| HOME | Featured Stories | December 2006 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Posted by Bernice Lipkin, December 31, 2006. |
|
These are some photos by Fred Reifenberg. See these and other imaginative and delightful photos at
|
|
|
|
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND THE UK GOVERNMENT
Posted by Family Security Matters Foundation, December 31, 2006. |
|
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan is a
British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance
since its inception. He also writes for Spero News. He has
previously contributed to various publications, including the
Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the
Royal Anthropological Society. This is archived at |
|
The Muslim Brotherhood is the group most associated with originating Jihad as a political act, and as such, it has continued to this day as a terrorist-sponsoring organization. So why, asks FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan, does Britain allow Mockbul Ali, an employee of Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to promote and grant visas to members of the Muslim Brotherhood? Members of Congress and President Bush: what do you have to say to this? The Muslim Brotherhood And The UK Government Britain and the United States have a "special relationship" which I hope shall continue indefinitely. Despite this special relationship, there are things going on within Britain's Foreign Office which should raise alarm for anyone who believes that Britain is singing from the same hymn-sheet. Instead of acting to prevent the influence of terror-supporting organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a young Islamist within the Foreign Office is actively promoting cordial relationships with this group. Formed by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, the Brotherhood began as a youth group but rapidly became political. Hassan al-Banna was killed in 1949, a year after the group was first outlawed in Egypt. Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) took over the group's propaganda unit in 1952 and began to advocate armed jihad as a justifiable political act. Along with Ala Maududi, Quttb's philosophy, as described in books such as Milestones on the Road (Ma'alim fi'l-Tariq), has been a motivating force in the international jihad as mounted by Al Qaeda and others. The group made several attempts to kill Nasser, and in 1966, Qutb was hanged. The group is still banned in Egypt, though it is tolerated, and 55 members of the group became members of parliament in last year's election. But the Muslim Brotherhood is still a supporter and instigator of terrorism. In 1987, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Brotherhood formed Hamas, whose objective is to use terrorism to abolish Israel as an entity. Mahdi Akif, leader of the Brotherhood in Egypt, announced in August this year that he would train his followers to fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon and join Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. The "spiritual leader" of the Muslim Brotherhood is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar. He supports Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel and armed resistance to coalition forces in Iraq. Qaradawi is justifiably banned from ever setting foot in the United States. Last September it was revealed that Mockbul Ali, who works in Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had recommended that Yusuf al-Qaradawi should be allowed to enter Britain. Mockbul Ali wrote a long letter explaining that the radical sheikh posed no threat. The letter was written 10 days after four Al Qaeda-sponsored British citizens blew themselves up on July 7 in London, killing 52 and injuring hundreds. Mockbul Ali's advice came in response by an invitation for Qaradawi to make a return visit to Britain. The invite had been proffered by London's ludicrous leftist mayor, Ken Livingstone, who has said: "Of all the Muslim leaders in the world today, Sheikh Qaradawi is the most powerfully progressive force for change and for engaging Islam with western values." Livingstone also compared the Islamist sheikh to Pope John XXIII, who introduced the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. So who is Mockbul Ali, and what does he do? The answers are disheartening. Firstly, he is an anti-Semite. In his letter about Qaradawi, he said criticisms of the Islamist sheikh had come from "tainted Jewish sources", going on to name Memri and the British Board of Jewish Deputies. The former is a media monitoring group, founded by Colonel Yigal Carmon, who served for 22 years in Israel's military intelligence service. The Board of Jewish Deputies is a highly respected and long-standing British institution. Secondly, Mockbul Ali is a former student radical, who is only 26 years old. He was a member of the Union of Muslim Students (UMS), where he edited its newspaper. One of the articles he edited was about Aayat al-Akhras, an 18-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber, who killed two Israeli civilians in a Jerusalem supermarket. The article, entitled "A bride in the dress of martyrdom" described her attack as a "heroic operation... in the heart of the Zionist entity." After 9/11, Mockbul Ali wrote in the newspaper: "If you are not white, you are most likely to be 'liberated' through bombings, massacres and chaos. Welcome to terrorism as a liberating force. Welcome to civilization - western style." Mockbul Ali now heads the FO's "Engaging with the Islamic World Group (EIWG)", founded three years ago. This group has an annual budget of $15.8 million. And its mission? To engage with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic factions. These include groups such as Jamaat-i-Islami, the party founded in Pakistan by the other godfather of Islamism, Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (1903 - 1979). In July this year, Mockbul Ali approved the granting of a visa to Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, a member of the Bangladesh Jamaat-i-Islami. During Bangladesh's war for independence from Pakistan, Sayeedi was responsible for killing Hindus and Bangla citizens. He has been involved in persecutions of the Ahmadiyya sect in his native country, and has said that US soldiers in Iraq should convert to Islam or die: "...let all the American soldiers be buried in the soil of Iraq and never let them return to their homes." Sayeedi has compared Hindus to excrement. He is also linked to the terrorist group JMB, which has carried out numerous bomb attacks and suicide bombings. But Mockbul Ali let him come to Britain, where he visited the Saudi-funded East London Mosque. So warped is Mockbul Ali's mindset that he claims Sayeedi is a "mainstream Muslim figure". Mockbul Ali's "Engaging with the Islamic World Group" has also entertained Qaradawi and other Islamists at the expense of the British taxpayer. In July, it funded an Islamic conference based in Istanbul, which cost $550,863. Qaradawi and his wife were paid to fly to the conference and back, and to stay in a luxury hotel. 180 other Muslim leaders from various Middle East locations were paid to travel to the conference, which was held in the Ceylan InterContinental Hotel. Mockbul Ali remains in his job, engaging with the terror supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and others. Even Britain's elected representatives can not ask questions about him. On May 8, Conservative MP Michael Gove asked questions in the Houses of Parliament about Mockbul Ali. He wanted to know "in what capacity Mr. Mockbul Ali is employed to advise the Foreign Office; what level of security clearance he has; and what vetting procedures were undertaken before he was offered employment." Kim Howells, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told him that such information was classified. Britain should remain as a friend and ally of the United States. But it is the duty of a good friend to point out where someone is going wrong. As a good friend of Britain, the United States government should pressure the United Kingdom to explain why it continues to hire this traitor to both countries' mutual interests. |
|
WOW! EVEN ARABS FAKE IT!
Posted by Arlene Peck, December 31, 2006. |
|
For years, I have heard there really are women who fake organisms. I wonder if faking enthusiasm is the same. Because, folks, I am a woman, who is having trouble even faking a flicker of enthusiasm for the leadership we have in this country. But, today? I haven't a clue. I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm certainly not a Green, a Libertarian or a Peace party follower as any of these are votes that do not count. Does that make me sort of a donkey that is neither a mule nor a horse? Like so many out there now, I am confused. Lately though, I have begun to feel like a lovelorn old maid who never had a date for the prom. I am looking for leadership and feel like one of those lounge lizards who is looking for love in all the wrong places. Our Jewish organizations are looking for love by pouring money ... money such as the millions raised in the United Jewish Communities Emergency Campaign that was supposed to go to the Jewish Agency but instead went to Arabs in Israel. I couldn't believe it and still can't! To Arabs who want the Jews of Israel dead? The Left find it fitting because they cop the plea that "Israel is a democracy" so the funds for restoring the north should be handed out in a "democratic fashion" to these moronic anti-Zionist? They have used much of the $3,000,000 to send a lot of non-Jewish children, mainly Arabs, to camp. Why am I surprised? The same thing happens here, in this country when people give to the Federation and they call for my donation with the lead-in.. "Let me tell you about our inter-faith program" and then proceed to preach to me on the benefits of the Hispanic and black programs they have. When did Hispanics and blacks ever give back to Jews? Never, as far as I can tell. It's gotten to the point where I can't stand it anymore. Never thought I would see the day when I disliked everyone running my government or aspiring to high office so much that I dread a trip to the polls. Me! Arlene Peck, woman who in her entire life has never missed a chance to vote! Let's focus on Israel and her various "goings-on". While keeping the faith when it came to the decisions Israel made, I have now come to a point when nothing they do makes any sense. In retrospect, frankly, I think that the last time I trusted the "powers that be" was when Yitzhak Shamir was running Israel. Now, I shake my head in amazement at the mentality or lack of it that is seemingly running things. For instance, Gaza is once again receiving massive amounts of anti-tank missiles to be used against Israel. If that weren't enough, the Hamas terror organization recently ordered and received Soviet-made SA-7 surface-to-air missiles. What are the Israelis going to do? Wait until they fall onto a Tel Aviv dicso before doing something? Now would be the time to have an offensive but, naw..they'll wait. In the meanwhile, the terror group Hezbollah are busy little bees using their broadcaster TV station, Al Manar, to recruit homicide bombers, have fund-raising campaigns to gather money for terrorist operations, conduct pre-attack surveillance and oh, did I mention, incite violence in various ways. Hamas is not far behind. However, who in the liberal media is paying attention to any of this? Do they even care? Frankly, I don't give a diddly-squat about public opinion and press approval anymore anyway. I care about survival ! Lapsing into denial isn't going to help. Bush and Olmart and Peres can praise their "road-map' to peace all they want if they don't want to realize that this is a culture that wants to kill us...everyone who is not them! Not only the Jews! They are gearing up for the next war and have no doubt, the next war is coming. However, I"m afraid they're so busy trying to win the hearts and minds of everyone that the issue of survival will get lost along the way. TRANSFER is something that should already be in the making. When there is a cancer, and Gaza is a cancer, it has to be cut out. Holistic measures by negotiation and hugs aren't the answer. And, then if something is finally done with Israel's weird penchant for apologizing for even things they didn't do, they'll rush to have a press conference and say, "we've been bad". Hell, I "almost" don't even have the energy to say I told you so with issues like "the security wall" that Israel built to the tune of raging protest and resolutions in the United Nations and the EU and voices against them in The Hague. That topic has died down though. Not because it was instrumental in stopping homicide bombers from entering their malls, restaurants, busses and schools to kill Jewish children. Why? Because we, in the United States, are chomping at the bit to start building a fence on our Southwestern border to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens invading our country into Arizona and California every day. China has already erected a massive fence along its border with North Korea India on its borders with Pakiastan, Saudi Arabia next Yemen and so on. You probably didn't even know about those though, as not even anyone from the liberal left are out there protesting. I am not alone. Even in Israel, the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are faking terror attacks. By carrying weapons or bringing knives to IDF checkpoints, they hope to be arrested. Then, they will have the opportunity to study in peace for a high school diploma and it is all free! I'm tired of hearing fake stories about 'massacres' instead of the truth being told about the battles that caused these deaths. The Main Stream media (MSM) and our State Department obviously don't get it or don't want to realize that the conflicts that Israel is constantly pushed into would be over much faster if the Jewish State were as barbaric as their Arab Muslim enemies and used civilians as shields instead of having the concern for civilians and non-combatants that they do. The Arabs have long faked 'oppression' by the IDF. I have seen dozens of films documenting the fake damages that the poor deprived Palestinians suffer at the hands of "The Jews". What I find really disturbing about that topic is that the Jews are losing their Jewish identity at a rapid rate. The Jewish High Holidays came and went and I was astounded at how many around me either were either not aware, did not care and never even bothered to go to synagogue. The way I see it, since there are many out there who want to kill you because you are Jewish, you might as well know what you are dying for. I have given up in crying out to the Liberal Left and preaching to those on the Right, that Bush is not the friend of Israel that they think he is. I cannot tolerate stupidity. Jews, a minuscule dot in the world census, have made and continue to make an enormous contribution to the benefit of humankind as reflected by the dozens and dozens of Noble Prize winners. We excel in medicine, arts, science, and political science, among others, yet are blind to the dangers that face us. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush's mouthpiece, made a speech at the American Task Force of Palestine's inaugural dinner in Washington. The world clapped when she stated, "There could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state." This, folks, gives me shivers when the so-called Palestinians go all out to prove themselves to be the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in history and no one in our government is willing to see reality for what it is. These "people" are clearly evil, genocidal and terrorists, whether active in Fatah, Force 17, or a supporter. Yet Dubya and Condi see no evil and hear no evil but speak evil. It brings back shades of Neville Chamberlain. Yet, where are the cries from either the Jewish or the Christian communities (other than the Zionist Organization of America), for that matter fighting against what is the beginning of the end of the Jewish State? As a matter of fact, where are the marches and strong actions which need to be taken by the Israeli government? I have long been lamenting how there are, in my opinion, no "moderate"... Muslims. If there were, we would be seeing at least fifty of them out of 1.4 BILLION, marching and shouting at demonstrations that theirs is NOT a violent and dysfunctional culture. But silent they remain. We should be hearing that theirs is not a sick society that beheads people and does not represent them. The so-called moderates say nothing because they are either too terrified to speak or living in the squalor of apathy. Silence is not golden and in their case, it is evil and
destructive to their people.
Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and
television talk show hostess. She can be reached at:
bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com
|
|
WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE BY MUHAMMAD'S WORDS AND DEEDS
Posted by Michael Travis, December 31, 2006. |
|
These are two separate and independent reviews of Robert Spencer's
important new book: The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most
Intolerant Religion (Regnery Publishing, 2006).
The first essay was written by Bruce Thornton is called The Wolf
Pack; it appeared in
www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton102606PF.html.
The second is by Andrew G. Bottom and is called Scrutinizing
Muhammad's example and teachings; it appeared in the Washington
Times, www.washingtontimes.com
|
|
Bruce Thornton, The Wolf Pack Ambrose Bierce once quipped that war was God's way of teaching Americans geography. He could have said "teaching us history," for the enemy is emboldened by our ignorance not just of where he lives but of how he lives, his beliefs and values, and to understand these traditions we must understand their history. Unfortunately, in the current war against Islamic jihad we persist in ignoring the documented history of Islam and its beliefs, accepting instead the spin and distortions of various propagandists, apologists, and Western useful idiots. This imperative to know the enemy's beliefs is particularly important for understanding the jihadists, for Islam is a fiercely traditional faith, one brooking no deviation from the revelation granted to Muhammad and codified in the Koran, Hadith, and the sira or biography of the Prophet. As Robert Spencer shows in his invaluable resource The Truth about Muhammad, in these sources Muhammad is presented as "an excellent model of conduct," as the Koran puts it, his words and deeds forming the pattern for all pious Muslims to follow. "Muslims," according to Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, "as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life." The facts of Muhammad's life, then, are paramount for understanding the beliefs that warrant and validate jihadist terror. Presenting those facts clearly and fairly is precisely what Spencer accomplishes in his new book. Spencer has been for years a bastion of plain-speaking truth. Through books like Islam Unveiled, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), and as director of Jihad Watch , Spencer has courageously presented the simple facts of Islamic history and thought that too many Americans, including some in the current administration, ignore or distort. Spencer's new book continues this important service of arming us with the facts we need in order to understand an enemy who wants nothing from us other than our conversion, death, or subjection. Basing his description of Muhammad on the same Islamic sources revered by believers themselves, Spencer paints a portrait of the Prophet unrecognizable to any who have been deceived by the idealizations of apologists like Farida Khanam, whom Spencer quotes as claiming that Muhammad's "heart was filled with intense love for all humankind irrespective of caste, creed or color," or the British religious writer Karen Armstrong, who claims that "Muhammad eventually abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Ghandi." Such fantastic delusions cannot stand up to the relentless quotations and facts Spencer gathers from Islamic sources, all of which show us a Mohammad justifying and practicing violence in the service of the faith he invented. As Spencer traces Muhammad's life, we see the behaviors practiced by today's jihadists, who continually cite the Prophet as their justifying model. The arrogant intolerance of any other religion finds its source in Muhammad's assertion to Muslims, "Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah." The rationalization of violence by invoking the hostility of unbelievers is also warranted by Muhammad: because of the rejection of him by his tribesmen the Quraysh, Allah "gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them [Muslims] and treated them badly." Hence the various offenses fabricated by today's jihadists to justify their aggression against the West. But Muhammad justifies not just defensive warfare but also violence in the service of the faith: "'Fight them [unbelievers] so that there be no more seduction,' i.e., until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's,' i.e. until God alone is worshiped." We see here the jihadist's hatred of the West and globalization, whose political freedoms and hedonistic prosperity "seduce" believers from the faith. As Spencer concludes, "The Qur'an . . . commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until 'the religion is God's' -- that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Later Islamic law, based on statements of Muhammad, would offer non-Muslims three options: conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic law, or warfare." So much for the protestations of tolerance and co-existence constantly peddled by jihad's Western publicists. Every aspect of Islamic practice and belief finds its basis in Muhammad's words and deeds. When Muhammad's lieutenant Abdullah attacked a Quraysh caravan during a month when fighting was prohibited, Muhammad's initial displeasure was changed by a "revelation" [i.e. from the angel Gabriel, who dictated the Koran to Mohammad] saying "persecution [i.e. of Muslims] is worse than killing," and Abdullah was forgiven. "This was a momentous incident," Spencer concludes, "for it would set a pattern: good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them, without reference to any larger moral standard. Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of the overarching principle of expediency." As Spencer progresses through the Prophet's life, the evidence for Muhammad's model as the source of modern jihadist practice becomes overwhelming. The penchant for beheading enemies displayed by jihadists is validated by Muhammad's decapitation of his enemy Abu Jahl after the battle of Badr against the Quraysh. A "revelation" after the battle codified this practice and linked it to the terrorizing of the enemy that would help Muslims prevail: "'I [Allah] will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment." Given that "contend against" can be defined as any activity that "seduces" believers or stands in the way of Muslim interests, the divine justification for the violence and terror perpetrated by jihadists from Indonesia to Africa, Israel to England is obvious. So too with the practice of making tactical treaties and truces only to break them later. "If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah lovest not the treacherous," a statement also revealing of the double-standard many Muslims take for granted when dealing with non-believers. Armed with this loophole, Muhammad moved against the Banu Qaynuqa, a Jewish tribe who had resisted Islam but with whom Muhammad had a truce. As Muhammad famously said, "War is deceit." This precedent of deceit is obviously pertinent today, particularly for Palestinian Arab dealings with Israel. We have seen agreement after agreement signed by Arafat and others, only to be violated when circumstances seem to favor force. The mistreatment of women, polygamy, child-marriage, stoning of adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, mutilation of enemy corpses, the sentence of death for apostasy, the subjection of dhimmi or Christians and Jews, even the killing of writers who displease the faithful -- remember the sentence of death against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie, still in force -- all have their precedents in the things Muhammad said and did. And as Spencer documents in his conclusion, this invocation of Muhammad is continually made by the jihadist terrorists themselves, who accurately link their violence to incidents and sayings from the life of Muhammad. To pretend that these devout Muslims are ignorant of their own religion's traditions or are "hijacking" them is willful blindness. Perhaps the most important precedent established by Muhammad, however, and one at the root of modern jihadist violence, is the demonization of Christians and Jews. Centuries before the existence of Israel, the actions and words of Muhammad legitimized the hatred of Jews. As Spencer shows, this disdain and resentment reflected the powerful barrier the Jews of western Arabia presented to Muhammad's new faith and ambitions, not to mention the extent of Muhammad's borrowings from Jewish scripture and traditions. But the continuing refusal of the Jews to accept that Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets" eventually led to his war against these potent rivals, including the Qurayzah of Medina, 600-700 of whom were beheaded. This hatred was justified by calling the Jews along with the Christians "renegades" who had turned against God and the true faith of their ancestors. Thus throughout the Koran one finds codified an intolerance and hatred of Jews still infecting the Islamic world today. The notion of apologists that Islam offers tolerant accommodation to Jews and Christians is belied by verses in the Koran such as, "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors," and in Ibn Ishaq's biography by comments about the Jews such as, "You brothers of monkeys, has God disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?" Given all this evidence, as Spencer writes, "It is nothing short of staggering that the myth of Islamic tolerance could have gained such currency in the teeth of Muhammad's open contempt and hatred for Jews and Christians, incitements of violence against them, and calls that they be converted or subjugated." And this historical evidence is ratified by contemporary events that show modern Muslims following to the letter the example of Muhammad, from continuing persecution of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands, to the riots and calls for violence that attended (and validated) the Pope's quotation of a Byzantine emperor's observation that violence in the service of religion is Islam's sole innovation. Spencer concludes with some common-sense suggestions, most importantly demanding that so-called "moderates" condemn jihad and teach against religious intolerance in their schools and mosques. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen, given the power of Muhammad's example of enmity against unbelievers, and given the arrogant intolerance and unwillingness to compromise that typify too many Muslims. The anxiety about appearing "racist" and the sentimental idealization of the "other" dominating American society make it even more unlikely that any politician will challenge Muslims about the facts of Mohammad's words and deeds that jihadists today use to justify their actions. Unless we heed people like Robert Spencer, it seems that only another graphic example of jihadist violence within our borders has a chance of teaching us the history of the enemy. Andrew G. Bottom Scrutinizing Muhammad's example and teachings Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch Parliamentarian and secular Muslim reformer, has courageously identified the taboo discussion which must take place to understand, and defuse, the scourge of modern jihad terrorism: "In their thinking about radical Muslim terrorism most politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and other commentators have avoided the core issue of the debate, which is Muhammad's example." This taboo is all the more puzzling, and dangerously delusional, given the public pronouncements of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers. The immensely popular Qaradawi reaches an audience of tens of millions of Muslim sympathizers across the globe with his regular appearances on Al-Jazeera television. During a June 19, 2001 broadcast, Qaradawi delivered a sermon entitled, "The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model," proclaiming: " . . . Allah has . . . made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion . . . " Consistent with the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad recorded by pious followers), and earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad, Qaradawi further acknowledged that Muhammad launched aggressive jihad campaigns, and also maintained that there is in fact a "jihad which you seek," i.e., invading other countries in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove, by force of arms, "obstacles" standing in the way of this coercive Islamization. More ominously, Qaradawi has made specific unabashed appeals for Muslims to wage a "jihad re-conquest" of Europe, recalling the millennial legacy of jihad wars waged by Arab, Berber and Ottoman Muslim conquerors and colonizers. Disregarding murderous threats, and the prospect of social ostracism, the intrepid author Robert Spencer -- a serious independent scholar of Islam for the past two decades -- has taken up Hirsi Ali's challenge in his compelling new book, "The Truth About Muhammad." Mr. Spencer's stated purpose in writing the book was to elucidate, in particular, those aspects of Muhammad's life used by Muslims today to rationalize violence, or other behaviors incompatible with Western constructs of human rights and dignity. And Mr. Spencer, whom I have come to know through my own independent research on Islamic doctrine and history, fulfills admirably his pledge not to "deride," "lampoon" or "mock" Muhammad, but instead compose "a scrupulously accurate account of what he [Muhammad] said and did" regarding these critical matters. A salient feature of "The Truth About Muhammad" is its exclusive reliance on pious Muslim sources: the earliest (and most respected) Muslim biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (died 773), Ibn Sa'd (845), and the great historian al-Tabari (923); the "gold-standard" canonical hadith collections of Bukhari (870), and Muslim (875); and the Koran itself. As Mr. Spencer notes, these are the same sources contemporary Muslim biographers have relied upon, both respected scholars (such as the late Martin Lings, aka Abu Bakr Siray Ad-Din), and popularizers (Javeed Akhter, Yahiya Emerick). Despite his caveat that the book is "not a comprehensive biography" of the Muslim prophet, Mr. Spencer's concise, pellucid narrative (which includes both a succinct chronology and a glossary of key Arabic names and places) has remarkable breadth, chronicling Muhammad's evolution from a proselytizer, to a prototype jihad conqueror and ruler. The final chapter is a brilliant analysis of Muhammad's disturbing modern legacy. Mr. Spencer provides understated, scrupulous documentation of the consequences of Muhammad's status as "an excellent example of conduct" (Koran 33:21), invoked by contemporary Muslim clerics, governments, journalists and jihadists alike: exploited child brides and general misogyny, sanctioned by law; Draconian, mutilating punishments such as stoning for adultery and amputation for theft; jihad violence against non-Muslims and Shari'a (Islamic Law)-sanctioned oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad's bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view. Nearly 25 years ago, the late Richard Grenier wrote "The Marrakesh One-Two," a trenchant fictional account of a doomed effort to film the life of Muhammad. Grenier characterized the filmmaker's basic predicament with biting wit. Even after reading a series of modern Muslim hagiographies, Muhammad left the impression of being " . . . a gamey figure for a religious leader . . . sort of a blend of Saint Teresa of Avila, Jane Addams of Hull House, William the Conqueror, and Casanova . . . Allah is merciful, but not necessarily Muhammad, I guess." Of course such an impious, if accurate presentation, was impossible. Following a conference with the clerics of Al Azhar (the leading Sunni Islamic institution of religious education) in Cairo, Grenier's fictional filmmaker laments: "The only thing they would give me was I could have P.V. Muhammad. That is I could script shots from Muhammad's Point of View, subjective camera. I could have faces reacting and people talking to Mohammed. But Muhammad couldn't answer them because his voice would be too holy." Today, "P.V. Muhammad" putatively "non-fiction" accounts prevail, while the authoritative biographies of Muhammad written in the mid 19th through early 20th centuries -- by scholars such as William Muir, David S. Margoliouth and Leone Caetani -- are now almost unknown to the public and chattering classes. These elegant analyses -- like Mr. Spencer's -- also relied exclusively upon the earliest Islamic sources, such as Muhammad's first pious Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq. Margoliouth's biography recognized Muhammad as " ... a great man, who solved a political problem of appalling difficulty -- the construction of a state and empire out of the Arab tribes." Margoliouth recounted this accomplishment without "apology" or "indictment," summarizing faithfully the picture of Muhammad that emerges in Ibn Ishaq's biography: "In order to gain his ends he recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He profits to the utmost from the chivalry of the Meccans, but rarely requites it with the like. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres. "His career as tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief, whose political economy consists in securing and dividing plunder . . . He is himself an unbridled libertine and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is, however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end . . .This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy ..." "The Truth About Muhammad" eschews contemporary "P.V. Muhammad" hagiography, reviving the highly informative, unapologetic genre of biographical narratives of Muhammad epitomized by the works of Muir, Margoliouth and Caetani. Transcending even these seminal biographers, Robert Spencer's perspicacious modern analysis makes clear how Muhammad's sacralized behaviors continue to motivate and direct the contemporary global resurgence of jihad, in all its cultural as well as military manifestations. Policymaking elites must heed Mr. Spencer's urgent concluding admonitions: "It is difficult if not impossible to maintain that Islam is a religion of peace when warfare and booty were among the chief preoccupations of the prophet of Islam. Sincere Islamic reformers should confront these facts, instead of ignoring or glossing over them, and work to devise ways in which Muslims can retreat from the proposition that Muhammad's example is in all ways normative. If they do not do so, one outcome is certain: bloodshed perpetrated in the name of Islam and in imitation of its prophet will continue . . . "If no Western politicians can be found who are courageous enough to grasp this nettle, Western countries will eventually pay a stiff price, when the jihadists they have admitted carry out successful jihad attacks, or inspire native-born Muslims to do so -- or when they advance Shari'a [Islamic Law] provisions by peaceful means, as in the campaigns in the United Nations and several European countries for the adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon riots." Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
ISRAEL'S CO-DEPENDENCY
Posted by Jake Levi, December 31, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Dr. David Lazerson December 11, 2006. |
|
Psychology has long dealt with the social phenomenon known as "co-dependency." It's a term often used to describe the dynamics that occur in a family that has to deal with an alcoholic or drug addict. In a nutshell, this type of illness involves both the addict and the surrounding well-meaning "significant others." Although the addict plays the victim card to the hilt, it is those around him or her who become the pawns in this destructive game, and thus, parents, friends and spouses all become the real victims. Unless the addict is dealt with in a professional way - usually at a locked down facility that offers rehab and counseling - the cycle of perpetuating the disorder simply goes on unabated. In fact, without the "tough love" approach, it gets worse. Left to everyone's good wishes and hopes, the dysfunctional behaviors not only repeat themselves, but they occur with greater frequency and intensity. The addict is no longer dangerous to himself or herself, but to all those around. Eventually, the addict destroys all around him, including those who invested so much time and energy to help; even those who were considered loved ones. Without insisting on absolute accountability and very specific, concrete changes, the behaviors go on unabated until the addict and all in the circle are swept away in a whirlpool of destruction. In effect, since love doesn't work, everyone has been loved to death. Tough problems take tough solutions. Even though we'd prefer to go easy and use the kid-glove approach, it simply won't work with addicts involved in this co-dependency relationship. The same notion, unfortunately, applies very well to Israel and her militant Islamic neighbors. That relationship, too, has deteriorated into one of co-dependency. Israel is the well-meaning significant other, always trying to talk nicely and be so politically correct. Israel keeps asking this question, always hoping and praying it will be true: 'Oh, you want more land, and more dialogues and more concessions, and then you will change? Then you won't throw rocks at us, or shoots missiles at our communities, or bomb our buses? Then you will love us?' Yet, these militants have only demonstrated worse behaviors over time. They showed, in fact, the worst of addictive behaviors. Not to drugs, of course, but they've become addicted to hatred, racism and violence. And yet, it is Israel, along with the rest of the Western world, that has become a co-dependent partner, and thus actually has served to perpetuate and reinforce this deadly, destructive cycle. A major factor that enables the destructive cycle to continue is that no real consequences are placed upon the perpetrator. The principal doesn't make concessions to a harmful bully. He suspends the bully, and sends him to a special training school if the bully becomes a repeat offender. Drug addicts and alcoholics don't need love pats on the back or free reign over the family car; they need to be admitted to a rehab facility. If need be, a responsible and concerned adult uses the Baker Act, and puts them in against the addict's will, for the addict no longer has self-control to stop the addictive pattern. There has to be real consequences for behaviors. Without these, even if they seem harsh at first, the addict has no chance whatsoever at rehabilitation. So, too, with Israel's neighbors. The situation in Gaza has become an absolute nightmare, with daily missile shootings into civilian areas in Israel. There is no other country on the planet that consistently bends over backwards to accommodate and tolerate this type of violence. But this allowance, this co-dependent behavior from Israel, is not some nice gesture of tolerance leading to some sort of mutual relationship and understanding. Rather, it is seen by the attackers as an open window. It's like the mother who begs her drug addict son, "Please! I gave you $50 yesterday. Don't take my furs to the pawn shop!" The addict is way beyond words or motherly tears. In fact, if allowed to carry on without some drastic interference, the addict would kill his own mother to get to that purse. Israel needs to stop this co-dependent nonsense. Killing the missile shooters one by one is an enormous waste of time, energy and, mainly, it constantly puts Israeli civilians and soldiers at tremendous unnecessary risk. This tactic plays right into the hands of the Islamic militants, allowing them to simply carry on as usual without any real consequences. And it also backfires. Just like an addict, the Arabs continually play the poor victim to the rest of the world. Israel gave up the entire Gaza area to the Palestinian Authority. The rules were laid out very clearly: 'Here's a big chunk of real estate. Get busy making your own country and don't destroy the leftover synagogues, and definitely don't use the area to shoot at us.' But as soon as they got Gaza, the Arabs immediately desecrated and burned down the remaining synagogues. Once they saw that Israel and the world did nothing in return and that there were no major consequences, well, they set about putting the next phase into operation - daily Kassam rocket attacks into Israel. Thus, while Israel kept its side of the bargain, the Arabs are spitting all over the "peace" deal and laughing at the entire world. Israel gave them a huge opportunity to stop the destructive cycle, but the other side was probably never really too interested in making peace and sitting side-by-side anyhow. They have broken peace deals over and over and over again. The only solution is for Israel to take it all back, clean up shop and stop this ridiculous, self-destructive, co-dependency. If not, I'm afraid the current Olmert government will continue to lead the country down the dark whirlpool of co-dependency - being loved to death. Jake Levi can be contacted by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
POPULATION TRANSFER IN PERSPECTIVE
Posted by Dr. Alex Grobman, December 31, 2006. |
|
In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs said that the primary way to achieve peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs - including Israeli-Arabs - to live separately. "Minorities are the biggest problem in the world," he claimed. Asked if Arab Israeli citizens should be removed, he said: "I think separation between two nations is the best solution. Cyprus is the best model. Before 1974, the Greeks and Turks lived together and there were frictions and bloodshed and terror. After 1974, they constituted all Turks on one part of the island, all Greeks on the other part of the island and there is stability and security." When reminded that they were removed forcibly from their homes, he replied, "Yes, but the final result was better." Later, he explained, "Israeli Arabs don't have to go... But if they stay they have to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish Zionist state." Lieberman's remarks set off a firestorm of criticism in the Knesset and around the country. Whether you support Lieberman or find his proposals abhorrent, they should be seen with a historical perspective. After World War I and II, transferring populations was considered legal and moral, and the most favored response to inter-ethnic strife. This is no longer true. Population transfer is now seen as illegal and a crime notes Eyal Benvenisti, professor of Law at Tel Aviv University. As Benvenisti points out, the first population-exchanges involved Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. The Treaty of Nueilly of November 27, 1919 provided for 46,000 Greeks from Bulgaria and 96,000 Bulgarians from Greece to switch countries. After the defeat of the Greek army in the Greek-Turkish War following World War I, and the Turk assault against Greek communities in Turkey, Greek refugees began fleeing their homes in Turkey. Greece and Turkey exchanged of populations with about 2,000,000 Greeks, who were Turkish citizens, and about 500,000 Turks, who were Greek citizens. The exchange of populations had worked so effectively, Benvenisti observed, that in post-World-War II, the Allies decided to transfer 15 million Germans living in Eastern Europe, primarily in the Eastern part of Germany, after it had been granted to Poland. According to the Potsdam Declaration, Germans living in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were to be transferred to Germany "in an orderly and humane manner." Although the West attempted to ease the transition, there was much distress suffering and large numbers of deaths. After the borders in Europe were redrawn, smaller transfers were made in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Population transfer was also used to settle the inter-religious enmity between Hindus and Muslims in British India in 1947. Once it became clear the communities could not live together, the sub-continent was partitioned into two states -- India and Pakistan -- requiring the resettlement of millions of people. Mass transferring of populations by states is no longer acceptable. When Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974, Turkey was condemned for the large numbers of Greek and Turkish Cypriots who were displaced after being forced to flee from their homes. After atrocities were committed in the former Yugoslavia, people began using the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe the uprooting and displacement of populations, which was identified as a war crime. A process that was sanctioned, if not legal in 1948, is now regarded as criminal. The most recent example of forced mass transfer, Benvenisti continues, occurred in Cyprus with the Greek-Cypriots and the Turkish-Cypriots. After Turkey invaded and occupied the northern part of the island, more than 200,000 Cypriots fled or were relocated across the "Attila Line," set up by the Turkish military. Greek-Cypriots left the Turkish-occupied zone, while Turkish Cypriots escaped to the north, where they moved into homes abandoned by Greek-Cypriots. The Greek-Cypriot refugees resettled in the southern part of the island, a number on property owned by Turkish-Cypriots. The right to recover property and the right to return are two of the key obstacles to settling this dispute. The need to separate Arabs and Jews or transferring Palestinian Arabs to another Arab state is not a new idea. In 1937, the Peel Commission concluded, "An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible... Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State." If partition is to succeed, the Commission said, drawing new boundaries and establishing two separate states will not be sufficient. "Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land, and as far as possible, an exchange of population." For numerous reasons, transfer never took place. In his book on the international proposals to transfer of Arabs from Palestine, Chaim Simons found that a number of leading Zionist leaders entertained such ideas, as did president Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, Czechoslovakian President Benes, and three Nobel Peace Prize winners Sir Norman Angell, Christian Lange and Philip Noel-Baker. Dr. Grobman's book Nations United: How the UN Undermines Israel and the West will be published by Balfour Books will be in late November. Contact Dr. Alex Grobman by email at Agrobman@nj.rr.com |
|
IRANIANS ARE FRIENDS OF THE JEWS
Posted by Amil Imani, December 31, 2006. |
|
Is there anyone left in the world that does not know the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hates the Jews? His welcoming of representatives of an extremist branch of Orthodox Judaism to his conference denying the Holocaust reminded us of the Nazis' use of some Jewish community leaders to facilitate the deportation of the Jews to the death camps. This devout man of Allah, Ahmadinejad, known affectionately by Iranians as "The Monkey" for his non-stop silly and embarrassing antics should be given a fair hearing, never mind the fact that he would not even think of doing the same for others. What makes The Monkey more than a laughing stock is what he represents and the power he wields at arousing millions of his co-Islamofascists against the "undesirables" of the world. For some reasons, Jews are on the top of The Monkey'ss hit list as they have been in the same position of "honor" with other past fascists of the world. Perhaps precedence by itself constitutes the basis for arriving at a verdict, as is sometimes the case in the law. And when it comes to the Jews' guilty verdict, there is no shortage of precedence. Jews have been around for a long time and have been a convenient target of scapegoating. People being people have a difficult time looking at themselves for their problems. It is by far easier to find others to blame than to try to mend one's own ways. So the Jews became convenient scapegoats for bigots, the fascists, and all manners of malevolent louts. This is neither the place, nor is it necessary for the purpose of this article to provide an exhaustive documentation of the historical suffering of the Jewish people. The main purpose of this article is to tell the world that Iranians are proud of their historical friendship with the Jewish people. The bond of friendship goes back to the landmark action of King Cyrus the Great of Persia. In 537 B.C., having conquered Babylon, the benevolent King Cyrus freed the Jews from captivity and empowered them to return to the Promised Land and build their temple. For his acts of kindness, Cyrus the Great is immortalized in the Bible in several passages and called "the anointed of the Lord." The Jews throughout the recorded history looked to Cyrus's people, the Iranians, as their friends and protectors against oppressors such as the Seleucids and the Romans. There existed, in the ancient world, a universal admiration for the beliefs and practices of the Persians as enshrined in Cyrus Charter of Human Rights. Even the Greeks, the traditional adversaries of the Persians, called Cyrus "The Lawgiver." The return of the Jews to the Promised Land did not mark the end of their ordeal. Successive waves of ill-wishers, notably the Romans and then the savage Muslims unleashed their unjustified wrath on the Jews. The Jewish people, in spite of suffering huge losses at the hands of their enemies, remained resilient and, with one exception, outlived their tormentors. The Pogroms in Russia, the ghettoization in much of Europe, and even the genocidal Hitlerism failed to wipe out the Jews. One diehard enemy, Islam, has been hard at work for some 1400 years to complete the work of finishing off the Jews that Muhammad himself had started. Iranians are saddened and ashamed by the appearance of Ahmadinejad on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe out the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not an Iranian. Numerous photos show him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck -- a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the Jews as well as non-believers of all stripes. Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian people any more than his turbaned-colleagues presently ruling Iran do. What needs to be understood is that in fact Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, above all else, are true Muslims and despise anything "Iranian" and its ancient "pre-Islamic" heritage. You can tell a true Muslim by the ferocity of his hatred. Islam is driven by hate. And the Islamic hate is so intense and blind that it consumes even its own adherents. Just consider, for instance, the rocketing of mosques full of Friday worshippers by one sect of the religion of peace against another sect of the same religion. Or, the raging gun battle between the Hamas thugs and the Fatah murderers in the Palestinian territory. Iranian Muslims are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in them their traditional respect for diversity. It is the Iranian ancient fundamental belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia. The diverse people who give Iran its enduring strength include Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Baluchis, Torkemans, Arabs and more: one and all have their allegiance to Iran as an idea and a nation. Iranians are spiritual children of Cyrus the Great and adherents of his Charter -- the first Charter of Human Rights -- that clearly proclaims the equal rights and worth of the beliefs and practices of all people. Islam overtook Iran and brutally strived to replace the traditional lofty Iranian belief in human rights with its barbaric exclusionary dogma of the primitive Bedouin Arabs. Regrettably, the forced subjugation of the Iranians succeeded to some degree in transmitting the Islamic psychosocial virus to many Iranians. The virus transforms the person into a bigot -- one who sees only his way and his belief as the right way and the only right mandate. Any and all people who do not see things his way are wrong and must be reformed by whatever means, including eradication, if the bigot sees fit. True Iranians have remained friends of the Jews by both belief as well as deeds. During the shameful Hitlerian campaign of exterminating the Jews, for instance, Iranian missions in Europe, notably the one in France, issued Iranian passports to facilitate the flight of French and other European Jews from the claws of Nazis and their gas chambers -- the very gas chambers that the true Muslim, disgracing Iranians, Ahmadinejad, denies ever existed. Iranians stand for the right of the Jews as well as the equal rights under the law for any and all religious and secular people. Iranians believe that Islamofascism is a present and imminent danger and call on all free peoples of the world to do all they can to frustrate its "Pogrom," heeding Martin Niemoller's warning: "They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist; They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist; They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me." Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. He maintains a website, http://www.AmilImani.com |
|
THE BLAME ISRAEL FOR EVERYTHING SYNDROME
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 31, 2006. |
|
The very fact that the so-called Palestinian Israeli conflict infiltrates so many debates concerning far removed Islamic issues, invariably used as a cudgel to indict the Jewish State as an abusive even Hitleresque occupier of hapless Palestinian waifs, suggests that Israel is the all purpose effective scapegoat conveniently showcased to divert attention from relevant facts mostly unfavorable to movers and shakers of Muslim policies. Exploitative fundamentalist governments, both Sunni and Shiite, in say polar opposite jihad friendly regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, do not differ in their willingness to bash Israel/Jews in educational textbooks, media broadcasts, public pronouncements, newspapers, and in general all forms of communication. Likewise, propagandizing leaders manipulating naïve populations in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, chaotic Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, many more Islamic nations, Muslim neighborhoods throughout Western Europe and in fact throughout the world vilify the far removed Jewish shlamazal and homeland mostly to divert attention from real localized concerns that otherwise would threaten the credibility of those leaders perhaps leading to their demise. Logically, the so-called Palestinian Israeli conflict has as much tangible bearing on all other planetary enclaves and nations as the constellation Orion has on their gross national products, except perhaps for neighboring Jordan and a few other nations who refuse to repatriate their morphed citizens, however the humiliation inflicted upon the psyches of so many programmed Muslims worldwide by this skillfully exploited conflict transcends physical reality and the rational reasoning process, the latter apparently not the strongest suit of that duped populace. Amazingly, hand wringing non-Muslim intellects, some anti-Semitic some not, accept the duplicitous arguments of Machiavellian Muslim manipulators, annexing the concept of Middle East peace to that limited conflict. The recent Baker Hamilton 'how to fix Iraq' proposals to the Bush Administration is an example of such skewed thinking, as if one instigating factor for a Sunni Shiite war, dating back to the 7th century, somehow was based on a prophesy extending into the far future circa 1948. Then again perhaps Muslim scientists of the 7th century were privy to time travel, beamed down on the birth of modern Israel circa 1948, got their turbans in such a twist watching all those scurrying Jordanian Arabs their minds became poisoned, lines of succession after their prophet Mohammad bifurcated into opposing viewpoints respectively adopted, hostility broke out between the time travelers who returned to century 7 spreading the infection into Sunni and Shiite strains. That scenario makes about as much sense as today's worldwide 'blame Israel for everything' sentiment, but no one ever said we live in a logical world. Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
WHY YOU SHOULDN'T SHOP AT THE BODY SHOP
Posted by Join the Boycott, December 31, 2006. | |
|
