property (if you read German, you can see the report at http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-49298923.html). According to the British Guardian (Oct 30, 2006), group chairman "Alfred Neven DuMont's father had been a member of the Nazi party." On the DuMont web site, the time line that describes the company's history simply skips over the entire Nazi era mysteriously. The DuMonts later sued Der Spiegel and won a small libel suit against Der Spiegel for supposed inaccuracies in its report.

2. A while back Ethan Bronner, a writer at the NY Times, was being attacked by the moonbats for being too pro-Israel. While the rest of the paper routinely smears Israel almost daily, Bronner had written some pieces that were somewhat pro-Israel. Then it turned out that Bronner's son had made aliyah and serves in the IDF so the moonbats have been stampeding the NY Times with demands that Bronner be fired for the crime of Zionism (see for example
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/ opinion/07pubed.html).

Well, Bronner evidently saw the writing on the wall and now has composed a Bash-Israel piece in which he claims that Israelis disapprove of Obama because they are racists who do not like black folks:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/137056

Yeah, sure. The same country that welcomed in tens of thousands of Ethiopians, not all of them Jewish, and is reluctant to evict a bunch of Sudanese infiltrators is just swarming with people who hate Obama cause of his skin color.

Well, at least Bronner is a fast learner. He knows what sorts of lies and fabrications his NY Times handlers demand and expect.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, April 18, 2010.

It's hypocritical that Jewish Sheikh Jarrah protesters retire to homes built on former Arab land.


It's hypocritical that Jewish Sheikh Jarrah protesters retire to homes built on former Arab land.

On January 22 the weekly leftist and Arab protesters in Sheikh Jarrah were joined by a number of Israeli Jewish notables, including former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg and one-time education minister Yossi Sarid.

They were protesting against Jewish settlers moving into Jewish houses whose residents had been forced to flee in 1948, when they ended up on the Jordanian side of the border.

On March 7, Burg explained his feelings in an op-ed, "Once justice dwelled here. Now the settlers do, murderers of the nation's soul... We shall not be silent when Ahmed and Aysha are sleeping in the street outside their home." For him the protesters were the "people of integrity." Jews must "leave Sheikh Jarrah now!"

Another celebrity activist in the struggle in Sheikh Jarrah is Sahar Vardi, daughter of Dr. Amiel Vardi of the Hebrew University. Sahar, who refused to do her army service, claimed in an interview that it is "unconscionable for me to live in my home in the German Colony and study whatever I like" when Arabs are being evicted from homes in east Jerusalem.

In late March another Sheikh Jarrah Jewish activist named Michael Solsberry was arrested at his home in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Pisgat Ze'ev.

There is a common stream that runs through those who are active against the occupation. Many are from leading families, come from a wealthy background and live in the most expensive neighborhoods. Nothing in itself is wrong with this, except when one considers what they demand of others. While they claim to be at the forefront of human rights, their activism obscures a darker truth. They believe it is acceptable to live where they want without being protested against, but deny that others might live in certain areas they deem to be off limits.

A recent suit aimed at preventing Jews from living in Arab parts of Jaffa was aided by attorney Gil Gan-Mor of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel. The supposed logic behind ACRI's opposing the Jews who want to live there is that they are members of Be'emuna, a religious Zionist organization.

The same ACRI supported Adel and Inan Kaadan in their quest to move into the Jewish village of Katzir. ACRI went to the Supreme Court and received a ruling from then court president Aharon Barak that "being a democratic Jewish state, as the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom asserts, Israel must act in accordance with the principle of equality."

Consider Meretz's motto for the 2008 city council elections in Jerusalem: "Put an end to the haredization of the city." Pepe Alalu, Meretz's city councilman has been at the forefront in the "struggle" against the supposed haredi takeover of neighborhoods such as Kiryat Hayovel, a struggle that has seen the tearing down of an eruv (a border around a community that permits religious Jews to carry items on Shabbat) erected by religious Jews.

Ironically, Alalu would be first to speak out against a slogan demanding the "end to the Arabization of Gilo and Pisgat Ze'ev."

NOW LET us return to the story of Burg, Vardi and Solsberry. Burg resides in the beautiful, quiet communal settlement of Nataf in the Jerusalem foothills. Founded in 1982, it features large villas overlooking the Green Line. In 2006 it had 387 residents. It was built on land acquired from Arabs from neighboring Abu Ghosh. Nataf had once been the home of an Arab effendi and had 16 Muslim residents in 1922 and 40 in 1945.

A photo of Burg in The New York Times in 2008 shows him in his peaceful home adorned with maps and vases.

Vardi, according to an interview in Haaretz in March, resides in the German Colony, a leafy neighborhood in Jerusalem that once housed German Christians. Solsberry lives in Pisgat Ze'ev, a Jewish community in Jerusalem established beyond the Green Line.

Yossi Sarid, who also took part in the Sheikh Jarrah protests, resides in Margaliot, a moshav in the North that was the Shi'ite village of Hunin before 1948.

For all the Jewish activists in Sheikh Jarrah, it seems the height of hypocrisy that they can retire to their homes, built on former Arab villages or even in "illegal settlements" at the end of their protest against Jews who they decry for settling in former Jewish homes in an Arab neighborhood. For ACRI and Alalu, there is one equal right for Arabs wishing to reside in Jewish areas and another for religious Jews wishing to reside in Arab areas or among secular Jews.

The double standards employed by these organizations, politicians and activists are not unique to Israel. In places like Arizona, Vermont and Montana, it has often been common for people to move into a "pristine" area and then complain when other "developers" wish to build new homes that might ruin their view of what the land "should" look like.

Israel is increasingly divided between those who have settled in pristine places and those who would like to live the dream for themselves. It has some secular people who wish to live in peace and yet would deny others their lifestyle. It also has Arabs who want their communities 100% Arab, yet wish to have equal rights to live in Jewish areas.

The writer is a PhD researcher at Hebrew University.

The article appeared in the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=173054

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 18, 2010.

With nightfall comes the wail, and Israelis stand at attention for a minute: Yom HaZikaron, the Day of Remembrance of those who have fallen in protecting Israel, has begun. It is day of utmost seriousness here. In all, 22,682 soldiers have fallen; this year alone 112 soldiers were added to the toll.

It is not only the family that mourns the fallen soldier. It is his comrades. The IDF is an army like no other in the world — a people's army, where most serve, and then continue to serve yearly in reserve duty. Those who serve together over the years are bonded. And when there is a loss, the bonding extends to the grieving family. I have heard incredible stories about the ties that are formed, and the ways in which young men rush to attend to the needs of the relatives of their comrade who has been lost.


Rabbi Stewart Weiss, writing in the JPost on Friday, said this:

"...our soldiers march on, absolutely secure in their knowledge that they are the primary line of defense, which allows everyone else in the country to pursue a normal life. Observant soldiers — who are fast becoming the majority of the IDF's career officers — know in their hearts that they are G-d's holy messengers performing the ultimate mitzvah: putting into practice G-d's promise to watch over and guard His beloved nation. In the army, our soldiers — though underpaid and over underfed — live and breath the sacred ideals of unity,purpose and self-sacrifice that raise the moral bar for our entire society."

Rabbi Weiss's eldest son, Sgt. Ari Weiss, fell in battle fighting terrorists in Nablus during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.


Also in Friday's JPost was a most incredible story, told by Barbara Sofer. It's about sacrifice and connectedness, and it made me weep. Briefly:

Twelve years ago, Uriel Peretz, the eldest son of Miriam and Eliezer Peretz, originally from Morocco, was killed in battle in Lebanon. His M-16 was passed to another soldier in his unit, Gadi Ezra, the youngest son of Roseline and Soli Ezra, from Algeria and Egypt respectively. In 2002, he, as Ari Weiss (above), participated in Operation Defensive Shield. When he fought in Jenin, his commanding officer was the younger brother of Uriel Peretz: Eliraz Peretz.

In Jenin, Gadi bent to help a wounded soldier and took a bullet in the neck. "You have to save me!" Gadi cried to Eliraz. Then, he died in Eliraz's arms, calling "Shema Yisrael."


Gadi, it turned out, had written a letter to his fiancee before he died. Sofer provides a shortened, translated version:

"My Dear Galiti, If this letter reaches you, it means that something has happened to me. This morning, we were informed that the mission planned yesterday, with the Almighty's help, will take place today. My beloved, on one hand I feel that there is nothing more that I want in this world than to be with you — to love you and establish a home and a family with you. But on the other hand, there isn't anything I want more than to be a part of this military operation and strike those terrorists a blow so strong that they will never again even consider carrying out a terrorist attack.

"Don't be angry with me, my love, but at moments like this, your feeling for klal Yisrael (the people of Israel) is the feeling that is supposed to guide you — and you relate to this evil as if your private life does not exist.

"To do this, there is a price that we must pay. I am willing to be that price. Soldiers of King David's army would free their wives from marriage before going into battle. My beautiful one, I love you so much and the only grief of mine is that you will have sorrow and I won't be the one who will be privileged to make you happy.

"You deserve all the happiness in the world. I will always watch over you from wherever I am and I will see to it that you will meet someone who will make you even happier than I could have made you. Only promise me that you will continue onward and will not allow Sodom to be the victor. I will love you forever, Gadi."

The Human Spirit: To a relative abroad


When Eliraz Peretz went to pay a condolence call to the Ezra family, he brought with him his fiancee, Shlomit Gilboa, who spent her time attempting to comfort Galit, to whom that letter had been written. She embraced her as family and included her in various events surrounding her upcoming wedding to Eliraz. Very quickly, the Gilboa family determined that Galit would be perfect with Shlomit's brother, Eliezer. Later Eliraz said he felt that this was what Gadi had asked of him when he cried, "Help me!" His job was to introduce Galit to Eliezer. And, indeed, Galit and Eliezer did marry, and today have four sons.

At the time that Gadi was killed, Eliraz was wounded. When he returned to his unit, he was assigned a different M-16. Only later did he realize that it had been Gadi's and before that belonged to his brother.

Then, last month, Eliraz Peretz, Uriel's younger brother, was killed in Gaza, in an exchange of fire with terrorists attempting to plant explosives along the fence. A member of the Golani Brigade, he left behind four children under six years of age, and Miriam now mourns two sons.

Gadi's older brother has the M-16.

Sofer wrote:

"May all the memories of the fallen be for a blessing. Maybe we be privileged to defend the State of Israel with words, and not to be put to the ultimate test."