Why shouldn't you shop at the Body Shop? Because during the Lebanon War the Body Shop founder broadcast that there was "No Justification" for Israel's actions In Lebanon. The founder of The Body Shop and now a consultant to it, Anita Roddick, signed and promoted a letter of an extremist anti-Israel Coalition that said Israel had "no justification" for its actions in Lebanon and did not even mention Hezbollah. This is what she wrote on her website:
That same Coalition now accuses Israel of "barbarism" in Gaza and ignores PLO rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. We urge you to shop elsewhere and, if you have not yet done so,
please sign The Body Shop Petition
by
clicking here
Contact Join the Boycott by email at jointheboycott@inbox.com or go
to their website:
|
|
MARY A 'PALESTINIAN REFUGEE'? MSM KNOW IT'S A LIE, BUT THEY PUBLISH IT ANYWAYS
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 31, 2006. |
|
Joseph Farah is a Christian Arab American of Lebanese origin. He writes about the extreme idiocy of some western journalists who regurgitate whatever anti-Israel line their Arab Moslem Palestinian stringers give them.....uncritically, often enthusiastically. They don't even bother to check the material for the most obvious of errors. The Jewish Mary, Holy Mary, Mother of God...a "Palestinian refugee"...even as the Muslim Palestinians torch Christian villages, gang-rape Christian women, stone churches and church leaders, and drive Christians from the West Bank with their terrorist threats and intimidation. Farah says it is "silliness". I call it hate-mongering. The journalists know that such blatant mendacious manipulation of history for current political propaganda is a sacrelegious bald-faced lie which will stir hate for Israel and Jews. They present it to their publishers anyway. The publishers know that such blatant mendacious manipulation of history for current political propaganda is a sacrelegious bald-faced lie which will stir hate for Israel and Jews. They publish it anyway. and millions of un-informed read it, believe it, and hate Israel (and in some cases hate Jews too) because of it. That's hate-mongering. If one would ask the question honestly: what would Mary encounter if she tried to enter Bethlehem today?...the answer would be more akin to: She would be delayed at a check-point until the IDF could determine that the bulge in her abdomen was indeed her pregnancy, and not explosives or a suicide bomber belt; and then she would get in to Bethlehem where either: a.) she might get a face-full of acid from the Palestinian (mostly Hamas) modesty police if she was not wearing a veil....or.... b.) if they found out she was a Jew, Palestinian terrorists would kill her, making sure to put half-a-dozen rounds from their kalatchnikof rifles in to her abdomen, to make sure that her unborn was dead. But such images do not play well with the western media's commitment to support the terrorists in their vilification of Israel. So they publish the anti-Israel black fantasy instead. This article is called "Mary, 'Palestinian refugee'" and it was
written by Joseph Farah, Editor of World Net Daily (WND). It appeared
in WND December 30, 2006 |
|
When it comes to the politicization of the Christmas story, I thought I had seen it all. But the London Independent's shameless mischaracterization of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as "a Palestinian refugee" takes the proverbial cake. The story by Johann Hari published Dec. 23 begins: "In two days, a third of humanity will gather to celebrate the birth pains of a Palestinian refugee in Bethlehem -- but two millennia later, another mother in another glorified stable in this rubble-strewn, locked down town is trying not to howl." It goes on to describe a 5-year-old tale of an Arab woman who claims she was stopped from entering Israel to deliver her twins and forced to go 20 minutes in another direction to an Arab hospital. It's amazing. It's bizarre. It's breathtaking at what passes for Western journalism in the Middle East today. First of all, was Mary "a Palestinian refugee"? No, Mary was a Jew, living in the occupied territory of Israel. She wasn't trying to get to a Roman hospital to have her child. She was traveling with her husband from her home in Nazareth to Bethlehem, where the Roman authorities decreed those from the House of David would pay their taxes. By the way, neither the area of Bethlehem nor Nazareth had ever been considered Palestine or, more appropriately, Philistia, up through the time of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. In fact, it was not for another 100 years that the Romans would think about renaming Israel as Palestine in an effort to make the world forget about the Jews who had been slaughtered and dispersed. There no were Philistines or Palestinians around. They hadn't been heard from for over 500 years. It's beyond silliness. Who are these anti-Israel activists the Western press dispatches to cover the Middle East? Where do they come from? Where are they trained? Where are they educated? How is it possible that such drivel is actually published? What is it exactly that the so-called Palestinians want? Do they want their own homeland or not? It seems to me they've got it. But now they want to be able to travel into Israel for medical care? What's wrong with their own hospitals? Why is it that they don't decide to buy more medicine and fewer guns? Don't get me wrong. I don't blame "the modern-day Mary" in this fable for wanting first-class medical care in Israel. And had Bethlehem remained under Israeli governance, that's exactly what the people of Bethlehem would have received. But the so-called Palestinians demanded their own country. Unfortunately for them, that means Palestinian hospitals, too. The Palestinian authorities are also demanding that no Jews be permitted to live in their territories. Yet, there is shock that Arab Palestinians should not be able to cross into Israel at all hours of the day and night without facing checkpoints and security. Is this a tragedy? Yes, it is. I would much prefer to see these poor Arabs live freely, as they did under Israeli governance. But, for heaven's sake, they rejected that option with extreme violence and terrorism. Is that context not important for people unfamiliar with the region to understand? Is it not important for reporters covering the region to understand? Let's call this what it is: Deliberate deception. It is the worst form of propaganda. In another time, we labeled it agit-prop. What is the purpose? Is it to stir up more hate and violence? Is the purpose of such lies to immunize those serving them up from terrorist attacks? One can only speculate. But one thing is certain: This is not journalism. On a side note, as one of those Christians referred to in the reporter's lead paragraph, I wasn't aware that one-third of humanity celebrated Mary's birth pains on Christmas. Silly me. I was under the impression we celebrated the birth of the Savior. 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 |
|
AULD LANG ZION 2007; JIMBO CARTER
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 31, 2006. |
|
Should auld accomplice be forgot,
For betraying auld lang Zion, my dear,
We yids hae run aboot the world,
Save auld land Zion, my dear,
2. To the Tune of "Cheers to the Bus Driver" Cheers to the Hangman
Several prominent scholars have taken issue with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," cataloguing its historical inaccuracies and lamenting its lack of balance. The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg also critiqued the book's theological purpose, which, he asserted, was to "convince American Evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel." Mr. Carter indeed seems to have a religious problem with the Jewish state. His book bewails the fact that Israel is not the reincarnation of ancient Judea but a modern, largely temporal democracy. "I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures," he recalls telling Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first tour through the country. "A common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of the Labor government." He complains about the fact that the kibbutz synagogue he enters is nearly empty on the sabbath and that the Bibles presented to Israeli soldiers "was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit." But he also reproves contemporary Israelis for allegedly mistreating the Samaritans -- "the same complaint heard by Jesus almost two thousand years earlier" -- and for pilfering water from the Jordan River, "where ... Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist." Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
FILM MAKER PIERRE REHOV ON THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND SUICIDE BOMBINGS
Posted by Michael Travis, December 31, 2006. |
|
This article comes from the CounterTerrorism Blog
Counterterrorism's new blogsite is |
|
On July 15, I appeared on MSNBC's "Connected" program to discuss the 7/7 London attacks. One of my fellow guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to my request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film. Many thanks to Dean Draznin and Arlyn Riskind for helping to arrange this special interview. What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film? I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up. Why is this film especially important? People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem -- showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has became their only certitude. What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know? I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution. What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings? It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy. You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power? Not death as an end, but death as a door open to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword. Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology. Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the after life in Paradise. Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction? Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do. Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way? All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and their is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their life time, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists. Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers. Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior. What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings? Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel). Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision? There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide. Why are so many suicide bombers young men? As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman? What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation? The UN is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communists countries. Their hands are tied. The UN has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the UN leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the UN is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the UN has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four-hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred"). You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean. Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it. How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general? Stop being politically correct and stop believe that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people. Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East? Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam is expands there is regional conflict. Right now, their are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
TIME FOR ISLAMIC WORLD TO CLEAN HOUSE: THE BALL IS IN THEIR HANDS
Posted by The Reality Show, December 31, 2006. |
|
How to win the global war
The picture of global terror with Iran as a major player Iraq 2006-2007 The major political talk is all about Iraq, on the most brutal violence the world has seen in recent years one group of Muslims inflicts on the other, the major target as civilians, the heinous crimes in which the way these people are killed, the torture squads, the death squads, the mass kidnapping, etc. It is evidently clear that Iran, the Shiite 'super power' is arming and pushing it's proxy: M. Al-Sadr mehdi army in the major chunk of the bloodshed, the recent arrest of Iranians (December 25, 2006) of Iranians in Iraq is of course nothing but a a tip of the iceberg, US officials say he is the major culprit. Yes, it is more about Muslim sectarian violence and mutual Arab ethnic cleansing as most describe it but you can't ignore the factor of the moderate government backed by the west battling the radical Islamists, which is exactly why the radical mullahs of Iran keep pushing it even further, aside from their interest in the Shiite vs. Sunni factor. Last but not least in Iraq, there is little talk about the mass persecution of Iraqi Christians and of mass exodus. Lebanon The same militant Iran that uses Huzbullah in its war on Israeli and Lebanese civilians (2006) or together with Syria, assassinating top Lebanese officials that seem to be anti-Syrian, or rather anti-Syrian-dictatorship, spelled: pro west. I doubt that many were surprised at the documents showing Hezbullah's pledge for mullahs in Iran to establish an all Islamic Lebanon. The horn of Africa The same Iran with its mighty long arm, that uses Hezbullah extremists to arm and help Islamists in places far way as Somalia, shedding the blood of so many over there too, in the name of Islam. "We might have another Taliban situation in Somalia", Vincent Mugabi on BBC (December 25, 2006). When you see worrying non-Muslim Ethiopia attacking Islamists (December 25, 2006), As Islamists in Somalia call for all Muslims to help them in a "holy war" (Jihad) against Ethiopia, as well as their declaration of a 'greater Islamic Somalia' galvanizing Somalis in Eastern Ethiopia, Djibuti & in parts of Kenya, in other words more Islamization in Africa, you see the globalism of it all, reaffirmed again in basically every corner of this planet. 'Palestinians' vs 'Palestinians' Though the core "Palestinian" violence on their own is their old tradition, however, when you see lately (December 2006) more and more 'Palestinians' fighting 'Palestinians', or civil war, what do you see? Whether you were for or against the idea of Sharon's agreeing to a 'disengagement plan' (2005), even though it involved rewarding 'Palestinian' terrorists, you have to content that it has some logic in the 'war on terror' as well. The logic of taking it from purely western hands to them, of transferring the battlefield to its natural/original place if you will, as in the (Egyptian) 'Muslim brotherhood' the almost direct father of today's modern Islamic sword, or militant Islam, which is Muslim fighting Muslim extremist. Guess who is helping the 'Palestinian' Islamo-facsist Hamas and its call for genocide? Iran, again, and again. The war on the 'evil ideology' Of course Sunni Al Qaeda is no better than Shiite Iran, which is why radical Islam is the issue. Congratulate those that keep reminding us that the 'war on terror' is mistakenly spelled, terror is only ONE tool Islamists use in their war on the world, think of more methods by them like: rape used by Arab Muslim racist militias on Sudanese that practice a different branch of Islam (asides from the Arabization - Arab racism motive there), if nukes in the hands of mullahs are the most horrific nightmare of humankind, the power of oil for example is used by Iran already. Some Muslim leaders get offended at 'spelling it out', 1) Too bad, and mainstream Islam does have a part in it, especially in providing excuses (directly or indirectly) for terrorists as 'legitimate issues against the west'. 2) Spelling it out is so important, identifying the enemy is the first important thing in fighting it. Islamofascism means, the violent intolerance on all that is not Muslim or not AS Muslim enough or 'not my kind of Muslim' (Shiite VS Sunni), no one can argue against this global (blown in their face) factor. In this harsh factor, it matters little if you are Shiite Iran that wants to wipe off non Muslim nations, Huzbullah's Nassrallah or 'Palestinian' Hamas' admission on 'war on all Jews', or as Hamas put it "we are a nation that drinks blood, and we know there's no better blood than the blood of the Jews", Sunni Al Qaeda's Bin Laden on the "crusaders" (i.e. Christians), Islamic protesting to honor Muhammad's name (cartoons, 2005) threatening with a 911 attack on Europe & praising Hitler, Muslims' attacking innocent Jews in Paris, Jemma Islamiya's war on Australian youth in Bali (2002), militant Islamists massacring in Madrid, in Jerusalem, in Bombay, or in London, Arab Muslim gang raping Christian Australians & shouting Allah Akbar, beheading Christians in Indonesia, offended 'Palestinians' at pope's branding Islam as violence - killing Christians, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Abu Hamza types that teach that all non-Muslims are cows, Bakri's permission to slaughter non Muslim civilians, Saudi Arabian teaching that Christians are pigs and Jews are apes, that it's OK to rape women or 'unveiled meat', that it's OK to enslave still today in age (Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, etc.) And just who can ignore their ambition and plan for global Islamization, for world domination, the Caliphate? One might want to take more notice when they tell you 'Islam will dominate the world'. This entire global war is exclusively in the name of Islam, whether moderate Muslims (fortunately) disagree with their interpretation is irrelevant. Moderate Muslims should worry less about being "offended" -- that actually interferes with success that's in everybody's interest in the 'war on terror' -- and more about cleaning it out. Wider moderate Muslims vs radical 'brothers' So is the Pakistani war on terror, the Afghani, the Saudi, the Yemenite, the Jordanian, the Egyptian, and even Iranian internal political fight, etc. You can not disconnect the phenomenon of the Algerian war that claimed more than 100,000 dead. Clean up YOUR act! The west shouldn't do it alone, it can back up moderates but: The message is clear: Clean up your own act! After all, radical Islam is a 'Muslim' thing, by Muslim in the name of Islam and in many cases backed by so many Muslims, yet it is only natural that it will involve Muslim vs Muslim atrocities, too bad that the extreme case of it, is what it takes to wake up the mainstream Muslim governments. Islamists come home to roost Actually, Islamic terrorism was nourished by "moderate" Islamic governments like Saudi Arabia themselves, now they 'come back home to roost', Just what did these Wahabbists think? or What did the Jordanians - that have been rationalizing for too long the crimes of Palestinian butchers - expect, when Zarqawi turned on his fellow Jordanian Muslims in bombing Amman? And if you ever thought that these leaders learned the lesson, think again, Saudi support for Sunni killers inside Iraq is still going on to this day. Still shooting themselves in the foot It's not bad to see moderate Muslim countries fighting terrorists, as well as Saudi Arabia standing up against Iran, although in a cowardice way so far. The bigger problem is of course Muslim mainstream, official and government run media that still demonizes the west, especially the Zionists, Will these tyrants in the Islamic world ever see the danger this campaign possesses to their own security, or they'll just continue to lose any logic and even basic sense of survival when it comes to their cult of hate? Locating/spotting (taking on) the enemy - victory Don't forget that the war is on its venemous ideology. Start with 'what they teach in their madrasas' what they show on TV, That's where the seeds of evil are planted. When the day will come and you will see a significant overhaul change in the textbooks and TV programs that an average Muslim child is exposed to, a significant reduction in the hate & rationalization of violence on non-Muslims in the sermons of the Mullahs/Imams, you will know that the battle is where is it should be thus bringing with it the tangible hopes for victory. Contact The Reality Show at therealityshow@mail.com. Or visit his website: http://lightonthings.blogspot.com |
|
THE BIGOTRY OF ANTI-ISRAEL
Posted by The Reality Show, December 31, 2006. |
|
Facts & Causes The obvious, or the 'should be obvious' This is not really all about the Arab Muslim world, who's anti Israel feeling and action is motivated (not by any feeling to help fellow Arab Muslims, fact is, the Arab "Palestinians" are persecuted all throughout the Arab world) by Arab racism (just as the Kurds, Maronites, Sudanese and other non Arabs suffer from the global Arabization) & Islamofascism or Islamic-Fascism, the evil ideology as Tony Blair calls it (just as non Muslims in general, dhimmi or kuffars, non-believers suffer, global wide, take it straight from the horse's mouth, the Iranian fanatical Islamic leader Ahmadinejad's call for genocide & ethnic cleansing on Israel that though has no regional or territorial disputes with Iran of course, "doesn't belong on 'Muslim land', in the all Muslim middle east", this anti-Israel facsism still infects most moderate Muslim countries that blindly refuse entry to anyone with an Israeli passport). Nor is it about the few neo/old Nazis that hate all Jews (even those that tell you they hate "only Zionists"). But this is about the bigotry of anti-Israel infected in the mainstream. Jumping to conclusion before knowing the facts This happens on a regular basis, but a few examples might serve as highlights if you wish: The rush into harsh words by UN's Secretary general Kofi Annan (before he semi-apologized for it) when some UN officials got hurt in the cross fire between Huzbullah terrorists and Israeli defense forces (Hezbullah initiated war and invasion 2006), even after realizing that the UN post was used by the Huzbullah as a tool. The overwhelming bashing Israel in Arabs' deaths, like the very icon the "Palestinian" propaganda machine used, as in the Arab kid Muhammad al-Dura (2002), which we all know by now, was nothing more than staged by Arabs themselves, and it was Arab shooters that killed that boy. The rushing media in "blaming Israel" for the death of an Arab family on Gaza beach (2006), again Israel promised/asked to wait until a full investigation is complete, that concluded it was the "Palestinian" Hamas' led mines that brought about that incident. No matter how many times the media sees the transparency in the fake images produced and invented by the 'Palestinians', "PALLYWOOD" (http://seconddraft.org), it seems to "forget", each time a new case appears. Demanding from Israel the victim of terror more than from the perpetrator The words an anti-Israel 'activist' told me, resonates throughout this conflict: "I can't expect from the Arabs any better, but Israel/ should know better!". In other words, it is part of demanding from the west ever more then from the Islamic world, when it comes to morality. The only problem is that it is not presented in this open way, it is presented as Israel is the "bad" guy, period. As opposed to endless condemnations by the UN on Israel's self defense, When was the last time the UN has condemned the very Arab "Palestinian" crimes on their own people that they try to pin on Israel, like: Using its kids as human shields (which Huzbullah, in 2006, picked up very quickly, copied them in their war on Israeli civilians, using Arab civilians) and as human bombs? Legitimizing and even glorifying mass murder and genocide as a 'good holy act' in their mainstream and official media? The Lie of "natives" is bought How many have fallen prey to the powerful sell of "indigenous" Arabs in the land of the Judea? The picture of an all out 'Arabs in the middle east', is one of the misconception misleading clarity of history, never forget that most today's 'Palestinians' have no more than 3 generations "history" in this ancient land of the Jews. Absolutely no one has disputed the fact of Arab immigration that saw an upsurge with Zionists' immigration (the latter only, limited by the British) in the late 1800. The fact that the most "Palestinian" - icon of all time: Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian born fighting for "his homeland" in Israel... is so classical. By the same token, it is not well known the fact that over 50% Israeli Jews are of children of indigenous Jews in the middle east (http://jimena.org). The Global Goliath Islamo Arab power The very fact that there was so much talk and selecting/picking on one lobby out of so many different types and different interests - lobbies that operate in Washington but the utter silence on the enormous Islamo Arab lobby that basically occupies, threatens, incorporating so many in their anti-Israel racist boycott, uses oil as a weapon and dictates the international arena, including the UN, shows you just how great of bully they are. So is the fear of European nations for unrest by the Arab Muslim (immigrant) population, (terrorism works!) that effects or rather impairs their stand on the middle east conflict. The wrong picture of seeing Israel as the "aggressor" and the 'Palestinian Arabs' as the "underdog" Question #1 Who has more power, the cynical Arab adult shooting behind a kid's back, behind a woman's squirt, or the Israeli humane soldier facing a terrible dilemma? Question #2 When you see the biased media showing a tank vs. kid, A) do you ever stop and think what the message is behind it? B) Does this suggest that the Israeli soldier is really after an unarmed person? C) Did you ever stop to think that the very fact that you can see the Israeli soldier but you can NOT see the Arab terrorist makes the invisible much more of a menace? Nothing more like the situation in Iraq (2003-2007) demonstrates that you might have the most powerful army in the world, you are weaker (in many ways) than the invisible coward terrorists hiding among civilians that has no rules of basic regards for ANY human lives. Outrageous use of baseless drama language and hollow bombastic terms on Israel's multi-racial beautiful democracy Take for example the admission of anti Israel Arabist: Jimmy Carter that (on December, 2006 - CNN) has admitted that Israel is a great democracy with freedom and equal rights for all, and that (in an interview to Larry King he said that) he used provocative words like "apartheid" (only) in order to provoke discussion. All those bombastic empty words like "racism' or "apartheid" the anti-Israel Arab racist propaganda machine is selling, has of course no support in facts on the ground, there is nothing "racist" about fighting terrorists for being terrorists, there is nothing "apartheid", especially that they are the same Arab race and group, Israeli Arabs and "Palestinian" Arabs, with different identification cards that has nothing but security implications. Since when is concern for security considered "racism"? The same "Judenrein - Palestine" that is trying to ethnic cleanse all Jews, that does not even permit any Jew to live in their 'territories', is lecturing multi-racial, multi-religion, multi-color Israel, that has all colors and races from the darkest black to the whitest blond, that has a whopping 20-25% Arabs in its population, with equal rights and representations in high offices (and even more rights than Jews, giving the fact that Israeli Jews are obligated to serve in the army whereas Israeli Arabs are not). The racism behind "questioning" Israel's right to exist Can you name one other country that is subject to even a question of being 'recognized'? Why do you think it is? If you want to talk about history as a supposed reason, 1) Even if you are a naiive student of 'Palestinian' propaganda in revising history, You don't see anyone denying the unmistakenly settlers like most European, or American or Australians right to exist. 2) speaking even about history, for the record: No matter on which political side you are on, you have no right to deny rights of a nation to exist, no one can ever erase Jews' history to the land of Israel, at the same breath no one can claim that there was ever a sovereign Arab-Muslim "Palestine", in fact, the same nazis or Jew-haters that used to tell the Jews in Europe: 'Go back where you came from, go to Israel-Palestine', the ones continue the evil torch of Nazism today ironically deny the Jews coming back to their original roots-origin. The dehumanization of Israeli victims Seeing Israel as nothing but a "tank", is another racist element coming through, in brushing off Israeli victims as a "side details" at best. When was the last time the BBC (for example) has shown any drama pictures of injured Israeli kids at a fraction of the time, passion dedicated to any Arab kid that was killed (usually) because of an Arab adult's fault? Can you remember reporters of the mainstream media visiting Israeli hospitals as much as you can remember them strolling down Arab ones? And Why not? Numbers are not the reason, percentage wise you will see time and time again, Israel loses by far in media's favoritism. -- Contact The Reality Show at therealityshow@mail.com. Or visit his
website: http://lightonthings.blogspot.com
|
|
ANNOUNCING NEW GOOD BLOGS
Posted by Bernice Lipkin, December 31, 2006. |
|
These are new blogsites that are definitely worthwhile: 1. OUT OF THE BOX THINKER -- http://www.NGThinker.typepad.com A new website by Nurit Greenger She writes: Dear Friends: A new blog from Jacob Richman. He also has a blog with photos of some major events in Israel. He writes:
http://esseragaroth.blogspot.com/2007/01/haveil-havalim-101.html This is run by Soccer Dad. It's not a new website but it is always different. Ya'aqov Ben Yehudah will host it in a week or so. Ya'aqov writes: To check out what's going on in the Jewish Blogsphere, check out this week's edition of the "Haveil Havalim" Blog Carnival. Currently, it's: |
|
ANOTHER LESSON IN DHIMMITUDE -- ANOTHER NAIL IN OUR COLLECTIVE COFFIN
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 30, 2006. |
|
I had a conversation recently with an intelligent, concerned, well-educated non-Moslem person about Islamofascist intollerance. She could not understand how it is that so many leaders in the Moslem world will make Islam look ridiculous (her word, not mine) by behaving so immaturely (her word, not mine). After all, don't they (the Muslim leaders) see that when they tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and then threaten to genocide Denmark because of some cartoons, they are making Islam look like a religion of violence and hatred and intollerance and genocide (her words, not mine)? After all, don't they (the Muslim leaders) see that when they issue death warrants against writers and TV producers and political leaders because they (the Muslim leaders) don't like the message that these people are giving about Islam, they are making Islam look like a religion that fosters intollerance and hatred, and making Muslims look like a people who are so weak in their faith and so lacking confidence about their religion and their culture that they cannot tolerate any, even the mildest and most well-intended, criticism (her words, not mine)? After all, don't they realize that when they riot and run amok on college campuses, intimidating facutly and students and governance, in order to prevent free speech and free inquiry, even as they demand the right not only of free speech but also of hate speech for themselves, they make themselves and their religion look not just foolish and hypocritical, but downright paranoid (her words, not mine)? So....why do they do all that? my answer to what I think are some pretty intelligent and insightful questions: THEY DO IT BECAUSE:..... a. IT SHOWS US THAT WE ARE DHIMMI: they (the Muslim leaders) don't care what we think of them (them = the Muslim leaders and the rank-and-file who do the aforementioned stuff). We are infidels, we are either current or future dhimmi. Either way we are inferior. According to them (I'm paraphrazing here from a speech by Ayman ez-Zawahiri on el-Jezeera) we are "harbi" (residents of dar-el-harb, the realm of war where Islam is not paramount; and the Muslims living in the dar-el-Islam, realm of Islam where Islam is paramount, must make war agiant dar-el-harb until Islam is paramount). The lives of "harbi" are forfeit. Harbi have no rights, not even the right to life.....unless they convert to Islam. b. IT TEACHES US THAT GOOD DHIMMI DON'T CRITICIZE: their purpose in doing all that stuff is not to curry favor with us or to educate us so that we better appreciate the sanctity of the Qur'an and their delicate sensibilities regarding Islam....no more than the Duke seeks to curry favor with his butler. Their purpose is to teach us, the non-Muslim world, and various parts of the not-Muslim-enough Muslim world, a very important lesson: the dhimmi does not criticize Islam, the dhimmi does not disrespect the Qur'an, the dhimmi does not insult Mohammed (ABUH), the dhimmi does not demean the Holy Shari'a, the dhimmi does not criticize Muslims (even terrorist child-murderer mass-murderer Muslims), the dhimmi does not offend Allah (a tough job since by virtue of his being dhimmi his very existence is an offense to Allah)...........the dhimmi does not criticize -- period! c. IT SPELLS OUT THE PUNISHMENT FOR BAD DHIMMI: So if/when the dhimmi (or soon to be dhimmi, i.e., you and me and the rest of the non-Muslim world) dares to criticize, there is hell to pay with Muslim wrath, wrath which puts the dhimmi in his place, and puts the future dhimmi on notice about how a good dhimmi behaves. This wrath drives home the point of our own inferiority as dhimmi by means of violence and threats of violence -- hence violent steet riots, churches burned in Iraq and West Bank, nuns and priests murdered, embassy buildings burned throughout the Muslim world, and murders of those offenders who can be reached by the long arm of Saracen wrath. d. ALTHOUGH MANY MUSLIMS DON'T THINK OR FEEL OR ACT THIS WAY THE ONES IN CHARGE ARE THE ONES THAT THINK AND FEEL AND ACT THIS WAY: There are, of course, many fine, honest, up-standing, ethical, nice, peaceful, equinimious, egalitarian Muslims world-wide who condone nothing of the above and want nothing more than to live a normal life, raise crops and a family, give their kids as good a start as possible in life, and leave the world a bit better off than they found it -- same as most of us. But they are not running things in the Muslim world. And they seem to lack either the power or the will, or both, to challenge the Muslims who are running things [did anyone ever see a Muslim street demonstration against bin-Laden, or Muslim women in green demanding an end to suicide bombers, or a petition demanding an end to the funding of terrorists (with thousands of signatures) nailed to the door of the Saudi Embassy in Washington?]. We are NOT talking about those Muslims. e. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ONES THAT DO: We are talking here ONLY about the Muslim leaders who are NOT fine, honest, equinimious people. f. THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT WORKS: And, last but by no means least, THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT WORKS!!. Now newspapers and publishing houses and TV producers and authors and journalists and teachers and university faculty and political spokespersons all over the Western world (no need to worry about Muslim Asia and Africa, they were dhimmified centuries ago) are so frightened of any adverse Muslim reaction to anything (drama, opera, movie, book, speech in parliament, etc.) that they rewrite movie scripts, refuse to publish 'controversial' books, distance themselves from offensive writers or teachers or politicians.....in short: WE ARE LEARNING TO BEHAVE LIKE GOOD DHIMMI. g. AND DOING IT SO THAT IT WORKS MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO WIN IN THEIR ENDLESS RELENTLESS ETERNAL JIHAD: and, the purpose of making the lessons in dhimmitude work, be effective, achieve the desired result of our submittion, or as important or moreso, the submissioin of our intellectual and political and religious leadership, is to make sure that there is a broad and heavy mantle of silence on the truth about Islam and the truth about its Islamofascist leaders. With no one to raise a voice of protest, the Islamofascists and their apologists can inculcate us, our leaders, our children, with the lie that Islam is a religion of peace, and a religion that respects other religions. then, with at least a critical number of our leaders silenced and most of us lulled in to the complacent mind-set that really we don't need to worry about Islam, the Islamofascists can more easily advance their agenda of "Islam uber Alles" -- just as Hassan el-Banna and Sayed Qtub and the Ayatolla Ruhola Khoumeini and Ali Akhbar Rafsanjani and Osama bin-Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri and Abu-Yusuf el-Qaradhawi and Sheikh Akhmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantizi and Yassir Arafat and Isma'il Haniyeh and Khaled Masha'al and a host of other Islamofascist terrorist leaders have told us in words and deeds for the past 75 years. Bottom Line: As more and more of our leaders and those who are influenced by them learn that they must behave like good dhimmi, or else, our society will be, step by step, deprived of the freedoms and benefits and advances in social justice that we have worked toward for almost 1000 years; that we have fought for on battlefields and in street demonstrations and in courts of law to canonize in to our laws and constitutions. From the Magna Carta to the US Constitution's 22nd amendment, our society in the west has, through evolution and revolution and education and legislation, created the rubric (we are not there yet, but we are going in the right direction, following the right instructions) for a truly egalitarian society in which all of its members have equal opportunity of access to its resources and positions of power and leadership. And how do we know that we have done such a good job (despite the fact that we are far from where we want to be)?.....because some ten million people every year swarm to our gates and clamour to get in, so that they too can benefit from our society's advances and equal opportunity of access. And many of these millions are from the countries were Shari'a is the law and Jihad is the priority. We lose a bit of what we have worked so hard and so long to gain, we are pushed a step back, driven in the opposite direction, every time a cartoonist must now think twice or thrice before composing a lampoon on some aspect or another of Muslim hypocricy. They do it because it works. And if it works, they will win. David ML |
|
From: "Campus Watch" "Is a Professor's Job to Teach or Obstruct? [on Kathryn Babayan]"
For the University of Michigan community, it must come as some relief that the three people arrested by campus police for repeatedly disrupting a lecture on Iran last Thursday by Michigan professor of politics emeritus Raymond Tanter have no connection to the university.
But the role played by another Michigan professor leaves little room for celebration: Kathryn Babayan, an associate professor of Near Eastern studies, sat with the demonstrators as a sign of solidarity and insulted Tanter personally from the floor.
Speaking by telephone from his home in Washington, where he now teaches at Georgetown University and oversees the Iran Policy Committee, which he founded, Tanter stressed that Babayan didn't disrupt his talk: "She didn't prevent me from speaking," he said.
But he found her actions "particularly disturbing," because, "she aided and abetted a group that prevented the scholarly transmission of knowledge."
"The paradox is that a scholar from Princeton [where Babayan earned her Ph.D.] would be part of a group that denies free speech on a university campus," Tanter said, adding that, "students have rights, and faculty have an obligation to teach, not to obstruct the teaching of others."
"The issue," insisted Tanter, "is freedom of speech for students."
Tanter's topic was "Stalled International Diplomacy and Problematic Military Options for Iran," but hecklers prevented him for delivering his talk as he had planned. A Power Point slide show was rendered useless by constant interruptions and shouts, which included "Tanter is a pig."
Students in attendance were disappointed that Tanter was unable to speak, and that a Michigan professor would ally herself with protesters whose goal was to shout down a lecturer.
Tamara Livshiz, a sophomore majoring in history and anthropology-zoology who attended the lecture, said in a telephone interview that Babayan held a poster protesting Tanter's appearance. Later, as Tanter attempted in vain to accommodate the hecklers by answering their questions, Babayan stood up, raised her hand, and gave a "long narrative" before asking an insulting rhetorical question.
Livshiz said that "a speaker should inform, but the protesters charged him with trying to enforce his views on everyone else."
According to Tanter, Babayan accused him of knowing nothing about the Shia in Iran and of being condescending, and claimed that she had "too many young students" at the lecture who she feared, "could be misled" by his views.
Josh Berman, who graduates next week with degrees in psychology and political science, is chairman of American Movement for Israel, a student group that sponsored the talk. Speaking by phone, Berman said that Michigan students who are harsh critics of Israel "tend to be more respectful" of speakers with whom they disagree than were the off-campus hecklers. Yet he was more disappointed in Babayan than in the protesters, whom he says numbered around seven.
"Faculty have an obligation to be respectful toward their colleagues," said Berman. "You might not agree with a speaker, but students have a right to hear a lecture by an invited guest, who ought to be given the opportunity to speak without being interrupted."
Tanter seems an unlikely target for such protest. He speaks twice weekly with the Arabic language branch of Al-Jazeera and appears often on the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. and Al Arabiya, a Saudi-controlled news station based in Dubai. He says he's on good terms with many scholars with whom he disagrees, including controversial Michigan historian Juan Cole and former Carter administration official Gary Sick.
But his sponsorship by Jewish students was sufficient to send self-professed "anti-Zionist" agitators into action. Livshiz, the sophomore who attended the lecture, said that one protester held aloft a poster that read "No More Wars for Israel," with the "s" in the word Israel written as a swastika.
Tanter mentioned Israel only tangentially by noting that it may preempt American policy by striking Iranian nuclear facilities on its own.
Tanter's efforts to be polite in the face of unprovoked rage were noted by an Ann Arbor police officer in attendance who told him: "I found your lecture interesting and informative. It is unfortunate that we had to take action relative to the disruptive individuals at the event. ... I felt you addressed the concerns and questions in a respectful manner, despite the harshness and negativity expressed by some of those in attendance."
But neither Tanter's irenic nature nor his decades spent in university life, matter to hecklers bent on denying students their right to hear scholarly lectures on university property, nor to professors like Kathryn Babayan, whose behavior so violated the obligations of her vocation.
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 |
|
IMAGINE ALL THE WORLD AS GUSH KATIF
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, December 30, 2006. |
|
Imagine all the world as Gush Katif,
Imagine the Jewish nation
Imagine! Gush Katif redeemed,
Imagine no imperialists,
Imagine all the world like Gush Katif,
You may say this is a dream,
Evelyn Hayes is author of The Plague Series: "The Eleventh Plague,
TWINS, because their hearts are softened to accept the unacceptable"
The Twelfth Plague, GENERATIONS, because the lion wears stripes." and
"Thirteen, REDEMPTION, if" Contact her This was written May 29, 2005. Lyrics written by Evelyn Hayes,
Music and Vocal by Riva Schertzman, winner of RCRF Music Writing
Contest for Gush Katif.
|
|
WILL 2007 BE THE "YEAR OF SILENCE" BECAUSE WE FEAR MUSLIM REACTION TO OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 30, 2006. |
|
In all likelihood, our snooty elites do not to have the slightest clue how devastating it will be for ALL OF US to come under Islam customer and rules that will destroy our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization.
It is increasingly clear that the snooty elites don't know the difference between an Islamic order and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization -- or even that there is a difference! We must make sure they know there is a difference and, in any way possible, teach them the difference.
Placating Muslims' anger at the West and or those who are criticizing Islam with West silence is DANGEROUS for the West! Meaning, the Muslim continues uproar has ONE goal: to prohibit Christians and others criticism of Islam, thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should WE, the Westerners, accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. US retaining free speech about Islam represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order or becoming a Dhimmi of Islam! The thought itself is sickening to me!
Islamic immigration brings Islamic law! To preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America, we need to immediately adopt strict immigration policies that will greatly restrict Muslims immigrating to the USA.
The gross intolerance of the Islamic tradition and their callous tactics, designed to shut up free speech, brings us to ONLY ONE conclusion: when is comes to Islam, the word tolerance does not exist!
In the year 2007, our motto should be,"Enough is enough! We are fighting 'Islam Order' and we will WIN!?
This article is called "A question for 2007" and was written
by Diana West. It appeared
December 29, 2006
in the Washington Times
Happy New Year |
|
Taking a whack at prognostication at the end of 2005, it wasn't hard to imagine, as I did, that 2006 would be a rotten year for freedom of speech. Both inside the Islamic world and, more alarmingly, outside the Islamic world, Shariah laws prohibiting criticism of Islam were already working smoothly. When in 2005 we watched the death -- penalty-seeking prosecution of editor Ali Mohaqeq Nasab for "blasphemy" in U.S. -- liberated Afghanistan, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state. When in 2005 we watched the early stages of what later became known as "Cartoon Rage" in Denmark, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state of mind. It wasn't exactly going out on a limb to predict things would only get worse. And, of course, in 2006, they did. Just ask Abdul Rahman if you can find him. The "apostate" fled Afghanistan for his life last spring. Or Robert Redeker, if you can find him. The teacher who published a critique of Islam in September still lives in hiding in France. Or maybe Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. The Bangladeshi journalist faces the death penalty when he goes on trial in January for "blasphemy" and treason for writing favorably about Israel and unfavorably about Islamic terrorism. Of course, such censorship is "Over There" and beyond, not in the United States of America, right? And it can't, as they say, happen here. Right? Please, right? I called 2006 "The Year of Speaking Dangerously," and that was before anyone likely imagined seeing "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" placards on jihadist display outside the Danish Embassy in London. What kind of year will 2007 be? What I fear most is that it will turn out to be "The Year of Shutting Up." As in: Why speak dangerously when you can simply not speak at all? In fact, the Year of Shutting Up probably began back in September when Pope Benedict famously argued that the practice of forced conversion -- key to Islamic expansion over the centuries -- is inimical to both faith and reason. The eruption of anger among Muslims at such criticism was instantaneous and severe. Just shut up, the umma exclaimed. Basically, the Pope did exactly that. At the time, Daniel Pipes explained why placating such anger with silence was dangerous for the West: "The Muslim uproar has a goal -- to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order." Mr. Pipes' language -- "shariah norms in the West," "the imposition of an Islamic order" -- evokes a potential transformation of our culture that is nothing short of revolutionary. Our elites seem not to have the slightest clue how devastating such a change, which comes under the rubric of Islamization, would be to our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that they don't know the difference between "an Islamic order" and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization -- or even that there is a difference. There are exceptions. In November, there was Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, who stood up for constituents' free speech under CAIR pressure. Now Rep. Virgil Goode, Virginia Republican, has become both the lone standard-bearer of free speech about Islam and the favorite whipping boy of the PC elites. In a letter to constituents about the decision of Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, to use a Koran at his swearing-in ceremony, Mr. Goode expressed what I take to be his recognition that the laws of Islam -- which prohibit religious freedom, freedom of speech and conscience, equality before the law and women's rights -- do not augment but rather contravene the founding principles of the United States. He also wrote: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." It's difficult to argue with Mr. Goode's logic. Indeed, the test case of the age -- Europe -- demonstrates that Islamic immigration brings Islamic law, which is demonstrably at odds with American values and beliefs. Forgoing debate, however, Mr. Goode's critics have resorted to name-calling and platitudes about "tolerance," failing utterly to notice the gross intolerance of the Islamic tradition. Worst of all, their tactics seem designed to shut up Mr. Goode, and anyone else who might follow his bold example. Will they? It's the question of 2007. |
|
DR. YUVAL STEINITZ WARNING -- BEWARE OF EGYPT!
Posted by Joseph Puder, December 29, 2006. |
|
While the current hot topic in Israel is whether or not to respond to the alleged "peace overtures" from Bashar Assad - the Syrian dictator, a serious existential threat to Israel is being ignored. Egypt's strategy of weakening Israel has been systematically overlooked by Israel's political elites, not however by Likud Knesset Member Dr. Yuval Steinitz. Steinitz, former chairman of the Security and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knesset, has been a consistent critic of Egypt's military build up against Israel. This week, Steinitz riled against Egypt's attempts to question Israel's sovereignty in Eilat and the Southern Negev region. Steinitz has demanded that the Israeli government decline to meet with Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Jerusalem until he is ready to declare Egypt's recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Eilat-Israel's southernmost city. Recent reports of a special discussion in the Egyptian Parliament concerning Eilat and, Foreign Minister Gheit's subsequent declaration that "Eilat is Palestinian territory," is a direct attempt to undermine Israel's sovereignty, according to Steinitz. He added, "Israel cannot be silent in the face of a Foreign Minister that cannot recognize Israeli sovereignty over Eilat - it is the same as not recognizing Israel sovereignty over Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Beersheba. It is unbelievable that after 25 years of peace, an Egyptian Foreign Minister would question Eilat's status. If he had questioned our sovereignty over Nablus, it would have been one thing, but Eilat?" Egypt's strategy of eroding Israel's sovereignty goes back to 1995 when Egypt's President Mubarak secretly assembled experts to build a case for Egypt's right to the Southern Negev. These subservient "experts" provided Mubarak with "proof " that Egypt could demand large portions of Israel's Negev. The Israeli Foreign and Security ministries knew about it and kept it to themselves, fearing a storm in Israel. Ultimately, President Clinton pressed Mubarak to drop the whole idea, and the matter received no publicity. Steinitz is concerned that this attempt by Egypt to build territorial claims on the Southern Negev will serve as a pretext for an Egyptian military attack on Israel. He therefore insisted that Israel demand Gheit set the record straight regarding Eilat. During Gheit's visit to Israel this past Wednesday he praised Israel's restraint in the face of continued Kassam rockets raining on Israel. He excused the transfers of money from Egypt to Gaza by Hamas operatives. The ever-pliant Israeli politicians including Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni and Defense Minister Peretz, failed to raise the Eilat issue, or Egypt's military build up and the Egyptian aid to Hamas in their meetings with Gheit. Prime Minister Olmert has eagerly accepted President Mubarak invitation to meet him next week in Cairo in spite of the fact that Mubarak has never accepted an invitation to visit Israel. Steinitz has been vocal about Cairo's aid to Hamas, and regards Egypt as Hamas' most reliable long-term supporter. "They do it cleverly, while covertly supporting Hamas they appear openly as supporting the moderate Palestinians." He accused Egypt of looking the other way and allowing 20,000 automatic rifles to be smuggled into Gaza, enough he said to arm four to five divisions every year. Egypt provides 99% of the weapons that reach Gaza. Steinitz further noted that, "While Jordan has the longest border with Israel, there has been no weapon smuggling from Jordan. Egypt on the other hand, is intent on arming the Palestinians to fight against Israel." In various international forums, and especially at the U.N., Egypt, more than Iran or Syria is the lead attacker of Israel. Egypt's educational programming is replete with anti-Semitism, which is being reinforced by television productions that screen variations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Tsarist forgery more than 100 years old. School children in Egypt are taught that the Jews are the source of all the evil in the world. Egyptian school maps substitute Palestine for Israel and little is taught about the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace or Camp David Peace Accords. Secular-leftist Israeli politicians are more interested in maintaining the façade of peace than recognize the facts on the ground. The Israeli architects of the Oslo Accords protected their "peace" in spite of obvious breaches of the accord by Arafat's incitement of the Palestinian masses to murder Israelis. The Palestinian schools taught and continue to teach hatred towards the Jewish State and its people, and still the Israeli leftists persisted in claiming that peace must be given a chance. Western Europeans found out after two bloody world wars, that teaching tolerance and outlawing hate propaganda are prerequisites for a real peace. Egypt's constant hate propaganda against Israel does not promote true reconciliation much less a permanent peace. American administrations are not blameless either. America has provided Egypt with over $70 billion in aid, including military. If America seeks a meaningful peace in the Middle East, it is time to hold regimes such as Mubarak's in Egypt and Abu Mazen's of the Palestinian Authority accountable. Peace requires more than a signature on a piece of paper - it is a state of mind and hinges on the values youngsters learn. While Israel's military planners are focused on Iran, Egyptian military exercises have Israel as its declared target. In the last five years Egyptian military units, including logistical support services and infrastructure, have been transferred to the Suez Canal area, on both the eastern Sinai and the western sides of the Sinai. They have transferred anti-aircraft units, aircraft, and missile batteries -- an enormous expense - that the U.S. largely underwrites through our aid packages. Recognizing that Egypt does not face an external threat, there can only be one explanation for Egypt's massive build up. It is time for Israelis and Americans to listen and react to Dr. Steinitz timely warnings. Joseph Puder (jpuder2001@yahoo.com) is ITAI Executive Director. The Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI) provides information and education on the threat to America from Jihadist Islam and the religious nature of the Arab-Muslim world war currently against Israel to mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy and congregants directly to their churches. Make a tax-deductible contribution to: ITAI 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1832, Philadelphia, PA 19109. |
|
THE LESS MONEY THE TERROR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE, THE LESS JEWS THEY CAN KILL!
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006. |
|
Simple formula: the less funds the terror organizations Hamas, Fattah and Hezbollah have the less Jews they can kill! Nitsana Drashan, esq., Director of the Israel Law Center-Shurat Ha'Din wrote this explanation. |
|
Under the Oslo Accords Israel agreed to collect the taxes and duty on goods brought through Israeli ports and imported into the PA. The PA has no ports. Israel also collects taxes on PA workers in Israel and gives the funds to the Palestinians. It amounts to something like $50 million a month. Since 1995 Israel has been transferring the funds every month. During the intifada PM Barak and Sharon would periodically freeze these transfers of tax money and then eventually be pressured by the EU and the US to turn them over to the PA. We, and other law firms, have been successful in placing pre-trial liens on about $250 million of this money. However, the funds that aren't attached by terror victims are given each month to the PA. When Hamas took office Olmert again froze these tax money transfers. Olmert told everyone he would not allow the terrorists to receive the money. Now this week under US pressure he did indeed agree to provide Abu Mazen with $100 million of the frozen tax money. They are trying to distinguish between the funds going to Hamas and to Abu Mazen's office to be supervised by Abu Mazen. Fatah is okay, Hamas isn't. They also claim there are all sorts of guarantees about the money being used to essential humanitarian items like food, gas and medical supplies for the Palestinians. The lawsuits we are doing against the PA have primarily placed liens on Palestinian money outside of Israel. We have many hundreds of millions of dollars in PA money frozen with post-judgment liens in banks around the world. We assisted in tying up almost all of their funds in the US and other places. Until they pay off all the terror victims with judgments they will be unable to utilize US banks and many of them in Europe as well because the court ordered the banks to freeze the PA funds until all of our collection cases are sorted out. The short answer is that even though Israel from time to time agrees to transfer some funds to the PA, we are managing to freeze large amounts of it. The pursuit of terror funding never ends and all that can be done is to constantly chase after it and attempt to seize as much of it as possible. The Israeli intelligence branches acknowledge that some funds get through to Hamas and other terrorists but their job is to vigilantly try to block as much as possible. In this way the terror organizations' abilities are greatly reduced. The less funds they have the less Jews they can kill. Nitsana Drashan, esq., Director
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
MORE ON THE "WALL" IN NATIVITY SCENES
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 29, 2006. | ||
|
Father Paul Maddison of St Ives (frpaul@sacredheart-stives.org) was kind enough to send me a response to my initial email. Below is the sequence: My initial letter to him, his response and my own response to his response. Since he is using a form letter, it is clear that he is getting many complaints about the creche and crib scenes and the "wall". So, feel free to add your own, making whatever use of my material you may feel will be constructive. David ML | ||
|
From: David Meir-Levi [mailto:david_meirlevi@hotmail.com]
Most honorable Father Maddison: Would you be kind enough to confirm your receipt of Mr. Carew's letter [See below.], and CC me in your response to him?. I report to tens of thousands world-wide on my email list, and I have received many queries as to how you will answer Mr. Carew. Your church's creche with a wall symbolically representing Israel's defensive barrier is an obscene affront to rational thought and to human history. To fault Israel for protecting itself against the constant invasion of suicide bombers is not only unjust, it is beyond irrational, and most assuredly unchristian. Do you not know that many of the Arab world's leaders, and Iran, are committed to a second genoicde of Jews -- another six million, the Jews of Israel? Do you not know that Hamas still enthusiastically endorses the commitments of its founding document to utterly annihilate every Jew in the world? Do you not know that Israel has offered peaceful resolution to the conflict dozens of times, and every olive branch that Israel proffered has been torched by Arab leaders who prefer to destroy Israel and build their "Palestine -- from the river to the sea'', on the corpses of Israel's six million? Do you not know that there was never a wall, nor a fence, nor a barrier until after almost 1,600 Israelis were blown up or burned alive or shot or stabbed (and more than 6,000 wounded) by the terrorists whom Arafat unleashed, in a terror war that has averaged more than 6 attacks per day (almost 28,000) since 1993; and this despite the fact that he signed the Oslo Accords in which he promised to seek diplomatic and negotiated resolution to all grievances? Do you not know that the fence/wall/barrier has effectively stopped c. 90% of the terror attacks since even before it was completed, thus saving un-numberable Israeli lives? Do you not know that Muslim terrorism is aimed at Christians in the Holy Land as well? Have you never heard the Muslim taunt that intimidates and terrifies the Christians of Bethlehem: today is Saturday, but tomorrow is Sunday (i.e., when we finish with the Jews, the Saturday people, we start on the Christians, the Sunday people)? Does it not seem obvious to you that if Holy Mary Mother of God, big with God as a child in her womb, were to attempt to enter Bethlehem today, she would face only minor inconvenience from the Israeli forces; but she would be threatened by far far more danger from the Islamofascist modesty police who would throw acid in her face if she did not wear a veil and a full-body burqa to cover her 'condition'? Or worse, since she was a Jew, they would simply shoot her outright, being sure to aim for her abdomen to kill the unborn, behead her, mutilate her body, and hang her naked from a lamppost for all to see....as they have done to other Jews, and "collaborators", who ventured into their territory. Father Maddison, can you not see that by condemning Israel's defensive barrier which stops terror attacks, you are supporting the terror attacks? Where do you want the casualties, Father Maddison? With the "wall", the casualties are the inconvenienced and delayed Palestinians. Without the "wall" the casualties are the tens or scores or hundreds, or maybe thousands, of Israelis blown up or burned alive or shot or stabbed by all the terrorists whom the wall would have stopped. When you decry the "wall" with your church's creche, you tell the world that you prefer that more Jews should die. Is that what you want to tell the world on the birthday of the Prince of Peace? Are you not aware that the Christian population of the West Bank is fleeing because of the threats and murders and arson and rape and kidnappings perpetrated against them by the Arab terrorists. Today there are more Lebanese Christians living outside of Lebanon than inside of Lebanon....because of the anti-Christian attacks of the Lebanese Muslims. The same is happening now to the Christians of the West Bank....because of the threats and attacks from Hamas. Have you forgotten Lev. 19:16, "stand not idly by when your brother is in mortal danger". Silence in the face of evil is complicity. Complicity with evil is evil. I hope you recall too your Savior's admonition in Matthew 25: " ... to the extent that you did not do this for the least of My brethren (the Jewish people under attack in Israel, or the Christian Arabs under attack in the West Bank), then you did not do it for Me." Remember Jeremiah: "Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully", (Jeremiah 48:10). Do not fall prey to the deceit of the Arab spin-meisters. "Blame the Jew" is one of the oldest of Jew-hatred ploys. Remember Isaiah: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness...., Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away justice from the righteous man!"(Isaiah 5:20-23). Terrorism is evil. Mass murder is evil. Genocide is evil. Incitement to genocide is evil. Teaching children to hate is evil. The Palestinian national movement is the only one of its kind in the entire world and across all of world history whose sole defining paradigm is terrorism, and whose unique and unrelenting goal is the destruction of a soveriegn state and genocide of its Jews. That, sir, is evil. If you love God, you must hate evil (Psalm 97:14). David Meir-Levi
Thank you very much for your very prompt and comprehensive response to my emails of this morning. My admiration for your so very quick and very long response was somewhat mitigated by the fact that it soon became apparent that you are using a form letter....a fact that became obvious when one of my own email addressees sent me a copy of your so very prompt and comprehensive identical reply to his missive to you on the same topic. None the less, I appreciate your taking the time to compose even a form letter for replies to what I am sure are many querries about this issue. It is most gratfying to learn that you are in contact with Mr. Carew; and that your church does not feature the "wall" in any crib scenes. I am also very pleased and greatly re-assured to learn of your sentiments regarding Israel's right of self-defense, and the need to find a way to assist both sides in reaching agreements that will allow for everyone to live in peace and in mutual cooperation and constructive co-existence. I have no doubt that you are right when you say: "...that we are both working for the same end and ...it is truth and justice which must underpin our working for peace...(such that) ... our actions are concerned with the promotion of peace for ALL the people who live in the region". You can rest assured that you and I are in true partnership regarding those goals. However, there are two points in your letter that are in need of re-formulation, in my opiniion. One is misleading by innuendo, and the other is factually incorrect. So I have taken the liberty of offering you some input that I hope will be of value to you. I most sincerely urge you to read carefully my comments below, and incorporate them in to a re-formulation of your letter. Knowing, as I now do, that you are as committed as am I to a just and peaceful resolution for both parties in the conflict, I trust that you will take the temerity of my imposition of this commentary in the spirit of good will and an honest quest for truth and accuracy which it is intended. 1.) Innuendo and unclarity You wrote: "The number of Christians living in the holy Land has indeed declined, from some 17% in 1900 to less than 2% today, this decline is as a result of a number of factors. The Christian presence in Jerusalem -- according to statistics from the Committee of bishops of the Holy Land -- has increased since the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967". Your first paragraph is correct, but it omits important information. Among the "number of factors" for the very precipitous decline in Christian population between the 19th century and 1967 is the constant harrassment and intimidation of Muslim Arabs against Christian Arabs in all areas of the Holy Land NOT under Israeli control. In Israel, Christians, as well as Muslims and members of the c. 70 other faiths practiced in Israel, are free to worship as they choose. The Christian population in Isrel grew rapidly under Israeli sovereignty and tolerant governance. However, between 1967 and 1994, when Israel held legal sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Christian population there too began again to grow....for the first time in almost 100 years. This was due to the Israeli government's extending its tolerant and supportive laws regarding religious freedom to the territories that it conquered during the Six-Day war. Israeli presence prevented the Muslims from harrassing the Christians. Conversely, from 1994 until now, under the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority, the Christian population of the West Bank has plummetted from c. 85% of Bethlehem in 1993 to less than 15% today. The Christian population of the Gaza strip has almost completely disappeared. The single most powerful impetus for Christian flight is the threat of Islamofascist anti-Christian terrorism which I described in my first email. Ironically, many Christians flee the West Bank and come to Israel for religious freedom. By omitting these facts, your paragraph quoted above, when read in conjucntion with the paragraph that follows (see below), can be easily misconstrued to indicate that it is Israeli security measures that are causing Christian flight. In your second paragraph, you wrote: "Christians in Israel and the Occupied Territories are often prevented from freely worshipping by the system of permissions and passes that are required for them to visit their holy places. At Easter this year, over 3,000 Christians were prevented from following the traditional path of Christ from the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem; despite the fact that they had obtained the necessary permissions." This is a true statement. But it is de-contextualized. I most sincerely urge you to beware of de-contextualization. De-contextualization is one of the prime tools of the demagogue and diatribalist. As I am sure you must know, from the earliest days after the June, 1967 war, and until Israel ceded sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority per the Oslo Accords of 9/1993, Christians and Muslims traveled freely throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip and all of Israel. And Israelis traveled freely in the West Bank and Gaza strip. During those years, the economy of the West Bank and Gaza Strip grew by leaps and bounds, with an average annual GDP of almost 13%, 300,000 Arabs crossed the "green line" daily to work in the Israeli infrastructure, seven universities built where none had existed before, up-graded sewerage and water purification, 20th century telephone and radio and TV, sky-rocketing tourism, and a moer than tripling of population (from c. 950,000 Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 to c. 3,200,000 in 1993). And this was all due to Israel's "Mini-Marshall" plan which infused hundreds of millions of dollars in to West Bank and Gaza Strip development for its Arab populations. All of this prosperity and freedom came to a grinding halt when Arafat took over in 1994. And as soon as he took over, he started his war of intimidation and threats against Christians, and he also started his terror war agianst Israel. It is ONLY in the context of Israel's restrained and measured defensive responses to the Palestinian Authority's terror war that Christians find their access to holy sites limited. Prior to the terror war, there was no such limitation. Were the terror war to end, the limitations too could end. With regard to this year's 3000 Christians denied access to the Via Dolorosa, you must surely know that Israel did that because its military intelligence learned of Palestinian terrorist plans to attack Christian pilgrims and religious sites during Holy Days. To not place restrictions on religious traffic in East Jerusalem at that time would have been a severe and illegal and immoral abdication of the government's responsibility toward its Christian citizens. Happily, a number of planned attacks were nipped in the bud thanks to timely arrests in a variety of West Bank and Gaza Strip terror centers (primarily Qalqiliya, Jenin, and Hebron). There is evidence, too, that planned attacks were cancelled when the terrorists became aware of the Israeli security measures. I most sincerley urge you to include some cogent summary of this information in your revised letter. Otherwise, you are blaming the victim, confusing the fire fighter with the arsonist, and misleading your readers. 2.) Erroneous data You wrote: ".... (the wall's) route -- especially around Bethlehem is destroying lives and livelihoods of the people who live there. What is unacceptable, and has been declared so by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, is that Israel has chosen to build its security wall on Palestinian land, in places making detours of up to 14 kilometres to the east of the 1967 "Green line". In these circumstances it is difficult to see the wall as little less than an exercise in redrawing internationally accepted boundaries, an action which can only lead to further frustration, anger and possible violence." The question you pose here, why is the fence built on "Palestinian land", has built into it a number of hidden and fallacious assumptions, which must be addressed and evaluated before the answer can be understood: Incorrect assumptions: a.) that the green line means something. Recall that the green line is an armistice line (per Rhodes armistice conference, 2-7/49), not an internationally recognized border. There is no internationally recognized border between the West Bank and Israel because the majority of the Arab world (all of the Arab world before 1967) refused to make peace, negotiate borders, and recognize those negotiated borders. Egypt and Jordan, upon making peace (1979 and 1994 respectively), specifically excluded issues of the West Bank from their agreements with Israel. Thus per international law and UN resolutions (Chapter VI: UNSCR 242 and 338), there is no political or legal relevance to the green line. In the absence of a willingness of the belligerents on one side of the conflict to make peace, the armistice line is a temporary and convenient line to divide belligerents. It says nothing at all about sovereignty or ownership. Therefore, there is no legal reason to use the green line as a base line or bench mark in the definition of Israel's boundaries vis-à-vis the west bank. b.) That Israel has no right to land east/south/north of the green line on the west bank. Despite the rantings of pro-Palestinian propaganda (which, by the Goebels principle have taken on the mantle of axiom), Israel's sovereignty in the West Bank is completely legal. Before 1917 the sovereignty was under the Ottomans. From 1917 to 1947, the sovereignty was under the British mandatory government by virtue of the peace agreement that ended belligerence between the Ottoman Empire and the UK, and by virtue of the preamble to the League of Nations founding documents. On 11/29/47 the UN voted (UNSCR Resolution #181) to partition the land into two states, Israel for the Jews and an Arab state for the Arabs. The Arab world's leadership rejected the partition and successfully occupied the Arab territory, but was not successful in occupying the Israeli territory. Having accepted the partition plan, Israel's legal sovereignty over the land allotted to it by the UN was enshrined in international law (Balfour declaration, League of Nations charter pre-amble, UN charter pre-amble, and UN resolution, chapter VI, #181 of 11/29/1947). Regarding the land meant for the new Arab state, Israel captured some in the context of its defensive war of 1948-9. At the Rhodes Armistice talks, Israel offered to return the captured land in exchange for recognition, negotiations, and peace. The Arabs said no. Then Jordan occupied the West Bank, and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip: both were areas intended by the UN to be part of the new Arab State in former British Mandatory Palestine; and both territorial occupations were illegal and flagrant violations of UN 181 and international law. These illegal occupations were not recognized by the world community (only UK and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation of the west bank) nor legalized in any way. In the absence of a peace treaty, and in the presence of continued belligerence and threat of belligerence, Israel's continued holding of those parts of the UN-designated Palestine that were in its control after 2/49 is legal. With the continuation of belligerence via terrorism for 19 years, it has been long clear to the world community that Israel's sovereignty over these UN-designated Palestinian lands captured in 1948-9 has become permanent. None but the most rabid anti-Zionists suggest a retreat by Israel to the 1947 partition lines. The same is now true of the Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza strip. After 37 years of continued terrorism, warfare (1973), and refusal to make peace, Arab leadership has lost any rational claim to any sort of sovereignty over that territory. And keep in mind that, as in 1949, Israel offered to give the West Bank and Gaza strip and Sinai back to the Arab countries that had illegally annexed them, per Abba Eban's speech in the UN in late June of 1967.... but the Arabs said NO (Khartoum conference, 8-9/67). It is only because of Arab obduracy and Jew-hatred, and the cherished Arab dream of destroying Israel and genociding its Jews, that Israel maintained its control of the West Bank and Gaza strip. We are talking international law...not real life. In real life, the leadership of Arab countries can vociferously make just such claims, as does the PA. But in light of the above, it is clear that these claims are not based in law or morality or history. They are motivated by a goal of political gain via revisionism, mendacity, and the strategy of deceit with the tactic of serial lying. So, any land in the West Bank and Gaza strip that is not privately owned is de-facto and de iure legally owned by the State of Israel. The highly publicized and stridently advanced claim that Israel is stealing Arab land is simply false. It is great PR against Israel, but it is false. c.) that the west bank land belongs to Palestinians, or Arabs: Per #b, West Bank and Gaza Strip land that is not privately owned belongs to the State of Israel. Only land that is privately owned can be rationally referred to as Arab land or Palestinian land (although currently under Israeli sovereignty). Private land ownership has been thoroughly, copiously, and fastidiously documented since the 15th century under the Turks, British, and Jordanians. Both the British and the Jordanians created special programs to encourage the registry of land ownership by those who lived on and/or worked that land. In 1967 when Israel took over the west bank, it made the formal announcement that it was not going to annex that territory. It was going to give the territory back to Jordan when/if Jordan was willing to make peace (per above). So it did not, initially, do anything with or to private Arab land. Re claims by the PA (used to be known as the PLO) to "historic Palestine" and assertions that the West Bank should be considered PA land, one need only look at the hundreds of years under Ottoman and British rule when there was no Palestinian people, no Palestinian state, no claim to Palestinian statehood, and no movement with or against the sovereigns (legal or illegal) of those territories before 1967, to create any sort of 'national self-realization" for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian national movement began only when the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip fell under Jewish control, and the concept of a Palestinian people deprived of its land became another PR whip with which to flagellate Israel. Thus, West Bank land that is not privately owned is legally Israel's land now, not Palestinian or Arab land. d.) that Israel should be considerate of Arab belated (like 35 years belated) re-considerations of UN resolutions and peace offers long rejected by Arab leaders and to which Arab response was war and terror, murder and intimidation. Especially UN 242: It is beyond dis-ingenuous for Arab leadership to now claim that Israel should conform to UN 194, 242, and/or 338, when the Arabs then rejected these resolutions and expressed their rejection in war and terrorism and continued belligerence. Such assertions that after 55 or 35 years the Arab leadership should have the right to force Israel to abide by the resolutions that Israel accepted and the Arabs rejected are palpably belated political opportunism. Moreover, Israel has, technically speaking, already fulfilled 242's and 338's requirements re territorial concessions. 242 calls for return of '...territories' (not THE territories); and this in the context of peace agreements. World-class international jurists Lord Carendon and Eugene Rostow (the drafters of 242) assumed that there would be peace talks, and then there would be some border adjustments while Israel gave back most of the land. In the absence of peace talks, no land was given back and no adjustments made. When there were peace talks, land was given back (Sinai to Egypt in 1979, and area south of Sea of Galilee and south of Dead Sea to Jordan in 1994) and adjustments made. So Israel has actually lived up to the letter of 242; and while in spirit some or much or even most of the West Bank should have gone to some entity (Jordan had no legal claim on it), in the absence of any entity willing to talk peacefully about this issue, the land remained under Israel's legal sovereignty...known in international law as "disputed territory". No nation in the world would acquiesce to such egregiously outrageous demands as are made now by the Arab nations and terrorist leaders of the PA -- give up everything that you gained in your defensive war (i.e., go back to the 're-67 armistice line) by which we sought to annihilate you; and do that in exchange for nothing at all.... just do it and then we'll see what happens. But this is the essence of what the Arab world and the PA demand. e.) that Israel is forever barred from taking unilateral steps to resolve the issue of borders: Arafat and his minions had 9 years since Oslo to settle via negotiations the issue of borders (per Oslo). Instead, he chose to wage a terror war that reached its acme with the 2nd Intifada. Having failed in that war, he has no legal, moral or rational right, now, to go back and say -- wait guys, I really do want to do what I said I would do 9 years ago, before 1300 Israeli dead and 6000+ wounded (not to mention c. 4,000 of my own people dead and tens of thousands wounded). f.) that the fence creates a political reality: In 1979, when peace was made with Egypt, Israel removed the 6 settlements in Sinai, and carried out its recalcitrant Israeli settlers in handcuffs. Ariel Sharon, who completely supported the peace treaty with Egypt, was in charge of the military units that dragged out those settlers. In 1994, when peace was made with Jordan, Israel gave back to Jordan several hundred square miles of land in the Arava (south of the Dead Sea) and in areas east of the Jordan river to the south of the Sea of Galilee: land that was hitherto owned and worked by Israeli kibbutzim. To allow the kibbutzim to continue their livelihood (since they had reclaimed the land from desert and build up a successful farming enterprise on hitherto unarable swamp land), Jordan agreed to let the kibbutzim continue working the land, but pay rent to Jordan. Israel agreed. A peaceful resolution that benefited both sides. Bottom line: with a political entity that is willing to make peace, and to enforce and maintain that peace, Israel makes peace, dismantles settlements, gives back land. In the presence of a Palestinian leadership that can, and is willing, to put a stop to terrorism, run its society by rule of law, stop incitement and Jew hatred, and negotiate honestly and openly, face to face, peace can come into being. Then the fence can be moved, in accordance with whatever final legal recognized borders are decided upon in the negotiations. Today, more so than ever before, it is beyond ridiculous to assert that the fence creates political reality. After Israel's unilateral and unconditional withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005, with the dismantling of 21 communities and the exile of 9000 people (some of whom had to be overpowered by police and soldiers and dragged from their homes in handcuffs), it should be obvious that if there were a leadership that could lead its people to peace with Israel, the fence could be moved to accord with the peace agreement. Now that the hidden assumptions are exposed, we can address the erroneous nature of your paragraph cited above. Israel builds the fence where it feels the fence will be most effective in protecting its citizens from the endless, relentless, brutal terror war that Arafat and his cohorts, and now Hamas, have waged and continue to wage even as I write. There is no legal, historical, rational or moral reason for the fence to go anywhere except where the Israeli government thinks it should go in order to be most effective as a deterrent to terrorism. The fence convolutes torturously in many places to avoid trespass on private Palestinian land, but where privately owned farmland is traversed, 'farmer gates' are created in order to not deprive Palestinians of their livelihood. In the context of a peace agreement, the fence may be moved, or may not, depending upon the negotiations; and if land that was formerly owned by a Palestinian ends up on Israel's side of the border, compensation can be made in the form of money or land elsewhere, as decided upon by the peace treaty. Such actions are consistent with morality, international law, the history of similar territorial resolutions world-wide, and a rational review of the absence of any willingness on the part of the leadership of the Palestinian people to advance any peace plan other than genocide of Israel's Jews. Israel has declared its willingness to dismantle the fence when there is peace. It must build the fence now where it sees fit, to protect its people in time of war. As I noted in my first email, the fence does cause pain and suffering on the Palestinian side. But what is the alternative? Where do you want the casualties? I encourage you to mention as well, in your revision of your form letter, the reason why the fence is a wall around Bethlehem (and several other segments, making up a total of only c. 6% of the barrier being wall, and the remainder being chain-link fence). In the areas around Qalqiliya and Bethlehem, there is high ground to the east of the barrier. Prior to the construction of the wall, Arab terrorist snipers used to sit on the hillside and shoot randomly down in to Israeli homes, cars, pedestrians. Many were killed. Many more wounded. The 30-foot high wall, made of 6-foot thick concrete, stops the snipers. Elsewhere, 94% of the barrier's length, the land contour does not favor such sniper activity, so there is no need for a wall. Finally, the fact that the ICJ condemned the "wall" has absolutely no legal or moral valence. The ICJ acted completely outside of its realm of legal jurisdiction. Any jurist familiar with international law and the founding documents of the ICJ will confirm that. The ICJ can adjudicate ONLY where both sides in the dispute agree to its adjudication. Israel did not agree because the ICJ insisted upon excluding from its considerations all of the factors that I have discussed above. Such a de-contextualization of the issue renders the ICJ's findings not only moot, but deeply bigoted and legally impaired. Your conclusion of this paragraph, that ".....it is difficult to see the wall as little less than an exercise in redrawing internationally accepted boundaries, an action which can only lead to further frustration, anger and possible violence..." is understandable. You have been mis-informed by many sources (media, politicians, academics, Arab propagandists). The goebellian tactic (tell the same lie often enough, and people will believe it) really does work. The issue is complex, and it is not easy to unravel the many levels of lies and de-contextualization and half-truths in order to get a realistic picture of the true dynamics of the fence. I most humbly suggest that my input above may be useful to you in doing exactly such an unravelling. So, again, I most sincerely urge you to review my input, and incorporate some abbreviated form of it in to your revised form letter. If you need additional information, or references to sources, let me know. David Meir-Levi
Father Maddison of St. Ives (UK) was thoughful enough to send me a response to my email of yesterday.
He expresses his openness to input, interest in getting the facts straight, and willingness to change his form letter. All very commendable. Since most of what he and I wrote in our last exchange is already known to y'all, I have not reproduced it here. More important, however, are the following observations: 1.) note his reference to hate mail. anyone who wrote him (wihether as a result of my email, or independently), using inappropriate language or hateful accusations, has done a disservice to father Maddison, to Israel, to Jews, to other of our allies, and to those who are open to honest dialogue (and to me, in this case, since the hate mail makes him warry of all input, thus making my work with him all the harder). hate mail is never a constructive response. It merely lowers the writer (and, by extension, others who can be associated with the writer, like me, in this case) to the level of diatribe and demagoguery. 2.) he took the time to research my assertions, found contrary statements, reported those to me, and left an opening for me to respond....that is civil dialogue ( and certainly no proper target for reprehensible accusations or harsh language). 3). he revised his form letter in response to my input. #2 and #3 are exactly the responses that I want from an interlocutor: openness to dialogue, willingness to engage in Q & A, respnsiveness to input, enough interest in the issue to motivate his taking the time to read and think and research and write back to me, and an honest approach to facts and logic. David ML SELECTION FROM THE www.fco.gov.uk under "Countries and Regions", "Middle East Peace Process", "FAQ's" LITERATURE TO WHICH YOU REFERRED ME. I DO NOT INTEND TO BE DISPARAGING OF THE UK'S POLITICAL STAND; BUT MERELY TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS A POLITICAL ONE, AND NOT A STAND BASED UPON HISTORY. POLITICS, ESPECIALLY INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, RESONATES TO FORCES THAT OFTEN TRUMP TRUTH AND ACCURACY. THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE WORLD: AKA 'REALPOLITIK'. What is the Government's view on Israeli settlements? Settlements are illegal under international law. THIS IS A POSITION TAKEN BY THE EU AND UK. BUT, EXCEPT FOR PRESIDENT CARTER, AMERICAN PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESS HAVE SAID THE OPPOSITE. PER MY EXPANATION IN MY PREVIOUS EMAIL, MOST (NOT ALL, BUT MOST ) ISRAELI COMMUNITIES ON THE WEST BANK (AND THOSE THAT WERE IN THE GAZA STRIP) ARE LEGAL. IF YOU WISH TO PURSUE THIS ISSUE, I WILL SEND YOU THE LEGAL RESEARCH FROM INTERNATIONAL JURORS UPON WHCH I BASE MY SUMMARY. Phase One of the Quartet Roadmap calls on Israel to freeze all settlement expansion, including natural growth, and to dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001. THIS IS SOMEWHAT DIS-INGENUOUS. THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PART ONE OF SECTION ONE OF THE ROAD MAP SAYS UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY MUST IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY STOP TERRORISM AND INCITEMENT. AT THE END OF THE SECTION DEALING WITH PHASE ONE, THE ROAD MAP DOES INDEED SAY THAT ISRAEL MUST STOP SETTLEMENT GROWTH. ISRAEL AGREED. THEN, EVEN BEFORE THE ROADMAP TEXT WAS PUBLIC, ARAFAT AND QUREI'A AND ABBAS BEGAN, IN ARABIC, TO THEIR OWN, CALLING FOR AN INCREASE IN TERRORISM, EVEN AS THEY WERE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO THE ROAD MAP. AND, INDEED, THEY DID EXACTLY THAT. ISRAEL THEN SAID: IF THE PALESTINIAN LEADERS ARE NOT GOING TO FULFILL THE VERY FIRST AND MOST CRUCIAL OBLIGATION OF THE ROAD MAP, THEN THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON FOR ISRAEL TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT SETTLEMENTS. THE ROAD MAP EXPECTS, PER ITS PROLOGUE, THAT BOTH SIDES WILL PROGRESS TOGETHER TOWARD ITS MILESTONES. WHEN ONE SIDE (THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY) DECLARES THAT IT WILL DO THE OPPOSITE, THEN THERE CANNOT BE PROGRESS. THUS, IT IS SOMEWHAT MISLEADING FOR THE UK'S POLICY ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS TO STATE THIS ONE SENTENCE IN THE ROAD MAP AS ITS REASON FOR DECLARING THEM NON-COMPLIANT....AND OMIT THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE PROVIDED. Settlement activity around east Jerusalem, and throughout the West Bank, threatens the territorial contiguity of any future Palestinian state, and combined with the construction of the barrier on occupied Palestinian land, is an obstacle to peace. AGAIN, NO DISRESPECT TO THE UK. BUT THIS IS A PATENTLY FALSE STATEMENT. I AM SURPRIZED TO SEE IT IN A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT. I SUGGEST, SPECULATIVELY OF COURSE, THAT IT REFLECTS THE PRESSURES ON THE UK FROM THE EU AND ARAB OIL-SHEIKHDOMS. ONE NEED MERELY TO LOOK AT A MAP TO SEE THAT THE ISRAELI COMMUNITIES AROUND JERUSALEM DO NOT THREATEN TO INTERFERE WITH PA TERRITORIAL CONTIGUITY. THAT STATEMENT ORIGINATED FROM SA'EB EREKAT (THE PR SPINMEISTER FOR THE PA AND ARAFAT'S RIGHT-HAND SPOKESPERSON FOR 40 YEARS). IT IS JUST ANOTHER IN THE LONG LIST OF PALPABLE TRANSPARENT LIES THAT THE PA PROFFERS TO THE WEST. MOREOVER, THE CLINTON 'BRIDGE PLAN' WHICH PRESIDENT CLINTON OFFERED AT CAMP DAVID 2 (JUNE 2000 - JAN 2001) ACTUALLY CUT ISRAEL IN TWO....IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE WEST BANK AT ITS SOUTHWESTERN CORNER TO THE GAZA STRIP AT ITS NORTHEASTERN CORNER. BARAQ WAS WILLILNG TO ACCEPT THAT; ARAFAT REJECTED IT. IF IT IS OK TO INTERFERE WITH ISRAEL'S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, WHY IS IT A PROBLEM TO DO SO FOR THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY'S TERRITORY? The Foreign Secretary has said on many occasions that settlements are illegal and that it is wrong for the Israeli Government to continue to extend them. We continue to call on the Israeli Government to end settlement expansion. Maaleh Adumim/E1 The Israeli press reported on 21 March 2005 Israeli Government plans to build 3,500 housing units in E-1 -- an area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim (a large settlement just East of Jerusalem). The implementation of this plan would effectively split the northern and southern West Bank in two. We continue to raise our concerns with the Israeli authorities and will monitor the situation closely. PER ABOVE, THIS IS SIMPLY FALSE. JUST LOOK AT ANY MAP. THE EXPANSION OF MA'ALEH ADUMIM DOES NOT CUT THE WEST BANK IN TWO. I CANNOT BUT CONCLUDE THAT AT LEAST ON THIS ISSUE, THE UK FOREIGN OFFICE IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED TO PROFFER TO THE PUBLIC THOSE STATEMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE ARAB PROPAGANDA....EVEN THOUGH A GLANCE AT THE MAP PROVES THE STATEMENT WRONG. How has the Government responded to the construction of the barrier? We fully recognise Israel's right to self-defence and agree that a barrier is a reasonable way to achieve this. However, we call for the barrier to be built either on or behind the Green Line. The route, which the Israeli Cabinet approved on 20 February 2005, takes in a number of Israeli settlements, whose presence is illegal under international law. HERE TOO, THE ISSUE OF THE GREEN LINE IS GIVEN PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, ALTHOUGH THE LINE WAS NEVER RECOGNIZED AS A BORDER BY ANY ARAB COUNTRY, NOR IS IT TODAY. THERE ARE TWO THINGS TO CONSIDER HERE: 1. ISRAEL'S PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO STOP TERRORIST INCURSIONS. THE FENCE MUST THEN RUN ALONG A LINE OF CRESTS ON HILLS, HIGH POINTS OVERLOOKING VALLEYS, AND SOMETIMES EVEN FENCING IN ARAB CENTERS OF TERROR ACTIVITY (SUCH AS QALQILLIYA) ON THREE SIDES, IN ORDER TO FULFILL ITS PRIMARY MISSION -- STOP TERROR, SAVE LIVES. THE GREEN LINE DOES NOT FOLLOW SUCH A COURSE. 2. PER MY EMAIL, THE GREEN LINE WAS AN ARMASTICE LINE. ISRAEL OFFERED TO NEGOTIATE BOARDERS (1949) AND THE ARABS REFUSED. AGAIN IN 1967 AFTER THE 6-DAY WAR, ISRAEL OFFERED TO NEGOTIATE BORDERS WITH ITS OFFER TO CEDE MOST OF THE WEST BANK BACK TO JORDAN. JORDAN REFUSED. NO ARAB COUNTRY HAS EVER ACCEPTED THE GREEN LINE AS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED BORDER. THE ISSUE ARISES NOW ONLY BECAUSE IT SERVES ARAB PROAGANDA TO DO SO. THUS, IN SUM RE #1 AND #2, TO DEMAND THAT THE FENCE FOLLOW THE GREEN LINE IS BOTH TO UNDERMINE THE FENCE'S ABILITY TO STOP TERROR, AND TO DE FACTO GIVE THE FENCE A VALENCE AS AN OFFICIAL BORDER THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE. It also threatens to split the West Bank in two, FALSE, PER ABOVE. which in turn undermines the prospects for a two-state solution. We are profoundly concerned at the impact the barrier has on the lives of Palestinians, and deplore the destruction of Palestinian homes and the confiscation of land associated with its construction. YES. SO ARE WE, ME, MOST ISRAELIS, THE ISRAELI GOV'T ETC. BUT NOTE: 1. THE PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF ITS TERROR WAR ON THE WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENRY. ARAFAT SYPHONED OFF C. 20% OF THE 5 BILLION DOLLARS HE RECEIVED IN AID FROM ARAB COUNTRIES - AND HIS WIFE NOW LIVES OFF OF THAT MONEY IN PARIS. OF THE REMAINING 80%, MOST HAS GONE TO SUPPORT THE TERROR WAR, AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE ARE FAR FAR WORSE OFF NOW THAN THEY WERE UDNER ISRAELI RULE. HAMAS, ELECTED ON A PLATFORM OF TRANSPARENCY AND NON-CORRUPTION, IS NOW DOING THE SAME THING. MONEY MEANT FOR THE NEEDS OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IS DIVERTED TO TERROR USE. NOTE THAT TEACHERS ARE STRIKING BECUASE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. BUT THE TERRORISTS ARE PAID, AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN HAMAS COFFERS TO BUY THE TONS OF WEAPONRY THAT COME IN TO THE GAZA STRIP DAILY. THE INDIFFERENCE, OR EVEN DISDAIN, OF ARAB LEADERSHIP FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE IS WELL KNOWN, AND IS DOCUMENTED OVER CENTURIES. FOR A QUICK SUMMARY, SEE MY ARTICLE, ATTACHED. We have made our concerns extremely clear to the Israeli government and will continue to do so. 2.) BEYOND PERFUNCTORY STATEMENTS CONDEMNING GENERIC TERRORISM, VERY FEW GOVERNMETNS WORLD-WIDE HAVE MADE THEIR CONCERNS EXTREMELY CLEAR TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF ARAB TERRORISM ON THE WELL-BEING OF ISRAELI CITIZENS. THERE IS A CLEAR, AND REPREHENSIBLE, DOUBLE STANDARD HERE. PER ABOVE, MY SUSPICION IS THAT THE UK STATEMENTS ARE PALIATIVES TO ARAB OIL ALLIES. Does the Government support the International Court of Justice ruling on the barrier? The International Court of Justice published an Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004 stating their view that the building of the barrier on occupied territory is illegal. This echoes the consistently held position of the UK, European Union and United Nations. The UK voted in favour of United Nations General Assembly Emergency Session-10/15 acknowledging the receipt of the Advisory Opinion and making clear that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must abide by international law. The UK will continue to urge Israel to route the barrier away from occupied territory. PER MY EARLIER COMMENTS, THE UK WENT ALONG WITH THE EU AND UN. I PRESUME THAT THEY DID SO FOR POLITICAL REASONS. THE ICJ, BY ITS OWN CONSTITUTION, CANNOT ADJUDICATE IF ONE OR MORE OF THE PARTIES REFUSES. SO THE UK VOTE WAS IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ICJ FOUNDING DOCUEMNTATION AND LEGAL LIMITATIONS. IF YOU WANT TO LEARN MORE, LET ME KNOW. I HAVE LOTS OF STUFF ON MY HARD DRIVE.
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
|
|
IDF TO FUTURE ISRAELI VICTIMS OF QASSAMS:WE PREFER THAT YOU DIE, NOT PALESTINIANS
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 29, 2006. |
|
I have long asserted that Israel is the only country in the world, and across all of world history, to value the lives of its enemy civilian population more than it values the lives of its own citizens. The article below makes it official. The main thrust of the argument is the opposite: killing palestinian civilians in the course of stopping an arab terrorist attack is OK, if the number of paletinan civilians killed is likely to be smaller than the number of Israelis who would have been killed by the attack. Hence: "When you are in a tragic situation where you have to choose between the lives of your own people and the lives of others, you choose Israeli citizens first." And, indeed no nation has ever done otherwise....especially when that nation is a victim of agression and its military actions are self-defense. However, note the opening paragraphs: "The government's policy of restraint regarding Kassam rocket launchings from Gaza is legitimate from an ethical perspective, Prof. Asa Kasher said this week in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post. "The chances that a Kassam rocket will kill are relatively low compared to a suicide bombing," said Kasher, co-author of the IDF code of ethics. "Therefore, use of targeted killings to prevent terrorist attacks that threaten the lives of dozens of Israelis (i.e., a suicide bombings, DML) is an obligation of the state that has nothing to do with political policy decisions. But the decision to exercise restraint against Kassam rocket launchings is a legitimate policy decision." The essense of these paragraphs is: Israel's military ethicist recommends to the government and the IDF, and to all the Israelis who will die or suffer injury in future qassam attacks, that it is better for a few Israelis to be killed (and hundreds wounded) than for the IDF to engage in retaliatory or preventative strikes that may kill Palestinian civilians....because a smaller number of Israelis is likely to die from qassams than from other forms of more lethal terror attacks. So, the amazing, and I believe unique, message that the IDF ethicists have just given to the IDF, the Israeli government, and to the world is: If the number of dead is likely to be smaller on the Israeli side than on the Palestinian side, we prefer to have the Israelis die. This is called "IDF ethicist: Restraint policy is legit" and was written by Matthew Wagner. It appeared in The Jerusalem Post Dec. 28, 2006. David ML |
|
The government's policy of restraint regarding Kassam rocket launchings from Gaza is legitimate from an ethical perspective, Prof. Asa Kasher said this week in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post. "The chances that a Kassam rocket will kill are relatively low compared to a suicide bombing," said Kasher, co-author of the IDF code of ethics. "Therefore, use of targeted killings to prevent terrorist attacks that threaten the lives of dozens of Israelis is an obligation of the state that has nothing to do with political policy decisions. But the decision to exercise restraint against Kassam rocket launchings is a legitimate policy decision." Kasher, professor of professional ethics at Tel Aviv University and academic adviser at the IDF College of National Defense, added, however, that each Kassam rocket that landed on Israeli territory was an attack on the State of Israel. He also said the government had a moral responsibility to combat the fears of its residents in the south who were threatened by the Kassam rockets. Kasher who, together with head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin authored the IDF's doctrine on the war against terror which is taught to high-ranking officers in the IDF College of National Defense, commented on the recent Supreme Court decision on targeted killings and other issues involving military ethics and the war against terrorism. Is the IDF too careful? There was a case a few years ago in which seven members of Hamas's military arm were together in one place. But they were in a residential building. So we shot a missile through the window instead of destroying the entire building. The missile blew up the wrong room and they all got away. You have to calculate how many Israelis were killed because we did not kill those terrorists. How many people were killed because we were compassionate with the neighbors of those Hamas terrorists? Do these mistakes happen often? No. Is there any contradiction between last week's Supreme Court decision on targeted killings and the ethical code you and Yadlin wrote? No. We analyzed the issue from an ethical and moral perspective while [former president of the Supreme Court] Aharon Barak and the Supreme Court used legal criteria. But we reached the same conclusions. What are your conclusions? We said that as long as a person, whether he is a civilian or a soldier, is endangering me and is involved in enlisting terrorists, gathering explosives, giving orders to other terrorists, he is considered someone directly involved in the war effort and can be killed. What about the inadvertent killing of civilians? I have to try very hard not to hurt civilians. If necessary I will delay the targeted killing if I can do it later in a way that will not harm civilians or at least in a way that will reduce collateral damage to civilians. Research is done to determine what is possible to minimize collateral damage. People in operation research sit and plan exactly how to kill the terrorist. What type of bomb or missile to use, whether to shoot from a helicopter or a drone, what angle to send it in, at what time of day, whether to destroy the whole building or only the room where the terrorist is, whether to send the missile through the window etc. Barak mentions in his decision the necessity to refrain from using targeted killings if it is possible to arrest the terrorist. Does the IDF code also demand this? Yes it does. Arrest is better for two reasons, First, because you refrain from killing in recognition of his human dignity. That is what the right to human dignity means - that I cannot kill him unless he is endangering me. We need very good reasons to carry out a targeted killing. Keeping him alive is in itself a value. Second, keeping him alive allows you to interrogate the terrorist and gain important information. What about endangering the lives of soldiers to arrest him instead of killing him? Are you obligated from an ethical perspective to do that? No. He is a terrorist. He is in the process of planning a terrorist attack. He is endangering me right now. I do not have to endanger my own soldiers to protect his right to human dignity. Barak says in his decision that the killing must meet the criteria of proportionality. Does the IDF have the same demand? The most problematic criterion when deliberating a targeted killing is proportionality. What benefit do I derive from a military attack as opposed to the damage I cause? It is very difficult to compare the benefit to the damage. In our article we write that the state is more responsible to its own citizens morally speaking than it is to citizens of other countries. That point does not come across in the Supreme Court decision. True. The Supreme Court does not mention this point. But the decision does not challenge this assumption. We learn this principle from the accepted practice of states. We see that the state has a special responsibility to its own citizens in times of famine, epidemics etc. When Israel buys medication against a certain disease and there is a shortage you don't see Israel passing out the medication to citizens of Italy or some other foreign country before it gives to its own people. When you are in a tragic situation where you have to choose between the lives of your own people and the lives of others, you choose Israeli citizens first. Does that mean that in theory it is morally acceptable to stage a targeted killing even if more civilians are killed on the Palestinian side than the number of Israelis that would have been killed by that terrorist? Yes. But the reality is much different. We have reached the point where in most cases the civilians that are inadvertently killed in a targeted killing are fewer than the number of Israeli citizens that would have been killed if that terrorist was not stopped. We are talking about no more than a few people who are killed together with the terrorist in most cases. |
|
1970 LIFE MAGAZINE COVER - PALESTINIAN KIDS WITH GUNS
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006. |
|
The year was 1970 and the picture appeared on Life Magazine cover page... "New Pride and Unity...Changing 'Careers in the Middle East'..." Never more true! For sure the Palestinians "changed" careers they never really had! Already in 1970, on Life Magazine Cover, a picture that rattles us all each time we see it. The date, over thirty years ago -- 1970 -- is worth 1000 words! How many more words and/or pictures do we have to see jumping at us, or repeatedly heard, before we finally believe what is happening all over the world? Is it that terrifying that most people simply do not have it in them the courage to admit or believe the simple truth looking right at them? I am aghast! Are you?
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
THE "WALL" IN NATIVITY SCENES VS RATIONAL THOUGHT AND HISTORIC FACT
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 29, 2006. |
|
This letter is Tom Carew's 14-point analysis of the current Arab-Israeli conflict and the "wall" that is now part of the nativity scene in front of some churches in Ireland and England. It was sent to Fr. Paul Maddison, Sacred Heart, in St. Ives. |
|
Dear Father Paul, I am deeply troubled at the ongoing, indeed increasing pattern of very one-sided attacks on Israel from more and more Christian leaders. The Cardinal and Anglican Primate in the UK, like yourself with a wall in your Crib, and this morning, Bishop Raymond Field [Chair of the Irish Commission for Justice and Social Affairs, a commission of the Bishops Conference] in both an article in our largest selling daily, the Irish Independent, and in a letter to all Parish Priests. Hardly a whisper about the systematic Palestinian suicide-bombing of civilians, in cafes, discos, buses, etc, which led to the Barrier in the first place, and which the leader of the European Fatwa Council, Qatar-based Sheikh Qaradawi supports; their secretariat is at Clonskeagh Sunni Mosque in Dublin. The same predictable one-sided chorus comes from some academics, who never think of a boycott of any other State, of eg Iran, or mention the "religious freedom" in Saudi Arabia, or boycott Sudan over their Darfur genocidal massacres. There is also a general principle, that to endorse ANY controversial particular judgment by associating it with the Crib, is a gross abuse of the Gospel - the certainty of any moral judgment decreases as you move from the general principle to detailed, contingent applications. As an Irishman, and the proud son of a police officer who policed that Border during WW II, I rejoiced at [a] Border Checkpoints with Northern Ireland, and [b] at body-searches in Belfast Stores, when IRA gangs were deploying their car-bombs and nail-bombs against civilian "legiitimate targets", and [c] at the Belfast "Peace Line" which hindered sectarian assassins and riots. And if you were to place a wall in your Crib, apart from the fact that it is not aa wall for most of its length, but a fence, where in the Crib have you the shatterd limbs of a young Arab or Jewish child, the fruits, no, the very purpose, of every suicide-bomb atrocity? Balance? Or equating the perpetrator with the victim? In life, you are either with the Arsonist or the Firefighter, with the Drug Gang, or the Drug Squad, with the Car-bomber, or the Bomb Squad. The Good Samaritan knew who was the aggressor. The following are my considered thoughts on the situation, and I have carefully studied it for very many years. I am also a member of SPME - Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
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 |
|
STILL NOT THERE YET...