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=173222


I wrote about Eliraz's funeral when he died, because the words of his mother Miriam (now a widow), were so stunning: She said that her sons fell so that "the entire nation of Israel can live safely here."

We are, I believe, a very special people.

With everything else, the JPost on Friday also carried a major story about her. Read it:
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/ Article.aspx?id=173225


Because of the grave importance of the issue — and, indeed, the way in which it may ultimately impinge on us here — I shift gears for one brief moment to share a link to a New York Times article.

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document."

The classified document was written in January and addressed "new options for Mr. Obama. They include a set of military alternatives, still under development, to be considered should diplomacy and sanctions fail to force Iran to change course."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/ world/middleeast/18iran.html

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Stephen Michal Kramer, April 17, 2010.

We recently joined tour guide Pamela Levene to visit Ramla, the mixed Jewish-Arab city in the center of Israel. While many people mistakenly think that Jerusalem was once the Muslim capital of Palestine, they are mistaken. Ramla is the only Arab city in the Land of Israel that was once a capital. Ramla was founded at the beginning of the 8th century by Caliph Suleiman ibn Abd el-Malik, the second son of Abd el-Malik, the Muslim caliph from the Umayyad dynasty who built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

The Umayyads originated in the area of Mecca. From 661-750 CE, they ruled the Islamic Caliphate, the world's largest empire at that time. By the end of Ummayad rule, one-third of the world's population lived under the Ummayad Caliphate, making it one of the largest empires in history.

Suleiman located the new city of Ramla, named after the sand dunes on which the town was built, near the devastated city of Lydda (Lod), which had an abundant water supply. Ramla is located on the route of the ancient Via Maris (Way of the Sea), which connected Egypt with Damascus. It is also the intersection of roads connecting the port of Jaffa with Jerusalem. "Ramla served as the Umayyad and Abbasid capital of the Province of Palestine and the seat of Arab governors of the province in the 8th and 9th centuries. In the 14th century, Ramla regained importance for a short time as the provincial capital of the Mamluks." (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

During this period, Sunni and Shia Muslims, indigenous Jews, Jews from the Diaspora, and Karaites lived in the city. (The Karaite sect recognizes only written Jewish law from the Torah, not the originally oral traditions collected in the Talmud.) Ramla was the principal city and Muslim district capital until the arrival of the Crusaders in the 11th century. Ramla remained a notable town in the Crusader-ruled Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was an important way station for pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem with economic significance. The Crusaders called it Arimathea, misktaking for the Rama of Jesus' time.

Our group met at the Ramla train station on a hot afternoon. From there, we walked to our first attraction: St. Helen's Pools. Helena was the mother of Constantine, the Roman emperor who moved the capital from Rome to the eponymous Constantinople, on the site of the existing city of Byzantium. Helen, who became Christian long before her son (it is said that he became a Christian on his deathbed), came to Palestine to rediscover the most important Christian sites. The Pools are not one of them, because they were built by the Abbasidian caliph, Hauoun-al-Rashid. The Pools are actually a large cistern covered by 24 vaults with square openings, which allowed many people to draw water simultaneously. The cistern, delightfully cool on a hot day, also had interesting lighting and four row boats which can be paddled around the relatively small area, roughly 20x20 yards.

Our next next stop was the White Mosque and the minaret next to it, Ramla's premier tourist site. The original structure was built at the beginning of the 8th century during Umayyad rule and its remains were incorporated in the restoration work by Salah al-Din (Saladin) at the end of the 12th century. The minaret was built during the Mamluk period, in the 14th century.

The White Mosque was known as the region's most beautiful mosque outside of Jerusalem, but there isn't much left of the huge mosque, which covers about 95x85 yards. There was a large, open courtyard, beneath which were constructed enormous, cisterns which are still intact. There are remains of the aqueducts which brought water from the springs in the hills east of Ramla.

The main attraction is the tall, square minaret, known as the White Tower, with its central staircase of 119 steep steps. In the outer walls of the minaret are long, narrow windows in recessed arches. Pamela pointed out the different keystones in the many arches of the tower, a unique feature of the site, which is a candidate for inclusion on the United Nations World Heritage list. After walking to the top of the minaret, we enjoyed panoramic views towards the sea, the airport, the new city of Modi'in, and the Judean mountains.

Pamela told us that there is an oft told tale of Napoleon directing the battle for Jaffa from the top of the White Tower, though this is clearly fanciful. (He was also supposed to have directed the battle from Napoleon's Hill, in Givatayimm, next to Tel Aviv). What is known as fact is that in 1799 Napoleon stayed at Terra Santa hospice of St. Francis, our next stop, on his way to Jerusalem. Disturbed in the early morning by the muezzin's call to prayer from the nearby mosque, Napoleon gave orders; the muezzin was shot and plunged to his death. Napoleon and his men packed and hurriedly left town. The incensed Muslims of Ramla reacted to this affront by slaughtering many innocent Jews and Christians.

From the Franciscan hospice we headed to the open market (shuk), which attracts thousands of customers and lookers on a daily (except Saturday) basis. We strolled along several of its many streets. One of our group stopped at her favorite stall, where the proprietor concocted the perfume of her choosing in a matter of minutes.