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, December 29, 2006. |
|
New York Times syndicated columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, has gained some wisdom over the years. For a journalist, he has achieved a level of knowledge on matters pertaining to the volatile Middle East that most others in his profession seldom achieve. Having said that, what I have forgotten over the decades at professional and academic levels, Tom will never come to know--regardless of how many free trips his boss sends him on. First, let's look at the good side... He's correct when he states in a recent op-ed that America must end its oil addiction as it attempts to exit Iraq and presumably try to solve other issues in the region as well. And, in another recent article, he proclaimed that Iraq is so severely fractured, that it is beyond being the Arab Yugoslavia anymore. I can agree with all of that and have written the same things much earlier in many of my own widely-published articles--including ones showcased by the Kurdish Regional Government itself in Iraq. But Tommy fails to make necessary connections to what he himself writes. While repeatedly expecting Jews to bare the necks of their kids in a return to the Auschwitz/armistice lines (which made Israel a mere 9-miles wide at its strategic waist)--not borders--of 1949 with an Arab enemy sworn to the destruction of Israel no matter who is at the helm of the Arabs' proposed state # 22, here's what he had to say to some 30 million truly stateless Kurds, who have been slaughtered and displaced by the hundreds of thousands over the last century by Arabs both in Syria and Iraq (and many more by others as well) in a March 26, 2003 op-ed. Friedman advised that the Kurds in Iraq should be told point blank: "What part of 'no' don't you understand? ... You Kurds are not breaking away." Just imagine if Israel was to say that under no circumstances would another state be permitted to be created for Arabs in "Palestine" (Jordan having been carved out, in 1922, of some 80% of the original borders of Mandatory Palestine as Britain received it on April 25, 1920). Tommy would have a bloomin' fit. Yet he told Kurds, who were repeatedly massacred by Arabs, that they were not entitled to even one of what he claims Arabs are entitled to some two dozen of--most created, by the way, by the conquest and forced Arabization of non-Arab peoples and their lands. I guess, for Friedman, imperialism is only nasty when non-Arabs are engaged in it. But I will give him his due. In another op-ed which appeared in my local Florida paper on March 12, 2006, he finally came around a bit and stated that we should now tell the Kurds, "You've behaved most responsibly...If Iraq falls apart, we will make sure you're taken care of." Notice, however, he still doesn't call for a roadmap for Kurdistan. That's still only reserved for his Arab buddies. You know...such a Kurdish state would be "destabilizing" and all that stuff. Of course, we all know that a murderous Fatah or Hamas-run state (makes no difference--despite what the Foggy Folks say), set up in Israel's very backyard after its forced return to its nine-mile wide existence, won't be destabilizing... And would you also like to buy a bridge I'm selling? Now, I'm sure Tommy knows that, besides the Jews, the Kurds are the one people in the region whom Foggy Bottom has shafted over and over again the most...with often bloody results. And since President Truman was correct regarding where the buck stops, that means American Presidents have gone along with this as well. Which brings us at least partly back to Friedman's correct observation regarding petroleum politics. While it's well known that the very rebirth of the Jew of the Nations was opposed by the Foggy Folks, it perhaps is not as well known that British petroleum politics--in collusion with Arab nationalism--put the kiss of death on the one best chance Kurds ever had--before right now--at independence with the break up of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I. Kurds were indeed promised that independence, but after the Brits received a favorable decision from the League of Nations regarding Mosul and the oil around it in 1925, Kurdish hopes and dreams were aborted. A British-supported, united, and Arab-ruled Iraq emerged in all of the Mandate of Mesopotamia instead. While the Brits' other Mandate, the Mandate of Palestine (which was smaller than Mesopotamia) could undergo successive partitions and partition plans to address the needs of competing nationalisms, the Kurds were told that their cause was not worthy. And it has remained this way for three quarters of a century now. Where have Friedman's op-eds been over the decades regarding this tragic issue? After all, he likes to write from an alleged position of morality, ethics, and such. He's not afraid, for example, to demand that Jews return to those Auschwitz lines, while anyone truly familiar with the goings on after 1949 (after Israel survived a massive Arab attack on its miniscule rebirth) would realize that this just ain't so. A reading of the U. N.'s Ralph Bunch's '49 armistice dealings would help Tommy as would readings of Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, U. N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, Britain's U. N. Ambassador, Lord Caradon, and other architects of U. N. Security Council Resolution # 242 after the Six Day War in '67. They all explained why Israel was not expected to return to the status quo ante and was entitled to secure and real borders--not indefensible armistice lines. Yet that's what Tommy continues to chastise Israel for. Here's Lord Caradon, for example... " It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them." In Friedman's most recent op-ed which appeared locally on December 26, among other things, his Rule #11 ( Mideast Rules For U.S. to Live By) proclaims that the Arabs have really "...been hurt by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land." True, he also mentions the Arabs own faults here as well. So, there's Tommy's continuing problem...despite some admitted improvements. Forget the fact that most of his so-called "Palestinians" were newcomers themselves into the Mandate--to the point that the very word refugee had to be redefined by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) to accommodate all of the Arab newcomers...some only arriving a mere two years before the combined Arab assault on Israel. But, just where does Friedman think those territorial rectifications (allowed by 242, etc.) of the travesty of Israel's 1949 armistice line existence are to be made if not in Judea and Samaria---aka, only via British imperialism in the last century, now known as the "West Bank?" Israel has already totally withdrawn from Sinai and Gaza. Again, Tommy needs to read Rostow & Co. very carefully. And if he has already done so, why does he act otherwise? And why has he repeatedly championed the Arabs' twenty second state and still has not come out for even one for tens of millions of victimized, stateless Kurds--who predate the Arabs in both Syria and Iraq by millennia? I can understand--but not like--the real politik, use and abuse, games of the Foggy Folks and such. But for a justice for poor Arabs (who now have "only" over six million square miles of territory under their rule) Friedman to take this hypocritical stance is beyond nauseating. He perpetually worries about Jewish settlements in Judea ("land of the Jews"), but is mum about the majority of Arabs who were newcomers there themselves, i.e. Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements. A look at the Records of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission only tells part of this story. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence and solid documentation for this if one is truly interested. And has Tommy read Ismet Cherif Vanly's The Syrian (Arab) Mein Kampf Against the Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968), accounts of the Arabs' ANFAL Campaign against Kurds in Iraq, the Arabs' decades' old genocide against black Africans, their continuing subjugation of Assyrians, Berbers, Copts, native kilab yahud "Jew dogs," etc. and so forth in what Arabs proclaim as purely Arab patrimony? While Mr. Morality complains about colonialism as well as settlements in his latest op-ed, why does he ignore all of the Arabs' own victims mentioned above who were and are still subjected to the same thing--but only far worse--at the hands of his alleged Arab "victims" of injustice? Where are Friedman's op-eds about them and their share of justice? He's written many articles--reaching millions of readers--taking Israel to task for not unilaterally caving in to Arab demands regarding disputed territories which he incorrectly calls "Palestinian." Again, a reading of Rostow on this is a must. Well, this article must now come to end (while there's still much more to write)--or my publishers will have a fit. But I think you get my drift. Tommy has improved...a dose of reality seems to have set in. But he still has much to learn. One day he'll arrive at being able to point the finger of blame in the right direction without trying to look politically correct by "balancing " it with defaming the Jew of the Nations' mere attempts at survival as well. Few nations--if any--would show the restraint Israel is repeatedly expected to display to those who deliberately try to kill and maim its people and destroy its very national existence. One day, perhaps...but as of December 26, 2006 Tommy obviously isn't there yet. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php This article is archived at
|
|
PAPER TIGER IMAGE; NY TIMES BACKS BAKER PANEL; WASHINGTON INSTITUTE ON IRAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 29, 2006. |
|
BOLTON OUT Thanks to Democratic partisanship, Ambassador Bolton's nomination for reappointment did not get confirmed by the Senate nor even put up for full debate and vote. At least one corrupt UNO official whom he had tried to reform publicly was jubilant. So was the NY Times. It reiterated one of the original arguments against him, that since he thinks the UNO should be disbanded, he would not be effective in reforming it. The editors did not come up with any indication that he was counter-productive in that effort. Their omission is telling. If they had anything to cite in that respect, they would have. There were left with a theoretical argument that subsequent events disproved. He tried hard to reform the UNO, like trying to solidify a cesspool. Who could succeed with a UNO collection of vicious and corrupt governments and a bureaucracy geared to non-accountability? He got some movement. His efforts were complicated by a general hostility to the US, largely due to confronting jihad while the rest of the word averts its face. The Times, like many Democrats, doesn't understand that. It imagines that the US is wrong to confront a war being made on it. It supposes that the rest of the world is virtuous, but it is vicious or cowardly. Boltan had been depicted as readily losing his temper. At the UNO, he didn't. Let us remember him as the one who did accomplish something there, for a while, in an earlier period, when he shamed the UNO into rescinding its "Zionism is racism" resolution. NY TIMES BACKS BAKER PANEL After writing about the Baker panel report's absurdities, and noting that the Times gave it little coverage and no analysis, I found that the Times thinks the report is practical. It particularly commended a suggestion that I particularly ridiculed. The suggestion is that the US use diplomacy to persuade Iran and Syria to stop supporting the Iraqi insurgency. We can't "persuade" fanatical rogue states bent on national and Shiite hegemony, global jihad, and genocide against the Jews. The supposition that we can disqualifies the Times from editorializing about international jihad. THE PAPER TIGER IMAGE It is a pity that in an era of increasingly destructive weapons and declining natural resources, some major powers still act like traditional warlords, seeking foreign territory and influence abroad. But they do, and the US and Israel, which do not seek territory, must figure out how to stop them. The imperialists size up the risk in challenging us. If they find we are consistent in rebuffing their advances, they desist. If they find we negotiate, they negotiate advances, and then try again, nothing solved for us, score one for them. If they find we let them advance, they set out again. What do they think of us? They think of us as paper tigers, or at least as old and tired ones. We threaten them, but they don't believe we would fulfill our threats. That means more war than otherwise. Thus our pacifist instincts induce war. PRECEDENT FOR ISRAELI RETENTION OF GOLAN In 1938, Turkey seized the Alexandretta/Hatay region from the Syrian Mandate. Syria has claimed that region ever since, until now. Now Syria relinquished its claim and agreed that the area is to remain Turkish. That is precedent for the Golan (IMRA, 12/8). U.S. DEMANDS ISRAEL NOT ARM VENEZUELA Israel was set to sell Venezuela missiles and to upgrade its fighter jets. The US demanded that it not do so. Israel seems to be going along (IMRA, 12/7). That's strange, the Harvard study alleged that Israel dictates what is in its interest to the US, but in this case, the US is dictating to Israel. I agree with the US, in this. Venezuela is an enemy of the US. Israel should refrain from building up Venezuela's military. RUSSIA ARMING IRAN After having denied intent to ship defensive missiles to Iran, Russia now has announced that it already shipped some, and others are to follow. The missiles would protect the country's nuclear facilities (IMRA, 12/7). What do they mean, "defensive" missiles? Their purpose is to protect the development of nuclear weaponry, that would be offensive. Does Russia want Iran to launch a-bombs? RELIGIOUS TEST FOR OFFICE? Conservative talk host show Dennis Prager belongs to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. He asserted that the first Muslim elected to Congress should be sworn in on a Bible, not a Koran. He proposed it in the name of national culture. Affirmation without a religious book is acceptable, just as it is for jurors. Congress usually swears in groups of members without individual resort to holy books. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called Mr. Prager's remark "bigoted, intolerant and divisive," rendering him unfit to serve on the Council that educates Americans against bigotry. Speaking of bigotry, CAIR has links with terrorist fronts, three of its officials have been convicted for terrorism-related crimes, and has denounced almost every prosecution of terrorists (Josh Gerstein, NY Sun, 12/5, p.4). I think Prager meant well, and was not bigoted, but didn't understand the issues here. The remedy of dismissal is too severe for his mistake. Any mistake, and someone demands firing. That is excessive. Now, the purpose of swearing in on a holy book is to put one's religious ethics behind the oath. The Bible would be meaningless affirmation for a person who does not see it as holy, and it would amount to an unconstitutional religious test for office. Muslims, should be allowed to use their own holy book. Problem is, they do not consider their word to infidels binding and they may work against the US. WASHINGTON INSTITUTE ON IRAN An Institute reports warns the Administration against complacency on Iranian nuclear development. It advises persuading Iran that we mean to stop it by force if necessary, and suggests various ways. The idea is to convince Iran's leaders that their regime would not survive further threats to use such weapons. We should plan strikes and follow-up strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. "The report, authored by Michael Eisenstadt and Patrick Clawson, urged the administration to enhance the U.S. military's ability to counter Iranian naval mine, small boat and submarine warfare capabilities, halt smuggling of special materials and dual-use technologies, identify and neutralize Islamic insurgency cells and detect and interdict weapons of mass destruction shipments to Iran." The last recommendation should involve the help of the Gulf Cooperation Council. "The United States and its allies can more aggressively prosecute individuals and firms that provide Iran with dual-use technologies that can be used in its nuclear program." The Gulf Cooperation Council needs improvements "in an air and missile defense early warning system as well as command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence architecture. "This means bolstering the littoral warfare and aerial precision-strike capabilities of these states, particularly their ability to counter Iran's mine, submarine, and naval special-warfare forces. Countering these Iranian capabilities will also require a significant U.S. military presence in the Gulf for the foreseeable future." (IMRA, 12/7.) The report contributes much, but like most, assumes that the US would act unopposed. Seldom is discussed potential counter-measures or other problems. A US presence there arouses antagonism among Muslims and is vulnerable to Iranian attack. It becomes untenable as the Shiite majorities in some of the sheikdoms gain power. U.S. technology may fall into Islamist hands. HUMANITARIAN ISRAEL Israel has given about a thousand Palestinian Arab children heart operations, and treats about a thousand P.A. patients a month. The EU partially subsidizes this. Sometimes terrorists use the program to get inside Israel and kill Jews (IMRA, 12/7). The Europeans know about this humanitarian operation. How can they think that the same Israeli government deliberately attacks civilians in Gaza and Lebanon? I oppose this program, because it helps a population that wholeheartedly supports its governmental goal of destroying Israel. They are at war. JIMMY CARTER'S NEW BOOK Prof. Kenneth Stein of Emory U. remains on university faculty but has resigned as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University, which he helped shape. He does not want to be associated with Carter, whose book reiterates statements at meetings that Stein witnessed and did not occur as stated. The book is inflammatory and meant to provoke, but suffers from lack of sources and understanding (IMRA, 12/7). |
|
NAUSEATING WORLD
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006. |
|
These days, I regularly feel nauseous, and the discomfort rarely subsides. What makes me feel so ill? I am simply disgusted with the world! I had expected the "fight for what is right" to be difficult, but I am surprised by how lonely a battle it is. I had hoped that by now many more people, even millions, would have joined the struggle to preserve our way of life, which might have turned the tide in our favor. Instead, the struggle has gotten tougher. All the while, the danger has gotten and will continue to get closer. Here at home, the behavior of American politicians scares me. The "public servants" we elect to represent us wind-up serving only their own interests. They, regardless of party affiliation, are paralyzed and inept. Politicians fail to keep the endless promises they make. They are nothing more than lying bureaucrats perpetrating an agenda of duplicity. Our supposed leaders fight for what is expedient not for what is right. They are misguided, which clearly implies that the nation is misguided as well. I have burning and seemingly obvious questions that do not get the attention they deserve. Why, for instance, does the US not demand that the Saudis stop muddling with terror? Does our insatiable need for oil outweigh our personal safety? Why are US efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons so very meek? After taking such a strong position against terror, is the administration softening on Islamo-fascism and the war against terror? Will anyone on Capitol Hill tell us the truth about anything? I watch with terror the continuing Islamization of the United States. Some American institutions, such as banks, have already adopted principles of Sharia'a law as part of their daily operations rather than standing firmly by American values. No one seems to be doing a thing to stop Islam from steamrolling us. I feel so horribly knowing that America will not survive the Muslim onslaught if it continues to do nothing. We are watching Europe succumb through inaction. We will suffer a similar fate unless we take the present threat seriously and realize that is worthwhile to fight. If the United States does not prevail, the world will become oppressive and hellish for everyone but the few Arab elites, and even they will not always be safe from the radical lunatics. If the radicals should prevail, I shudder to imagine the consequences. The world we know today will certainly plunge into the Dark Ages again, if not worse. This speaks nothing of what may arise should Iran make good on its desire to incite a nuclear holocaust. I wonder why the US has stopped shipments of armaments to Israel. What will weakening Israel accomplish? Should Israel still depend on the US as a friend and ally? It is becoming apparent that the vaunted United States is turning against Israel for its own lack of fortitude. Jews are culpable too. I am unhinged by those Jews who lack faith, who choose secularism over Judaism, who assimilate, who deny Israel, and who are passive and complacent. Oh, strong Jews of old, where have you gone? The behavior of Israel sickens me too. What has happened to the soul of Ahavat Erez Yisrael? It has been replaced with secularism and a decline in patriotism. Israel has forgotten the value of its turbulent history. And the poster child for this degeneration is Ehud Olmert. If his words ring true, then Israelis have indeed lost their will to persevere. They, under these circumstances, are losing their right to the ancient land of Israel, and pathetic Israeli leadership appears intent on selling them and Israel down the river. Israel is lonely. Does Israel need to find new friends? Definitely not! First, Israelis must befriend one another. They must rediscover national unity. Then, nations will be seeking Israel's friendship and leadership out of respect rather than mock sympathy and self-interest. Israel must now show concern for its mere survival. Without Israel and with rising anti-Semitism, Jews may not find safe places to hide as they have done in the past. The **Yiddish song "Tell Me Where Shall I Go" that was written prior to the establishment of the State of Israel should be given more weight now. The devil is at play with humanity, and survival is at stake. Friends, the current state of world affairs is truly nauseating. While I may be feeling ill now, everyone will sicken if things continue as is. The goal of war, in which we are certainly engaged, is to have the enemy lose more of its soldiers for their country than us. Fighting for survival requires us to destroy our enemy. We did not start this war. We are being blamed for the failings of the Muslim world. We are under constant attack, whether we like it or not, and we are taking more casualties than we are inflicting. Fighting for others and for myself by myself is a daunting challenge. Walking through the darkness is much harder by one's self than with friends. I sincerely hope that more people will wake up to the dangers all around us and see fit to join me in our fight for survival. **First line: Tell me, where shall I go, there's no place I can see
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ISLAM - THE FOLLY OF APPEASEMENT
Posted by Janet Lehr, December 29, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Serge Trifkovic and it appeared December 10, 2006 in Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com). It is one in a series of articles adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic's new book The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam. Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His articles have appeared in many of the major news media. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles. |
|
Our political and intellectual elite is remarkably inflexible in its secular liberal ideological assumptions. Having no serious religious faith of its own, its members refuse to take seriously the faith of others. Instead of pondering the complex problem of the relationship between the world's great religions - the West and the rest - they assure us that no religious problem exists. The most outspoken character witnesses for the hastily nicknamed "Religion of Peace and Tolerance" were, unsurprisingly, non-Moslems, Sunday-morning popular entertainers, academicians steeped in political correctitude, and politicians. Their hasty claims about the distinction between "real" Islam and its violent aberrations were crudely ideological. They were based on their simple conviction that all faiths, having equal legal privileges, must in some sense be equally good, and "true," and hence capable of celebrating all others in the spirit of tolerance. Why is the liberal elite so eager to vindicate Islam? It is a sign of the infinite arrogance of this elite that it imagines even at this late date that it can use and manipulate Islam to its own purposes. The rulers of the British Empire, in the days when more Moslems lived under British rule than under any other government, were arrogant enough to think they could "manage" Islam and get it to do things like accept the establishment of Israel. But even they never had the idea of using Islam as a tool to do their bidding outside itself, and they never suffered from the delusion that Moslems were really Englishmen under the skin. Today, having enlisted militant Islam in the destruction of the communist threat to its world-wide dominance, our ruling establishment aspires to use it to erode the reliquiae reliquiarum of the Christian culture in the Western world, which it despises and would like to replace with a multicultural globalism that trivializes all cultures and thus liquidates the possibility of any resistance to a world organized solely for its profits. The twin spearheads of this attempt to co-opt Islam as a tool are multiculturalism and mass immigration. It is the dirty little secret of our present global civilizational conflict that large sections of our own elite are ambivalent about which side they are on because Islam is an objective ally in their own struggle for globalism. (Of course, this marriage of convenience won't work for the globalists in the long run, but as with all doomed policies, this doesn't stop them from trying in the short run.) Let's take immigration first. Leeds and Leicester have acquired the sight and sounds of Peshawar and Rawalpindi, Marseilles and Toulon the suburbs of Dakkar or Algiers, Berlin and Stuttgart a growing slice of Istanbul or Adana. This social experiment -- Britain's Roy Jenkins, a liberal Home Secretary in the mid-sixties, admitted slyly that his contemporaries "might have considered matters more carefully" -- antedated America's Cold War expedients, but the consequences of the experiment and the expedient have fused. The assumption all along has been that the Islamic genie released by Carter National Security Adviser Dr. Brzezinski's "excellent idea" -- enlisting radical Islam to fight the USSR in Afghanistan -- could be controlled. Supposedly, it would be reduced to yet another humanistic project in self-celebration through its adherents' immersion in the consumerist subculture and through their children's multicultural indoctrination by state education. We were going to use Islam to fight Marxism, then destroy it by means of McDonald's and MTV. Liberal Christianity, i.e. intellectually-bankrupt forms of Protestantism like the fast-declining "mainline" protestant denominations like the Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, has collaborated in the whitewashing of Islam. They have been abetted by post-Vatican-II Catholics. The World Council of Churches shares the same worldview. It seeks "dialogue" with Islam "in order to learn from each other and to accept one another." How have Western attempts to co-opt and manipulate Islam fared? Decades of covert and overt support for "moderate" Islamic movements, countries, and regimes, whenever they were deemed useful to Western foreign policy objectives -- and especially if they have lots of oil, or prove willing to make peace with Israel, or both -- have been an unmitigated moral and political disaster. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, the Gulf states, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nigeria, Indonesia, and a few others have become the darlings of U.S. policy, valued as supposed bulwarks against "fundamentalism" of the Saudi or Iranian variety (Iran itself having formerly been a member of the favored group.) Operationally, this means not only overlooking the radical activities of the supposedly "moderate" Moslem states -- for example, Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and assistance by virtually all Islamic nations to the thinly disguised radical regime in Sarajevo -- but also a consistent American bias in favor of the Moslem party in virtually every conflict with a Christian nation.[i] So we bombed Serbia, a nation that has never done anything to the US, in support of the Bosnian Moslems. Among its sorry preconditions of the Bosnian war was the capture of the leadership of the Moslem people by a group of untypical Islamist bigots: Izetbegovic was an extremist in any sense of the word; the Chechen leadership were far worse: unhinged fanatics who forced Russia into a war she was extremely reluctant to fight. The Kosovo UCK (a.k.a. KLA) were brigands financing their warfare by drug smuggling and slavery-prostitution rackets whom the Americans had on their official terrorism list until just a few weeks before going to war on their behalf. Appeasement of Saudi Arabia in particular, and the string of related little despotic sheikhdoms along its eastern rim, is continuing even in the aftermath of September 11. It is as detrimental to peace and democracy in all affected regions as it is detrimental to the long-term security of North America and Europe. It does nothing to help the Moslem world come out of its state of deep denial about its responsibility for the worst terrorist outrage of all time, the denial as irrational as the culture that breeds it. The beneficiaries of three decades of Western appeasement have been Osama bin Laden, his ilk, and his co-religionists all over the world. Conceivers and executors of Brezhinski's "excellent idea" paved the way for September 11 by failing to grasp Islam's inherent link with violence and intolerance. The unspoken assumption of the architects of failed Western policies, that generosity would be rewarded by loyalty, is mistaken: loyalty to unbelievers is not a Moslem trait. Cynical pragmatism, however, is -- and, as Yohanan Ramati has remarked, "pragmatism prescribes that when dealing with fools one milks them for all one can get, demoralizes them until they are incapable of protecting their interests, and then deprives them of any influence they have left." Islam might have been made much less threatening if the West had not conciliated or sponsored its most threatening exponents. Islam was exposed to a devastating collapse in credibility within the Arab world itself in the middle of the twentieth century. The forces of secularism were very strong indeed. But America opposed them every time because they were socialist, communist, or simply anti-American nationalist. America gave whole-hearted support to the worst fascist freak-show in the region: Saudi Arabia. As the economies of real states faltered and halted in accord with Islam's eternal difficulty in establishing a viable economy upon a predator mindset, the Saudi petrodollars were poured into establishing violent fanaticism as the big alternative. Inexorably, the people who could have moderated Islam have been pushed aside by raving sheiks congratulated by US diplomats. The Moslem world today has no love and very little respect for the Western powers in general and for the United States in particular. It was for many years a bitterly divided world, where individual rulers competed with each other for wealth, influence and sometimes territory. This was why the wealthy states of the Gulf Cooperation Council were ready to accept protection from American and other Western forces. But four decades of prattling about decolonization and "globalism" have made their mark. If globalism is a good reason for uniting Europe, preventing it is a better reason for uniting Moslem states (which have much more in common than the Europeans) on a policy to wrest power from the unbelievers.[ii] The Moslem states are aware of Western greed and its political repercussions, and they trust that they will not be hindered in increasing their military, political and economic capacity to a point at which they can blackmail the West into accepting their political, cultural, or religious demands. After September 11, they are hoping that the US will settle for destroying Bin Laden and the Taliban and gradually resume its oil-dictated pro-Moslem policies. The crack whore of Western petro-consumerism will always return to her john for her next fix, however much she complains about how he treats here. Such policies, drastically manifested in the "great game" under Presidents Carter and Reagan, have had their apologists in each subsequent American administration. Under Bush I, they were summarized in a statement by then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and North African Affairs, Edward Djerejian, who declared that the United States did not regard Islam or Islamic movements as the enemy, and recognized their right to participate in the political process.[iii] The spirit of the statement was reiterated and expanded upon by his successor, Robert Pelletreau, under Clinton. Pelletreau lamented in 1996 the fact that the "image of Islam in the minds of the average newspaper reader is often one of an undifferentiated movement hostile to the West and ready to use violence and terrorism to achieve its ends."[iv] He distinguished the many "legitimate, socially responsible Moslem groups with political goals from Islamists who operate outside the bounds of law." A generation ago it was understandable, even excusable, for bone-headed God-fearing CIA bosses of the low-Church Protestant kind to work up a hatred of atheism and enjoy dealing with believers. They used Moslems in just the way they used the Roman Catholic Church in the early 1950s, the time of the Gladio. But appeasement by their feeble successors in our own time only breeds the contempt and arrogance of the Islamic radicals and fuels their limitless ambition. Changing the self-defeating trend demands recognition that the West is in a war of religion, whether it wants that or not and however much it hates the fact. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep and unshakeable condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of their demographic deluge enhances the image of "a candy store with the busted lock," and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for biological self-perpetuation is indeed finished. Even after its unfinished victory in Afghanistan, America is viewed as a paper tiger, with F-16s and dollars but no strong heart and no long-term stamina. Indeed, it is uncertain that anything significant has taken place in Afghanistan: the Afghan Talibs were forced to change their coats as one set of Islamists took a lot of money for replacing another. Mr. Bush may be hoping to domesticate Islam under the aegis of the non-denominational deism that is professed in his rhetoric. In the last century Americans, inspired by Protestant missionaries, conceived the ambition of getting closer to the Arab world and the Chinese than the imperialist Europeans. The attempts failed, but they left echoes in American thinking. The wish to patronize Islamic modernism is one. Hence the enduring fantasy of an American-Islamic alliance against extremism. The Islamists are often quite worldly and some have accommodated themselves to the appropriation of great wealth. Nevertheless, the alliance Mr. Bush may be looking for is less available than ever. There may be no homo Islamicus - a Moslem is certainly not a programmed fanatic - but saying so is too often a preface to evasive talk about tiny minorities with no power. There is need for a new policy. The West cannot wage "war on terror" while maintaining its dependence on Arab oil, appeasing Islamist designs around the world, and allowing mass immigration of Moslems into its own lands. It risks being the star actor of a Greek tragedy in which the Gods make the unfortunate rulers mad before they destroy them. On the ground, the reversal of existing policies means, inter alia, active Western help, diplomatic and when necessary military, to relieve Indonesia of West Papua and the Christian parts of the Moluccas, to expel Syria from Lebanon and create a Christian state in part of Lebanon, to create an independent Christian state in southern Sudan, to detach the Serb-populated and Croat-populated parts from Moslem-dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, to stop Albanian attempts to take over Kosovo or Macedonia and to force the Arabs to give "land for peace" to Israel. It also means supporting India against Pakistan and independence for oil-producing, Christian provinces of Nigeria. The inevitable argument against such a policy reversal will be that it will set off Islamic terrorism "on a never before experienced scale." It is as spurious as the logic that combines "globalization" and "promotion of democracy" with support of Moslem dictatorships. Islamic terrorism has been thriving because the existing policy is perceived as a sign of Western weakness. The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed -- this doesn't mean you personally, Pres. Bush, but it does mean some of your slimy oil-patch friends whispering in your ear -- is a prerequisite for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam and indeed for maintaining US superpower status at all, as a nation that can be put on the run by these people simply is not a superpower.[v] Just as in 1936 with the Nazis, checking appeasement requires a revolution in the West's political thinking. It requires a realization that safeguarding Western elites' economic interests from Moslem encroachment or confiscation may become impossible if such encroachments continue to be tolerated or encouraged. It also requires understanding that, as Reagan impolitely observed about Marxism, Islam regards lies, violence, and threats of violence as legitimate means of gaining political ends and that the only capacity Islam respects in an unbeliever is the capacity to use diplomacy or military force successfully against it. Pandering to Islam's geopolitical designs, and sacrificing smaller Christian nations -- Timorese and Sudanese yesterday, Serbs and Orthodox Cypriots today, Bulgars and Greeks tomorrow -- is counterproductive: such morsels will only whet the Islamic appetite, paving the way to a major confrontation some time in this century. The price of delusions is going up. The time to sell off is now. Footnotes [i] James Jatras, Chronicles (1999), op. cit. [ii] Yohanan Ramati: The Islamic Danger to Western Civilization http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001.htm [iii] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/briefing/dispatch/1993/html/Dispatchv4no21.html [iv] http://www.usis-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd2_8-28.htm [v] Yohanan Ramati, op. cit. Contact Janet Lehr at janetlehr@veredart.com |
|
ISRAEL MUST "CEASE" WHILE PALESTINIANS "FIRE"
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 28, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Ricki Hollander and it appeared
yesterday. It is archived at
|
|
Since a cease-fire between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza was announced on November 26, 2006, Palestinians have violated it on a near-daily basis, launching over 65 Kassam rockets toward Israel. These rockets attacks have caused building and car damage, sent several people into hospital for shock and shrapnel wounds, caused a blackout as a result of a direct hit on an electrical substation in Kibbutz Nir Am, directly hit a strategic facility in the industrial area of Ashkelon, and on December 26, severely wounded two 14-year-old Israeli boys in Sderot. For nearly a month, media coverage of these steady violations remained limited as Israel refused to respond to the attacks against its civilians. Even after Adir Basad was critically wounded and Matan Cohen seriously injured in the Dec. 26 attack, coverage remained scant. The New York Times, for example, referred only briefly to the Palestinian violation at the end of a December 27 article entitled "First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Mideast Tension," which highlighted instead Israel's announcement that it intends to settle an army base in the Jordan valley. It was only when Israel announced it would allow pin-point attacks against rocket launchers, that the media sprang into action, running AP headlines and story leads holding Israel responsible for "threatening" the supposed cease-fire. "Israel to renew attacks against Gaza rocket launchers, puts truce at risk" blared a headline to an AP article on USA Today's Web site. According to the article lead, Israel's announcement that it would target Palestinian rocket launchers firing at Israeli citizens "threatens to send a shaky, month-old truce into total collapse." Other AP story leads to articles by reporters Josef Federman and Amy Tiebel, carried by numerous media outlets, similarly blamed Israel for "threatening to derail an already shaky, month-old truce." These AP news headlines and leads imply that the definition of a "ceasefire" is that Palestinians "fire" while Israel "ceases." Palestinian violations just "shake" the truce, while Israeli intention to target rocket launchers would "derail" it. And the story becomes newsworthy only when Israel can be blamed for trying to protect its citizens. News consumers cannot and should not put up with the media's immoral double standards. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) monitors the news and TV media for how fair they are in reporting on Israel. The website address is www.camera.org. |
|
A TEST FOR MR. OLMERT
Posted by Zalmi, December 28, 2006. |
|
It seems that Santa Olmert has lots more in his sack of free goodies for our enemies. On top of the $100 million dollars he paid for the photo-op with Abbas, and the gift of thousands of automatic rifles for the unrepentant Holocaust-denier's 'Force 17' presidential guard, there now looks to be a unilateral release of hundreds of security prisoners. All of this bonhomie - as usual - for nothing in return. Not the release of our kidnapped soldiers. Or even the release of a letter or tangible sign of life and wellbeing. Apart from being the most incompetent and arrogant prime minister that Israelis never elected, Ehud Olmert has demonstrated, within his few short months in power, how very little he cares for ordinary Israelis: be they citizens or soldiers. No caring prime minister would have gone to the lengths of unleashing a bloody Cossack attack on pliant settlers in Amona just to impress his wife and to show us how he could be tougher than even Ariel Sharon. And no caring commander-in-chief would announce the future surrender of settlement towns to our enemies even as their residents were fighting his disastrous war in Lebanon. What caring prime minister could contemplate releasing Marwan Barghouti? An unrepentant murderer of our people, sentenced to 5 life terms. It is a near-certainty that the release of this animal will not only bring about more killing but will also embolden other killers to take ever-greater risks in terrorizing our people, knowing that they can be assured of due process and a life-sentence that means nothing. But why should Olmert care? He doesn't ride buses. He doesn't go to discos or buy pizzas. In fact he doesn't go anywhere that hasn't been sanitized by his security detail. And that security protection will be with him long after he has been kicked out of office. So, I challenge Mr Olmert to prove that he does care about the security of ordinary Israelis. Let him convince us that he is prepared to take the same risks as his citizens. If he is so foolish as to release Mr. Barghouti ... let him free one other prisoner the same day: Yigal Amir. Contact Zalmi at zalmi@zalmi.net or go to the website: www.zalmi.net |
|
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL, DO IT RIGHT
Posted by Michael Travis, December 28, 2006. |
|
This was written by Barry Shaw and it appeared in Front Page
Magazine |
|
OK. So I understand that you are ticked off at Israel, and in love with the Palestinians. That's fine with me, as long as you have truly weighed up all the facts. So, you want to boycott Israel? I'll be sorry to miss you, but if you are doing it - do it properly. Let me help you. Make sure that you do not have tablets, drops, lotions, etc., made by Abic or Teva. It may mean that you will suffer from colds and flu this winter but, hey, that's a small price for you to pay in your campaign against Israel, isn't it? While we are on the subject of your Israeli boycott, and the medical contributions to the world made by Israeli doctors and scientists, how about telling your pals to boycott the following.... An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis. So, if you know anyone suffering from MS, tell them to ignore the Israeli patent that may, more accurately, diagnose their symptoms. An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralysed hands. This device electrically stimulates the hand muscles, providing hope to millions of stroke sufferers and victims of spinal injuries. If you wish to remove this hope of a better quality of life to these people, go ahead and boycott Israel. Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood. This innovation replaces the inhalation mask with an improved drug delivery system that provides relief for child and parent. Please tell anxious mothers that they shouldn't use this device because of your passionate cause. These are just a few examples of how people have benefitted medically from the Israeli know-how you wish to block. Boycotts often affect research. A new research center in Israel hopes to throw light on brain disorders such as depression and Alzheimer's disease. The Joseph Sangol Neuroscience Center in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer Hospital aims to bring thousands of scientists and doctors to focus on brain research. A researcher at Israel's Ben Gurion University has succeeded in creating human monoclonal antibodies which can neutralise the highly contageous smallpox virus without inducing the dangerous side effects of the exisiting vaccine. Two Israelis received the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Doctors Ciechanover and Hershko's research and discovery of one of the human cells most important cyclical processes will lead the way to DNA repair, control of newly produced proteins, and immune defense systems. The Movement Disorder Surgery program at Israel's Hadassah Medical Center has successfully eliminated the physical manifestations of Parkinson's disease in a select group of patients with a deep brain stimulation technique. For women who undergo hysterectomies each year for the treatment of uterine fibroids, the development in Israel of the ExAblate 2000 System is a welcome breakthrough, offering a non-invasive alternative to surgery. Israel is developing a nose drop that will provide a five year flu vaccine. These are just a few of the projects that you can help stop with your Israeli boycott. But let's not get too obsessed with medical research, there are other ways you can make a personal sacrifice with your anti-Israel boycott. Most of Windows operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel. So, set a personal example. Throw away your computer! The Pentium NMX Chip technology was designed at Intel in Israel. Both the Pentium 4 microprocessor and the Centrium processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel. Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 in Israel by four young Israeli whiz kids. Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R.& D facilities outside the US in Israel. So, due to your complete boycott of anything Israeli, you now have poor health and no computer. But your bad news does not end there. Get rid of your cellular phone! Cell phone technology was also developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its biggest development center in Israel. Most of the latest technology in your mobile phone was developed by Israeli scientists. Feeling unsettled? You should be. Part of your personal security rests with Israeli inventiveness, borne out of our urgent neccesity to protect and defend our lives from the terrorists you support. A phone can remotely activate a bomb, or be used for tactical communications by terrorists, bank robbers, or hostage-takers. It is vital that official security and law enforcement authorities have access to celluar jamming and detection solutions. Enter Israel's Netline Communications Technologies with their security expertise to help the fight against terror. A joint, non-profit, venture between Israel and Maryland will result in a 5 day Business Development and Planning Conference next March. Selected Israeli companies will partner with Maryland firms to provide innovation to the US need for homeland security. I also want you to know that Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita - 109 per 10,000 - than any other nation. Israel has the highest number of start-up companies per rata. In absolute terms, the highest number, except the US. Israel has the highest ratio of patents filed. Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies outside of Silicon Valley. Israel is ranked 2 in the world for venture capital funds, behind the USA. Israel has more museums per capita. Israel has the second highest publication of new books per capita. Relative to population, Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation on earth. These immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom or expression, economic opportunity, and quality of life. Believe it or not, Israel is the only country in the world which had a net gain in the number of trees last year. So, you can vilify and demonize the State of Israel. You can continue your silly boycott, if you wish. But I wish you would consider the consequences, and the truth. Think of the massive contribution that Israel is giving to the world, including the Palestinians - and to you - in science, medicine, communications, security. Pro rata for population we are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth. We can't be all bad.... Contact Michael Travis at Michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
PALESTINIAN STATE WITH PROVISIONAL BORDERS WITHIN THE NEXT 2 YEARS
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, December 28, 2006. |
|
Dear President Bush; It is most troublesome that your administration, that condemns Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad for organizing "The World without Zionism" conference, that labels the Holocaust a myth, and suggests Israel must be "wiped off the map," is the same U.S. administration that sees nothing wrong in considering a plan to declare an independent Palestinian state with provisional boarders within the next 2 years. The administration is also entertaining handing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fateh, an entity that refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, denies the Holocaust ever happened, calls for the obliteration of Zionism, opposes compromise, justifies support for terrorism, champions the use of violence, and just like Hamas, defies in words and deeds, 'the inadmissibility of use of violence' Fateh, the main faction of the PLO to which Mahmoud Abbas belongs and was one of its founding members -- displays its constitution on its website. It calls under Article 12 for the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and obliteration of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." As for how it will achieve its goal to wipe Israel off the map, Fateh's constitution, Article 19, minces no words: "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated" In light of the Palestinians' history of violence, and their poor performance coping with limited freedom or autonomy -- the equivalent of a "half-way house" to test their readiness to join the Family of Nations should be devised. Because of the support (rather than pressure to 'toe the line') that Palestinians enjoy in the international arena, Palestinian's independence could very well turn into a genuine nightmare. Palestinian promises continue. Palestinian hostility continues. Rejectionism and violence remain the most salient features of Palestinian discourse. Palestinians believe that terror works and expect U.S. support for the creation of a Palestinian state. This Palestinian state is likely to become a rogue state -- the kind of polity our country is currently grappling with in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere. The U.S. administration's model in evaluating Palestinian readiness for statehood, should parallel the European Union's yardstick for Turkey, a peaceful country, asking to join the EU. It demands [of Turkey] far-reaching political and social reform "on the ground", and 10 to 15 years of negotiations while Turks prove democratic change is "irreversible." The fundamental freedoms the EU cites, and which the Palestinians should be required to match, include "women's rights, trade union rights, minority rights, and problems faced by non-Muslim religious communities" and "consolidation and broadening" of legal reforms including "alignment of law enforcement and judicial practice with the spirit of the reforms" and a host of other demands. In fact, the EU demands a complete 'makeover,' from women's rights to recycling of trash. United States yardstick for Palestinians, a hostile society, demanding to join the Family of Nations should start with the demand to execute the letter and intent, of the first set of requirements as spelled out in the " Performance-Based Roadmap," and "10 to 15 years of negotiations" while Palestinians prove genuine democratic changes is irreversible; No short cuts. No discounts. Any other approach will promote Arab support for terrorism and the belief that 'terrorism pays off.' The conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis is not the only adversary Israel faces. Historically, anti-Zionism has been the glue behind Arab nationalism. It has provided a convenient scapegoat for deflecting Arab states' frustration over unsolved domestic problems, but it also stems from a deep innate intolerance that exists throughout the Muslim world to any non-Muslim presence. Israel has no alternative but to remain strong enough to fend off the combined capabilities of all Arab states -- a reality that leaves little room for risk-taking or margin for error in establishing another independent Arab state with provisional boarders in 2 years' time. An end to violence and democratic reform, that Palestinians have not even begun, is intolerable. Establishment of a Palestinian state now would be a genuine danger to a free and democratic Israel and a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security. Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy New Year. With trust,
Contact Eli Hertz by email at today@mythsandfacts.org |
|
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE IN TO BLACKMAIL
Posted by Itimar Marcus and Barbara Crook, December 28, 2006. |
|
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet have found a unique way to celebrate the Islamic holiday of Id al-Adha, the "Festival of the Sacrifice," that commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son. But instead of slaughtering lambs or goats, as millions of Muslims throughout the world will do starting Sunday, Israel's leaders are prepared to sacrifice the lives of countless innocent Israelis. Olmert's willingness to free terrorists in exchange for our kidnapped soldiers, along with his newest plan to release terrorists as a goodwill gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas before the Muslim holiday, will cause more Israeli deaths than if he were to hand a terrorist a loaded gun. Freeing terrorists by giving in to blackmail empowers an entire generation of terrorists with the knowledge that their actions have no lasting consequences, and that even the toughest Israeli prison sentence will never be permanent. They just have to wait for their fellow terrorists to kidnap another Israeli hostage, and kill a few more in the process. Then freedom will just be a matter of time. It's important to recognize that Israel's past behavior has repeatedly proved the effectiveness of these murder-kidnappings and caused them to become an integral component of Palestinian policy and strategy. WHEN ISRAEL released 400 terrorists in exchange for the freedom of Israeli businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah, PA leaders were quick to recognize the effectiveness of Hizbullah's strategy: "Fatah's military branch organized a civilian and military parade yesterday... in gratitude for the efforts Hizbullah made for the release of Arab and Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails as part of the prisoner exchange deal with Israel. In a public statement...Fatah's military wing emphasized the need to follow Hizbullah's example to achieve the release of all prisoners." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 29, 2004). The recurring theme of public proclamations in the months before the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev confirms that Israel's previous surrenders to blackmail have made kidnapping a cornerstone of PA policy: "Islamic Jihad: Kidnapping of Israeli soldiers - the fastest way to the release of prisoners" (Al-Ayyam, May 9, 2006). Said Siam, PA Minister of the Interior: "In the past, Hamas managed to kidnap many Zionist soldiers... I believe that there is no other choice than kidnapping soldiers and exchanging them [for prisoners]" (Abu Thaib TV, January 2006). "[PA Foreign Minister] Mahmoud Zahar, said that his movement [Hamas] would not hesitate to kidnap soldiers in order to exchange them for prisoners" (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, March 7, 2006). IF ISRAEL releases more terrorists this week there will be four waves of Israeli victims - starting with Gilad Shalit. Israel hoped that Hamas would eventually lower its demands for Shalit's release and be satisfied with the symbolic victory of securing the freedom of a modest number of terrorist prisoners. By releasing terrorists to Abbas without getting anything in return, however, Olmert is forcing Hamas to raise the stakes and lessening Shalit's chance of early release. As part of its escalating power struggle with Abbas and his Fatah faction, Hamas must be seen to win more concessions from Israel than its rival. Whatever number of terrorists Abbas receives gratis, Hamas will have to hold out for many times that number. Whatever the crimes committed by the terrorists released to Abbas, Hamas will demand the release of even more dangerous criminals. The result will certainly be much longer and harder negotiations, with Hamas's demands possibly becoming higher than even Olmert can accept. If Shalit is lucky this will merely extend his ordeal by months or years. If Olmert's goodwill gamble fails, Shalit could well become the next Ron Arad. The second wave of victims will be the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Israelis who stand to be killed and maimed by these released terrorists. According to a September 2006 report by the Almagor Terror Victims Association, at least 14 major terrorist attacks in recent years - accounting for 123 murdered Israelis - were carried out by terrorists released from prison through various "goodwill gestures" and Israeli prisoner deals. These terrorists may not have had "blood on their hands" when they were first released, but they were quick to sign their freedom with the blood of Israeli citizens. So will some of the terrorists Olmert is poised to release this week. The third wave of victims will be all those killed by a new generation of terrorists empowered and emboldened by the images of "heroic" prisoners carried aloft as they step to freedom, laughing and cheering Israel's weakness and surrender. And the fourth wave will be those soldiers and civilians who fall victim to the kidnappings and murders that will continue as long as Israel keeps proving to terrorists and their handlers that this tactic works. OLMERT HAS a unique opportunity to break this cycle of killings, kidnappings and ransom by rejecting all attempts at this kind of blackmail, thereby depriving Palestinian terrorists of one of their favorite weapons. But instead, he appears so intent on demonstrating what he describes as "flexibility and generosity" that he ignores the reality of the deadly consequences his actions will inevitably have. "It is customary to make such a gesture on Id el-Adha," Olmert said of his desire to time the prisoner release to coincide with Islam's Festival of the Sacrifice. But it's time for Israel's leaders to stop doing what is "customary," and start doing what is right. As Olmert and his cabinet prepare to make the ultimate sacrifice - with the lives of other people's children - they might want to recall that at the end of the biblical story, at the very last moment, God called off the sacrifice and saved an entire nation. It's not too late for them to do the same. Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -- Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's associate director. |
|
PEACE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE "PALESTINIANS" IS NOT POSSIBLE
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 28, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Yosef (Tommy) Lapid and it appeared
yesteday in the Jerusalem Post |
|
Does anyone really think it is possible to reach a settlement with the Palestinians that will guarantee peace between us? I can understand that there are those who believe it may be possible to reach a settlement. And I can understand that there are those who hope it is possible to reach a settlement. But does anyone really think it is possible to make peace with the Palestinians - I mean, really think so? How can one not see the rift among them, their inability to administer their own lives, Fatah's helplessness, Hamas's abysmal hatred, the murderousness of the popular resistance organizations, the destructive influence of radical Islam, the interference of Iran and the belief - so deeply rooted in almost every Arab heart - that, sooner or later, Israel will disappear off the map? How can anyone see all that and still think there is a chance for a peace settlement? Or that all the different Palestinian factions, so hostile not only to us but to each other, will somehow find a way to cooperate in order to reach a settlement with Israel? EVEN IF Israel agreed to withdraw to the 1967 borders (and it doesn't); even if Israel agreed to allow the refugees to return to Israel within the 1967 borders (and it doesn't); would Hamas ever recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist in the heart of the Muslim Middle East? After all, Hamas's entire raison d'etre is founded on its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. Its members would sooner convert to Judaism than relinquish that principle. True, anything is possible. But not in the foreseeable future. Not in this generation. And if not the Palestinians, then radical Islam will make sure there is no peace agreement with Israel. Iran on one side and al-Qaida on the other are threatening not only Israel, but the regimes in Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well. Israel isn't even their first target, it is their last. WHAT SHOULD we conclude from all this? That the time has come to emigrate from Israel? Maybe give in to the Arabs' demands? Perhaps put an end to the Zionist enterprise and close up shop? Never. Israel will continue to exist and flourish, as it has existed and flourished since the establishment of the state, thanks, among other reasons, to the Arab boycott, which forced it to export computer software to America and Europe instead of making plastic toys for the market in Damascus. (Did any of us ever imagine that the shekel might one day become stronger than the dollar, or that we would export more than we import?) Yet, while the leaders of the Islamic countries have not accepted Israel's existence in principle, they have accepted it in fact - and only because they know they cannot wipe Israel off the map without themselves being wiped off as well. And that, rather than any pie-in-the-sky, illusory hope for the brotherhood of nations, is the basis for the relationship between us. In the entire Muslim world, numbering over a billion people, one would be hard-pressed to find even a dozen willing to stand up and justify Israel's existence. THIS DOES not mean we should forget about striving for peace. We must behave as if we believed that it was possible to achieve a peace settlement. Why? Because if we do not strive for peace, the result will be war. And we do not want war. But even as we strive for peace, even if we follow the road map, we mustn't delude ourselves. We won't arrive at peace, not here. But it may be possible to reach a modus vivendi, a balance of terror and a balance of mutual interests that will enable us to lead our lives more or less normally. And not just for a year or two, but for generations. If we foster no illusions, we won't be disappointed. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
BETWEEN WARS, U.S. TOUGHENING UP ON ISRAEL
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 28, 2006. |
| You have to admit America is consistent. The Palestinian Arabs mourn Saddam's death and can't wait till they can kill more "foreigners." But America can't wait to carve them a state out of Israel? And how does the Bush administraton treat Israel, her only reliable friend in the Middle East? Read this article written for Arutz-Sheva by Hillel Fendel. |
|
The Bush administration and State Department are blocking arms and technology transfers to Israel, Middle East Newsline (MENL) reports. Quoting "Israeli and U.S. sources," MENL reports that the State Department has blocked the transfer of weapons and technology to Israel over the past three months, reflecting deteriorating relations between the two countries since the war in Lebanon in August of this year. The unofficial suspension of U.S. arms deliveries, beginning in late September, halted the airlift of air-to-ground and other munitions that had been ongoing since the war - despite Israel's continuing need for them. Israel says it needs the equipment in order to replenish munitions and other stocks in preparation for a larger war that might include Syria in mid-2007. "Nobody will say openly that there is a problem," a government source said. "But there is a serious problem that reflects the marginalization of Israel in U.S. strategy... The administration has not rejected any Israeli request. Instead, the State Department and Defense Department have said that all requests must be examined." Military cooperation between the two countries has also been hampered in other areas. The State Department recently prevented Northrop Grumman from providing Israel with details of its Skyguard laser weapon, which the company wanted to sell Israel. In turn, Israel suspended negotiations to procure the system, which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and missiles. Two reasons have been given for the deterioration in relations. One is the perceived Israeli loss, or at least non-victory, in the war with Hizbullah, which has undermined U.S. confidence in Israel's military and government. In addition, the U.S. may be trying to assuage Saudi Arabia, whose help the U.S. seeks in Iraq. "There's nothing like stopping the weapons flow to Israel to show the Saudis that the United States means business," a diplomatic source told MENL. |
|
IDF OFFICIALS: PINPOINT OPERATIONS DON'T WORK WITH RESTRAINT
Posted by Hillel Fendel and Hana Levi Julian, December 28, 2006. |
|
IDF officials are not happy with Prime Minister Olmert's new exclusive policy of "pinpoint operations" against Kassam launching cells. Some 27 security checkpoints in Yesha are set to be removed. A senior officer slammed the new anti-Kassam policy, which Olmert decided upon after two boys were seriously wounded in a Tuesday night rocket attack. The government resolved to continue the ceasefire with the terrorists, despite the increasing violations by terrorist rocket crews, but to take action against specific Kassam cells when they are detected. Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Yiftah Ron-Tal told Voice of Israel Radio Thursday morning, "Pinpoint operations are a step in the right direction, but really just partially so. Security forces must be allowed to control the area in a more effective manner." He said the new policy would not even help reduce the number of rockets fired at western Negev communities, let alone end them. Ron-Tal warned that it is extremely difficult to spot terrorists in the act of launching rockets, and almost impossible to attack them once they are identified. The senior officer was discharged from the IDF in October, shortly before his official retirement, after criticizing IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz. Removing Checkpoints, Despite Past Negative Experience Another of Olmert's gestures towards Abu Mazen is also about to get underway. After a delay of a few days, a program to remove 27 military checkpoints in Judea and Samaria has been approved by the IDF. The amount of entry permits for PA Arabs into mainland Israel has also been increased. "The proposed plan is likely to contribute to an improved atmosphere, to the strengthening of moderate forces and the distancing of the civilian population from the circle of terrorism," Prime Minister Olmert said. "This does not mean that we are backing off from our war with terrorism, which we will continue to fight with the same determination." Terrorists have taken advantage of previous gestures in the past to travel freely and perpetrate attacks. Arutz-7's Kobi Finkler reports that just two weeks ago, after the removal of the east-of-Shechem Eyn Bidan checkpoint, a terrorist cell was caught after having passed through that very area with a large amount of explosives. Furthermore, nine months ago, after the same checkpoint was removed - only to be replaced later - a terrorist passed through the area, and later murdered four Jews when he dressed up as a religious Jew and got into a car as a hitchhiker. Senior IDF officers have also criticized the government for turning down a proposal to allow forces to cross the Gaza border and create a security buffer zone. "We have no other way but to control the northern Gaza Strip using [IDF] forces," added Ron-Tal. "Not for a long time, but for a limited time... If our soldiers aren't there, the terrorists will continue to fire from there." Two boys were severely injured on Tuesday night by a Kassam rocket attack on Sderot, one critically. Adir Moshe (ben Bruriah) Basad, who was listed in very critical condition, is no longer considered in immediate danger. He is still listed in serious condition in Barzilai Hospital in the southern coastal city of Ashkelon, where Kassam rockets hit a strategic target this week as well. His friend, Matan (ben Koren) Cohen, suffered moderate wounds - including the loss of four toes - and is being transferred to Shneider Children's Hospital in Petach Tikvah. Released for publication: On April 22 of this year a suicide bombing was thwarted because the Bethlehem terrorist who was supposed to supply the explosives was wounded and arrested in a clash with undercover Border Guard forces. The would-be killer himself was arrested in Halhoul, near Hevron. The next day, three wanted terrorists tried to escape an undercover Border Guard force in the region by shooting at their car, but they themselves were hit, and two were killed. It has also now been publicized that two months ago, another attack was thwarted when the suicide terrorist was arrested by Israeli forces near the Jenin refugee camp. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News). Hana Levi Julian is a writer for Arutz-Sheva. |
|
WHAT BAKER TEACHES ISLAMISTS; ANTI-ZIONISTS ISRAELI COLLEGES; U.S. ARMS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 28, 2006. |
|
"In a nationally-televised address in Tel Aviv on July 31, the Prime Minister declared, 'We will stop the war when the threat is removed... our captured soldiers return home safely and you are able to live in safety and security.'" (Arutz-7, 12/6.) He stopped without them. He has made all sorts of strong-sounding policy statements, only to back down from them. That is common there. What credibility do they retain? INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT (ISM) Speaking of ISM, "The new recruits are called on to stand as human shields before arms caches or shooter hideouts. If through some mishap a young foreigner should be hit, all the better: fuel for international outrage." ISM complains that Israel destroys civilian houses, but in fact the "civilian homes" are weapons depots; or else they are outlets, sometimes with complicit families still in them, concealing tunnels dug from Egypt to Gaza. The tunnels smuggle guns, rocket launchers, explosives; and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is there to stop the flow of arms intended for assaults on Israeli citizens, and to uncover the launchers secreted in olive groves and farms, where the gunmen also hide, or in the houses, where the gunmen hide among women and children (12/6, forgot the source). WHAT JAMES BAKER IS TEACHING THE MUSLIMS His plan is to induce the Muslims to spare Americans by betraying Israel. What does that teach the Muslims? (1) The US lacks honor and brains. (2) Better to be an enemy of the US than a friend. (3) If Baker succeeds in forcing Israel to give up the Golan, in the (vain) hope of stopping foreign support for the Iraqi insurgency, he will have taught the Muslims that the best way to conquer Israelis is by killing Americans (Mark Steyn, NY Sun, 12/4, Op.-Ed.). Baker suggests negotiating with Iran and Syria. That would be as useful as negotiating with Hitler. Just as Hitler sought to take over other countries, and negotiations advanced him into Czechoslovakia, so, to, Iraq and Syria seek to take over other countries, among which is Israel, that Baker would hand them on their way to other countries. He thinks they want stability in Iraq, but it is they who are fomenting instability there! There is no logical linkage between the jihad in Israel and the jihad in Iraq, except that both are jihad and the West needs to win in both. Baker is fabricating a linkage on the theory that if we are easy on the Muslims in Israel, they would be easy on us elsewhere. But Jihad is not a matter of trade-offs. The struggle goes on, wherever Muslims can wage it and whatever some of them have "promised." Baker's notion is unrealistic and stems from his bias against Israel if not also ignorance. He does the US and civilization a disservice. GIVING ENEMIES A SECOND CHANCE Hamas has received more than three hundred million dollars from abroad, during the boycott of it. It smuggles millions at-a-time from Sinai into Gaza. With these funds, it has been able to pay most of the administrative salaries (half of which goes to terrorists). It remits the funds through Abbas. Meanwhile, Hamas officials secretly have been meeting with the Europeans supposedly boycotting it. Apparently, the Europeans are satisfied with a long-term truce Hamas proposes instead of recognizing Israel as legitimate. The Democratic Party, of the US, also has been conferring with the Islamist enemy (IMRA, 12/6). Conferring with such an unrelenting enemy is treasonous. It undermines the boycott. The boycott would be tight, if Israel did not, as demanded by the US, abandon the Gaza border now unguarded. It hardly is accurate to portray the entry of suitcases of cash as "smuggling." They just go right through, with some paperwork. Nobody stops cash or arms. Abbas cooperates with Hamas. He acts far from the candidate to repress Hamas that the US is arming him as. A long-term truce at best means renewed war later, when Hamas is capable of doing well at it. That is no solution to anything. But the Arab Muslims don't keep truces long. They violate them. The violate agreements, because they think that their religious cause permits them to use any means, including deceit. Europe is deceiving itself, if it imagines otherwise. However, Europe does not care what happens to Israel or itself. "U.S. PRESSURE" US pressure is an old excuse by Israeli politicians for working against Israeli national security. Shimon Peres once asked a Secretary of State to pretend that some unpopular and hazardous measure by Peres was done under US pressure. It is a poor excuse. There may be pressure, but it does not have to be yielded to. Israel often has acted in its own behalf, despite US pressure (Dr. Aron Lerner, IMRA, 12/6). Let Israel get word out just what means of pressure the US exerts. We have a right to know. FAR LEFTIST AGENDA IN ISRAELI EDUCATION Israel teaches little geography in high schools, which have low ratings. Education Minister Tamir decreed that Israel's textbooks should show everything outside the old Green Line, the 1967 armistice line, as not within Israel. PM Olmert supports this. Her decision is part of several to promote a Far-Leftist agenda. The old Green Line excludes the Golan and to the New City of Jerusalem, although Israel officially applied Israeli law to them, in effect, annexing them. A companion decision is for Israeli schools to commemorate "Nakba Day," Arabic for catastrophe, meaning Jewish defeat of the Arab attempt to annihilate them in the 1947 war (IMRA, 12/6). Israel now is pro-Arab. DEMOCRATS GONE, REPUBLICANS ON THEIR WAY Syria has become an enemy of the US. Pres. Bush is trying to isolate Syria. Defying him, some Democratic Members of Congress have gone to Damascus to confer with the dictator supplying forces fighting our own in Iraq. GOP Senator Specter indicated he would go. Sen. Nelson, who went, says "he was optimistic Syria's stance on Iraq could be turned around. 'Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and/or the Iraqi Army to be part of the solution.'" (NY Sun, 12/14, p.6). The photograph of a US Senator sitting with a terrorist dictator is a pathetic indication of naivete in the highest reaches of our government. Syria is aligned with the jihadists. It would not reverse its policy unless its regime were overthrown, if even then. The Senators are making America appear divided and indecisive. They harm our national security. Pres. Bush is like democracy. Democracy is a poor form of government, but the rest are worse. HOLOCAUST DENIAL APPROVED & DISAPPROVED "Israel condemns Tehran's Holocaust denial conference...but what about Mahmoud Abbas?" (David Bedein, 12/13.) When the head of Iran denies the Holocaust, Israel condemns him. What about Abbas, who wrote his thesis denying the Holocaust? Why doesn't Israel denounce him? The answer is that the anti-Zionist and appeasement-minded world, which includes Israel's leaders, wants to pretend that there is a Palestinian Arab leader with whom Israel can make peace. Otherwise, Israel would have to respond with all-out war to the war being made on it by the P.A., including Abbas. U.S. UPGRADING EGYPTIAN ARTILLERY The US will modernize Egypt's self-propelled howitzers (IMRA, 12/13). Now tell me that the US is pro-Israel! TRAVEL FROM ISRAEL TO GAZA Israel has made special arrangements to let Israeli citizens visit relatives in the Gaza Strip during an approaching Muslim holiday (IMRA, 12/13). How considerate of Israel! The Arabs of Gaza more or less forced the Jews out, which ruined them. The Arabs stationed rockets where the Gaza Jews used to live, near Israel, and fired them into Israel. But Israel lets Muslim Arabs in Gaza be visited by their relatives from Israel. If Jews are not allowed to live in the P.A., why should Arabs be allowed to live in Israel, which they detest and undermine? 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. |
|
THIS IS CRAZY
Posted by Andras Bereny, December 28, 2006. |
|
This is crazy. Reading this article I hold my head in my hands in disbelief. That the olmerts should allow the egyptians to supply 2.000 rifles and 20.000 magazins through an unnamed border crossing to our enemies is just as crazy as allowing them to smuggle untold thousands of rifles and bombs under the border, in tunnels. It is clear that the olmerts are selling out this country to the enemy. They must be removed from power now, before they do further damage, and replaced by people who have a connection to the Jewish people, the Torah and to the Land of Israel. This article is entitled "Israel approves Egyptian arms shipment to
Fatah" and it was written by Hanan Greenberg Published today in Ynet
News |
|
PM Olmert heeds calls by President Mahmoud Abbas to allow Egypt to transfer arms to Fatah in attempt to counter Hamas' armament drive Two thousand rifles were transferred from Egypt to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, a move approved by Israel in an attempt to boost moderates in the Palestinian Authority. The rifles, as well as 20,000 magazines were shipped in to the Gaza Strip through an unnamed border crossing. Israel is concerned over Hamas' rising military power as the Islamic group continues to smuggle explosives and arms into Gaza from Egypt through underground tunnels. On Wednesday Abbas called for a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, expressing his readiness to discuss the thorniest of issues with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert . Abbas made the comments following a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. Following his meeting with Mubarak in Cairo, Abbas said serious talks behind closed doors are imperative, adding that the Quartet should participate as well. "For some time now we've been considering the option of opening another channel of communication between us and the Israelis with the participation of one or all of the Quartet members (United States, Russia, European Union, United Nat ions) to discuss issues related to a permanent agreement," he said. Abbas said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to arrive in the region once again on January 13. The two met in Jericho in late November. The Palestinian president arrived in Cairo on the heels of his meeting with Olmert in Jerusalem last Saturday. The leaders agreed that Israel would release USD 100 million in frozen Palestinian tax funds, and also discussed Abbas' request to permit the transfer of arms from Egypt and the transfer of forces from the Jordan-based Badr Brigade to the Palestinian Presidential Guard, this within the framework of the Dayton Plan. Andras Bereny lives in Kfar Tapuach, Shomron 44829 Israel. Visit his websites: www.jewishyisrael.com and www.jewishyisrael.org. Or contact him by email at bereny@tin.it |
|
HOLOCAUST TRIVIALIZER ABBAS
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 27, 2006. |
|
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert attempts to raise Mahmoud Abbas' reputation among so-called Palestinians by releasing 100 million dollars worth of desperately needed tax revenues and removing over two dozen check points thus improving the flow of goods through the Gaza Strip. How nice. No doubt, the two name double game presumably moderate Abbas Mazen and his Fatah brigade seem to be the better option to deal with than Hamas fanatics obsessed with annihilating the Jewish State. Thus ceding Israeli land justifiably secured in 1967 to morphed Jordanian Arabs, better known to the world as Palestinians, is more likely to happen if Abbas' reputation is enhanced so he might break meaningful bread with Olmert. Hmmm! Does that also mean peace in our time will reciprocally occur as a result of that land transfer? Perhaps Olmert should first remove his rose colored glasses, look Abbas squarely in the eye, and insist he apologize for suggesting no gas chambers were used by Nazis in The Holocaust, merely one of his many horrifically false assertions about the most chilling sadistic systematic attempt to destroy an entire people, indeed the most subhuman event of the twentieth century. That's right, multi-decade Arafat understudy Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen (or whatever he calls himself) is a kindred spirit to the other Mahmoud Iranian madman AhMADinejad when it comes to Holocaust denial or trivialization. In 1982 Abbas completed a doctoral thesis, truly an intellectual abomination, 'The Secret Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement', in 1984 published bearing the title "The Other Side", revising details of the Holocaust by estimating the number of Jews killed during World War II to be under one million, raising doubts that Jews were murdered in gas chambers, and most despicably stating Zionist leaders collaborated with Nazis to "facilitate the wide-spread destruction" of Jews, asserting those Zionists were interested in convincing the world that a large number of Jews were killed to "attain larger gains" and divide the "booty", in effect insuring the creation of a Jewish homeland by guilt ridden world citizens. No retraction has ever been made by Abbas in regards to his ignominious slanderous work no doubt precipitated by his hatred for Jews and Israel. How soon some Prime Ministers and cronies forget or perhaps forgive! Might Israeli movers and shakers of policy really believe this well dressed 'moderate' leader would be able or even willing to disarm Hamas and other Arab extremists under his 'presumed' jurisdiction, insuring Israeli citizens a life free from Qassam rockets and homicide/suicide bombers? Would the Jew hating forked tongue smoothie even care about such things once Olmert and his naïve crew cede the farm; namely Judea, Samaria, east Jerusalem, and perhaps even accede to an insidious right of return? Before any negotiations even begin or further concessions are made to succor Abbas, let Olmert demand that the Fatah leader condemn his abominable work, unequivocally and loudly stating to all Muslims that more than six million Jews were butchered by Nazi filth during The Holocaust, that gas chambers were indeed used, and that any mention of a Zionist Nazi conspiracy is anti-Semitic propaganda so vile that it blasphemes Islam's holy Koran. Furthermore, let Olmert demand that Abbas beg Allah to forgive him for crafting such a heinously sinful work. Once that is accomplished, let Olmert demand that any sovereign Palestinian state allow all ethnicities, including Jews, to dwell in peace within negotiated borders, be honored with respect and protected by government authorities, be allowed to engage in political discourse and run for political office, much like non-Jewish ethnicities including Muslims are treated in Israel. If Abbas agrees to all this, perhaps the State of Israel will have a true negotiating partner. Otherwise, there is no point in conducting a charade that would only result in tzuris for beleaguered Israel. Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
HOW TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER
Posted by Boris Zubry, December 27, 2006. |
|
For years I hear of ideas coming from every corner of the world and claiming the solution to the Middle East problem. Some of these ideas were not too bad and a number of good people tried to work on them. Well, unfortunately, all of them failed so far ending with huge set backs. It never was pretty usually quite bloody. What ideas did I hear over the years? Let me see. No Israel, no Jews, no Palestinians, no Arabs, one-state solution, two-states solution, the Iranian solution, the Hezbollah solution, the Hammas solution, the Hitler's solution and a few more. Did I miss any? Did they work? Did any of them work? Well, not exactly. Jews would not go anywhere. There is no where to go. Why should they go anywhere when this is their land and for a few thousand years already? It does not sound right. Arabs would not go anywhere. There is no where to go. Why should they go anywhere when this is their land and for a thousand years already? It does not sound right either. Palestinians are relatively new comers in that region and they result from the Ottoman Empire's policies and the lack of them. Are they entitled to this land? No and yes. Historically they are not entitled to anything but they are there already and there is no other place for them to go to. Turks irresponsibly made it that way. Arabs hate Palestinians more than they hate Jews and would not take them in. Arabs want to get rid of them and rather pay for Palestinians to become martyrs. Palestinians are being sold a fairytale heavily supported by the false religion values and the non-existing passages from Koran. Great. Definitely something worth to die for. Would not you say so? So, no one goes anywhere and killing has to stop. That's a must. The one-state solution does not work due to tremendous internal problems it presents and the two-state solution would not work due to tremendous external problems it would present. We can't grant the status of the state to terrorists. This is wrong, very wrong. Even more -- crazy. But Arabs and Palestinians would not leave Israel alone. Iranians are salivating already in anticipation of the mass murder of Jews. After all, why not to kill a few million helpless Jews just to cover your country's internal problems, the leader's political impotence and the numerous religious shortcomings? The show must go on. Is not the way it's been always done? Yes, it was but no more. This time many of us, if not all would fight back. There is a good chance that some of us would be "the last standing" and not some of you. I'll bet on that. Who is with me? But still this is not the answer. At the end, no one wins in wars. Each side loses so much that the little gains are worthless. No, we need something else. We need something more tangible, something that would give peace a chance. We need something that would create alliances powerful enough to hold the enemies at bay but yet be economically wise and feasible. We need a totally new arrangement for what may sound as an old accord. What if Israel becomes a member of the European Union? As a full member of this powerful organization Israel would be protected and at the same time controlled by the full might of it. Arabs would have to think twice before financing the anti-Israeli terrorism again. Russians would think twice before supplying weapons and the explosives to fuel the terror. Israel would have to control its anger and curb down the violations Israel has been guilty of. Economy? The whole world would benefit from integration as this. Brains previously forced to stay local and in a very small and quite limited locality would once again become accessible to the whole world. So, if Israel becomes a member of the European Union, the Middle East terror would start to slow down and eventually die. Peace would get a chance because some other very powerful forces would be included in to negotiation process. The economic situation of the region would improve dramatically and the whole world would benefit from it. Is not it what we want? Am I missing anything? Am I wrong in any assumption? Is this better that everything else we tried and that failed before? Shell we try this one? This could be the right answer. Shell we present it to our leaders helping them to navigate this process? Do you see a better option? Contact the author at BorisZubry@comcast.net or visit his website: www.boriszubry.us |
|
THE TIME HAS COME TO MAKE WAR, NOT LOVE
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 27, 2006. |
|
The following is the greatest description of our foolishness that has already come to hunt us NOW, in real time! Who likes to be a fool? Not me and not you! So why do we let our [no] leadership make us look the biggest fools ever lives?! President Bush now stands alone, as Churchill did, but unfortunately, President Bush does not have what Churchill had: 101% conviction that he was the ONLY one RIGHT...and boy was he RIGHT! President Bush, you have the final opportunity to change history and make it RIGHT...We, Americans WANT TO WIN and this is a war we can proudly WIN with the WILL to WIN! So all that remains to say: Mobilize the minds of ALL Americans, ACT decisively and DO IT RIGHT! This article was written by Khaled Abu Toameh and the Jerusalem Post Staff. It appeared in the Jerusalem Post December 19, 2006. |
|
Hamas gunmen killed two Palestinian policemen loyal to the rival Fatah movement early Wednesday, just hours after the sides agreed to a new cease-fire meant to end more than a week of factional fighting... President Bush has repeatedly asserted that we are in a war, although he shrinks from naming the enemy: totalitarian Islam. However, his State Dept. and Defense Dept. seem to have a peculiar understanding of what "war" means. Our Generals and our diplomats all seem to have been trained in the art of therapy rather than the art of war. They take enormous pride in their cultural sensitivity, rather than in their killing skills. Not a Patton or a Curtis LeMay among them. No way someone like Patton could rise in today's military bureaucracy. The model of a modern General is Colin Powell. His bureaucratic skills helped him get to the top of the State Dept., an organization of therapeutic wordsmiths who believe we have no real enemies, only people who misunderstand our good intentions. Let us perform a thought experiment: imagine that assorted State Dept. bureaucrats wake up tomorrow and realize we're in a war to the death and that our enemies are jihadists of every stripe -- Sunnis and Shia, Fatah and Hamas, ayatollahs and sheiks and their assorted followers. Our networked enemies are bound together in a death cult whose aim is a perfect sharia world. In its pursuit, they have been killing one another for 14 centuries. Now they've turned their sights on us. Our foes are barbarous and are incompetent at most life tasks -- hence their envy and hatred of Israel and the Jews. It's humiliating to be smacked in the face by reality; fantasy is far more comforting. While these backward fantasists appear to be skillful at waging guerilla war, that is illusory. It takes no great warrior talent to hide among civilians, detonate bomb belts while disguised as women, launch RPG's into hospitals, and blow up small children on playgrounds. The correct word to describe such behavior is 'cowardice'. We collude in the illusion that our foes are terrifyingly powerful, our therapeutic mindset resembling the stance of a masochistic wife "explaining" that her violent alcoholic husband had a difficult childhood. We play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, pulling our punches while our foes hide in mosques, disguise themselves as civilians and hide their weapons in apartment buildings. Anyone who grew up dealing with playground bullies knows that bullies are cowards. They're weaklings whom we are treating as if they were strong men, thereby supporting their delusions of adequacy. Until now we've fought with one hand tied behind our backs as if we were afraid someone we targeted might get angry. How awful, we could blow up a mosque serving as a munitions dump! We carefully avoid targeting one of their designated "Holy Cities." Incidentally, what makes their 'holy' cities more sacred than my city, New York? Instead of issuing pathetic appeals for Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad to stop killing each other, we should be encouraging this internecine war among our foes. If we simply used the word 'war' as it has been used before our Post-Modernists gave it a kinder, gentler meaning, we would stop our endless attempts to intervene when our enemies are killing each other. Then we might cease referring to our "war on terror", an absurd p.c. way of disguising the true enemy: totalitarian Islam. Why is Condi Rice begging Hamas to stop shooting at Fatah and vice versa? Why are we endlessly palavering with Shiite ayatollahs and Sunni clerics when both of them regard us as infidels to be killed or forcibly converted? Why is our State Dept. eager to talk with the Iranian leadership, instead of encouraging revolution against it? All of these absurdities are the product of our Post-Modern therapeutic view of the world, which is really a symptom itself of our wavering confidence. Do our advanced military thinkers now read Lacan and Derrida instead of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu? "If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient -- at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve."- Karl Von Clausewitz Notice, Clausewitz does not suggest that the enemy's grievances need to be sympathetically addressed. Nor does he urge a multi-cultural egalitarian approach to conflict. All of James Baker's and Lee Hamilton's deep thinking produced nothing as useful as those two sentences of Clausewitz. Clearly, we have not made the situation unpleasant enough, nor have we convinced the enemy we are going to stay. Quite the opposite. Our latest plan -- to "surge" more troops to Iraq is offered with the implicit promise that it will be followed shortly by a drawdown of troops. Furthermore our troops fight within the constraints of rules of engagement that seem designed to persuade our enemies that we are delicate and sensitive souls, more concerned with avoiding collateral damage than with defeating them. If we could rediscover our martial vigor, then we could win this war rather quickly. President Bush now stands alone, as Churchill did, against the counsel of all his cautious advisers. This is probably his final opportunity to change history. And in truth it's not that difficult to discern what he ought to do. If we grasp the nature of our enemy -- 8th century minds, steeped in fantasy, then we know where to strike them. Notice how enraged they become when their symbols are mocked or destroyed. Their rage is the rage of the frightened and vulnerable. They are more afraid of women than the average member of the BLGT alliance. The great Heavyweight champ Joe Frazier told how to win a fight: "Kill the body and the head will die." That should be our motto for the war against totalitarian Islam. Horsefeathers has observed human nature closeup and personal for many years, and the kind of infantile rage emanating from Islam is not -- contrary to the great Mark Steyn -- a mark of self assurance and growing confidence. It is the collective tantrum of vulnerable and frightened children unable to keep up with the other kids who've mastered arithmetic and are moving on to more difficult subjects. The further and further Islam has fallen behind the rest of humanity, the more fearful and humiliated its practitioners have come to feel, and the more they collectively retreat into fantasy and symbols. Thus an attack on those symbols, the body of Islam (reminding them they attacked our secular ones at the WTC), would constitute a blow to their primitive collective faith and a corrective to their grandiose utopian fantasies. As a further "reality check" we hope the President puts aside political correctness and emulates Churchill, not with words but with deeds. All he need do in his national speech is explain that we are in a World War, that Iraq is one battlefield on which we have suffered defeats, just as we did many times in World War II, but from this defeat we've learned the nature of our enemies and will use the full range of our power, up to and including nuclear weapons to utterly annihilate them. Furthermore, the United States, as the guardian of Western civilization will not permit a second holocaust. Then let us hear that our air power has removed the symbols the jihadis worship, the mosques they make pilgrimages to in Mecca and Medina, as well as the nuclear program undertaken by the Iranian Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If the President acts decisively the country will support him. The media typically misunderstands the results of the recent elections. Americans want to win. This is a war that can be won, but only if we possess the will to fight. Hurry up, please Mr. President. |
|
TWENTY-YEAR PLAN F0R USA: ISLAM TARGETS AMERICA
Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006. |
|
This was written by Dr. Anis Shorrosh, D.Min, D.Phil and a member of Oxford Society of Scholars. He has traveled in 76 countries and is a Palestinian Arab Christian American who is an author, lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. Islam Revealed is a best seller which has been printed eight times already. His forthcoming tenth book will be available spring 2003 entitled Islam: A Threat or a Challenge. |
|
When we immigrated from Jerusalem, Jordan in January, 1967, little did I imagine that Islam would become center-stage in world news. As my sincere interest in the growth of Islam in America intensified, I began to discuss, dialogue, and then debate Muslim leaders throughout the world from an Arab Christian's view of Islam. So far, I have had the privilege of participating in over 20 debates and discussions on every continent plus T.V. and radio. Islam Revealed was released in 1988 and is now in its 8th printing. The True Furqan is now in its third printing in the three years it has been published. It is the only book which challenges the Quran in substance, style, language and contents. The True Furqan can be located on www.answers-to-islam.net or www.islam-exposed.org. The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020! Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11? 1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with hate crime bills state-wide and nation-wide. 2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities to promote Islam as the original African-American's religion while Christianity is for the whites! Strange enough, no one tells the African-Americans that it was the Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same, "Abed." 3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith. 4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office for favorable legislation to Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting. 5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock. 6. Yield to the fear of imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America -- the black gold. America's economy depends on oil, (1000 products are derived from oil), so does its personal and industrial transportation and manufacturing -41% comes from the Middle East. 7. Yell, "foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un-American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran" anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena. 8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way. Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America? 9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via: 1. Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961) 10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are 300 exclusively Muslim schools with loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. 11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish "Centers for Islamic studies" with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher education institutions. 12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have high-jacked Islam, not the truth, which is Islam high-jacked the terrorists. Furthermore in January of 2002, Saudi Arabia's Embassy in Washington mailed 4500 packets of the Quran, videos, promoting Islam to America's high schools--free. They would never allow us to reciprocate. 13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards the Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries. 14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls. (We have experienced this too often since 9-11.) 15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not American's justice system. 16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars. 17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting that freshman take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the writer is a bonafide American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran and express the peaceful, spiritual and religious aspect only. 18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media of their visibility. 19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook. 20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
GLAD TIDINGS OF PEACE PROCESSES
Posted by Dawntreader, December 27, 2006. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post yesterday. |
|
You have to wonder what thoughts passed through the minds of Bethlehem's Christians as Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah commander Mahmoud Abbas appeared at the Church of the Nativity for Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. On April 2, 2002, as IDF forces swept into Bethlehem to root out the terrorists who had taken control of the city, between 150 and 180 Fatah terrorists under Yasser Arafat's command shot their way into the Church of the Nativity. For the next 39 days they held the sacred site and some 150 clergymen hostage. Three weeks into the siege, three Armenian monks escaped from the church through a side entrance and revealed what was happening inside. Friar Narkiss Koraskian told reporters: "They stole everything. They stole our prayer books and four crosses. They didn't leave anything." When the siege ended, the released hostages told of frequent beatings of clergymen. The terrorists, they told The Washington Times, "ate like greedy monsters," gorging themselves on food and slurping down beer, wine and Johnny Walker scotch they stole from the rectory as their hostages went hungry. CATHOLIC priests said that the terrorists used their bibles as toilet paper. Franciscan priest Nicholas Marques from Mexico reported: "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold." Thirteen of the ring-leaders of the siege were deported to Cyprus and then dispersed to European countries. Twenty-six were sent to Gaza. Bethlehem's Christians could not hide their relief at the expulsions. They spoke of a "reign of terror," of rape, murder and extortion that the men had waged against them over the previous two years. Helen, a Christian woman, told The Washington Times, "Finally the Christians can breathe freely. We are so delighted that these criminals who have intimidated us for such a long time are going away." On Saturday night, as part of his massive effort to "strengthen" Abbas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to convene a joint committee to discuss the return of these terrorists to the city. Speaking of his good friend Mahmoud on Sunday afternoon to a Kadima audience in Ashkelon, Olmert allowed that "Abu Mazen [Abbas] is an adversary." But, he explained, he is an enemy Olmert can do business with. IT IS TRUE that business sometimes can be done with enemies. But what business can Olmert do with Abbas? And how does any of this business advance Israel's national interests? At the cabinet meeting Sunday, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin embraced Olmert's decision to "strengthen" Abbas, by, among other things, giving him $100m. and agreeing to release terrorists from Israeli prisons even without receiving so much as a sign of life from IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage by Abbas's underlings and their Hamas pals in Gaza for the past six months. Diskin warned the ministers that if elections were held today in the PA, Hamas would win hands down. Not only would they retain their control over the PA government, they would no doubt rout Abbas himself and take over his presidency. In light of the Palestinians' apparent satisfaction with their lot at being governed by genocidal jihadists from Hamas as opposed to corrupt genocidal jihadists from Fatah like the ones who took over the Church of the Nativity, the government believes that it needs to make the PA irrelevant - a mere school district - as one government official put it. In the meantime, the real power will be placed in the hands of the Fatah-controlled PLO. There are of course, two problems with this. First, that "mere school district" will be armed to the teeth and controlled by an Iranian- (and Saudi-) trained, funded and armed regime that is overwhelmingly popular among its "students." This little backwater will continue to serve as a nexus for global jihad that is little different from Somalia. Hamas has made clear that it will fight to the last man to protect its regime. Yet in the interest of "strengthening Abbas," Israel is doing nothing to weaken Hamas either militarily or politically. THE SECOND problem with the "school district" strategy is that the edifice of power the Olmert government seeks to replace the PA with has no interest in making peace with Israel. To the contrary, far from seeking to transform the PA into a liberal, pacific democracy committed to peaceful coexistence with Israel (or for that matter, just freeing Shalit from captivity), Abbas seeks to strengthen the terrorist character of Palestinian society. Abbas's demands of Olmert make this fact perfectly clear. If Abbas were interested in peace he would not be demanding that Israel release terrorists from prison; stop arresting wanted terrorists; make it easier for terrorists to operate in Judea and Samaria by suspending IDF counterterror operations and taking down roadblocks; bring more terrorists into the areas from Jordan; arm terrorists through Egypt; and give him money to pay the salaries of terrorists. If Abbas wanted peace he would be asking the IDF to escalate its fight against the terrorists. He would prefer that they rot in jail and not be released to enjoy the freedom to kill again. In other words, if Abbas were interested in peace he would be doing precisely the opposite of what he is doing. THERE ARE three reasons why Olmert and his government are acting as they are. First, they are doubtless bowing to pressure from the Bush administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated several times over the past week alone that the US has decided that its interest is advanced by Israel giving things to Abbas. But is US pressure a reasonable justification for Olmert's treatment of Abbas? Olmert justifies his refusal to negotiate with Syrian dictator and Iranian toadie Bashar Assad by noting that the Bush administration strenuously objects to holding such talks. Yet this is a flimsy excuse for not negotiating with Syria. Even if the US were pressuring Israel to negotiate with Syria it would make no sense to engage Assad because Israel has absolutely nothing to gain from doing so. As is the case with Abbas, by holding talks with Syria Israel would be conferring unwarranted legitimacy on Assad while receiving nothing of value in return. If Syria agreed to the handover of IDF hostages Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser and to ending Syrian sponsorship of Palestinian terror groups and Hizbullah in return for negotiations with Israel, it might make sense to confer such legitimacy on Assad even if the US objected. But Assad will do no such thing, and so there is nothing to be gained from talking to him. So too, were Abbas to agree to fork over Shalit and end Fatah terrorism and indeed cooperate with the IDF in fighting Hamas and Islamic Jihad, there would be something to be gained by meeting with him - regardless of the US's position. Although US pressure is real, it would be relatively easy to brush off simply by publicly pointing out the obvious. Aside from Washington's carping, Olmert's decision to "strengthen" Abbas stems from the fact that his government has no strategic vision whatsoever. Cast adrift, Olmert is moved by the prevailing winds. FOR THE PAST two weeks or so, since Assad began chirping about his wish to negotiate, the leftist-controlled Israeli media has been excoriating Olmert for bowing to Washington by refusing to meet with Assad. The weekend papers were full of condemnations by the chief diplomatic commentators in the major papers demanding that Olmert give the Golan Heights to Assad regardless of what the fuddy duddies in Washington think. And so, Saturday night's kissy-kissy meeting with Abbas was aimed, among other things, at shutting them up. And it worked quite nicely. Both Ma'ariv and Yediot Ahronot merrily proclaimed in their Sunday editions that Abbas was a stand-in for Assad - but he'd do for now. Finally, it is impossible to ignore the contribution the apparent stupidity of Israel's leaders made to Olmert's decision to embrace Abbas. Sunday morning, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni exposed this idiocy when she asked Diskin whether he thought that Hamas was strong enough to stop the rocket attacks on Sderot and the Western Negev. In response, Diskin gently pointed out that Hamas is a terror group that is dedicated to destroying Israel, and so while it could stop the rockets, it has no interest in doing so. GEE, HOW COME she didn't think of that? But then Diskin inanely opined that if Israel responds to the rocket attacks on Sderot's kindergartens, elementary schools and apartment blocks, Hamas will get really mad at us for breaching the cease-fire that only the IDF upholds and will continue to attack us. In light of his schoolhouse analysis, Diskin concluded that there's nothing we can do except pretend that the terrorists will change their minds about attacking us after we reward them for doing so by giving them money to pay themselves, bullets and rifles to shoot us with, send their terrorist buddies home from prison to join them in attacking us, and maintain the imaginary ceasefire to enable them to shoot at us with impunity. In the meantime, while Olmert is planning to spring terrorists from prison next week in honor of the Islamic holiday, Gaza's Christians were too terrified to go to their Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. So the mass was cancelled. And in Bethlehem, as the dwindling Christian population reeled with the news that their tormentors may soon return to rape, murder and extort them again, Manger Square stood near-empty on Christmas. But at least the peace process is getting back on track. Contact Dawntreader at Dawntreader3@yahoo.com |
|
WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS...TAKE ISRAEL PLEASE
Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006. |
| This article was written by Ruth King of AFSI. It appeared in Outpost November 20, 2006. |
|