Our last stop was at a small mosque, significant because there is a Crusader church inside of it. The church was converted in its entirety into a mosque when the Crusaders were driven out. There, Pamela gave us a few odd facts about modern Ramla, such as one of the founders of the Palestinian Fatah party, Abu Jihad, was born there; Adolph Eichmann was executed at Ramla Prison — though his cremated remains were scattered at sea so as not to contaminate the Land of Israel; and David Ben-Gurion wrote his seminal platform for the Jewish State there.

Ramla, and nearby Lydda, had been allotted to the Arabs in the United Nations Partition Plan of November, 1947, but they totally rejected the concept of sharing the land with the Jews. Consequently, battles broke out between Jewish and Arab forces immediately, as each side jockeyed to gain position before the British withdrew in May, 1948. Ramla was captured by Israel in July, 1948, during Israel's War of Independence. Most Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from Ramla during the war.

Today, the ethnic makeup of the city of about 65,000 is roughly 80% Jewish, 20% Arab, about a fifth of whom are Christian. The world's largest Karaite community exists in Ramla, where 3,000 of their approximately 11,000 members live. The city is currently developing its tourism sites and its economy. New shopping malls and public parks have been built, and a municipal museum opened in 2001. Judging from the large group Pamela attracted, the city has potential.

With friends, we finished our Ramla tour on a small street off of the shuk that had many social clubs for the city's varied population, all of which were small but lively. We had a cheap, delicious meal at a tiny, plain meat restaurant, where we chose the skewers, steak or chops ourselves and the owner grilled them in the street. It was a tasty ending to our very interesting introduction to Ramla.

To email our excellent guide, Pamela Levene: rsvp.tours.israel@gmail.com

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." Contact him at mskramer@bezeqint.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 17, 2010.


No sooner had President Obama admitted that the U.S. cannot impose conditions on Israel and the Arabs, then Secretary of State Clinton resumed the U.S. campaign to impose conditions.

She said, "We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza," "And to refrain from unilateral statements and actions that could undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks."

"Israel must strengthen the PA and the PLO in order to counter Hamas, Clinton said. "Israel can and should do more to support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to build credible institutions and deliver results," she added.

She wants the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to end its incitement against Israel.

Since Israel had halted new construction in Judea-Samaria, her mention of "settlement activity" must refer to building in Jerusalem. The P.A. has demanded all areas that had been under Jordanian (and Egyptian) control 1948-1967. Israel declares the whole city of Jerusalem its capital.

When Clinton represented New York in the Senate, she endorsed Israel's position, averring that Jerusalem's status must "never be questioned." Once she hired on for Obama, she reversed herself, and now demands that even historically Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem be turned over to the Arabs (Arutz-7, 4/16/10).

The statement about ending incitement is brief and vague. It does not mention the systematic P.A. campaign to defame Israel and the Jewish people, to deny their history (and incidentally deny much of Christian history), to claim all of Israel, and to threaten violence unless Israel gives the Arabs what they demand. The State Dept. has periodically tossed in that brief, vague statement as if the State had a balanced view. Obviously, that statement is a mere formality, meant to deceive.

After all, the P.A. campaign of defamation and incitement certainly undermines trust and shows a bellicosity that disqualifies the P.A. from negotiating and from being given any concessions. The campaign proves belligerent intent, not a desire for peace. Since the Palestinian Arabs have belligerent intent, their "aspirations" are war, conquest, dispossession, and murder. Has the U.S., still the world's hope, come down to that? Clinton's wisdom and ethics in demanding that Israel assist P.A. "aspirations" become suspect.

But Clinton lectures Israel and not the P.A. on this. That is imbalance and unfair.

As for actions that "risk prejudicing the outcome of talks," she probably is referring to house-building. Legally, house-building does not change the status of territory. But if house-building by Jews does, then doesn't house-building by Arabs? Doesn't she really mean that Israeli assertion of Jewish rights might keep the State Dept. from imposing its pre-conceived, pro-Arab outcome?

The P.A. claim to areas seemingly because they briefly were under control of Arab states is not valid. Jordan and Egypt seized those areas in a war of aggression. Having had no legitimate claim to those areas, they cannot pass on any title to anyone.

Saying one thing one day and another thing the next day, President Zig-Zag and Secretary Flip-Flop engender for business, an economy-slowing uncertainty, for allies, dismay, and for enemies, contempt of America.


When is a crime that risks national security not criminal? The Israel Press Council has asked police not to arrest Haaretz journalist Uri Blau for receiving and chancing the loss of top secret defense documents that could jeopardize the lives of Israeli troops and national security.

The Council urged Blau to return to Israel, and to return the documents as he had promised, a promise he broke while pretending he honored. Press Council head and former Supreme Court Justice Dahlia Durmer warned that an arrest would set dangerous precedent, undermine journalism, and present Israel as a country against freedom of speech. [Americans have a separate category for freedom of press.]

Haaretz defended both Blau and the document thief, Anat Kam, as having performed a public service by informing the public what it needs to know (Arutz-7, 4/9/10).

No examples of the public service were cited. Previous articles stated the type of data in the top secret documents that would enable enemies to cope with the IDF by knowing how the IDF would proceed.

Haaretz and the Supreme Court have expressed righteous indignation against Jews' houses and towns that the government had authorized for construction and residency but did not get around to issuing final approval, as "illegal." Haaretz and the Supreme Court said the law must be enforced, for Israel is a government of laws.

The government made a major exception. It did not enforce the law against clearly illegal construction by Arabs on land they did not own but usurped and of houses lacking even preliminary authorization and often zoned for public use. Then, Israel is not a government of laws.

What is the press' principle here? Is it that stealing top secret documents is not illegal but a public service when a journalist risks letting secrets fall into the hands of the enemy, who can widow his readers? The burglar is the public's watchdog? Journalists should find another way to expose corruption or incompetence. Can one trust them not to slant what they find? Haaretz takes positions too close to that of Israel's terrorist enemies to merit trust.


The Israeli spy journalist-spy case raises questions about military security procedures and journalistic ethics. There is a bigger question.

The IDF document thief excused her crime as motivated by a desire to halt war crimes. But she stole documents unrelated to that, such as the Israeli order of battle, i.e., how the IDF positions and maneuvers which forces during battle. The if enemy had obtained the documents she and the journalist to whom she gave a set were unable to keep secure — she lost her copies — the enemy could inflicted heavy casualties on Israeli troops. [Then she would amount to being the war criminal.] Her excuse unsound, we are left with treachery for ideological reasons.

Such treachery has occurred before by members of the Left, who tried to reveal nuclear secrets, work with terrorists, and shield Arab Members of Knesset to assisted the enemy. The big question is, will the Left or the country as a whole, examine leftist ideology and practice, to determine why treason comes from the Left and what may be wrong with its ideology.

There is a double standard in Israel. When some idealistic cadets stated that they would not obey political orders to expel Jews from their houses in the Judea-Samaria, the Left said that the law and duly constituted authority must be obeyed. Another big question is why the Left has a double standard and why it excuses leftists who encourage draft dodging and desertion (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/15/10 from Michael Freund).


Khalid Amayreh, who has written for the pro-Hamas Al Jazeera satellite network and for the Iranian News Agency called former New York City Mayor Ed Koch a "Zionist racist," "Zionist thug" and "depraved liar" who is an "old man with one foot in the grave." He wrote on an English-language PA opinion web site, that Koch tries to "brainwash people's minds about the reality of Zio-Nazim [sic] as embodied by the Satanic creature known as Israel."

Amaryeh has accused the United States of collaborating the Palestinian Authority, and now also accuses it of an "unholy alliance" with Israel.

Another choice description: "One can argue rather candidly that Koch is either an irredeemable, willful ignoramus...or a pornographically odious liar that lies as often as he breathes oxygen..."

Koch, as an earlier piece indicated, had expressed disenchantment with President Obama for picking on Israel. Amaryeh claims that Jewish towns in Judea-Samaria are discriminatory (Arutz-7, 4/9/10).

How does disparaging Koch for age pertain to validity of viewpoint? Ageism is discriminatory. It belies Amyreh's professed concern about discrimination. If age were relevant, what about the advanced age of the King of Saudi Arabia and the ailing President Mubarak of Egypt?

Mayor Koch once invited my organization to Gracie Mansion, where he behaved like a perfect gentleman. "Zionist thug?" Not Koch. To radical Muslims, the point is not accuracy nor civil behavior, the point is defame and denounce. That is part of their war strategy. Their nastiness goes unnoticed by the world. That says something about the level of perceptiveness and decency of the world.

One may debate Koch's opinion, but to call Koch a depraved, pornographic liar sounds unhinged. It may not be neurotic, this is a cultural attitude toward disputes.


arson in Arab village of Hawara, Jews arrested (AP/Nasser/Ishtayeh)

The IDF arrested a Palestinian Arab terrorist cell that had shot at an Israeli motorist, near Tel Aviv. Within two days of the shooting, the IDF tracked the cell to an Arab village near Kalkilya, supposedly under P.A. security control.

After months of Arab rock-throwing attacks on Israeli cars, the Army has decided to give motorists more protection and feels it has become more adept at doing so. When the rocks shatter windshields, drivers may lose control and crash to their deaths (Arutz-7, 4/9/10).

Terrorists victimize people on the basis of ethnic identity, not on the basis of what they do. It is the ultimate in bigotry and discrimination.

An earlier article described how rock-throwing at stalled cars may develop into a lynching.

The IDF did not explain how it became more capable of protecting motorists, but one can imagine it has developed more informants among local Arabs. Such Arabs would be working to prevent the murder of innocent people. Nevertheless, the Palestinian Authority would condemn and perhaps execute them for "collaboration."

Why did it take months of attacks before Israeli security officials decided to offer more protection?


It sounds far fetched to ask whether the U.S. is too anti-Christian to fight radical Islam, but stay with us.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether a public university may compel a Christian student group to accept as leaders students who reject the organization's core principles. Do Americans have freedom of association?

The Christian Legal Society at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, in San Francisco, has public meetings but requires voting members and leaders to sign a Statement of Faith. The Statement includes "biblical principles of sexual morality." The University excludes the Society from normal campus life because of its membership and leadership requirement.

Other colleges have taken a similar stance. They claim to be opposing discrimination and to be seeking diversity. However, if religious groups cannot organize, there would be less diversity [and more discrimination]. What sense would there be to allow non-believers to control what were set up as organizations for particular religions?

The courts had overruled colleges in all prior cases. The Supreme Court has ruled before that people may organize around shared beliefs. Now, however, the Ninth Court of Appeals ruled for Hastings College. The issue is joined once again (Harry A. Silverglate, chair of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and writer of its friend-of-the-court brief in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, Wall St. J, 4/16/10, A17).