Here is a brief quiz. Who said the following and when? "Peace will require compromises by all. The solution is the return of occupied lands in exchange for security and recognition of Israel's right to exist..." Secretary of State Richard Rogers said it first on December 9, 1969 while President Nixon was bedeviled in his efforts to end the Vietnam War. It became a mantra repeated by every consecutive administration... invoked especially when other policy initiatives failed. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, flush with betrayal of Vietnam, the Kurds and Israel, whose victory in the 1973 war he aborted, repeated it often. During the brief administration of Gerald Ford, Kissinger threw in crude threats about "reassessing" the America-Israel relationship. Jimmy Carter whose presidency was a shambles due to the Iran hostage crisis and the failure of his tragic-comic opera military operation to free them, put all his efforts into cementing Camp David on Sadat's terms. Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State Schultz repeated the magic formula in 1982, naming it "The Reagan Plan," which they announced to great fanfare while James Baker was chief of staff. They vainly scrambled to implement the plan after the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon to cover over the undignified and cowardly American exit from Beirut. In 1992, with James Baker as secretary of State, George Bush Sr. made the mantra the cornerstone of his heavy handed demands on Israel following America's withdrawal from Iraq following Gulf War I and the embarrassing slaughter of those who responded to what President Bush would later claim was an "ad lib" invitation to rise against Saddam, which he never thought Shiites and Kurds would take seriously. Bill Clinton restated this policy in the "Parameters for Peace" drawn up in 2000 when the Oslo Accords were flouted by Arafat and his legacy was clouded by scandal. We have here true bipartisan idiocy. Madeleine Albright, Dennis Ross, Sandy Berger, Tony Blair, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell have all repeated the axiom ad nauseum and Thomas Friedman has been reciting it since his birth on July 20, 1953. And now, James Baker, stuffed shirt and pomaded hair intact, fresh from his "Iraq Study Group" fact finding mission, has let it be known that his recommendations will also "explore" a broader U.S. initiative for tackling the Middle East conflict. Anyone fail to know what that means? As a senior observer of Baker during the presidency of the first President Bush notes: "There is no Arab dictator or terrorist that James Baker will not talk to. The only country he will never have a reasonable discussion with is Israel." Never mind the chaos in Iraq; never mind a militant, nuclear and mad North Korean dictator; never mind an even madder Iranian apocalyptic disciple of the 12th Imam; never mind the strife in Africa which has killed, injured and dislocated millions; never mind Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega; never mind the growing bellicosity of Putin; never mind that a Chinese sub has been stalking our navy in the Pacific. Faced with the abject failure of the President to pursue victory (dissipated in the effort to achieve a delusory "democracy" in Iraq) and stymied by the intractable problems listed above, Jim Baker is dusting off the "do it yourself peace kit" -- solve the world's problems through Israel's surrender. Believe it or not, Mr. Ripley, this is being touted as a "new" initiative. Doctors, scientists, businessmen, even lawyers, are all expected to retool and change strategy when old theories and modalities fail. So called statesmen, when it comes to the Middle East, no matter how often the plan fails, are incapable of entertaining any alternative other then territorial withdrawal. What makes it more frustrating is the fact that no Israeli leader, not a single one, has had the courage and the principles to say that the Rogers Plan and all its subsequent clones reside in cloud cuckoo land. To his credit Prime Minister Menachem Begin initially tried (he was accused of lecturing to his hosts for his pains), but his efforts were upended by the international romance with Anwar Sadat whose "peace" initiative with respect to the Arab Palestinians can only be likened to Admiral Tojo and the architects of Pearl Harbor demanding autonomy for Samoa after World War II. Nonetheless, Sadat got every concession he demanded from a bedazzled Israel and American public and an insistent Jimmy Carter. Since that time, Israel has agreed in both principle and practice to the territorial surrender mantra. Her leaders have scuttled Israel's historical, religious and strategic rights, endlessly recycling the "land for peace" nonsense. Now it is called a two state solution when, in fact, it is a three state solution: Jewish Palestine, Arab Palestine aka Jordan, and a putative Palestinian Arab terrorist state between them. And what did Israelis gain for their acquiescence in Camp David, Oslo, Wye, the removal from Gaza? Terrorism, death, destruction, escalating demands and the terrible knowledge that they must face the same enemies all over again. Emboldened by Western acquiescence, Arabs are spreading jihad and barbarity in the Middle East and Africa. But the media only announce "breaking news," which turns out to be the same old "broken news," of a new initiative which is always an old initiative... almost four decades old. Even the headlines are the same: "signs of moderation" mixed in with reports of Arab nations "exploring ways to break the impasse; stop the cycle of violence; end the occupation; form a unity government... blah, blah, blah... Most ridiculous of all, pundits, statesmen, academics, media all agree on one thing: If Israel commits suicide, Arabs will recognize Israel's right to exist. It is actually hilarious. Well, as a member of the executive committee of Americans for a Safe Israel, I declare herewith we will not recognize France's right to exist unless and until France agrees to make Provence an independent Sharia Moslem state, with Paris as its capital, in the interest of bringing stability to Europe as it faces the increasing threat of Islamic jihad. Just kidding folks... but think... Israel is as legitimate a state as India, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, and a host of other post-colonial states whose "right to exist" is never questioned. It is a democracy with advanced institutions and a staunch ally of the very nation which sought to bring democracy to Iraq...but seems determined to weaken the only real democracy in the entire Middle East. All this in the name of a failed, outmoded and dangerous policy which gets dusted off and trotted out every time an administration's other policies falter. It is astonishing that this endlessly resuscitated "plan" is not met with contemptuous belly -laughs, but no, here we go again, and again, and again. AMERICANS FOR A SAFE ISRAEL
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
SHOULD US SUPPORT ARAB DISSENTERS?; ISRAEL TO BUILD ARAB BUSINESSES; HAMAS HEAD CONFIRMS TRUCE IS PHONY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 27, 2006. |
|
ISRAELI PROPAGANDA What Israeli propaganda? Hizbullah fought its war with Israel mainly by the two chief kinds of war crimes. One is to attack civilians outright. The other is to fight from among civilians, using them as human shields. Not realizing this, most W. Europeans, whose media does not inform them of it, hate Israel. Israel does not publicize these war crimes. It carries out no public education about this, to speak of. It lets itself be thought the war criminal. The Muslims have found a decided advantage in warring criminally. The West needs to find a way to counter it. One way is to apply the remedy within international law of war. That would mean firing back at the attackers, regardless of civilian casualties. Israel did so only to a limited extent. First, Israel has a suicidal notion of human rights and ethics. Second, the world would think it is committing war crimes. Israel fears world public opinion, which in this case would become sincerely but mistakenly enraged. Thus the remedy is out of reach. It is beyond reach because Israel does not use the propaganda weapon. Part of the propaganda Israel needs to make should describe the human shields as willing participants in the war crimes. The Muslim population wholeheartedly supports this. Casualties among those civilians are not to be lamented. To lament them is to go too far for people who support genocide. (On 12/5, the NY Times described an Israeli video that shows Hizbullah using human shields, etc..) WHAT IS THE POPE UP TO? The free world needs a leader against jihad. The Pope seemed to be the bold candidate. Instead of warning of the danger, however, he has called for dialogue based on truth, logic, and discussion, and not on violence. There is no chance for his kind of rational dialogue with the hate-bearing, violence-prone, exclusivist Muslims. Islam doesn't operate that way. Doesn't the Pope know this? Perhaps he does, and is making the Muslims' lack of truthful, rational, non-violent discussion apparent, before leading a campaign against their jihad. AMERICANS DON'T GET IT Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq; the Bush Administration thinks it can sacrifice Israel to buy peace there. They don't get it. This isn't ordinary war, and Islam isn't an ordinary culture one can trade diplomatically with. This is holy war. A Muslim victory anywhere strengthens the jihad everywhere. A Muslim defeat anywhere weakens jihad everywhere. Therefore, the US needs to win in Iraq and Israel needs to win in the Territories; a victory in either place would help attain victory in the other. Syria tries to induce the US to think it may help calm Iraq, even as it panics Lebanon. Assad has taken in the State Department's present and past leaders. EGYPT & OTHER ARAB STATES' ATTITUDE TOWARDS ISRAEL Egypt is cited as exemplifying Arabs' ability to make peace with Israel. After the leading Arab state did it, why did only one other, Jordan, follow that example? The answer is that Egypt pressured them not to (IMRA, 11/4 from MK Steinitz). IRAN'S NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT: Update Iran has accelerated nuclear development, building of bunkers at those sites, and replacement of older anti-aircraft equipment with advanced Russian equipment and lots of it. The effort seems to be close to fruition. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found evidence that what Iran is working on is weapons development. It downplays the finding. The details in the news brief support this conclusion (IMRA, 12/4). A WORLD GONE MAD "The world has gone mad." Syria is engineering a takeover of Lebanon by Hizbullah. The P.A. is progressing in its buildup for an Iranian-sponsored war on Israel. What do US and British officials suggest? They suggest that the US let Iran take over Iraq, too. What does Israel do, with US encouragement? PM Olmert plans to release hundreds of terrorists for one Israeli and expel thousands of Israelis from Judea-Samaria and let Hamas take over their land. This is in addition to Olmert's decision not to counteract terrorist cease-fire violations in the form of firing rockets into Israel. He doesn't want to end the ceasefire that they are breaking and using to start a bigger war, later. Olmert seems to be doing this for the same reason Sharon did. It is to avoid being prosecuted for corruption. By embarking on appeasement, the media ignores his corruption and the prosecutors do not charge him with it. As with Sharon, they don't want to upset the ship of state that he is scuttling (IMRA, 12/5 from Caroline Glick). ANOTHER DEAL PROPOSED Environment Min. Gideon Ezra (Kadima Party) proposed exchanging prisoners for promises. The P.A. would promise to stop arms smuggling and to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. The interviewer did not ask him how wise it would be to release prisoners in return for the very promises that the P.A. has made and broken before. Min. Ezra did suggest that for enforcement, Israel could shut off the flow of water and electricity from Israel to the P.A.. The interviewer did not ask him whether Israel would do that, given that it kept the Army from carrying out full military operations, because the government was afraid of negative world public opinion (IMRA, 12/5). IMRA raises good questions. They show that officials are rationalizing or are failing to think matters through. They also show that the media is too easy on them. At least, let the Arabs destroy terrorist militias, before Israel gives them anything -- since the Arabs never have fulfilled their promises, so why should Israel go first. Another question is how many Israelis would the thousand terrorists, released for one Israeli, slay? IRAN THREATENS U.S. BACK If the US attacks Iran, Iran would sink the heavy, non-maneuverable US warships, attack US troops on their vulnerable bases in the Gulf, mount suicide attacks (didn't say where), and call for a general Iraqi uprising (IMRA, 12/5 from MEMRI). The nominated Defense Secretary said that the US would not attack Iran except as a last resort and only involving nuclear development. He does not think that Iran would start a nuclear war against Israel. On the other hand, he admits not knowing what the religion-obsessed President of Iran would do. A US attack would cause an upwelling of warfare against the US in the Mideast. Iran has not made the most trouble for us that it could. He finds credible their threat to close off the oil sea lanes (IMRA, 12/5). He may be right, but consider this. Shall we let Iran fight us successfully in one country after another, lest they fight us harder? SHOULD THE U.S. SUPPORT DISSENTERS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD? Democratic-minded reformers have brought peaceful regime change in dictatorships. Should the US help such dissidents, or would US support alienate their followers? The record indicates that legitimate dissident groups that have built themselves up welcome US moral and financial support. It is their dictatorial governments that portray their acceptance of foreign aid as unpatriotic (Michael Rubin, MEF News, 12/5). Mr. Rubin writes essays about jihad and foreign policy frequently. They usually are well thought out, factual, original, and useful. That is scholarship! I think that US support for dictatorial regimes or partisan groups backfires, but not for genuine reform. ISRAEL TO BUILD ARAB BUSINESSES The Office of the Prime Minister announced a policy of investing in the Arab business sector so that it can integrate into the national business environment and the Arabs can reach their potential in Israel (IMRA, 12/5). This is discriminatory. It treats all Arabs as needy and all Jews as not. Many Jews have difficulty in business in Israel. The government over-regulates, runs or allows monopolies, and over-taxes. Let it remove those obstacles that harm all. It is harmful to the Jews and to stability to be well-meaning towards the Arabs in Israel. The Arabs are a lawless fifth column. They are moving for community independence in Israel. They take the side of the external Muslim enemy. In various cities they attack Jews; in the forests they commit arson. Their Islamist Movement is a major organization for jihad. Anything that strengthens their hold in the country helps them to take over the country or to enable invaders to do so. Government policy should be to enforce the law and ultimately to get the Arabs to leave. ARABS TRYING TO TAKE JEWS' LAND For years, Arabs within Israel have been after a Jewish cattle rancher's land. They tore down his fences and burned his crops. The police did nothing about it. Recently, three Arabs approached him under some pretext, clubbed and shot him. He survived. Now the police are investigating. The rancher points out that local Arabs, defeated in the 1947 war, never abandoned their goal of taking over the country. Now that Israel makes concessions to its enemies in the hope of having temporary peace, the Arabs more boldly resort to violence, within Israel, itself (Arutz-7, 12/5). Israel made a big mistake in allowing a large number of the defeated Arab enemy to stay, others to come in, violate the law, and import radical imams. How ironic that while the Arabs complain that their rights are not sufficiently recognized in Israel, they don't recognize Jewish rights! That is the Muslim way. HAMAS HEAD CONFIRMS TRUCE IS PHONY Meshal said that the truce is not a step towards peace but a way of managing the war effort (ie., it lets Hamas bring in enough arms for a major war). He warned that unless there is an international plan to transfer from Israel to the P.A. all the land it acquired in 1967 and let all the refugee descendants in (to destroy the Jewish state), Hamas would launch a major war (Arutz-7, 12/5). In other words, surrender and die, or war. PM Olmert and Sec. Rice thought that the truce with Gaza should be extended to Judea-Samaria, and would lead to a peace agreement. What do they say, now? If they were honest and intelligent, they would suggest that Israel end the truce and smash Hamas, before it is able to inflict more casualties upon Israel. ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO MAKE WAR ON AMERICA? Thousands of professors "'...think the university is a political platform to teach anti-American, racist, sectarian creeds'...." "They teach that 'their country is the enemy and that terrorists are freedom fighters." (NY Sun, 12/6, p.2.) The US doesn't have a perfect record, but what those professors teach is not factual or scholarly. It is indoctrination, not academic. Does academic freedom give them a right to pervert our history? Why do universities hire these non-scholar enemies? What kind of higher education do we get for the $70 billion a year the federal government spends on it? COUNTER-TERRORISM TRAINING IN ISRAEL Magen Yehuda is a privately funded, volunteer organization that is training "first responders" and people who live along the line of likeliest terrorist attacks, in how to deal with those attacks (Arutz-7, 12/5). 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. |
|
NO PEACE WITH AMALEK
Posted by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, December 27, 2006. |
|
The Bible (Tanach) states that God battles with Amalek from generation to generation. "Because the Lord has sworn: the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17:16) Most Israelis believe that in some way they must in the end be for peace with their enemies. Nothing at least in the eyes of Israel's God is further from the truth. There have been many instances in the course of Israel's history as told in the Tanach where God's word and advice to Israel's leaders was the very opposite. I remember my son one day saying to me in refreshing honesty after another dastardly terrorist attack: 'Daddy, I don't want to live in peace with such people.' And when Shimon Peres often quipped, making the seemingly true but highly deceptive statement that "Peace one makes with one's enemies," thereby excusing all the massacres, cruelties, lynching and lying committed by those enemies he in fact made a historical blunder. Throughout history, peace has been made with conquered enemies OR with enemies who underwent a change of heart and mind, and were therefore willing to live in peace with their former foes. But none of this is true insofar as virtually all of Israel's present enemies are concerned. They have never been truly defeated and they have shown no change of heart. They are eaten up by al all-consuming hatred f the Jews. For Israel to stretch out her hands to them is not the way to go and certainly not the way to peace! Just as the Nazis were soundly defeated by the Allied forces, so Israel's enemies need to be defeated before there is even a chance of living in peace with them! And this is precisely what God repeatedly spells out in the Tanach throughout Israel's history: Do not make an alliance or a peace treaty with those who have shown again and again that they are your sworn enemies. Here are some of the words: Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully, and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10) Even contemporary history abundantly bears out the truth of this, God's wisdom. Churchill, not Chamberlain, became the instrument that secured peace for Europe through the total defeat of Nazism. For where Chamberlain's way was a treaty with Adolf Hitler that was full of holes, Churchill's was to bring a complete victory over the evil of the Nazi's philosophy. In that way the living God of Israel has shown right throughout history that He knows what is best for His people. And it is not to trust the untrustworthy, as even Joshua, -- Israel's Sharon-like commander allowed himself to be deceived into trusting the Gibeonites enough to make a peace treaty with them. God firmly upbraided him for doing so. And yet this has been Israel's modern history through the outcome of the suicidal foolishness of OSLO, when Israel's leaders made "peace" with the instigator of all terrorism, Yasser Arafat trusting him enough to give him guns and weapons to guard this lie a peace that never was his intention nor that of his Palestinians. For this treaty Arafat, together with those Israeli leaders, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in Oslo!! This, then, is the end result, as Israel has sadly and bloodily experienced in all the years that followed OSLO: death and destruction and the breaking of all promises made to Israel by Arafat and the Palestinian leadership. For peace, Mr. Peres, is not made with sworn enemies but with conquered enemies as we in Europe experienced after, not before, the Nazis were defeated! May peace then come to Israel these days, not in man's way, but in God's way as expressed in the ancient but still true and appropriate words of the Psalmist: A Song. A Psalm of Asaph. Do not keep silent, O God! Do not hold Your peace, and do not be still, O God! For behold, Your enemies make a tumult; and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, "Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more." For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You: The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moab and the Hagrites; Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assyria also has joined with them; they have helped the children of Lot. Selah For, as Isaiah already prophesied, there comes a day when for the sake of His people and because of "the controversy of Zion," God will inflict His judgment on all these enemies. And when He does then, as so often in the past as even in Europe that will bring the hoped for peace, at last! 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 |
|
THE IMAM SCAM AND THE DEMOCRATS' HOUSE OF GAMES
Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Marc Sheppard and it appeared January 03,
2007 in the American Thinker
|
|
Remember when fear of flying was a normal, human response to an inner doubt that a 3 quarter million pound hunk of metal had any business being 30,000 feet in the air? Of course, that was before 19 men - all Mideast Muslims - ended their miserable lives on September 11, 2001 and took nearly 3,000 innocent victims along for the ride. Since that dreadful day, it's doubtful that even the most ardently PC liberal has boarded any airplane without carefully evaluating all fellow passengers - and not to evade inebriated conventioneers. It is that same indelible angst of their brothers' making which a group of Muslims exploited last month to perpetrate a hideous apparent hoax. And the soon-to-be empowered Democrats and their gullible accomplices in the media proved the perfect patsies for this odious plan to make the skies ever more dangerous for Americans. In a swindle blending the shakedown tactics of Jesse Jackson with the outright fabrications of Al Sharpton, the flying imams helped provide Democrats the perfect cover to breathe life into a deservedly dying bill -- The End Racial Profiling Act. Passage of this absurd waste of paper would all but assure terrorists unfettered access to our greatest of vulnerabilities - particularly airlines. Step 1 -- The Plan Our story begins in Minneapolis on November 18th, where approximately 150 imams attended the annual conference of the North American Imams Federation. The stated theme was "Towards Improving Imams Professionalism and Community Outreach." But their immediate and visible effect was an event that would dupe their enemies into enacting law which would be tantamount to suicide. It's clear that modern Jihadists have learned to utilize liberal intolerance to inflict collateral damage and civilian casualties when waging public opinion wars abroad. But here at home, they know the secret lies in exploiting liberal intolerance of, well -- intolerance. With just that in mind, this pack of terror-sympathizers hatched the perfect plot to outrage their weak-kneed allies on the left into a quite predictable course of action. These architects of fear included such stand-up "American" Muslims as: * Siraj Wahhaj - an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 plot to blow up several New York Landmarks and a "character witness" for Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. The "Blind Sheikh," now reportedly on his death bed, is serving a life sentence in the U.S. Medical Center for Prisons in Springfield, Mo. He was the "spiritual leader" of the terror cell that carried out the first World Trade Center bombing and was planning to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. Of definite note was the presence of guest speaker Rep. Keith (Hakim Mohammed) Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress. The Minnesota Democratic freshman and unrepentant radical Muslim - he has announced he will be sworn in next month with his hand on the Koran - is, not surprisingly, a strong backer of the ERPA. Rounding out the conspirators were the Shills -- including CAIR and innumerable other Islamic activists and web-sites, which were strategically placed to play their parts in fueling the impending arsonists' media fire. Bunko Team ready -- Let the games begin. Step 2 - The Setup On November 20th, Shahin led 5 fellow Imams to the U.S Airways gates at Minneapolis-St Paul International airport purportedly to catch a flight to Phoenix. Once there, they quickly set the stage for their flim-flam. In the words of Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport, the six assembled in the gate area prior to boarding and "were praying loudly and spouting some kind of anti-US rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq and Saddam Hussein." Witnesses reported that they shouted "Allah" loudly and repeatedly. Imagine the anxiety this disturbance caused ticket-holders who were all too aware of the historic last words shouted by lunatic suicide bombers - including the 9/11 murderers. Upon boarding the plane, the imams each sat in separate sections. But according to passengers and flight attendants, they then moved without crew permission from their assigned seats to 2 in the front row of first-class, 2 in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle, and 2 in the very rear of the cabin. Those paying attention reportedly recognized this as the identical seating pattern used by the 9/11 hijackers. Commenting on this dispersion model, a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous told reporters, "That would alarm me. They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." Frankly, it's difficult to imagine any reasonable person not being alarmed by this now-familiar stratagem. Sure, liberals would have us treat Muslims behaving strangely on airplanes the same as we'd treat similarly misbehaving frat boys returning from spring-break. It's the very fact that such lunacy goes against every human survival instinct that moves them to legislate us into their quixotic and suicidal world. Now, there appears to be some controversy as to whether 3 or all 6 had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. Also in dispute is whether 1 or none had been legitimately bumped to first class, where 2 of them eventually sat. No matter -- once the flight was delayed due to their outrageous behavior they moved about the cabin and conspicuously spoke Arabic in a deliberate effort to further heighten passenger terror. They also requested seat-belt extensions from the flight attendants, though neither necessary for nor actually used by any of them. Instead, they were placed on the floor for all to see, brandished as potential weapons or restraints. As expected, at least one horrified passenger opted to obey the now familiar airport sign demanding "If you see something, say something!" Surely, everyone on flight 300 had seen more than enough. Once notified, the pilot calmly asked the six to disembark for further screening. They refused. Again, likely according to plan, police were called onto the plane and the men were forcibly removed, taken into custody and quickly released when no weapons or bombs were found by the FBI. Setup complete -- the pigeons were cooped. Step 3 - The Sting Within hours, Muslim-rights groups, readily available, launched complaints of "religious harassment" which were quickly and obediently gobbled up by eager media. The complicit MSM predictably carried out their their duties by depicting the 6 as innocent imams returning home from an Islamic conference in Minneapolis, who were persecuted for praying prior to flying. Yeah, and Hyman Roth was just a retired investor on a pension returning to the U.S. Nonetheless, cries of "Islamophobia" were stridently shouted from the rooftops and the outrage immediately morphed into a plethora of proposed remedies. CAIR quickly issued a statement demanding Congressional hearings to investigate this and other incidents of "flying while Muslim." And, according to Investor's Business Daily, just 2 days after the mock-hijacking, incoming Judiciary Chairman Conyers (D-MI), whose district includes one of the largest Islamic populations in the country, [had] already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections. This was an addendum to an already security-weakening bill Conyers had promised his Muslim constituency he'd see passed. What's more, taking political correctness to the verge of mental illness -- Pelosi (D-CA) and Ellison publicly called for criminalizing the act of profiling. The potentially compromised Speaker had already promised Muslims in 2004 to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible, adding that, "Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal" Exactly one week after what looks a lot like a mock-hijacking, and in an effort to heighten visibility and thus liberal outrage, an "interfaith pray-in" was staged at the U.S Airways ticket counter in Reagan Washington National Airport. The event gave ringleader Shahin another opportunity to proclaim his version of the incident. Claiming it to have been the "worst moment of [his] life," he again flatly denied that any of the imams had done anything suspicious. Shahin then called upon Muslims to boycott the airline, which might have an ironic impact - knowing that Muslims are avoiding U.S Airways has caused many to believe it to be the safest method of air travel. The next day, Mahdi Bray, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, attempted to seal the terror-abetting deal when he told IslamOnline.net that, ".. we are desirous of large financial compensation for the imams, civil and federal sanctions for their conduct, and new broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling"Such legislation is exactly what Pelosi, Conyers, et. al. had in mind - for starters anyway. Step 4 - The Expected Payoff: The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 S. 2138 provides federal funding defaults and potential civil penalties for any agencies which, when challenged, cannot prove that they did not racially profile anyone they questioned, detained, searched, or seized contraband from. It broadly defines the offense as (emphasis mine): relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure.... It further requires that law enforcement agencies keep records as to the race, ethnicity, national origin and religion of all stops and searches. This data will be analyzed regularly by designees of the DOJ to determine if that agency is engaging in profiling. These inane determinations will be made based upon percentages of encounters compared to percentages of the population. Such folly would keep our courts busy entertaining frivolous lawsuits driven by cherry-picked data and our law enforcement agencies more concerned with sticking to quota than solving and preventing crimes. Daniel Horan of the LAPD, who spent 6 years at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues agrees: "A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety." Moreover, such a law would ultimately provide exclusionary cause for captured terrorists, as well as yet another "blame the victim" modus for ACLU-molded lawyers to confuse low IQ juries. Coincidently, in a July article exploring the same inherent flaws in the gathering of racial information at traffic-stops for analysis by Suffolk County, NY cops, I sarcastically concluded: What next - a similar program at airports to affirm that Muslims, who comprise nearly 100% of the terrorist population, are not searched in numbers greater than the percentage they represent of the flying population? Has this country gone completely mad? Last month's election results may both create the hypothetical and answer the rhetorical questions in that paragraph. Of course, even should the idiocy and mind-blowing danger of this legislation somehow manage to escape both Houses, it's unlikely that the president's veto pen would remain MIA. Surely Pelosi, Conyers, and even Ellison know this - they're likely laying the groundwork for what they predict as a post 2008 power Troika. And that's exactly why this bill, which has been terminally ill for over 4 years, must be killed once and for all, along with those it would ultimately help to destroy us,. Furthermore, if Conyers wants special consideration for Muslims, he should have it. Specifically -- legislation must be considered which would make the actions perpetrated by these Imams at least comparable to crying "fire" in a crowded theater or otherwise inciting a riot. The Next Speaker of the House of Games Finally, nothing which took place on that airplane even remotely qualifies as religious or racial profiling. What was "profiled" -- to use the ridiculously misleading term du jour -- was intentionally suspicious behavior. Indeed, if 6 men walked into a bank wearing ski-masks, an alert teller would not wait to see their weapons before tripping the silent alarm: They were, after all, behaving in a manner highly consistent with that of armed robbers. Now that Islamic males of Mideastern extraction have defined manners equally consistent with murderous plane-hijackers, behaving as such should and must be met with similarly appropriate defensive maneuvers. Whether the eager-to-oblige co-sponsors of the original act, Rep. Conyers and Speaker-to-be Pelosi were merely "marks" or something more is still open to conjecture. Then again, which would be worse - control of the House by those who would conspire with our enemies or those who would be so easily duped by them? That's some choice. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
PALESTINE, THE POLITICS OF CONCESSIONS AND INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS
Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, December 27, 2006. |
|
If the current state of violence between the Palestinian groups is any indication of breakdown, then perfect lawlessness could be said to reign in the P.A. territories. The Hamas, the Fatah and other groups competing for control over resources and ideology (of hatred)seem to have lost all sense of direction or purpose. Ever since the inception of Palestinian autonomy mooted by the Oslo Accords of 1994, the territories administered by the PA have been subject to mis-government,corruption, extortion and kidnappings. Arafat, the god-father of Intifada,was said to have embezzled millions. Sometime back a research scholar trying to dig up relevant information of the scam was severely roughed up by Fatah men. This being the current state of affairs, it's little wonder that there is very little to do on the part of the PA bigwigs except keeping up the tempo of hatred of Israel among the disenchanted unemployed young Arabs. So whenever, protests against malpractices seem to be in the offing, the attention is diverted to Israel. The result is that the frustrations among the youth are carefully needled to encourage suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism. The situation bears a stark similarity to the Kashmir problem, where Pakistan plays on religious and ethnic sentiments to foment terrorism against India. Unemployment among the youth in Pakistan is utilised by the military rulers and clerics,in ways similar to Palestinian radicals, to foster the culture of jihad. Just as Afghanistan under the Pak-sponsored Taliban became the training ground for countless jihadis, so the PA territories are being subverted with the willing collaboration of its rulers to launch terrorist attacks on Israel. The International community has so far being one-sided,using the UN for Israel baiting while turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism. Even the US is believed to have suspended crucial arms shipments to Israel sorely needed during the Lebanon war. Thus indirectly, it gives concessions to its new found allies in the Middle East, who are making the most out of the war on terror, but keeping up the heat on Israel to give more and more concessions. A consensus is thus being cooked up in which the complicity of major powers and international bodies cannot be overlooked. Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in |
|
"PROVISIONAL PALESTINIAN STATE" HUH!
Posted by Dr. Jerome S. Kaufman, December 26, 2006. |
|
Evidently the newspaper, the Forward, is cooperating with the American State Department and the recently demolished Bush Administration in sending up a trial balloon article written by Nathan Guttman in the December 22, 2006 paper. The article presents the possible formation of a "Provisional Palestinian State!" In utter disbelief, I read in the article that such an idea has been "kicked around" by the American State Department for several weeks. But, why should I be surprised? Has not the American State Department opposed the creation of a Jewish State, attempted to weaken its influence and power, hindered its development and obstructed its ability to defend itself since its rebirth in 1948? Was this trial balloon not just an extension of the immediately discredited Baker Iraq Study Group? Is this not just another shot by the Let's Get Rid of Israel Study Group? Israel, the United States and the immediate world have been unhappy with the outcome of the January 2006 Palestinian election. The relatively moderate, and let us use that phrase advisedly, Fatah party, was virtually destroyed by the Palestinian electorate in their January 2006 election. The results - Fatah is now in a death struggle with Hamas for survival or more accurately, is now in its death throes. The newly anointed political party, (aka terrorist organization), Hamas badly defeated Fatah in an open and ostensibly legitimate election. The vote gave Hamas 74 seats in the Palestinian parliament while the 40-year-old Fatah party with Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" Holocaust denier and long-time Yasir Arafat second in command, received only 45 seats. Hamas did allow Abbas to remain as President despite the election but only because they had not a clue as to how to run a government themselves - not that Abbas does either. Palestinian governance under Arafat, Abbas and the like has always consisted of simply extorting money out of an insane Israel and a naïve frightened West. These Palestinian "leaders" then give all the Fatah Arafat/Abbas henchman a made-up job and a "salary" of graft to temporarily buy their loyalty - at least until the next paycheck. Those further up the hierarchy of graft also receive government contracts for public works programs that have been designated as such by the donors to benefit the general population. Of course, these funds never see the light of day - more often ending up in personal Swiss Bank accounts. Now that the graft money from Israel and the West has stopped, the phony jobs have disappeared and the whole system has deservedly collapsed. But, instead of allowing events to take their natural course and allowing the Palestinian electorate and the warring factions to make their own decision and thus allow the true colors of the conflict to present themselves, the misguided State Department, the Bush Administration and the frightened, dutiful Israelis are again getting in the way. And, as usual, they are backing the wrong horse. Abbas and Fatah were the ones resoundingly defeated in the last election and bearing gargantuan interference from the US, will be defeated even worse this next time. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration is trying to get $100 million dollars released by the Congress to aid Abbas while the destructively inept and totally unprincipled Ehud Olmert is about to do the same thing - coercing the Knesset to release another 100 million in PA tax collected dollars to shore up the rejected Abbas. Again the United States and Israel are interfering with the Palestinian electorate because they cannot handle the truth. The Palestinians hate our guts and are delighted to elect Hamas, a party dedicated to destroying the little Satan Israel first and then doing the very same to the Great Satan, us, as soon as Allah presents that glorious day. As far as Israel is concerned, the trial balloon quotes an unidentified "diplomatic official" (how convenient a news source!) who rejects Israeli leaders' demand that the PA renounce terror and dismantle their terror infrastructure before any peace overtures are considered. How unreasonable and inconsiderate! The official says these demands are no longer relevant since it is clear that there is no Palestinian leader who can deliver on the issue of fighting terror! And that is the reason the Israelis should go along with a "Provisional Palestinian State." Could you vomit? Then, the final indecent, preposterous proposal for Israeli acquiescence: Another un-identified "diplomatic source" in the Forward article said "last week that the most significant advantage the plan has is that it would allow President GW Bush to achieve his goal of a two-state solution within a reasonable time frame." So, Israel is to lie down and die to improve upon GW's historical legacy ala the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak suicidal plan or allow GW to join the completely overrated achievements of the pathetic anti-Semite, Jimmy Carter at Camp David. Hopefully, the Israelis will quickly find a Prime Minister - certainly not Ehud Olmert - that will have the brains and courage needed by both Israel and the United States to tell the originators of this latest "plan" exactly where to put it. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
WHY BUSH FAILED AND HOW HE CAN YET BECOME GREAT
Posted by Harry W. Weber, December 26, 2006. |
|
Recently the Iraq Study Group, that august collection of Democratic and Republican politicos brought together to find a graceful U.S. exit out of the Iraqi quagmire, came up with its recommendations. At first glance, and even before getting into its detailed recommendations, it seems highly suspect that any political problem, whose recommended solution requires no less than 79 steps, has any chance of being solved via those steps. For no political problem is that murky, that fuzzy and that dependent on so many lateral and/or sequential steps. So what went wrong with Bush's Iraq war initiative, and more generally with his entire foreign policy -- post 9/11/2001? Firstly, the President must be given full credit for the proper diagnosis of the "disease". The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center was the post-World War II version of the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. It revealed to all that the West has been attacked by a new and heretofore misunderstood enemy -- Islamic jihad, or holy war -- bent on no less than the military and economic defeat of Western civilization. The signs that radical Islamic terrorists were out to disrupt and de-stabilize the West were already out there earlier -- witness the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam in 1998, and the attack on the S.S. Cole in 2000. Actually, the first clue to the existence of Islamic terrorist cells in the U.S. should have been detected after the 1990 murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane. But ironically, the man most closely associated with the platform for expelling Moslems out of Israel because they threaten its existence, was murdered by them in the U.S., and even in his death was unable to wake up the U.S., or anyone else for that matter, to take the global Islamic terror threat seriously. After belatedly identifying the threat, President Bush looked for Islamic terrorist targets to attack in order to prevent future 9/11s on American and European soil. The primary hiding place of Al-Queda -- Afghanistan -- was the natural first target, and correctly so. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda and Bin-Laden had local support in Pakistan, and there was scarce cooperation from the Pakistani government in hunting down Al Qaeda on its side of the border. This lack of cooperation prevented the U.S. and its allies from hermetically sealing off Al Qaeda from all directions and slowly moving in for the final kill. The war there goes on and on, because the U.S. and its allies refuse to cross into Pakistan in pursuit of Al-Qaeda. Bush's next step in the war against Islamic terrorists, was, in hindsight, very flawed. He confused the secular dictator in Iraq, who for all his blustering, was no Islamic ideologue ready to march on the West, with his neighbors next door. They, the Iranians, are radical Shiites who fervently believe in the coming of their "Messiah" -- the twelfth Imam -- after they begin the global war to subdue all infidels under Islam. The Iranians are the terrorists Bush should have taken on next -- not Saddam Hussein. Had President Bush allowed the U.S. commanders in Iraq to pursue the terrorists entering Iraq from Iran to their bases in Iranian territory, he would have corrected his initial strategic error of failing to identify Iran as the logical next terror target, by means of a simple tactical decision that should have been inevitable. This was Bush's big blunder -- and that is clearer today than ever before. Today Iran is on track to manufacture nuclear weapons within six months. Iran's number one foreign policy objective is to become firstly a regional, and then a global military force that will lead the war on the "satanic" West. Iran's immediate plan is to eliminate Israel, the West's proxy in the Mideast. That is why Iran supported Hizbollah, Lebanon's Shiite terrorist party, with billions of dollars in arms since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. And that is why it is collaborating with Syria in its joint efforts of sending terrorists into Iraq. Iran's plan is to cause maximum sectarian bloodshed in Iraq, thereby forcing the U.S. to withdraw. So far the plan is working very well, witness James Baker's recommendation that the U.S. engage diplomatically with Iran and Syria -- the two greatest exporters and supporters of Islamic terrorism. The inevitable conclusion so far is that Mr. Bush had the proper diagnosis of the problem and the proper goals to deal with it, but botched up the execution of the strategy to solve the problem. In contrast, the Iraq Study Group is focused solely on the tactical issue of a graceful exit from Iraq, and completely ignores the huge strategic problem facing the West -- the World War declared on it by radical Islam. The Iraq Study Group does not see the wave of radicalization that is sweeping the entire Moslem World. Sunni and Shiite Moslems in Africa, Asia and Western Europe are united in their antipathy of all that is Christian and Jewish. They are prepared to kill and be killed, to murder and commit suicide for their "lofty" goal of Islamic global domination. Mr. Baker didn't understand or simply ignored that reality, thereby earning his Study Group an F. Had his group read the Koran, had it interviewed Western experts on Islam -- not Islamic apologists or Islamic clergymen -- it would have learned the truth about the political goals of Islam, that peace is not a value in Islam, nor is democracy, and that all peace treaties with "infidels" are meant to be broken as soon as pragmatically feasible. So the question still remains: where did President Bush go wrong? The answer is ironic, for the President is a born-again Christian, and as such a person who should be familiar with the Bible, for whom the Bible is not just a history book, but the book of life -- a book relevant at all times in all places. The Book, in Genesis 16:12, says of Ishmael, the ancestor of all Arabs: "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." Maimonides and other sages interpret that to mean that he will prey on others and others will prey on him, and that his descendants will grow and will be at war with all the nations. That is Ishmael and this is the eternal character of the Arab-Moslem world, forever. Such a nation has no need for democracy, has no interest in peace, for it is at war with everyone, forever. Mr. "F--- the Jews" Baker may be forgiven for not knowing or wanting to acknowledge that, but Mr. Bush should have read the Bible with more present day insight, and should have understood the Moslem world as described eternally in God's book. With that understanding it is now clear that the plan to bring democracy to Iraq in particular, and to the Arab world in general, was doomed from the start. Democracy is not for everyone, and certainly not for the Arabs. The proof: there is not one Arab state in the entire world that is democratic. However, Bush's biggest mistake occurred when he invented his "roadmap" for peace between Israel and a future "Palestinian democratic state". A more ridiculous oxymoron cannot be imagined. Firstly, there are no "Palestinian" people. The Moslems living today in Judea and Sammaria are simply descendants of Arabs who came to populate the area, looking for work among the Jews, after the latter began their historic return to their ancestral homeland about one hundred and twenty years ago. Secondly, even if there is a "Palestine", Jordan was established as the Arab successor to it on 76% of historic "Palestine". So there is a Palestinian state already, today -- Jordan! Thus Bush's "roadmap" is really a plan for three states for two peoples. It's high time the President realized that Israel, sitting on land that Moslems once controlled, was the first target of radical Islam. Israel is simply the forerunner victim of Islamic terror, preceding the U.S. and Europe by some fifty years. And just as all Moslems are religiously precluded from making permanent peace with Israel (they are forbidden by Islamic law from accepting a treaty or ceasefire with infidels for a period of more than ten years), so are they incapable of making peace with the West. It is interesting to note that the war in Iraq was started on March 20, 2003. The President declared his "roadmap" for Israel and the "Palestinians" on April 30, 2003. The idea then was to bring forth Arab support for the Iraqi invasion by forcing Israel to make life-threatening concessions to an implacable enemy -- and call it peace. The moral and geopolitical disconnect the President committed between America's war on terror and Israel's war on terror was untenable -- and unbearable. For whom? For Him - for God Almighty! Even putting aside the Bible and the Koran as keys to understanding human history, what about learning from recent history itself? What about World War II? Then Britain tried to placate Hitler by offering up Czechoslovakia. Bush, in his "roadmap", and Baker in his Iraq Study Group recommendations, are repeating the same colossal mistake -- this time offering up Israel. Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton propose no less than the immediate destruction of Israel -- geographically by carving it up, demographically by allowing the Arabs to overrun it via the right of return, and completely, by allowing Iran to build the bomb on the excuse that it is needed for its defense against Israel's bomb. Hitler was unappeasable and so is Ahmadinejad! And not just Ahmadinejad, all Arabs! God will not forgive Mr. Bush or America if they ever accept the Baker Holocaust plan. I stated in March 2003, with the publication of President Bush's "roadmap", that there is a geopolitical rule in effect since 1948 -- the Israel Principle. The principle states that any U.S. president who takes actions that intend to violate the territorial integrity of land held by an Israeli government as part of its divinely ordained boundaries, or acts to threaten its security, will be ranked as a bad U.S. President by the American people -- the more anti-Israel, the lower his ranking, the more pro-Israel, the higher his ranking. The principle has been proven statistically valid for all elected U.S. presidents since World War II. On that basis, I alone predicted, in March 2003, when the President's approval was nearly ninety percent, that the "roadmap" will be his undoing, and that he will be ranked extremely low among post-World War II presidents. Unfortunately, I was right -- and I take no pleasure in it. What can President Bush do in the last two years of his presidency to reverse course and save the West, save Israel and save his legacy? In a nutshell, he should reject the Iraq Study Group proposals outright; he should attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and then, and only then, get out of Iraq. America's current job is to make the world safe from Islamic Jihad, not bring democracy to Arabs who inherently reject it on religious and national character grounds. He should abandon the "roadmap", call Jordan "Palestine", help Israel break up the Palestinian Authority, and help financially in the resettlement in Jordan of all Arabs living in Israel and Judea and Sammaria. The president has two years to implement this plan. It is the only plan worthy of a great president, a Churchillian president, a president who knows the truth, wants true peace, and is prepared to bring it forth --- for now and for generations in the future. Harry W. Weber is a C.P.A. (U.S., Israel) and a political commentator whose articles have appeared on many websites. Contact him at @sandyirv@netvision.net.il |
|
MY 10-STEP PROGRAM FOR FORSTALLING DEFEAT IN WORLD WAR 4
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 26, 2006. |
|
Daniel Pipes has resurrected a theme that the Wall Street Journal (and I) dealt with last year: what happens if we lose this war? Pipes quite accurately puts his finger on three characteristics of social malaise and over-confidence that could render us prey to the depredations of the Jihadist Islamofascist imperialist supremacist triumphalist tyrannical totalitarian terrorist Muslims who are currently waging war against us. The articles below his, dating back to March of this year and December of last, all explore different aspects of this war, what defeat will look like, and why we may be defeated if we do not, as a nation, take more seriously the need for our own defense. My 10-step program is detailed in the last article of the group. It is important to keep in mind that no nation in the entire world, across all 1,374 years of Muslim history, has ever successfully withstood the two-pronged assault of Islamofascist Jihad described by Pipes and myself. If we want to be the first, we need to get our act together, pull together, work together to support our government, and address the three pitfalls that Pipes describes. If we do not do that soon, we may live to see our grand-daughters in full-body burqas. |
|
"How the West Could Lose"
After defeating the fascists and the communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists? On the face of it, the West's military predominance makes victory seem inevitable. Even if Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the gulag? Yet more than a few analysts, including myself, worry that it's not so simple. Islamists (defined as those who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam) might do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them -- pacifism, self-hatred, complacency -- deserve attention. Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has taken hold that "there is no military solution" to current problems, a mantra applied to Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions. What were the defeats of the Axis, America in Vietnam, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan if not military solutions? Islamists deploy formidable capabilities, however, that go far beyond smallscale terrorism:
Pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses can left-leaning Westerners overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been. Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, sticking instead to the lawful, political, nonviolent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will stop them. Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Miniatures" (Transaction Publishers).This column will be on hiatus until mid-April while Mr. Pipes teaches at Pepperdine University. This very astute Wall Street Journal editorial (below) prompted
me to add to it the letter from the Air Force officer below, and my
own essay written last year.....all relating to the consequences of
not taking this war seriously enough.....and not doing what it takes
to win this war.
A few nations have been victorious in traditional High Intensity wars against Islam (France 736, Tri-country alliance in Austria led by Jon Sobieski of Poland 1682).
Most nations coming in to Islam's high intensity warfare cross-hairs have fallen (all the Arabian peninsula nations, north african nations, spain, Israel, syria, mesopotamia/iraq, turkey, iran/persia, most of the Hindu-Kush sub-continent and Pakistan, gujarat, and Kashmir).
No nation has ever been victorious over the Islamic PR/infiltration/low-level terrorism- take-over war. that's why Indonesia, Malaysia the various 'stans' of what was once Soviet Central Asia and central Asian countries further south and east....are all Moslem today.
Western civilization is currently engaged in a multi-tiered war with Terrorist Islam.
PR, political maneuvers, Academia, media outlets, high schools, all are now subject to growing Islamic pressure to present Terrorist Islam in a positive light.
Demographic expansion most visible in Europe, but happening in the USA too, subject the host populations to pressures to accept a Moslem independent entity as Shari'a-ruled enclaves in an otherwise democratic western country ..
and the more high-profile terror war that began in November of 1979, reached its apogee on 9/11/2001, and continues to this day.............
.......all add up to the unpleasant reality that we in the West (Christians and Jews and Hindus and aetheists..etc) are at war with Terrorist islam, just as were spain and Persia and India. they and many others lost that war.
So we need to take the possibility of our defeat in this war very seriously.
"What if We Lose? The consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq."
The third anniversary of U.S. military action to liberate Iraq has brought with it a relentless stream of media and political pessimism that is unwarranted by the facts and threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it goes unchallenged. Yes, sectarian tensions are running high and the politicians of Iraq's newly elected parliament are taking a long time forming a government. But the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra several weeks back has not provoked the spiral into "civil war" that so many keep predicting. U.S. casualties are down over the past month, in part because Iraqi security forces are performing better all the time. More fundamentally, the coalition remains solidly allied with the majority of Iraqis who want neither Saddam's Hussein's return nor the country's descent into a Taliban-like hellhole. There is no widespread agitation for U.S. troops to depart, and if anything the Iraqi fear is that we'll leave too soon. Yet there's no denying the polls showing that most Americans are increasingly weary of the daily news of car bombs and Iraqi squabbling and are wishing it would all just go away. Their pessimism is fed by elites who should know better but can't restrain their domestic political calculations long enough to consider the damage that would accompany U.S. failure. A conventional military defeat is inconceivable in Iraq, but a premature U.S. withdrawal is becoming all too possible. With that in mind, it's worth thinking through what would happen if the U.S. does fail in Iraq. By fail, we mean cut and run before giving Iraqis the time and support to establish a stable, democratic government that can stand on its own. Beyond almost certain chaos in Iraq, here are some other likely consequences: -- The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn't have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD. Watching the Saddam example, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi decided he didn't want to be next. Gadhafi's "voluntary" disarmament in turn helped uncover the nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran's two decades of deception. Now Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that might yet be headed off by the use or threat of force. But if the U.S. retreats from Iraq, Iran's mullahs will know that we have no stomach to confront them and coercive diplomacy will have no credibility. An Iranian bomb, in turn, would inspire nuclear efforts in other Mideast countries and around the world. -- Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America's deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Syria would feel free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists. -- We would lose all credibility with Muslim reformers. The Mideast is now undergoing a political evolution in which the clear majority, even if skeptical of U.S. motives, agrees with the goal of more democracy and accountable government. They have watched as millions of Iraqis have literally risked their lives to vote and otherwise support the project. Having seen those Iraqis later betrayed, other would-be reformers would not gamble their futures on American support. Nothing could be worse in the battle for Muslim "hearts and minds" than to betray our most natural allies. -- We would invite more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden said many times that he saw the weak U.S. response to Somalia and the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings as evidence that we lacked the will for a long fight. The forceful response after 9/11 taught al Qaeda otherwise, but a retreat in Iraq would revive that reputation for American weakness. While Western liberals may deny any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, bin Laden and the rest of the Arab world see it clearly and would advertise a U.S. withdrawal as his victory. Far from leaving us alone, bin Laden would be more emboldened to strike the U.S. homeland with a goal of driving the U.S. entirely out of the Mideast. We could go on, but our point is that far more is at stake in Iraq than President Bush's approval rating or the influence of this or that foreign-policy faction. U.S. credibility and safety are at risk in the most direct way imaginable, far more than they were in Vietnam. In that fight, we could establish a new anti-Communist perimeter elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The poison of radical Islam will spread far and wide across borders if it can make even a plausible claim to being on the ascendancy, and nothing would show that more than the retreat of America from Iraq. We still believe victory in Iraq is possible, indeed likely, notwithstanding its costs and difficulties. But the desire among so many of our political elites to repudiate Mr. Bush and his foreign policy is creating a dangerous public pessimism that could yet lead to defeat--a defeat whose price would be paid by all Americans, and for years to come. "This WAR is for REAL!" MG Vernon Chong, USAFR March 22, 2006 Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start?
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorists attacks worldwide). 2. Why were we attacked?
3. Who were the attackers?
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
The same, exactly, with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? 6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate whom you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations; for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished; too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but through out the world. We are the last bastions of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect; we are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. "What does victory look like? More important that we recognize the
price of defeat and make surewe win."
Concern about Bush's wire tap and other possibly illegal actions is well meaning and well founded. We do not want to see our liberties eroded. And one of the very good questions that comes up when one argues (as I have) that we can put these liberties back into place after the war is.......how will we know when we have won? How do we know what victory looks like in a strange new war such as this? Here's my answer: Since this is a new kind of war for us in the West, one that western nations have never experienced, it is difficult to describe exactly what victory at the end of this war will look like. But.. a.) this is not a new kind of war for many countries that faced Islamofascist aggression in the East. Most of what we once called Soviet Central Asia is Moslem today because they faced this kind of war centuries ago....and we'll never know what victory would have looked like, because they lost. So what will it look like here? I'm not sure. there has never been a victory against this type of amorphous terrorist guerrilla Moslem imperialist supremacist triumphalist Islamofascist Jihad. Never...So right now no one knows what such a victory would look like. But describing the victory is an issue that we have plenty of time to resolve. And its resolution may change with the nature of the conflict. A victory over a massive Jihad army, with innumerable enemy casualties and the leaders dead or in jail and the survivors prisoner or disarmed and scattered ... may look very different from a victory over an amorphous terror guerrilla warrior gang that is driven by considerations of religious extremism and sincere belief in an afterlife where Jihadi are rewarded with virgins. But...bottom line....the question of victory's demeanor is not the question that we should be worrying about now. Now we are faced with a much more sobering and dangerous problem..... we may indeed lose this war. So I suggest that we turn our attention not to what victory may look like in the future, but to what are the consequences of our defeat now. go back to my 'a' through 'e' above. Look carefully at what life is like for Jews, for women, for Christians, for any non-Moslems, and even for Moslems, in most of the Arab world today. Look at the impact of Moslem imperialist triumphalist supremacist aggression on the Byzantine Empire, the civilizations of north Africa (Coptic, Berber) and Spain, the eastern civilizations of the Mesopotamian area, the Sassanians (ancient Persia), and India. None of those thought that they would fall to the brutal barbaric and culturally retrograde Moslem invaders.....but they all did. And a great darkness descended upon them....their cultures lapsed into a dark age for hundreds of years following their defeat. So, I'm much more concerned that our defeat will look a lot like theirs....and I suggest therefore that we concentrate on not being defeated. That is far more important as our immediate concern now than is what our victory may look like later. so...to increase the likelihood of our victory, and reduce the likelihood of our defeat, our military and law enforcement groups must indeed do wire taps, surveillance in mosques, infiltration of groups that are openly supportive of Jihad and Arab terrorism, strict border controls to catch the terrorists entering our country from Mexico.....because if we do not do these things, we increase the chances of their winning. And if they win, then all the liberties that one may be fearful of loosing now, and much much more, will be lost....unless you are male and Moslem. So I suggest that: 1.) as soon as Osama and zawahiri and qaradawi and mash'al and masawi and nusralla are all either dead or in jail, ......then, we can engage in a fruitful argument about whether or not we stand at the threshold of victory (and can thus pull the plug on the wire taps et al), or whether or not we need to continue the pursuit of those Jihadi who want us either dead or Moslem. That is a good topic for discussion then. But for now, let's concentrate on winning. 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 |
|
FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF JEWS (BY JEWS)
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, December 26, 2006. |
|
Perhaps the idea of forcing Jews from their Land, first implemented by Arik Sharon with Ehud Olmert and Dan Halutz is a method worth considering with modifications as follows: Having set the precedent of forcibly removing Jews from their homes, presumably, Olmert would find it acceptable to use this example to forcibly remove himself, Amir Peretz, Halutz and all others who wish to de-Judaize the Jewish State of Israel and turn the Land that G-d gave to the Jews over to the Muslim Arabs. These should be emergency measures put before the Knesset, given that IDF Intelligence forecasts a two-front war against Israel as early as this coming spring. After all, Olmert, Peretz and Halutz anointed themselves as role models for what Jews should do to each other. I recall that "The Olmert Plan of Disengagement" was foisted upon Ariel Sharon (when he was probably ill already) to keep his seat as Prime Minister instead of being indicted for the criminal use of his official powers to cut illegal deals as he was charged and his subsequent removal from power. I recall Chief of Staff Dan Halutz posing arrogantly during a TV interview. While leaning on a Jeep, he told all that driving out the Jews of Gush Katif from Gaza would be "no problem". A nation and her people have first rights of survival when their leaders repeatedly prove that their incompetence is killing the people whom they were voted into power to protect. Instead, Olmert, Peretz and Halutz are putting all of Israel at risk. All the time Dan Halutz should have been training the IDF (Israel Defense Force) soldiers to defend the country from the surrounding hostile Muslim Arab countries, including even Iran who may to soon have nuclear weapons. Halutz was misusing 55,000 soldiers by training them to forcibly drive 10,000 Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria. This planning was initiated by Sharon and Olmert, plotting together with Halutz. Then there was his plan, with the help of Olmert, to viciously attack the Jews of Amona, trampling them huge imported German horses ridden by Russian Cossack Jews, swinging long clubs and breaking the heads of unarmed boys and girls, men and women defending the homes they built. They even trampled members of Knesset, thereby establishing force as their chosen method of how government affairs were to follow the methods of fascists and dictatorships. Here again, Olmert and Halutz were role models in teaching the Israeli public to hate the government as they behaved like latter-day Nazis - making force the rule of Law. Now Defense Minister Amir Peretz is pushing to drive the Jews from Migron (near Beth El) by attacking these Jews and forcibly driving them from their Land. Keep in mind that wherever Jews were forcibly removed, that vacuum was quickly filled by incoming Terrorists and increased flow of advanced weapons. We are again reminded of Sharon-Olmert-Halutz misusing the limited resources of the IDF to plan, train and then attack Jews who, unlike them, believe in the Land G-d gave them. Amir Peretz, an unschooled thought-impaired Defense Minister, appointed by a twisty lawyer, is planning to leave his mark by driving Jews from their own Land and homes. Even as Hezb'Allah and Hamas are filling their weapons' depots, digging more bunkers, Olmert and Peretz are focusing on forcing more Jews from their Land. Olmert is still sub-dividing the Gush Etzion area with fencing so in the near future he can set the IDF upon the Jewish communities outside of his Ghetto Fence/Wall. Here again, Olmert is creating a role model to follow, mainly in the techniques to use force to evict Jews. Clearly, Olmert and his collaborators believe in using force to empty the Land of real Jews who are dedicated to their Jewish Heritage. Therefore, if they believe in using force against their fellow Jews for whom they are responsible, under common law, then force should apply to Olmert's fellows in his Government. As they say: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." IF forcible removal of Jews is Olmert, Peretz, Peres Doctrine and, since they are part of the Jewish nation, their removal by force should apply within common law - as established by them. IF they removed Olmert from the PM's office, that is merely what would be called common sense. As is often said, Israeli Jews have no obligation to commit national suicide because of current aberrant leadership. The Jews killed and those to be killed in the near future due to the inability of government leaders makes those corrupt leaders co-conspirators to murder and fratricide - killing their own brothers and sisters. Assisting the enemy by restraining the Peoples' Army can only be defined as treason for their own political and financial benefits. Why the people do not march to the Knesset and remove this suicidal government is baffling. Why the Knesset sits quietly and allows this to happen is the mark of a people desperately in need of a gigantic Freudian couch. Allowing greedy political incompetents, to direct their very existence with the equivalent of the life-threatening policies, tells us that "Never Again" is happening again! The suicidal and grossly incompetent government of Olmert and his rag-tag party of Kadima, the defeatist Left must be evacuated immediately. Time is of the essence - as Iran and Syrian Proxies: Hezb'Allah and Hamas - are arming under the plain view of Olmert and his bumbling Minister of Defense Peretz. Israelis cannot wait to pull Olmert and his gang out of their "spider hole" hiding places after perhaps (G-d forbid) thousands are killed in the forecast coming war. Putting Olmert and Kadima members on trial after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drops a nuclear bomb over Tel Aviv may be satisfying to the survivors but it will not help the dead and dying. It's long past time to eject the Olmert gang for placing Jewish Land and the Jews they are elected to protect in clear and present danger. 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@interaccess.com |
|
SCHAMA SETS THINGS STRAIGHT ABOUT BOYCOTTING ISRAEL
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 26, 2006. |
|
Simon Schama is a great British historian. You may have been fortunate to watch his brilliant BBC/PBS series on The History of Britain. This superb scholar is not prone to inaccuracies nor to sweeping statements. Whatever he writes is always thoroughly researched and exceedingly accurate, unlike our former peanut farmer President Jimmy and his ridiculous and laughable recent book (I hope you did not spend any money on this trash). Together with Anthony Julius, Prof. Schama published an article in The Guardian newspaper (it is amazing that this usually biased paper printed it), dealing with the accusations of Israel as an Apartheid state and the comparison made by charlatans, the kind of Jimmy Carter, between Israel and South Africa. I urge you to read this very important article and keep a copy of
it for future reference. It was written by Anthony Julius and Simon
Schama and it is called "John Berger is Wrong." It appeared December
22, 2006 in the Guardian Wishing you a great new year, free of bias and prejudice. Your Truth Provider,
|
|
Recent call by John Berger and others
Advocates of the boycott of Israel repeatedly invoke the boycott of South Africa. The parallel they draw between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false. The Palestinian, Druze and other minorities in Israel are guaranteed equal rights under the basic laws. All citizens of Israel vote in elections. There are no legal restrictions on movement, employment or sexual or marital relations. The universities are integrated. Opponents of Zionism have free speech and assembly and may form political organizations. By radical contrast, South African apartheid denied non-whites the right to vote, decreed where they could live and work, made sex and marriage across the racial divide illegal, forbad opponents of the regime to express their views, banned the liberation movements and maintained segregated universities. In any event, the relations between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank are not governed by Israeli law, but by international law. "Apartheid," as a set of discriminatory laws governing the nationals of one state, is simply not the appropriate model here. Last, and very importantly, since the 1920s, a substantial component of the Palestinian war against the Jewish community has been terrorism, that is, the intentional harming of civilians. The second intifada consisted of nothing more than terrorism. By contrast, the South African ANC expressly repudiated attacks on civilians. As the authors of a recent study of the parallels and differences between Israel and South Africa point out, not one suicide attack was committed in the 30 year armed struggle against apartheid. The boycott call has several unappealing characteristics. First, it has no stated objectives, other than a vaguely expressed hope for a "just peace." This is a phrase without ascertainable content. Do the boycotters wish for a single state, in which Jews will be an embattled minority? If they do, let them frankly say so, and openly champion the cause of the anti-Semitic Hamas. (A PA minister recently told students at Gaza University, "the conflict with the Jews is a religious, existential struggle and is not a conflict over borders"). Or do the boycotters wish for a two-state solution? If they do, they endorse the views of a majority of Israelis and, according to most polling, Palestinians too - and the boycotters thereby expose the absurdity of their call for a boycott. One does not boycott the efforts of majorities in each community as they struggle for peace. Second, it is one-eyed. It complains of violations of the Lebanon ceasefire by Israel but says nothing of the cause of that war nor the violations of the Gaza ceasefire by Palestinian terrorists, who continue to fire their rockets into Israel's villages, deliberately targeting civilians. It says nothing about the kidnapped soldiers. It ignores the Israeli children murdered by suicide bombers. It puts in quotation marks "Israel's legitimate right of self-defence," as if to deny that right. It is utterly ahistorical. It casts the Palestinians as pure victims, the Israelis as pure aggressors. The very language it uses when addressing Israeli casualties is obfuscatory. "Ten Palestinians are killed," they write, "for every Israeli death." And from what is it that these Israelis have died? Third, though the call purports to affirm universal, human rights values, it is incapable of explaining why it seeks a boycott of Israel, alone among the nations of the world. It says nothing about the abuses and human rights breaches inflicted on Israel's citizens. It says nothing about the egregious human rights abuses committed elsewhere in the world (Darfur, Chechnya, and many other places). The boycotters are incapable of generalising the principles that govern their call. They cannot - they will not - universalise it. They will not, that is, apply it to every other nation that acts in a comparable manner to Israel - let alone, to those many nations that behave far worse than Israel. A boycott would thus punish disproportionately; it would make pariahs of the citizens of one state alone in the entire world. Fourth, in its own trivial way, by putting up barriers between Israelis and Palestinians it weakens the prospects for peace. Paul Frosh, in a posting on the admirable Engage website, has listed many examples of co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian institutions. It is also worth recalling that Terje Larsen, a Norwegian social scientist, facilitated the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, signed following secret talks between Israeli academics and senior PLO officials. Larsen is just the kind of person exhorted by the boycotters to have no dealings with Israel. Last, it has a creepy desire to demonstrate its pro-Jewish credentials - especially in support of its most defamatory allegations and implications. A Primo Levi quotation insinuates that most obscene of anti-Israel tropes, that relates Zionists to Nazis; a reference to "the Jewish Ronnie Kasrils" supports the apartheid analogy. What possible relevance, we ask, is Kasrils' religion of birth to his stance on Israel? Ethnicity is not a criterion of competence in moral judgment. In any event, history is full of examples of Jews who have made common cause with anti-semites. This is not the first boycott call directed at Jews. On April 1, 1933, a week after he came to power, Hitler ordered a boycott of Jewish shops, banks, offices and department stores. In 1945, barely 12 years later, the Arab League initiated a boycott of Jewish Palestinian businesses. One year later, the ban was extended to prohibit contact with "anything Jewish" (as the Palestine Post reported, quoting a League announcement). This economic warfare continues to the present day. Of course, while self-declared enemies of the Jews imposed the 1933 and 1945 boycotts, the 2006 boycotters are anxious to demonstrate that they have Jewish support. But this does not free this latest boycott of the taint of anti-semitism. Indeed, the boycotters' language is drawn, as if irresistibly, toward anti-semitic formulations. As one supporter put it, "Let [Israel's] citizens feel the rejection from Europe." Well, Europe's "rejection" has been experienced once before - lethally - by many Israeli Jews, and many more of their immediate forebears. In the very week when the President of Iran hosted a conference promoting Holocaust denial and once again anticipated with pleasure the end of Israel (events which apparently escape the notice of our boycotters), we do not shrink from the conclusion that any boycott of Israel is reprehensibly deaf to those practices of stigmatization and exclusion that characterized anti-semitism's offence against Jews for two millennia. The Palestinian cause, still less the cause of peace, is not served by promoting discrimination against Jews. It is indecent to call for the shunning of the Jewish state. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
CIVILIZATION VS BARBARISM; EGYPT THRILLS AT US CASUALTIES; ISRAELI RAIDS INTO GAZA; RICE ON DEALING WITH HAMAS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 26, 2006. |
|
DEMOCRATS' NERVE TO CRITICIZE BUSH'S WAR POLICY The Democrats at first approved of the wars, but failed to make it a bipartisan effort. They waited until it ran into trouble, then carped at it. They failed to authorize more money for troops instead of for boondoggles. Now they complain that it doesn't have enough troops and simultaneously want to withdraw the troops. The problems there are almost as much theirs as the Republicans'. They make the problem worse, with their defeatism. If not for Democrats' defeatism, the enemy might have quit, but the enemy holds on, counting on American public opinion to back down, as it did in Vietnam. What is Democratic public opinion but media reflection of European opinion? The US and Israel are supposed to be democracies, but Democrats and Israeli leftists insist on abiding by foreign non-voters (and laws and courts). They call Pres. Bush stupid, especially for running afoul of foreign public opinion. I think their reliance upon the opinion of Europe, which is letting the uncivilized Muslims take it over for lack of faith in their own civilization, is stupid. The Democrats are partisan in the face of, and oblivious to, the Islamic threat to our own civilization. What could be more stupid than that? POPE BACKTRACKING? The Pope still talks in Vaticanese code. Journalists struggle to make meaning of it. His consistent point -- have religious dialogue with truth and tolerance instead of violence -- is lost upon the Muslims. Meanwhile, the Muslims are scrutinizing everything the Pope says, to see if he shows them an inkling of the disrespect they show him. A point not lost, however, was his recommendation that the EU admit Turkey. If Turkey were admitted, millions more Muslims, increasingly Islamist (or Kurdish criminals), would flood into Europe. No political correctness should allow that. To save Western civilization and Christianity, he would have been justified in intervening to recommend that the EU not admit Turkey. That recommendation should not be made in Turkey and not yet. The Pope has to build credibility in Europe, which is more anti-Christian secularist than Christian. The secularists focus on emancipation from Christianity to an extent disgusting in its hedonism and suicidal in its failure to reproduce its population. They fail to focus on the rising Islamic flood, because it is easier to keep beating a fading foe than to start beating an approaching one. Actually, the Pope merely sympathized with Turkish Westernization, but the Prime Minister deliberately misrepresented that as support for EU membership and the media failed to note the falsehood (Daniel Johnson, NY Sun, 12/4, p.5). WOULDN'T WANT TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE The NY Times displayed a photograph of Sec. Rice smiling alongside Abbas, terrorist chieftan. She acts as if he were a decent person instead of Arafat's former "bag man," who should be on criminal wanted lists. At what point to US officials soil their hands and stain ours by shaking the hands of such dirty criminals? WALT & MEARSHEIMER CLAIMED ISRAEL INVULNERABLE Their study claimed that Israel was invulnerable. Hizbullah demonstrated Israel's vulnerability. Iran has missiles, is developing nuclear weapons, and threatens to annihilate Israel. (But also claims its nuclear development is just for electricity.) Does Iran mean it? Pres. Ahmadinejad is not kidding. He is a fanatic, who denies the Holocaust and that Jews ever lived in the Land of Israel. Where does Iran think Christianity arose from Judaism? Unlike the USSR, which could be deterred, because it wanted to survive, Iran cannot be deterred, because it thinks that death in religious war is martyrdom and eternal life (Amnon Rubinstein, NY Sun, 10/31, Op.-Ed.). Part of the antisemitism syndrome is the myth of an all-powerful Jewry. Ironically, Jews get persecuted more than most other groups. Where is our power when we need it? SEC. RICE ON DEALING WITH HAMAS IN THE P.A. She wants to persuade Hamas to give up terrorism and just govern. "But I see no alternative than to continue to press the democratic enterprise and to try and deal and mitigate against some of its most -- some downsides." The same situation preceded Hamas, when Arafat and Abbas had terrorist militias and official polices (IMRA, 11/6.) She studiously ignores that and the jihadist purpose of Hamas. Nor has the US persuaded Muslim terrorists to behave civilly. How could it? Islam doesn't believe in civilized standards. It believes in total, unrelenting, even terrorist war. If the US did any mitigation, the Republican candidates would have touted it. She is giving democracy lip service, while giving the P.A. arms that will end up being used against Israel. EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT JOURNALIST ON U.S. CASUALTIES Muhammad Foda, who works for the Egyptian government evening newspaper Al-Masa', said, "I Am Very Happy When I Learn That an American or British Soldier Has Been Killed." (IMRA, 11/6 from MEMRI.) But Britain prefers the Arabs to Israel. Fools! Americans should protest that. The Egyptian government would deny responsibility for what the press publishes. But Egypt lacks press freedom. Even it if had it, the culture is almost monolithic. That is why democracy there wouldn't be good, if they had it. DIFFERENCES AMONG THE THREE RELIGIONS Western politicians uneducated about Islam and illiterate in Arabic have been defining Islam for us (as a religion of peace and having a few bad apples). What are the differences among the three related religions? Judaism seeks national salvation -- the Jews in their own country ruling themselves, serving God, and setting an example. Christianity wants to save every individual from his sins and has other benign goals. Islam: "Allah sent Mohammad with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.49 from Ezra HaLevi in Arutz-Sheva, 9/15). There it is, conflict is built into Islam. Those are over-simplifications but the crux of Islam is violent rivalry. ISRAELI RAIDS INTO GAZA Israel ended its stay in Beit Hanoun, a pro-Hamas city in Gaza. It achieved its objectives, not expecting to eliminate all rocket-firing at Israel. Indeed, soon afterwards, more rockets from Gaza struck Ashkelon in Israel. The terrorists concentrated on using schools, mosques, residences, women, and hospitals to attack the troops. The troops concentrated on sparing civilians and on restocking the hospital. "Besides the destruction of eight Kassam rocket squads and several launchers ready for use - a one-week result without precedent in the last two years - the commander said the army destroyed vast quantities of RPGs, bomb making materials, assault rifles, grenades, and other contraband. In addition, 'high quality' fugitives had been handed over to the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) for further interrogation." "'There is almost no house in Beit Hanun that we did not reach,' he said." "He said the troops did not enter sensitive civilian sites but that there were large quantities of weapons and fugitives hidden there." (IMRA, 11/7.) "Almost no house?" The IDF should have liquidated the "large quantities of weapons and fugitives." That is what war is for. Are their future Israeli victims not "sensitive?" I think the government of Israel is criminal towards its own people, in a misguided attempt to be civilized. Misguided, because the law of war doesn't require it. Nobody appreciates it. The few civilian Arab casualties, that Israel minimizes, leads to criticism of Israel. Let Israel minimize its own casualties by maximizing enemy military casualties! How dare Israel urge foreign Jews to immigrate to a country that is so "sensitive" to alleged Arab civilians that it lets many terrorists and their arms supplies stay! THE POPE'S REAL MESSAGE The Pope's controversial message was about the relationship between reason and belief. He said they should be in balance. Otherwise, mankind suffers from fanaticism. He explained that reason is integral to the Christian concept of deity. He questioned whether Islam had a balance of reason and faith. He asked for dialogue based on acceptance of reason and rejection of irrational violence. In the course of his thesis, he quoted a Byzantine Christian emperor's reference to Muhammad's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Muslims and others took that quotation out of context, emphasizing the first part of the quote that Muhammad's theory was evil, such as that command. They then engaged in violence, which is what the Pope warned against (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.45 from Wall St. J. Ed., 9/19). Violent challenge is central to Islam. Most people reacted to the quotation without hearing the full message. They jumped to conclusions. I think the Pope should have been plainer for the masses and the media, but his message was valid and, by subsequent Muslim and other reaction, validated. I hope he pursues his theme, just as firmly but more clearly. 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. |
|
LETTER FROM HEBRON TO IRENE KHAN, DIRECTOR OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Posted by Noam Arnon and David Wilder, December 26, 2006. |
|
Amnesty International
Dear Ms. Khan, Amnesty International's declared objective is a "vision of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards". [http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng] Accordingly, we have no choice but to express our deep dismay at the fact that during your recent visit to Hebron (December, 2006), you did not see fit to visit the Jewish Community of Hebron and speak with representatives of the community. As we are sure you are aware, Hebron's Jewish community dates to the days of antiquity, with a continuous Jewish population for thousands of years. In August of 1929 sixty-seven Jews were slaughtered and over 70 injured by their Arab neighbors. The survivors were expelled from the city. Men, women and children were butchered, raped, burned and tortured. The ancient Jewish quarter was destroyed and its holy sites desecrated. Some 25 years ago Hebron's Jewish community was renewed in parts of the destroyed Jewish neighborhoods and Jewish families returned to live in Jewish homes following transfer of ownership deeds by the property's owners to the community. The Hebron Jewish community has suffered tremendously as the result of constant attacks by Arab terrorists belonging to terror organizations. Unfortunately, it seems that you are unaware of this fact, as a result of your decision to see Hebron from a very prejudiced point of view, speaking with one side only, thereby ignoring the human rights and suffering of the city's Jewish residents. You write [http://blogs.amnesty.org/blogs/israelot_dec06/2006/12/08/1165575600000.html]: "the movements of tens of thousands of Palestinian residents depend entirely on the decision of the Israeli soldiers. Often the Palestinian residents are placed under curfew, which do not apply to the 500 Israeli settlers who live in the area." This is untrue. An overwhelming majority of Hebron and Hebron's Arab residents are under rule of the Palestinian Authority. Arabs have free access to the entire city, whereas Jews have access to only about 10% of Hebron. Also, Hebron's Arabs have not been placed under curfew in years. Curfews are imposed only following massive terror attacks in the area. When there is no terror, there are no curfews. You write: Wire nets have been placed over the narrow alleys, separating Jewish settlers from Palestinian shops, to prevent the settlers hurling objects and excrement at the Palestinian and international visitors. Perhaps the wire nets have been placed to prevent Arabs below from hurling rocks, hand grenades, and bombs into Jewish homes, or to prevent terrorists from easily climbing into the Jewish neighborhoods? You write: We keep our visit short because it is past sunset and it is not advisable to stay in the area after dark. Why is it not advisable to stay in the area after dark? Who are you afraid of? Who told you that night is dangerous in Hebron. When was the last time an Arab was shot at or attacked by Jews in Hebron, during the day, or at night? We strongly protest the description of your visit in Hebron, the conclusions you so arbitrarily reached, and the fact that you refuse to meet and discuss the issues involved with representatives of Hebron's Jewish community. Should you decide to fulfill Amnesty's "vision," as quoted above, and objectively examine current issues in Hebron, we would be happy to invite you to meet with us in order to show you, first-hand, the hardships that Hebron's Jews have to deal with on a daily basis. It would be advisable for Amnesty International to remain a neutral, objective organization and not act so irresponsibly as to draw conclusions before carefully examining the facts and hearing all the parties involved. Sincerely, Noam Arnon and David Wilder
David Wilder and Noam Arnon are spokesmen of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
ROGER STERN INTERVIEW ON IRAN'S OIL INDUSTRY
Posted by Derry Ledoux, December 26, 2006. |
|
I caught the Roger Stern interview on CNBC. Like the young woman interviewing him I was completely startled by the implications that he had made about Iran's oil industry falling apart at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/5/1650. It's eight pages and provides a different perspective on matters. If he is right it opens up an entire range of possibilities for American policy in the Middle East. In any case it is a point that should be more carefully examined in view of the situation in Iraq and the price of oil. Take the time to read it. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/5/1650 Contact Derry Ledoux at DLedoux30@comcast.net |
|
LOST LOGIC -- BEFRIENDING THE "BETTER" ENEMY
Posted by Daryl Temkin, December 26, 2006. |
|
It's time for America to enroll in a graduate course in advanced logic. The professor presents the following problem. You have two terrorist enemies, Fatah and Hamas, and both hate you and most of what you stand for. Both terrorist groups support the nations that will be capable of achieving destruction upon your shores. Furthermore, both organizations are known leaders and supporters of international terrorism and suicide bombers. Both groups danced in the street and passed out cake and candy when your Twin Towers were aflame and your 3,000 citizens were killed. Now, here is the difference, one group, Fatah, was in power for years and was financially corrupt beyond the expected level of corruption for a terrorist organization. The other terrorist group, Hamas, is extremely popular, won a landslide election victory and gained even more popularity following its victory. Although the Fatah Party has a major military force from past years of development, somehow, the relatively new Hamas party has smuggled enough additional military equipment to build its own armed force which is now considered a threat to Fatah. Both groups hate each other and murder each other daily. They live with a clan-like hate-filled rivalry among their families and social groups. They refuse to cooperate and stop their inter-group killing, even though they both have in common their "greater enemy", Israel's existence, and they share the dream of Israel's ultimate destruction. One small sore point for the normal rhetoric -- this deadly rivalry among the Arabs has nothing to do with Israel's alleged "occupation", "oppression of human rights", "the fence", or "checkpoints". The logic professor asks, "America, how do you want to proceed?" America, demonstrating its "logic", responds, "We will support Fatah. Our logic is that Fatah is the lesser of the two enemies." The professor then asks, "Why would you chose to support your enemy?" To the disbelief of many concerned, it has been reported that America is preparing to send to Fatah, $100 million dollars. Let's say that again, "$100 million dollars" plus hundreds of assault rifles and thousands of bullets, plus American military trainers to help Abbu Mazan strengthen his army. The American hope is that with a strengthened Fatah army, Abbu Mazan will be able to destroy the "impossible to negotiate with" Hamas military and will then gain control of Gaza. Once Hamas is defeated, the hundreds of millions of dollars waiting to be sent to Gaza from America and the EU will be allowed to flow through an open spigot. The guaranteed bloodbath between Fatah and Hamas will be like the "good old days" in the Roman Coliseum. As sure as gravity exists, Israel and America will be blamed for this blood letting, just as Israel was blamed for the 1982 Muslim slaughter or massacre of Christians in Lebanon. But in this case, America will be responsible for actively arming the unpopular minority political terrorist party, as well as bank-rolling Fatah in order to cause the defeat of the "democratically" elected people's choice, the Hamas government. In Lebanon, we just saw how Iran and Syria supported Hezbollah. If America supports Fatah, would not Syria and Iran, come to the aid of Hamas? This does sounds somewhat explosive. So, the logic professor questions, "Why are you claiming to the world that you encourage democratic elections and then you support the military defeat of the people's choice? What will this do for your attempt to be respected other than give the majority of the Arab populace another reason to hate you for your hypocritical behavior and what they will call your "imperialistic" intervention? Have you considered how your behavior will inspire the feelings or rather the wrath of the surrounding 22 Arab states? Why do you feel an obligation to interact with, support, and strangely befriend the very people who frequently declare their disgust with your existence?" Then, the logic professor concludes, "Supporting the lesser of the two enemies who both hate you but do want your money has significant consequences. By supporting the minority power, it will guarantee that you will be hated and blamed by the remaining Gazan majority. The only certainty is that whoever survives this bloody battle will still hate you. In time, they will even blame you for "making them kill" their family. And, once their brethren are killed, just as was done in the past, they are bound to turn on you and your "friend" Israel. Again, your kind gifts of guns and ammunition as well as the military training you expertly provided, will be used against your interests. How many Israelis will then be killed by your weapons? Your logic is unsound, fallacious, and potentially catastrophic. How do you expect to get a passing grade if this is your logic?" "Logic would prevail if your premise could protect your friends as well as your own citizens; however, your logic fails to recognize that your support of your enemies who want to destroy you will only lead to their success!" Now, within hours of your model of this type of failed logic, the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, followed in your footsteps, and offered another $100 million dollars to Mr. Abbas. A stunned Israeli populace learned that not only was this financial gift presented, but also, that Palestinian flags decorated the Jerusalem home of Mr. Olmert in order to properly and graciously welcome Mr. Abbas to a fully kosher dinner. And, what did Israel get for the $100 million dollars? Did Mr. Olmert require that the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit be freed? Did Mr. Olmert require that the daily rockets shot onto Israel be totally and immediately stopped? Did Mr. Olmert demand that the barrage of teaching anti-Israel hatred be stopped? The logic professor states that when a significant question is answered by silence or by changing the topic, it can be concluded that the answer is "no". We are witnessing America, as well as Israel, display deeply troubled logic and there is a most serious and critical need for this insanity to be stopped. Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews throughout the world. He can be reached at: DT@Israel-Institute.com. |
|
THE JEWS OF ASSIMILATION: OUR WORST ENEMIES
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 25, 2006. |
|
The "elite" American Jews of German descent opposed the establishment
of a Jewish State, before, during, and after WWII. They aligned with
many European Jews and favored assimilation as a way of (hoping)
stopping anti-Semitism. They believed that an independent Jewish State
would lead to more anti-Semitism elsewhere in the world. In support of
universalist elements in Jewish belief, they preferred "Cultural
Zionism" and "True Zionism", under which only Jewish cultural
institutions in Eretz Ysrael should be developed.
The sabotage the idea of an independent Jewish state then, by Jews like Martin Buber**, and the sabotage of the State of Israel today, by Jews like MJ Rosenberg and organizations like Israel Policy Forum (IPF) continues and is relentless. Today, when we have a flourishing Jewish State, perhaps, Buber could be forgiven for his views that precede the Holocaust but MJ Rosenberg, living in the 21st century, simply cannot be forgiven for stressing Israel's surrender. He cannot be allowed to do what he is doing, which is killing Israel. MJ Rosenberg and Israel Policy Forum (IPF) -- www.ipforum.org -- are dangerous and scare me. I hope they scare you too! Israel Policy Forum represents the greatest threat to Israel emanating from the USA For your not so leisure reading: http://www.jewishindy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6283 **Martin Buber: a philosopher and Hasidic theologian stressed Jewish universalism and did his utmost to sabotage the idea of an independent Jewish State; Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
TOM FRIEDMAN'S MIDEAST RULES AND DAFNA YEE'S RESPONSE
Posted by Dafna Yee, December 25, 2006. | |
|
Thomas Friedman's article appeared December 24, 2006 in the
International Herald Tribune | |
|
These is Friedman's article, which was entitled "Mideast Rules To Live By - Holiday Present For Bush And Olmert."
Dafna Yee writes,
Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog |
|
FRENCH CANDIDATE ABROAD; WHAT EGYPT SHOULD DO IS IRELEVANT; LINKAGES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 25, 2006. |
|
IDF ORDERED NOT TO PROTECT ISRAELIS Israel's security cabinet decided that the IDF shall not attack Arab crews seen about to launch rockets at Israel, in violation of the truce, nor to attack them after the launching. PM Olmert said there are "other considerations." He did not elaborate (IMRA, 12/3). Israeli leaders usually offer abstract justification for concrete concessions. The concessions mean death for Israelis. The justification has no meaning. ANOTHER PERESISM "Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel should talk with moderates in the Palestinian Authority as if there was no Hamas, and fight Hamas as if there were no moderate elements in the Authority." (IMRA, 12/4.) Other Israeli leaders have uttered other such Churchillian statements that seem balanced like that. Analyze them, however, and one finds illogic. If Hamas is the main power there, then moderates can not make decisions for their people. Why negotiate? What "moderate elements" among the Muslim Arabs? Certainly, Abbas, the Holocaust-denying terrorist, is not moderate. The Left and the US, both hostile to Zionism, pretend he is, so there would be someone to whom Israel could offer dangerous concessions. What point to negotiating with jihadists, who use negotiating for paving the road to war? FRENCH CANDIDATE ABROAD The Socialist candidate for the presidency of France, Segolene Royale, made two observations. One is that she can understand the need for some IDF reconnaissance flights over Lebanon. The other is that she can understand the need for Israel's security fence, but that the route should be planned by both sides (IMRA, 12/4). It would make no sense for the P.A. to help set the route of the fence that is supposed to provides provide security against the P.A.! The route is planned by anti-Zionists in the leftist regime, the leftist Supreme Court, and the anti-Zionist US. Zionists have no say in it. If Royale understands the need for some IDF reconnaissance flights over Lebanon, then she should urge the French commanders of UNIFIL to stop threatening to shoot them down. She also should demand that UNIFIL stop the arms smuggling that the overflights monitor. Otherwise, UNIFIL simply is giving Hizbullah time to rearm for another round of war. PARTIAL U.S. WITHDRAWAL? It would signal weakness. Iraqis would join up with the Islamists, seen as the winning side (Barry Rubin, MEF News, 12/4). ISRAEL, LAND OF PERSECUTION OF JEWS "Knesset Members of the National Religious Party-National Union visited Acco a month ago, warning of the deterioration (of security) in the city. The police claimed at the time that the violence and clashes were of a criminal, not nationalistic nature." "it was claimed that we are provocateurs and looking for trouble." "Several days ago, a band of Arab youths attacked and cruelly beat a Jewish girl. Six months ago, local Arabs burned trees standing at the entrance to the Talmud Torah, and during the recent Simchat Torah holiday, Arabs surrounded students from the local Yeshivat Hesder [who combine Torah study and army service] and threatened them, until one student was forced to fire in the air to disperse them." Most recently, the school was the victim of hate-vandalism -- holy books strewn about, valuable equipment stolen, and pro-Hamas graffiti smeared on the walls. The police should be asked how come Arabs feel confident enough to confront Jews as they do (Arutz-7, 12/4). Because, as in France, police prefer to blame the Jews. Is it up to the police? Perhaps, since they try to pass off antisemitic jihad as ordinary crime. The student fired into the air, not at the menacing Arabs. The Jews are inhibited; consequently, the Arabs are not. Jihadists are vicious. The answer is more than law-enforcement. It is to ease the Arabs out of the country. WHAT EGYPT SHOULD DO IS IRRELEVANT Defense Min. Peretz said it is critical that Egypt act to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza (Op.-Cit.). Year after year, Israeli and US officials state what the Arabs should do. But the Arabs don't do it. Decent and intelligent officials would stop depending on urging the Arabs to do what it is obvious the Arabs won't. They would not pretend that futilely asking the Arabs to comply is equivalent to Israeli compliance, but would plan policy on the basis of the Arabs not doing it. Jihad makes no compromises and keeps no promises. The answer here is for Israel to re-take Gaza and guard the border, itself. With State Dept. prompting, Israel makes snowballing concessions that start small and gain in momentum, until they become difficult to turn back. It would be difficult to re-take Gaza, now that the world is used to the status quo. Every antisemite, except the ones running the State Dept., believes that the State Dept. acts in Israel's behalf at Israel's behest. The outside antisemites never ask why, if the State Dept. is controlled by Zionists, are its policies anti-Zionist? They don't ask why the State Dept. doesn't denounce the Arabs for their violations, encourage Israel to crush Muslim terrorism, stop plumping for Arab statehood and for minimal utility for the security fence, and start suggesting that the answer is to move out the Arabs instead of the Jews. Antisemitism is a kind of willful obliviousness to reality. Unfortunately for America, it combines with the oil industry and indirect Saudi bribing of our diplomats to embed dual loyalty in officials just when we are losing a world war of jihad. OLMERT: LETTING ISRAEL BE BOMBED SAVES LIVES PM Olmert won't let the Army fire upon terrorists about to fire a rocket in violation of the ceasefire (and the rules of war) or even after they launch it. He claims that this Israeli restraint saves Israeli lives. He thinks he is clever in letting the Arabs fire at Israelis. Here is how he rationalizes it. The Army raided various points in Gaza, but the rockets continued to be launched at Israel anyway. Therefore, he agrees to a ceasefire during which the Arabs shoot somewhat less than before it, and fewer Israelis get bombed. Here is the fallacy in his premise. The IDF raids were scattered, not thorough. Arms continued to pour into Gaza from the Sinai, because Israel did not re-take the border and did not raze houses alongside it, to render arms-smuggling tunnels impractical. He thus cites restrained Army raids that are impractical, as evidence that fighting back is ineffective. That is not logical. All he cares about is for the time being to avoid complaints that he is not curbing Muslim aggression (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 12/4). Another fallacy in his premise is to assume that when the ceasefire ends, as the Arabs always threaten to end it and do, the strategic situation would revert to what it was before the ceasefire. Before the ceasefire, Israeli forces could roam through Gaza almost at will. During the ceasefire, the Arabs have been building bunkers and importing weapons under Iranian tutelage. They would be able to obstruct an Israeli advance somewhat as well as did Hizbullah, their role model. They also would have many more rockets and of a more devastating caliber. Then they would take many more Israeli lives. They would kill many more Israelis later, due to Olmert's "restraint," now. LINKAGES & ENTICEMENTS The Saudi king told V.P. Cheney that his country would need a reward if it were to help stabilize Iraq. Pres. Bush linked Iraq to Israel (linkage being the reward), by saying, "There's no question that if we were able to settle the Palestinian-Israeli issue, it would help bring more peace to the Middle East. And therefore our government is focused on helping develop the two-state solution." (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 12/1, p.5.) Nonsense! Iran is leading a Shiite bloc that threatens to turn areas originally controlled by Sunnis against the Sunnis. S. Arabia is quaking over this threat. It needs to have Iraq stabilized as a neutral country. If it can help achieve that, it would. It does not need to be rewarded beyond stabilizing its own region. But the Muslims like to get paid for doing what is in their own interest. Payment would be Israel's head on a platter. If Israel fell, the terrorists there would be free to pour into Iraq. Bush has described this so-called "two-state solution" as a democratic P.A. co-existing with Israel. That would require a complete re-education of the entire, hate-filled Muslim populace. They are getting deeper into war with Israel; their entire religious creed is based on intolerance, violence, and deceit. There is no reform in sight, just non-stop indoctrination in jihad. Bush appears to be deluding himself, but probably is seeking an excuse for a respite in Iraq so Iraq won't fall while he is in office and his successor would be blamed when Iraq does fall. He puts a false reputation before our national security. 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. |
|
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A GIRL FROM HEBRON
Posted by David Wilder, December 25, 2006. |
|
Yesterday morning I was getting ready to leave our Beit Hadassah apartment. It was just after eight. At 8:30 I usually spend about half an hour learning with my friend Rabbi Yisrael Shlissel in the Ohr Shlomo Kollel (Torah study hall) in Tel Rumeida. My cell phone rang. It was Rabbi Yisrael: "We won't be able to study together this morning. The police are all over the neighborhood. I think they're looking for my wife. They were wandering around on our porch. I don't want to leave the house." I, of course, asked: "Why do they want Tzippy?" "I have no idea," he responded. I drove up to Tel Rumeida to see what was happening. On the way up the hill the police car was making its way down. However, two cops were still in the neighborhood. "Who are you looking for today," I queried? Their answer: "Who are you? Where is your ID card? Show me your driver's license." After carefully examining them, they ignored me. Someone else started yelling at them: "Who are you looking for today -- our children. When was the last time you caught a terrorist, a murderer?" After I while I left, and a few hours later drove up to Kiryat Arba. Who was just inside the town gate, waiting to greet me? You guessed. Another police car, signaling me to pull over to the side of the road. The cop gave my car and my passenger a good once-over, and then, not having discovered what, or who, he was searching for, smiled a cute smile and told me to have a good day. Thanks a lot. I later heard that the police were swarming around the outside gate of the girl's religious high school building. Early afternoon. My daughter's friend and classmate, Bitya Shlissel, fifteen years old, was walking from the high school to the lunch room, a few minutes away. Together with a couple of other girls they walked past a group of plain-clothed detectives. Suddenly a police car stopped behind them and one of the detectives yelled, "Batya, get over here fast!" Bitya's two friends, being experienced in such matters, quickly grabbed her arm and started pulling her, just as the detective caught her other arm and too began tugging. Bitya had enough. She told her friends, "why should they arrest you too?" and they let her go. The detective threw her into the back of the car and sped off with his criminal of the day. A fifteen year old tenth grader. Not just any tenth grader. Bitya is the grand daughter of Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan, who was murdered by terrorists in Tel Rumeida over eight years ago. Sixty three at the time of his death, Rabbi Ra'anan was the grandson of Israel's first Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Avraham Kook. Her parents, Rabbi Yisrael and Tzippy, moved to Hebron following the killing and the Rabbi became the dean of the new study hall, opened in his father-in-law's memory. The Shlissels lived in the Mitzpe Shalhevet neighborhood, formerly the "Arab Shuk" or market. Until they were expelled, with eight other families almost a year ago. A short time later they moved into the newly purchased Beit Shapira, not far from their old home. There too, they were expelled by the police, with several other families. One can image that the kids haven't had an easy time of it. And yesterday, Bitya found herself being dragged away by the police. At the Kiryat Arba police station, when asked her name, Bitya responded. However, when they police started with other questions, she ignored them. As a rule, a person who is to be interrogated is presented with an official request to appear for questioning. No such order had ever been issued to Bitya or her parents. She had no idea why she had been swooped up by the police while on her way to lunch. The police packed her into another car and drove the fifteen year old to Jerusalem for further questioning. Only then did Bitya understand why she'd been kidnapped by the police. Last summer three Hebron girls, Bitya's friends, were being held in prison as the result of a demonstration in Hebron. One night Bitya and a few of her friends staged a demonstration by the home of Supreme Court Justice Ayala Prokatchia, who was instrumental in keeping the girls in jail. The girls hung some signs outside and chanted some slogans before being chased away by the police. As a result of this demonstration, an arrest warrant was issued against Bitya Shlissel on July 2, 2006 and charged her with: threatening and offending a public servant, trespass, and inciting violence or terror. It seems that yesterday the police suddenly remembered that the warrant had been issued a half a year ago and decided to act quickly, before the terrorist criminal could escape. So, Bitya was arrested. Of course, her parents weren't notified until after the fact, when she was already in Jerusalem. Bitya told me that during the interrogation she kept her eyes on one of the plants in room and refused to say anything. When the police woman questioning her became bored with her answers, she told her she could go home after her parents came and signed a bond note guaranteeing her appearance in court. Bitya told her: "No way are my parents coming here to sign anything." The police woman then called Bitya's mother, Tzippy, who, as you might imagine, had nothing good to say to her. So the police finally agreed to allow Bitya to sign for herself, and then led her to the door. "Wait," she exclaimed, "how am I supposed to get home? I don't have any money or anything. You swiped me from the street on the way to lunch." The police response: Our only responsibility is to notify your parents. It's your problem how you get back home. Period! After a while one of the Shlissels' neighbors, who was in Jerusalem, picked Bitya up and drove her home for a belated lunch and dinner. A day in the life of a girl from Hebron. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
EILAT WILL BECOME EGYPTIAN WHEN...