Secular liberals running some colleges try to impose a conformity that denies freedom of speech and association. Nor is this limited to higher education. I have reported on lower school curricula that teach favorably about, and have students practice, Islam, but do not do the same for Christianity or other religions.

There seems to be a one-sided political correctness and a one-sided multi-culturalism that belies the supposed interest in diversity and seems tinged with anti-Christian sentiment. Campus leftists often ally themselves with radical Muslims to repress dissent and encourage hate-speech by their side. They are not focusing on the good of the country or on American values of liberty. So the question of the day remains, "Is the U.S. too anti-Christian to fight radical Islam?"


Poster of Assassinated Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (AP/Vincent Thian)

The UN has investigated the assassination of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, overcoming hindrances by Pakistani officials. The UN report accuses authorities of failing to protect her, of destroying evidence after the attack, and of deliberately investigating the assassination improperly.

The report maintained that if the district police, provincial government, and federal government had taken advisable, requested, adequate security measures, they could have prevented the murder. They knew the risk but did not act. The federal government informed her about the risk, but left her on her own.

The local government did not exercise crowd control, did not provide a police escort, and had no plan for handling an attack. Instead of sealing the crime scene, they destroyed evidence. Within an hour forty minutes, they used a fire hose on the crime scene, alleging civil unrest, but, according to the UN's informants, hosed at the order of intelligence agencies. They obtained 23 pieces of evidence instead of the thousands expected.

Within a day of the attack, and without an autopsy report, the Interior Ministry held a press conference at which it identified cause of death. The Ministry assumed, oddly, that the 15-year-old suicide bomber acted alone.

The UN report urges Pakistan to end "impunity for political crimes." (Joe Lauria, Wall St. J., 4/16/10, A8).

The newspaper report should have compared Pakistani detectives' performance in this case with non-political cases. Israeli detectives have made mistakes of a similar level and been interfered with by intelligence agencies, too. Rabin's assassination also occurred during lapses of security. It was investigated and tried without a proper chain of evidence and with illogical rulings and conclusions. Some of those who were responsible for failure to protect Rabin received promotions or other perks from the official who took Rabin's place, Shimon Peres.


In the end, the Student Senate of the University of California at Berkeley did not override the Student President's veto of the Senate's endorsement of divestment from Israel (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/15/10).


History explains what happened and how we reached the present situation. Ignoring history, some people follow an ideology not factual but which confirms their prejudices. Their hobble their mind with fundamental misconceptions. Having false concepts, how can they understand the Arab-Israel conflict?

Fundamental misconceptions are widespread. They cause much unwarranted indignation. Some readers outright reject a fact favorable to Israel or unfavorable to the Arabs, because their ideology sees the two sides as absolutely good and absolutely evil. Some readers use irrelevant misconceptions as if to rebut. However, a misconception cannot not refute the reported fact.

The use of an irrelevant point indicates inability to refute the reported news and the implication of the news. An accusation against someone else does not exonerate the first person from the criticism. Sometimes the accusation is valid, but I find that much of the change-the-subject criticism and tit-for-tat criticism is based on misconception.

The same misconceptions arise repeatedly, because society is not disabused of them in an organized way. Besides, many people prefer the comfort of their ideological untruths.

This series tackles the more common misconceptions. Each day, another example will be taken up. Those who read my articles regularly will see them all, and may realize that the whole is greater than each individual part that they try to refute if served up individually.

Unable to distinguish between scholarly treatment and false propaganda, many people adopt an ideology without proper study. Then they measure each new idea against that ideology. If it doesn't fit, they reject it and probably the source of it. They reject one idea and fact after another. They don't add up all the ideas that do not fit and find they weigh more than their ideology. They screen out challenges to their ideology, instead of changing their ideology.

Those who locate an article of mine via one-time search engine may continue to harbor some of those misconceptions. Too bad. Those false premises mislead them about the basic issues and therefore any proposed solutions they endorse.

Here is a list of major misconceptions. I invite you to remind me of others. Facts, not rumor, please. I guess the biggest misconception is that the Internet is where one always gets the whole truth. Actually, the Internet is a mixed bag, spreading rumor and truth. One needs a sound factual and historical basis, not a party line, for evaluating new evidence.

[Each weekend another couple of articles on misconceptions will appear.]


Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed the controversial UN mission to Gaza, declined to attend his grandson's Orthodox bar mitzvah in South Africa. Congregants warned him of rumors that that his presence would stimulate disruptive protests there. Nobody knows who, if anybody, threatened what. Security would be so tight that non-congregant protesters would not be permitted in the synagogue nor even close to it.

The South African Zionist Federation objects to the UN report that accused Israel of having committed war crimes. Members of the congregation believe that Judge Goldstone "sold out his Jewish brethren." Many South Africans accuse Goldstone not only of faulty reasoning, but of a kind of antisemitism.

South African Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein wrote that the UN has an "anti-Israel agenda" and the UN mission was "merely a cover for a political strategy of delegitimizing Israel." Nevertheless, he and others believe that decency mandates compassion for the boy and not disrupting his celebration. [Grandparents fulfill a role in such ceremonies.]

A caption in the newspaper report stated that the UN mission "found evidence of war crimes during Israel's invasion of Gaza." Goldstone's report concluded from the "available evidence" that both sides committed war crimes in Gaza, but the report focused mostly on Israel. PM Netanyahu called the UN Report a strategic danger for Israel (Barry Bearak, NY Times, 4/17, A1)

Netanyahu, too, perceives the Report as a biased tool for delegitimizing Israel.

South African Jews are more ardently pro-Zionist than most Diaspora communities.

I saw no evidence of antisemitic, or self-hating, or even anti-Zionist sentiment by Goldstone. One should be cautious about accusing him of those. But there is no question that he did a "hatchet job" on Israel. The New York Times, cautious in its own wording, as usual drops vague hints that cannot be called outright lies but leave emotional false impressions.

For example, it is true that the report focused mostly on Israel. The Times fails to explain why. It would be more informative and more accurate to report that the mission was chartered to focus exclusively on Israel, because of UN bias, but protests moved UN officials not to change the mission's charter but to claim they had. So the report came to include brief and mild accusations that Hamas committed war crimes, as if an afterthought. Hamas did not much mind it. The Report therefore rallied world public opinion against Israel.

Neither is the Times accurate in describing the Mission as having "found evidence of war crimes during Israel's invasion of Gaza." That wording implies that Israel was the war criminal. The war crimes that the Report alleged include Hamas bombardment of Israel. That bombardment started before Israeli forces entered Gaza. Hamas had been committing the war crime of targeting civilians for years, not that the UN had noticed. It was to stop such war crimes that Israeli forces entered Gaza. Not emphasizing that fact slants the report toward an anti-Israel agenda.

The Times referred to the Mission gathering "the available evidence." That is not true. Extensive evidence that would exculpate Israel and inculpate Hamas was omitted. That is the mark of a "hatchet job."

The caption asserts that the Mission "found evidence" of war crimes in Gaza. Inaccurate, again. Much of what it "found" it simply borrowed without checking, from NGOs' reports that, like Goldstone's investigators, had improper standards of gathering and evaluating evidence. It wasn't evidence against Israel, it was a leap to judgment from facts or allegations proved false or that do not logically support the adverse conclusions.

As for evidence against Hamas for using human shields, Goldstone simply rejected ample evidence. Goldstone is worse than the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, because he missed most of the evil and mischaracterized most innocent acts as evil.

Now it is true that the government of Israel, being suspicious of the UN mission's integrity, did not cooperate with it. However, Israelis privately did. For example, David Bedein had pertinent testimony that Goldstone slept through. My articles were filled with evidence and analysis, which did not appear in Goldstone's report. His report was filled with unconfirmed or disproved Arab propaganda.

I found the reaction of readers who disagreed with me interesting and typical of anti-Israel mind-set. They did not try to rebut the evidence I adduced nor the logic I deduced. They simply repeated Goldstone's qualifications and his fallacies that my articles overturned. They know how to denounce dissidence, but not how to debate.


Sheriff Baca in anti-narcotics drive (AP/Reed Saxon)

Los Angeles Country Sheriff Lee Baca started an outreach program to gain the trust and cooperation of Muslims in solving mutual problems, especially radicalization of Muslim youth. Homeland Security sympathizes but, is cautious, lest their work become a political target on the grounds of being soft on terrorism.

Indeed, when Baca testified before Congress, Republic Representative Mark Soulder criticized him for attending fundraisers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization,

After 9/11, U.S. Muslims curbed cooperation with police, fearing the police would spy on them. People resent being the butt of ethnic profiling. Law enforcement has been switching from ethnic profiling to risk profiling, but since Muslims pose the greatest risk, they end up resenting delays at checkpoints.

Clark Ervin, director of the homeland security program at the Aspen Institute, is changing the Department's approach to jihad. "He said that common factors that contribute to leading impressionable minds down the path to violence are: a lack of economic opportunity; a limited education; strained family ties; a sense of impotence; alienation and grievance, plus a desire to be a part of something big and noble."

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy titled "Rewriting the Narrative: An Integrated Strategy for Counterradicalization" praised the Dutch and British communication with their Muslim communities. The Dutch have "networks of local Muslims to whom people can refer concerns about specific individuals. The aim is for the local community to handle situations itself without referring to local law enforcement unless there is imminent danger."

British Muslims were more suspicious of outreach programs run by police. They are more accepting of those programs, now.

As for American Muslims, "After what they went through post-9/11 with the FBI using informants and infiltrating the mosques, the Muslims thought we were here to gather intelligence on them," L.A. Sergeant Mike Abdeen said. "It took a lot of daily contact and working with the community to prove that we are here to serve them too."

Homeland Security Division Chief Mike Grossman is pleased with results in his program — "Now, if there is a problem, people in the community will pick up the phone and talk to me." "They know me and they trust me."

"What this parent wanted to know was whether the signs they were seeing indicated their son was just being more devout or becoming radicalized," Grossman said. "We were able to talk calmly about what signs to look for and how to tackle the issue."

"Outreach is a joke," said conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, who advocates being tough on mosques and immigration. "Muslims don't respect people who kowtow to them. I think they respect those whom they fear."

Internet has helped terrorist recruiters operate without exposing themselves to police observation (Reuters, 4/17/10)


Dateline New York: Originally concerned about where Obama policy on Israel was drifting, Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), now is perturbed about where he sees Obama policy has made landfall.

The new policy line that first Obama's advisor's sailed toward and now Obama has embraced openly is that the Arab-Israel conflict undermines U.S. policy in the broader Mideast. ADL considers that line as faulty as any earthquake's. Beware of the foreign policy edifice collapsing!

"The net effect of this dangerous thinking is to shift responsibility for success of American foreign policy away from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and directly onto Israel. It is particularly disturbing in light of the blatantly disproportionate number and the nature [i.e., intensely negative] of statements issued by this administration criticizing Israel as compared to what has been said about the Palestinians."

"The best way to move the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians

forward is for all parties to demand that the Palestinians abandon their tactic of 'just saying no' and insist that the rest of the Arab world move toward normalization of relations with Israel." (IMRA, 4/17/10).

Mr. Foxman is perceptive in ruing the new line that excuses the countries that directly affect and spoil U.S. Mideast policy by designating a scapegoat for misconceived and long failed policy on the Arab-Israel conflict. Offering Israel as a scapegoat would serve Obama as an excuse for his own failure.

Obama long has been a radical. Most of his advisers have long pro-Arab records. Therefore, the new policy is more likely a rationalization and sound byte for opposing Israel than a well-considered re-examination of prior policy. Western opponents of Israel for ideological reasons have the same resistance to facts as Arab opponents. Thus the Administration persists in what fails.

From a Western point of view, ADL is right to suggest that the Arabs simply cease their hostility toward Israel and make peace. They have no justification for war. But the Arabs do not act according to Western logic and the facts. They have their own values and their own narrative. ADL may not be taking into account Muslim Arab and Iranian intransigence on religious conflict, which they conduct or foster all over the world. Their fundamental religious ideology does not permit them to reach permanent peace with non-Muslims. Until they have a religious reformation, they can make truces when weaker but resume violence when stronger.

Giving Palestinian Arabs sovereignty would boost them from weakness that might tempt a truce to strength that tempts renewed violence. ADL refers to the jihad against Israel in the popular but misleading new term, "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The term misleads, because it implies a limited conflict over borders. But Israel's main wars were against Arab states' armies, sometimes several at-a-time. Those same Arab states may mistreat Palestinian Arabs, who, in turn, mistreat them. (The PLO tried to take over Jordan, brought civil war to Lebanon, and betrayed Kuwait to Saddam.)

The Arab states' interest is in the religious conflict, which is territorial only to the extent that Islamic doctrine holds that Muslim duty is to: (1) Recover any territory it previously conquered but lost by non-Muslim independence movements; and (2) Then expand its territorial sway.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Laureen Moe, April 17, 2010.

This was sent to me by Jack who writes: "This is a sobering tally of our victims of terrorism.. which is hardly ever brought up by the "international Community" or the world media ... as if they were a part of the "cycle of violence" that is always regurgitated when talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hardly anyone brings up the fact that these were victims of deliberate Palestinian and Muslim terrorism...not "collateral damage brought about by war."
"PS.. And this doesn't include the 20,000 soldiers who have fallen defending the Jewish State."

This was written by Maayana Miskin and it appeared today in Arutz-7.


(Israelnationalnews.com) Since 2000, 968 Israelis have been murdered in terrorist attacks, and 17,000 have been wounded. The statistics were released by the National Insurance Institute in advance of Memorial Day (Yom Hazikaron).

Five Israeli civilians were murdered by terrorists over the course of the past year, since Independence Day 2009. Seventy-one were wounded by terrorists.

The number of civilians murdered by terrorist attacks in Israel since the War of Independence ended on January 1, 1950 stands at 2,431. That number includes 118 foreign citizens murdered in such attacks.

NII Director General Esther Dominissini said that the NII sees the rehabilitation of those wounded in terrorist attacks, and the care for the families of those killed, as a national mission of the utmost importance. In 2009, the NII spent 400 million shekels on assistance to those wounded in terrorist attacks and surviving relatives of terrorism victims.

The NII has also set up a website, L'Ad (Until Eternity), to commemorate victims of terrorism. The site tells the stories of the lives and deaths of 3,971 people killed by terrorism in Israel since the days of the First Aliyah in the late 19th century.

This year, the Knesset passed a law requiring employers to allow anyone who has lost a family member to terrorism to take a paid day of leave from work on Memorial Day.

Memorial Day, which commemorates victims of terrorism as well as the more than 20,000 soldiers who have fallen in defense of Israel, will begin on Sunday night. At 8 p.m., the Knesset will hold an official ceremony attended by Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Minister of Welfare and Social Services Yitzchak Herzog. The ceremony will also be attended by representatives of the families of fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism.

A state ceremony will be held on Monday at 1 p.m. at the Har Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem.

Laureen Moe is a Christian Zionist and lives in Canada. She can be reached at her website, http://www.laureenmoe.org She writes, "I dedicate this to the children that never came; and to my brother who died trying to stop a mad man that was on the loose in Germany."

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 17, 2010.

Motzei Shabbat (after Shabbat)

There's a painful amount of news that is most decidedly not good, and, now that Shabbat has ended, as I had indicated I would, I'm turning to this.

The primary concern remains Iran and its movement towards becoming a nuclear nation. When I permit myself to focus on this, if truth be told, I find m