Posted by Gerald A Honigman, December 25, 2006. |
|
Eilat will become Egyptian when... Egyptian Arabs, who conquered Egypt in the 7th century C.E. from native Copts and Nubians (who predated Arabs by millennia) return Egypt to the native peoples whom they continue to subjugate, murder, and forcibly Arabize. And we won't even mention anything about Egypt's ancient Jewish population--who also pre-dated the Arabs by millennia--and which is virtually non-existant today. Most of Egypt's last 100,000 Jews were forced to flee during the last century. The Egyptian Jewess, the historian Bat Ye'or, is one of the leading experts to especially consult on such matters. One of my favorite journalists, David Bedein, had a piece in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin (see Bedein, below) on December 22nd which reported that, in the course of a debate over Eilat in Egypt's parliament, among other things it was stated, "Eilat belongs formally to Egypt and administratively to the Palestinians." Eilat, the southernmost city of Israel, is located on the north shore of the Red Sea, and is named for the Hebrew Bible's Elath, which is believed to have actually been located across the gulf in Aqaba in what is now Jordan. Eilat's importance to the Jews came via its connection to King Solomon: King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Etzion-Geber near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea...(1 Kings 9:26) It was (and is) an important port located on the trade route to the East. The 1956 and 1967 wars largely started over Egypt's blockade of Eilat. Several facts related to all of this are worth noting... First of all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the entire area in question from 1517 until after World War I when the Sinai was awarded to Egypt. Prior to that, the Roman and Byzantine Empires ruled it from the 1st through early 7th century C.E. There were others as well. And the Arabs only acquired Egypt via their own massive imperial conquests, after exploding in all directions out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E...the same time and way they came to acquire the land of Israel. So, for Egypt to pretend as if the Sinai itself is its assumed birthright--let alone adjacent Eilat--is a stretch, especially since nations and empires who have waged war against their neighbors and lost territory as a result rarely get rewarded with a return to the status quo ante. But the Jews did just that--and after developing oil fields, some of the world's most advanced air bases, etc. and so forth in the Sinai. Egypt lost Sinai in '67 because of its blockade of Israel--a casus belli--and other blatant and overt hostile actions. In return for a very cold peace after President Sadat's assassination in which Israel gave up all of the above, it got a massive Egyptian arms build-up (largely courtesy of the United States), huge quantities of arms being smuggled into Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terror groups via the Egyptian Sinai, government-sponsored anti-Semitism which ranks with Hitler's propaganda machine, etc. and so forth. As the PLO was created in Egypt under Nasser's watch back in 1964 (Arafat was born in Cairo) as a tool to further the latter's agenda, Egypt continues to bleed Jews via the same and other proxies today. Eighty million Egyptians. Hundreds of millions of other Arabs--not to mention non-Arab Muslims. Five million Israeli Jews. Do the math...The Arabs certainly are. Egypt, like the others, is merely biding its time...and the results in Lebanon not long ago don't help matters any. Reports have it that the Syrians are already making their moves--and not only in Lebanon. Unfortunately, new rabbits must repeatedly be invented by Jews to be pulled out of their collective hat of survival. The new year ahead will certainly be no exception. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php This article is archived at
|
|
MOST IMPORTANT COVERAGE TO APPEAR IN HEBREW MEDIA ON GORDON-PLAUT LEGAL BATTLE
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 25, 2006. |
|
The NFC web site is a Hebrew internet newspaper that is one of the sites with the most traffic in Israel, ahead of the Maariv Hebrew web site, the web sites for some Israeli banks and for most Israeli universities, and even ahead of Hebrew porn sites. While there has been some coverage to date in Hebrew on the
Gordon-Plaut legal battle, they were relatively brief Op-Eds and news
items. NFC runs today a long in-depth analysis of the battle and the
disgrace of the Holcoaust-denial Arab woman "jihad judge" in the case
and her colluding with Gordon: It is the first full expose of the entire story. And it comes a month before the appeals hearing. It is entirely pro-Plaut. It is written by Alon Dahan, a wheelchair bound IDF vet who is a doctoral student at the Hebrew university, who is a regular columnist on NFC, and who authored the book in Hebrew "A Guide for a Blind Dove" (an excellent book) in Hebrew. As far as I know, he ONLY writes in hebrew. To date, Gordon was able to hide because while he had been repeatedly "outed" in the English media, most recently in the article by Prof. Dershowitz that comes close to calling Gordon a neo-nazi, this was really the first full-length expose in Hebrew! Write Professor Plaut for information on a tax-exempt route to donate. Contact him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il and/or splaut@gmail.com Or mail donations to
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
A LOVE POEM TO SUE BLACKWELL
Posted by Boris Celser, December 25, 2006. | |
|
You must have heard of Sue Blackwell of the University of Birmingham, who is always promoting anti-Israel boycotts and a lot more. I don't have much time for her, but when a Jewish friend in the UK sent me Sue's last poem (see below), I thought she deserved an answer from me. Therefore, after reading her poem, I decided to write her one, with a preamble. You will find both just below. I hope you all enjoy it. Boris | |
|
The Israeli Major-General's Song
I am the very model of a military criminal:
I'm serving in an army where morality is minimal.
I know the rules of combat, and can quote the fights historical
I'm very good at raising funds for kids with disabilities:
I know our mythic history, from Herzl to Ben Gurion:
Then I can go to sleep at night with conscience unassailable
I like to travel widely, using Heathrow as a stopover,
When I face prosecution for non-combatant fatalities,
A Love Poem to Sue Blackwell
Friends of mine do consider you a bitch.
In your pic you're wearing a lovely PA dress.
Although you're fat, you're not a cow.
Everybody wants out of the UK, even the hooligans.
If you lived in Gaza, you would dig a tunnel, like a good termite.
You may be proud of being a British universalist.
If we ever meet, let's go for tea, I prefer Twin.
I hope you don't mind you're not my type.
From the river to the sea, there's nothing to buy or sell.
Contact Boris Celser at celser@telusplanet.net
|
|
ON THE BRINK OF OPPORTUNITY
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, December 25, 2006. |
|
A media milestone of sorts took place last week, with nary a mention by the press. A conference entitled: The Media as a Theater of War, the Blogosphere and the Global Battle for Civil Society, opened up opportunities and possibilities as big as its ambitious title suggests. I'm not a blogger, nor am I a political strategist or government mouthpiece. I write when the spirit moves me, and these days it doesn't come easily. Nevertheless this not-very-disciplined commentator reluctantly took a front row seat at a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Policy and Strategy of the Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya (IDC) The ghosts of the Oslo Accords and Disengagement Plan haunt these types of forums. I'm reminded that more often than not, these hallowed conference halls echo with the enormous egos which bred devastating errors. And this writer longs for the day when excessive public dialogue will be replaced with the kind of private monologue and introspection that will produce wise and thoughtful results (and perhaps some competent leadership as well). But I attended in a work-related capacity - an observer -assigned with the simple task of reminding the speakers when their 12 minutes of presentation time was up. I must confess that the prospect of silencing some of my less-than-favorite personalities, with the mere flash of a 2 minute warning sign, was inviting. But rather than revel in my new-found power, I found that I, as well as many of the attendees, wanted to hear more. I was inspired by the charged atmosphere and appropriate sense of urgency, and moved by the sense of sincere reflection and remorse that I saw among several of the conference participants. The conditions for real cooperation and correction on the Israel hasbara front were palpable. A general theme throughout the conference was that although the State of Israel is facing and enormous crisis, it's only under these pressing conditions that the paradigm is capable of shifting. That our long held ideas, institutions, organizations and endeavors are in danger of failure and collapse is indeed cause for alarm, but this also presents us with an immense opportunity for positive change. Government and military spokesperson met blogger, and academic met layperson. It was a place where heads (with and without kippot) met hearts in what appeared to be a reawakening of the Zionist spirit. It took a blogging history professor to bring this eclectic bunch together. Richard Landes is a medievalist crusading on behalf of civil society. He's the kind of white knight with a refreshing type of thinking that may help us get through some very dark ages. In an era where Arab storytelling has efficiently deposed factual news reporting, and has captured (kidnapped?) the imagination of media outlet and viewer alike; there was a majority consensus that it was time for Israel to remove her kid gloves and throw down the gauntlet. Some attending the conference may have been taken aback by the assertive, no-nonsense positions presented by many of the participants. The true global aspirations of the Jihadists and their supporters were painted in a no-holds-barred fire engine red. Surely this was no pacifist festival. Even those on the political left seemed acutely aware that we are engaged in a battle for the very foundations of civil society, and in an existential battle for Israel's survival. A good friend recently reminded me of Eli Wiesels words: "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference." And this was hardly an indifferent or passive crowd. There were some piognant and stunning moments. All the attendees were humbly hushed as French Jew Philippe Karsenty relayed how he had presented a flawless defense, with impeccable witnesses, in the libel suit brought against him by France 2 Television for claiming that the Mohammed Al Dura shooting was staged. He lost the case on the grounds that if the Israeli government or military had not issued a formal complaint against Charles Enderlin's news coverage of the incident, then Karsenty's claims and evidence have no validity. At this point, Dr. Raanin Gissin, former media advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stood up and offered a spontaneous, heartfelt apology, claiming he felt "ashamed" and "humiliated" for Israel¹s indifference to Karsenty. He lamented a lost opportunity and then called to task government officials who were not at the conference to hear of Karsenty's independent efforts, trials, and appeal on behalf of Israel to correct a gross injustice. I noticed former IDF spokeperson and Brigadier General Nachman Shai lower himself to the dias steps in order to catch a better view of the screen where Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch, was presenting damning material. The IDC Media Conference presented a unique opportunity for Israeli government officials, and academics to get off their high horses and climb down from their ivory towers in order to see the accomplished grassroots and individual efforts which have been launched on behalf of Israel by a lot of concerned, determined, and talented people. It's a shame that more Israeli press wasn't there to cover the forum, and it's this indifference on the part of our own media sources that may be indicative of the problems we now face on the hasbara front. But this type of conference did demonstrate that in the end of the day - when the lines are clearly delineated and defined - they won't be drawn between left and right, religious and secular, or expert and layperson. But rather, those people with a sense of true justice, a will to live, and a beating Zionist heart, will eventually determine Israel's future. The writer is the author of The Oslo Years: A Mother's Journal (Gefen Publishing). |
|
JEWISH FREEDOM REQUIRES JEWISH POWER
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 25, 2006. |
|
This article ties together Israel's society today, Israel's control over land with the spirit of the Hasmona'ean rebellion. Throughout Jewish history, it is the (Jewish) 'enemy within', or the renegade at odds with his own people that provides the leitmotif (recurring theme). This is worth reading and perhaps will wake up some more Jews to see the truth!
Bizedek-Journal of Responsible Jewish Community
|
|
Jewish freedom requires Jewish power! Summation: Zionism visionary, Theodore Herzl was inspired by the Maccabees' rebellion and their victory. Though "Maccabee" has become a household word in modern Israel, referring to such sundry as Maccabee Beer or Maccabee Tel-Aviv basketball team, or other basketball or soccer teams with "Maccabee" as their name's precursor, there is no guarantee that the spiritual struggle of the Maccabees and their extraordinary national courage and military heroism, inspire and/or direct the path of modern Israel. Whether it is Hellenism then or Americanism now, nation-states embody the boldness of the native people, the vitality of coherent identity that binds the purposes of the nation with the power of the state. The future will belong to such integral and true nation-states. The national right of Jews to Eretz-Israel was the geographic cornerstone of Abraham's promise and of Moses' yearning. The Hasmona'ean, a particular family of kohanim (priests) who had a firm spiritual strength and a teaching role at the Temple, ignited the rebellion in Jerusalem. This particular religious leadership provided the national uprising with exuberant faith in the justice for the necessary struggle. The mid-1970s Gush Emunim pioneers settled in Samaria, on the very same hills of the Maccabees, reproduced the old spiritual patriots theme of redeeming the homeland from foreign presence. Jews serving G-d and observing the Torah are the testimony of the right to the land of Israel. It is the Covenant of the Law that obliges the Jewish people to dwell in Eretz-Israel, rule the land, and fulfill the Torah ways. The purpose of the national Jewish enterprise is submission to God and not the conquest of men, thus Jews ruling over non-Jews in Eretz-Israel does not evoke any moral quandary. Ruling is a duty and a right must be worthy of. When the Jews abandoned their covenanted mission and abused their power over others, then they are not worthy to rule. This is where there is the tremendous need for remedying today's Israeli society. It must recover its moral composure and correct aesthetic image, first for itself and then in the eyes of others -- Muslim Arabs no less. The Maccabees were patriotic and also true to the Torah. Their Hellenized Jewish brothers and sisters betrayed their faith and fatherland. The cosmopolitan Hellenized Jewish elite favored assimilation and were lacking the will and conviction to persevere as proud Jews within the larger cultural landscape of the East. They instigated official repression of Torah observance and proposed that Jerusalem become a Greek polis. The history of the Jews lies in historical materials and envelops a layer of events surrounding the inner essence of these matters. This inner Jewish history is twofold: 1) Between G-d and the people of Israel based on the Torah covenant of reward-and-punishment; and 2) Between Jews and Jews involving the solidarity or betrayal of unity and peoplehood. It is within these history parameters the entire Jewish history stage and drama was cast. In the Jewish history, the non-Jews role was merely a consequence rather than a cause of all that affects the Jewish people. It is the 'enemy within', or the renegade at odds with his own people, that provides recurring theme throughout Jewish history. When enslaved in Egypt, Datan and Aviram broke Jewish ranks and opposed Moses leadership and his mission to liberate the Hebrews from the bondage and slavery. Standing on the edge of Cana'an, ten Hebrew spies faltered on the political dividing line separating the realization of freedom from renewed slavery. Upon returning to Eretz-Israel from the Persian exile, Nehemia rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem in the hope of re-establishing national Jewish independence and Sanbalat spoke out angrily against him. With Jews, like Eliyakim in Judea, the Hasmonean rebellion against Hellenist persecution encountered the traitorous machinations of 'fifth column'. Additionally there is this shameful record of reneging on the covenant by assimilationists and assimilation all under the guise of emancipated intellectualism, Marxism displaying a facade of humanitarian pathos and the Left posing alliance with the enemies of their people but claiming morality. It seems as if the inner malaise of the Jews will be with us till the end of days. Each year, for eight days the Maccabee tale becomes a centerpiece. But it is much more than just a centerpiece, as it is a continuous warning on many fronts. It brings to focus that assimilation precedes and prepares the ground for catastrophe in ways that we hardly ever can decipher and foresee. Sometimes alien powers offer us assistance and open their doors to Jewish participation but end up being the insidious enemies of Jewish well-being. e.g. The Romans granted the Jews autonomy and later expelled the Jews from their land. The British declared their support for Zionism and later turned on the Jews with bayonets and the hangman's rope. The Americans contributed to strengthening Israel, but advocate the diminution of the state and the Arabization of the land. When they launched their fight for freedom against the Greek imperialists in Judea, the Hasmoneans were zealots for Torah and Zion. Time had not at all altered the basic parameters characterizing Jewish existence in the homeland. In the 1940s a small but principled Brit Ha-hashmonayim namesake movement propagated a similar campaign against foreign rule in Eretz-Israel, namely the British-mandate in Palestine. The short lived history of the Brit Ha-hashmonayim prior to 1948 raised the resounding cry to sweep away Jewish subjugation to foreign rule, and to inaugurate an era of Jewish rule and regime in Eretz-Israel. It is the sword that will lead the way to Jewish victory, wrote a member of the movement, and it is totally unacceptable to come to terms with any foreign rule in our land. "Beyond the force of anti-Zionist British edicts, the struggle must be undertaken and pursued until the descendants of King David establish a Jewish kingdom in the land," wrote another member. On Hanukkah Jews light the candles and recall the Maccabees heroism. But that is just Judaic ritual. If it is not followed by the adoption of the thoughts and actions of our glorious ancestors to befit our contemporary circumstances it remains a ritual. Israel is or can be that kind of state in the Middle East, prevailing against the regionalist-universalist Muslim and Arab empires, and overcoming their predatory lusts against the Jewish state. Israel must recognize that to be fashionable or modern, in a certain fashion, can inhibit it from being maccabeean. The power to rule serves to sustain the light of liberty, thus the Maccabee experience implores us to clearly understand that Jewish freedom requires Jewish power! Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
JEWS FOR AHMADINEJAD
Posted by Avodah, December 24, 2006. |
|
The following is the first post of a new JPost.com blog featuring leading American attorney and stalwart defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, who is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006). |
|
By this time, everyone knows that Jews for Jesus are not really Jews. They are Christians using the cover of their Jewish origin to fool people into coming to their proselytizing services. But many people still think that the seven bearded enemies of Israel - members of an extreme cult called Neturei Karta - who accepted an invitation from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come to Iran's Holocaust denial festival, are also real Jews. Still others believe that supporters of Hizbullah and Holocaust minimizers like Norman Finkelstein - who uses his Jewish birth to cover for his anti-Semitism - are real Jews. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I now propose a new vocabulary for describing these imposters. From now on, the Neturei Karta should be known as Jews for Ahmadinejad, and Norman Finkelstein and his ilk should be known now as Jews for Hizbullah. The Neturei Karta describe themselves as part of the "Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism." In reality, they are a tiny sect that is unwilling to recognize Israel's right to exist as a secular state. According to the Neturei Karta, Jews may not reoccupy Jerusalem until the Messiah arrives and God explicitly allows the establishment of a Jewish nation grounded in halacha, or Jewish religious law. The Neturei Karta are so incensed by a secular Israel that their principal mission is to align themselves with people and organizations such as Yasser Arafat, Hizbullah, and Ahmadinejad in order to do whatever they can to help eliminate Israel. They number no more than a few thousand people. Noam Chomsky probably deserves a category all his own. In light of his having written an introduction to a book by Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson - who also spoke at the Iranian hate-fest - Chomsky should now be known as a Jew for Holocaust Deniers. Chomsky has claimed that he was only defending Faurisson's freedom of speech, but that defense rings hollow. In the first place, Chomsky is not remotely a civil libertarian. Civil libertarians defend everyone's freedom of speech and conscience, whether they agree with the content of that speech or not. Chomsky, on the other hand, defends only those with whom he agrees. Second, Chomsky did, in fact, defend the substance of Faurisson's Holocaust denial. He called Faurisson as "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal," praised his "extensive historical research," and characterized his assertions about the Holocaust as historical "findings." He also said that he did not see any "hint of anti-Semitic implications" in Faurisson's claim that the so-called Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by the Jewish people. Finkelstein's wholehearted hatred of Jews and support for Hizbullah is well documented and easily accessible. He is a denouncer of all Holocaust victims -calling survivors "frauds" and "hucksters" - while appropriating Nazi language himself when he characterizes American Jews as "parasites." He wears his vileness on his sleeve. For a quick overview of his positions, please see a chapter of my book The Case for Peace. Just like consumers of food and tobacco products must be warned by labels, so too, consumers of propaganda should be warned by appropriate labeling. And just as a person can renounce his citizenship by deed or word, so too can a person renounce his ethnicity in the same manner. I hope my labeling of anti-Semites of Jewish heritage will put to rest any misconceptions that these fringe hate-mongers are representative of or speak for anyone but themselves. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@yahoo.com |
|
IN PRAISE OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS
Posted by Michael Freund, December 24, 2006. |
|
Following is an article of mine from the Jerusalem Post concerning the relationship between Israel and the evangelical Christian community in America. With the inexorable demographic decline of American Jewry well under way, I believe it is time for Israel to change its approach and reach out to Christian Zionists in a new and more sophisticated manner - as they might just be the best hope for ensuring continued US support for the Jewish state in the long run. Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly. This article is archived at
|
|
They number in the millions and wield increasing power and influence across the United States. From year to year their voice grows stronger and more resolute, as their role in shaping policy, and the future of American society continues to expand. Guided by faith, they love Israel passionately and pray for her well-being, rejoicing in her successes and grieving over her setbacks. They are America's Bible-believing Christians, and it is time for Israel to reach out to them in a far more sophisticated and comprehensive manner. A great deal has already been written about the close ties that have developed between the two, as Israeli officials have at last begun to appreciate the depth and feeling of American evangelical support for the Jewish state. Indeed, what was once unthinkable has now become routine, as leading Christian pastors and Israeli government representatives regularly confer with one another, exchanging ideas and views on the principal issues of the day. But in far too many instances, Israel's attitude toward evangelicals has been short-sighted and ill-advised, with the relationship often focused on soliciting dollars rather than devotion. And that has got to change, because far greater things are at stake here than just boosting revenues from tourism. For as strong and robust as the American Jewish community might be, it cannot and will not last forever, as recent demographic trends make clear. That leaves evangelical Christians as the best hope for ensuring that bedrock US support for Israel remains firm and unwavering in the decades to come. In other words, thank God for Christian Zionists. Like it or not, the future of the relationship between Israel and the US might very well hinge far less on America's Jews than on its Christians. By all accounts, evangelical Christians are a force to be reckoned with. As the Independent put it the other day (London, December 19): "To say the United States is a religious country is an understatement. According to polls, an estimated 47 per cent of American adults claim to be 'born-again' or evangelical." Even if the figure is an overstatement, it still means there are tens of millions of Americans who identify themselves as evangelical. And this translates into an enormous wellspring of support for Israel, as an August 2006 study by the Pew Research Center revealed. According to the report's findings, "Seven-in-ten white evangelicals (69%) believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people and a solid majority (59%) believes that Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy." Not surprisingly, the study found that "those who believe that God gave Israel to the Jews and that the State of Israel fulfills biblical prophecy are much more likely than others to sympathize with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians." No wonder so many evangelicals have taken to calling themselves "Christian Zionists." Their sympathy and concern for Israel is readily apparent. I see it in the e-mails I receive regularly from evangelical Christians in the US in response to my columns in The Jerusalem Post. They are sincere and caring, and full of love and concern for Israel and its plight. Sure, there are some who would like to convert Jews, and they make little or no attempt to hide their agenda. But the vast majority simply wish to bless Israel because that is what they truly believe God wants them to do. AND IT IS this genuine and heartfelt affection that contains within it the potential to forge a historic alliance, one that could help heal some of the painful wounds of the past even as it paves the way for a close and meaningful partnership in the future. By adopting a few simple but significant steps, Israel can lay the groundwork for ensuring that the bond with US Christians continues to deepen. * First, Israel should appoint a roving ambassador tasked with responsibility for maintaining relations with Christians in America. This should not be just an honorary title, nor should it go to one of the usual organizational fund-raisers or foreign service hacks. Instead, the government should appoint a person of faith, one who can communicate with evangelicals in terms they both understand and appreciate. Such an undertaking would have nothing to do with asking for funds, but everything to do with tapping into the vast reservoirs of faith and belief that underscore Christian backing for the Jewish state. And you can be sure that if a person is moved to pray for Israel, chances are that his sense of affinity will only continue to grow. Other steps that Israel could take to reinforce US Christian support might include organizing an annual conference for religious and lay leaders in Jerusalem, as well as helping them to develop the equivalent of a birthright-Israel program for young churchgoers which would serve to reinforce their connection with the land of the Bible. Christian support for Israel is broad, profound and deep. If cultivated properly, it can blossom into a lasting friendship of historical, political and diplomatic significance. And with American Jewry steadily shrinking in size, nothing could be more pressing or more vital. The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu. |
|
IRANIAN YOUTH COULD LEAD THE MIDDLE EAST TO A MODERNIZED STABLE CENTURY TWENTY-ONE
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 24, 2006. |
|
Iranian youth scream for sanity in their sanity bereft nation, ruled by an egomaniacal delusional Imam possessed president and his crew of contemptuous conservative Islamic misogynist mullahs, bolstered in power by oil revenue perilously directed towards developing a nuclear infrastructure boding potentially cataclysmic consequences for planet Earth. If ever there was an opening to shift a dysfunctional Middle East culture towards congruency with an emerging secularly based tolerant century twenty-one, unencumbered by a self-defeating diseased Jew/Israel/infidel despising mind-set, it is here within the pressure cooker of erstwhile Persia. A young energetic population wants nothing to do with any Shiite style neo-Ottoman holy war, any Holocaust denying venom initiated to engender kudos for madman AhMADinejad from the anti-Semitic filth that so infects his region of the world, any of the female enslaving sharia laws imposed by turbaned male chauvinist pigs, and fumes in frustration over the firing of liberal minded liberating professors at universities opening pathways to an enlightened modernized secular century twenty-one. Indeed, recent anti-AhMADinejad local election results suggest regime change is in the air. No doubt, those young Iranians yearning for a rational secularly bent progressive future could use a little help from their friends on the sidelines to grease the skids. Part of the Muslim Arab world is in turmoil, still fighting a thirteen century Sunni Shiite war; witness the out of control violence in Iraq since Sadist Hussein was toppled, thus removing his thumb from a pressurized bottle, letting an explosive Shiite genie saturate a once Sunni dominated arena. The Sunni Arab majorities in most Middle East nations, sensing an emboldened ever-strengthening Shiite Iran, no doubt frothing to fill that Iraqi power vacuum, extending its tentacles, allying with Syria itself attempting to topple Lebanon, have ample reason to be concerned. No doubt, an Iranian youth revolution would quell their angst. Might concerned pragmatic Sunni Arab movers and shakers even turn to Israel for assistance, the enemy of its feared Shiite enemy, clandestinely of course to avoid their own street rebellions as well as reprisals from jihad junky al Qaeda types? Quid pro quo from the disrespected Jewish State is surely appropriate towards an Iranian regime that arms Hizbullah and Hamas criminals on a daily basis. Farsi speaking Mossad agents could surely infiltrate (if they have not done so already), wrecking havoc to the insidious agenda of emboldened Islamic despots, lighting the fuse leading to a youth rebellion forcing AhMADinejad and his theological pimps, using the bodies of vulnerable Muslims to do their bidding, to take the next caravan of camels out of Tehran city. 'Death to the dictator', a recent battle cry by angry Iranian students, so far not suppressed by a regime feeling the heat of dissent yet unwilling to incite a smoldering volcano to eruption, should demonstrate to an observant outer world that skillfully placing one lit match could morph words to action. The recent Baker Hamilton 'how to fix Iraq' package presented to the Bush Administration suggests talking to Iran and its ally Syria, in effect asking them to help extricate Uncle Sam from a self-inflicted politically devastating mess without Bush appearing to say uncle, is a less than wise and potentially perilous strategy. Iranian youth would view the West as willing to consort with hence accept as legitimate the freedom suppressing abhorrent fanatical tyrants, would become disillusioned with and in fact mistrust those who hypocritically one day place Iranian leaders on an axis of evil and the next day break pita with the very same crew of 'evil-doers'. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose when presumed diplomacy is correctly or incorrectly perceived as surrendering to forces analogous to those originally toppled in Iraq, proving correctly or incorrectly that talk of democracy and freedom is merely a tactical ploy for the gullible secreted by an oil-obsessed dice-rolling Administration, harboring other more practical and material original motives, that came up snake-eyes. However, with or without support from a reeling formidable ally or Sunni Arabs with no love for Jews, Israel should seize the day, be master of its own fate, light the torch inspiring Iranian youth with words and weapons, covered by Israeli air support if needed, and pummel the dictatorial madmen along with a Revolutionary Guard that too can be weakened by strategic infiltration. There are many movers, shakers, and journalists residing in non-Muslim industrial nations that naysay any further proactive military approach towards an unstable fossil fuel rich Middle East based on energy flow disruptive as well as Armageddon instigating reasons. Yet today's Iran, supported by trading partner Putin-led Russia dedicated to its own agenda, will not refrain from developing a nuclear infrastructure. Period!!! Tolerating a nuclear build up by MADman AhMADinejad and his mullahs, not at all restrained by the MAD (mutually assured destruction) concept, is itself a MADness that ignores prescient historical lessons; did appeasing Hitler work? The best chance now to avoid truly catastrophic consequences is to assist in ripening then abetting a revolution resulting in the good guys defeating the bad guys. Would a sober Knesset agree with that assessment? Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
STATE DEPARTMENT WEIGHS PLAN FOR PALESTINIAN STATE [WITHOUT EVER DISARMING TERRORISTS]
Posted by Avodah, December 24, 2006. |
|
This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA - Independent Media
Review and Analysis Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: "A diplomatic official argued that, because of the chaos in the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli demands are no longer relevant, since it is clear that there is no Palestinian leader who can deliver on the issue of fighting terror." That's right: since there is a snowball's chance in hell that the Palestinians will ever actually fight terror, why not just skip that and give them a sovereign Palestinian state and break out the champagne? 2 Question: #1 What is this diplomatic official smoking and does he enjoy diplomatic immunity? #2 Does he operate heavy equipment while under the influence or only engage in making policy recommendations? |
|
State Department Weighs Plan for Palestinian State Nathan Guttman The Jewish Daily Foward Fri. Dec 22, 2006 www.forward.com/articles/state-department-weighs-plan-for-palestinian-state/ The Bush administration is considering a plan to declare an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders by the end of 2007. The idea has been "kicked around" in the State Department for several weeks, according to sources. It could be one element of a new American Middle East peace plan, the sources added, if President Bush decides to push forward with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as part of a fresh Middle East policy he is constructing. At the same time, in an effort to bolster the regime of Mahmoud Abbas, the administration also has begun lobbying Congress to provide $100 million to fund forces loyal to the Palestinian president. Talk of new ideas for breaking the deadlock in the Middle East come as pressure mounts on the United States and Israel to take action toward resolving the conflict. Jordan's King Abdullah, who met Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert in Amman, offered his services in brokering a deal and announced he would hold talks with all parties in an attempt to reach an agreement. The Jordanian monarch, who also has urged the United States to be more active on the issue, warned that without progress between Israelis and Palestinians, violence would increase. The prospects for a meeting between Olmert and Abbas seemed greater this week after chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared Tuesday that preparations for a summit "are ongoing." The idea of an independent Palestinian state with temporary borders is based on the American-backed peace plan known as the road map. The second phase of the plan, which was formally accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians, calls for a declaration of an independent state even before final borders are agreed upon between both sides. Though the United States has maintained that the road map is still the only viable peace plan for the region, it never took off. This was mainly because of the Israeli insistence that the Palestinians curb terrorism as demanded in the first phase of the plan. The State Department announced this week that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be visiting the region "early next year" and, according to spokesman Sean McCormack, will "devote a lot of time and energy" to implementing a two-state solution. Rice is not expected to present new initiatives during her visit. A diplomatic source, briefed by administration officials on the idea of a state with provisional borders, said this week that the most significant advantage the plan has is that it would allow President Bush to achieve his goal of a two-state solution within a reasonable timeframe. If implemented, such a plan also could help generate support for the United States among moderate Arab countries and possibly assist the American efforts to gain stability in Iraq. In a meeting with Jewish educators and students this week, President Bush mentioned the need for improving ties with moderate Arab countries, saying, according to one participant, that "as time evolves, strange relationships evolve." A Washington source close to the issue said the administration believes that the idea of an independent state with temporary borders could be accepted by the Israelis, especially in light of Olmert's latest remarks on his willingness to give up land and push for a two-state solution. The idea, however, may turn out to be a hard sell for both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli leaders have insisted throughout the years that a fundamental condition for moving forward with any diplomatic initiative is the renunciation of terror by Palestinians and dismantling of the terror infrastructure in the territories. A diplomatic official argued that, because of the chaos in the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli demands are no longer relevant, since it is clear that there is no Palestinian leader who can deliver on the issue of fighting terror. A source close to the P.A. said that such a plan could be acceptable only if America provides assurances that the temporary state does not become a final one and that the border issue remains on the table. As long-term peace plans are being discussed and await a green light from the president and from the secretary of state, senior administration officials are working to provide temporary relief to Palestinian moderates. The administration now intends to funnel $100 million to the Fatah-controlled Palestinian security forces, mainly to Abbas's presidential guard. In recent weeks, Keith Dayton, the American military envoy to the region, and other State Department officials have briefed key congressional staffers on the government's plan to provide funding for the Palestinian security forces. The request, according to congressional sources, is for providing up to $100 million that was previously appropriated for the P.A. but was never delivered because of the Hamas victory in the January elections. The money is to be used for paying salaries of members of the security services and presidential guard, and for equipment, but it will not be used for the purchase of lethal weapons. Weapons for the security forces are to be provided by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, according to sources familiar with the plan. The administration's plan for strengthening Abbas's forces is gaining support in Congress and is not expected to encounter significant resistance. "It might just be too little and too late," said Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York, who in January 2007 will take over as head of the Middle East subcommittee. Though Ackerman told the Forward he believes that the United States still can help Abbas "without making him look like a puppet," he criticized the administration for dragging its feet in providing support for the Palestinian leader. "I hope it's not too late," Ackerman said, promising that once he and the Democrats take over the subcommittee, they will scrutinize the administration's Middle East policy. "The oversight will be there, you can count on that," Ackerman said. Both Democratic and Republican staffers voiced skepticism over the possibility that America's money actually will make a difference in the rapidly deteriorating P.A. "It's between investing in the crooks or in the killers, so we invest in the crooks," one staffer said. In the last days of its final session, the outgoing Congress passed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which imposes restrictions on American aid to the P.A. The law, however, also includes a provision allowing the transfer of funds to forces loyal to Abbas. Pro-Israeli lobbyists and Israeli officials said that they favor American efforts to bolster Fatah-controlled security forces, stressing the need to strengthen Abbas in light of the challenges he is facing. Concerns in the United States of being seen as meddling in internal Palestinian politics led McCormack, the State Department spokesman, on Tuesday to say that this "is certainly not our intent." The spokesman added that the American assistance is designed to "shore up the institutions of a future Palestinian state," not to shore up support for Abbas. Before the Palestinian parliamentary elections last January, the United States was criticized for providing $2 million worth of assistance to Abbas's Fatah party through the U.S. Agency for International Development. Some think it is too late for clarifications. "It's a shame they made this whole issue public," said the American Task Force on Palestine's president, Ziad Asali, who just returned from a trip to the region. "This money is seen as being used against Hamas and creates a problem for Abbas." Rice made an effort this week not to enter the Palestinian political debate, saying that the decision to call for early elections in the P.A. "is something that I think the Palestinians will decide." Rice stressed, however, that violence in the Palestinian territories must stop and that "the political crisis also has to be resolved." Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com |
|
SHAME, SHAME SHAME ON ALL OF YOU--ALL OF US! GILAD SHALIT. REMEMBER HIM?
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 24, 2006. | |
|
This comes from the Boker Tov Boulder:
| |
|
While Olmert May Back Down on Demand for Shalit... (IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Cabinet Sunday that "the time has come for flexibility and generosity, and it [Israeli policy] could be different than what has been said in past meetings," according to a government source quoted by Reuters News Agency. Doris at CJHSLA (doriswise@sbcglobal.net) tells ALL of us that the bumper sticker campaign is not happening. Even though we have all pounded on our readers with this image and Pamela at Atlas Shrugs mentioned it on her mega-blog, Nothing Happened. Anne at Boker Tov Boulder writes: I am disgusted. What the hell is the matter with you? These three men are our sons and our brothers, and yet we stand "idly by." After months and months of hoping Ehud Olmert will "do something" or Kofi Annan will "do something" or somebody else will "do something," here's the tiniest thing you can do and you can't be bothered?
Friends: Sharing this campaign to maintain the public awareness focus on the three kidnapped Israeli soldiers is YOUR DUTY. Purchasing at least ONE decal is a Mitzvah. Do the right thing!
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com
|
|
Posted by Aramy, December 24, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Carol Gould, who is an American-born broadcaster living and working in London, England. |
|
Nothing, but nothing in the social discourse is as abhorrent as denial of the atrocities of the Holocaust and the refusal to accept the right of Israel to exist. In recent years in Great Britain, Jews and to a lesser extent Americans (connected in people's minds to Israel because of what is perceived by the British public as a vast 'Zionist lobby' in the USA) have put up with these two calumnies almost every day. Indeed for thirty-one years, from my innocent twenties to my now bitter latter-end-of-middle age, I have been at the receiving end of some brutal epithets about 'the Holocaust being wheeled out every time a Jew has a grievance' and 'a band of Jewish terrorists backed by American Jews turning up in wartime Palestine and murdering everyone there..' This week Americans of all faiths and none have been exposed to former President Jimmy Carter's new book about Israeli apartheid practices, and to the news of the Holocaust Denial Conference in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I stress 'Islamic Republic' because in Britain the ubiquitous Muslim spokespeople are constantly on television, radio and in the papers complaining about every aspect of disfavor they claim hounds them in their daily life. One of the biggest complaints is denial of the true magnitude of the 'Naqba' or establishment of Israel. Conversely, many prominent liberal Anglo Jews and British rabbis show their generosity of spirit by attending an annual event in London commemorating Deir Yassin, the symbolic 'Naqba' remembrance event for British Muslims. So, I stress 'Islamic' because it is a fact that a huge Muslim nation has perpetrated what the majority of decent human beings across the globe consider to be the most heinous obscenity of the past fifty years, the Conference on denial of the Holocaust. As the British Muslim feminist commentator Yasmin Alibhai Brown commented earlier this year after Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, boycotted British Holocaust Memorial Day for the second year running, does the Muslim world really expect world Jewry to leap to their aid should a Holocaust on the scale of the Nazi genocide of the Jews someday be perpetrated against Muslims? In the past three weeks I have been unable to put pen to paper. The conglomeration of the worldwide fuss over the killing of eighteen people in Beit Hanoun whilst no attention is paid to Israelis being attacked daily with ball-bearing-tipped rockets, the 'let's blame Israel' Iraq Study Group, the publication of Jimmy Carter's outrageously titled book, and now the Iranian Holocaust Denial Conference, has in its entirety rendered me beyond any ability to express myself. This has never happened to me. However, in the past few hours the Guardian has so enraged me that my writer's block has lifted. Britain is obsessed with Israel. One would think it is a huge continent hell-bent on destroying little Britain for all the venom and ire spewed by MPs and liberal activists in the media. This week, however, the Guardian outdid itself with a piece by Reader Ombudsman Ian Mayes, who felt triumphant over a huge color centerfold spread in the print edition showing the damage done by Israeli shells in Beit Hanoun. Mayes made the point that very few pro-Israel people telephone or wrote in to complain. My response to him is this: it is not, as he suggests, a 'calumny' for someone to complain that images only appear when victims are killed by Jews. The British media do have an obsessive interest in the deaths of Palestinians, but not of Israelis. In the same fortnight of the Beit Hanoun event, thousands of Israelis were once again confined to bomb shelters, at the expense of their family life and professional obligations, and in that time 57 rockets, armed with tips full of ball bearings, were launched into Israel killing several people and permanently maiming scores of others. Israeli children are traumatized after a year of these relentless attacks. But, as the Guardian's telephone caller would say, they are Jews, so who cares? When thirty elderly Holocaust survivors were massacred at a hotel inside Israel by a Hamas bomber on the sacred night of the first Passover Seder several years ago, the British media promptly obsessed on the 'massacre' in Jenin (Saeb Erekat's famous '3,000 dead' that eventually came down to 57 dead terrorists in Jenin) and spent reams of newsprint on the Israeli retaliatory raid. This week, Palestinians 2, Jews nil. As usual. In a Guardian blog filled with bilious rage at Israel, one person named 'Chicago Paco' put it succinctly: 'It's a crappy little country that does not deserve to exist and should be dissolved immediately.' I was surprised the Guardian moderator did not excise it. When I tried to send a response my message was blocked by the Guardian. What is remarkable is that it appears the moderator allowed only outrageous attacks against Israel and Zionists to be published. So, my response to Chicago Paco is this: 'You insult every Jewish, Christian and Muslim resident of Israel. Imagine if someone wrote the same about Bangla Desh or Kuwait? By the way, what is crappy about Israel? The scores of internationally-acclaimed scientific institutions like the Technion and Weizmann Institute? The endless streams of art galleries, concert venues, theatre, opera and ballet companies? The stunning agricultural institutions that people consult from all over the world? The wines from the Golan (a soggy wasteland for decades under Syrian rule until Israel brought it to life) that won top prizes at the prestigious Bordeaux Festival? Now today, 15 December, amidst the fallout from the shameful Holocaust Conference and at a time when all decent cultures should be showing solidarity with world Jewry, the Guardian has embarked on a campaign to promote a comprehensive boycott of everything Israel produces, be it music, grapes, microchips or plastic garden furniture. The leader of the boycott, John Berger, even suggests boycotting Israeli jugglers! This campaign has received scores of responses throughout the day, many of which are refreshingly hostile to the boycott, including even one or two from Palestinians. One blogger, 'EnoughSaid' notes: 'I assume your boycott will also include medical rescue missions. Israel was one of the very first nations to offer substantial aid and to send medical rescue missions to Islamic people in the stricken tsunami areas. Israel mobilized 150 doctors and relief teams as well as an 82-ton planeload of supplies for Sri Lanka..' This brings us back to the subject of the obscene Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran. During the week leading up to this event there was barely a minute of coverage in the British media, although considerable face time was given to the bearded anti-Zionist Naturei Karta 'rabbis' who attended the conference. To show the ignorance in the British media about what is what, the BBC News 24 anchor Martine Croxall asked American Jewish community leader Malcolm Hoenlein why it was so bad if 'Jewish rabbis' were attending.' One hopes they will be excommunicated for making millions of naïve and uninformed non-Jews across the globe believe that a branch of Judaism sanctioned their attendance at this criminal event, this calumny. In the UK, the Jewish community was silent and the Chief Rabbi nowhere to be seen. When Hugo Gryn and Lord Jacobovits died, the Jewish voice of Britain died. One Liberal rabbi, Alexandra Wright, was busy speaking at a London conference on 'Israeli Apartheid and Human Rights Violations' hosted by news anchorman Jon Snow. So, as the Festival of Lights begins for Jews around the world, we have the James Baker group declaring that the pesky Jews should be put in their place; Ahmadinejad hosting an event that should never have been allowed to take place, Desmond Tutu poking into Israel's affairs when he ought to be sorting out the monumental problems besetting his benighted nation of South Africa -- long free of 'Israeli-style apartheid' but sinking into ruin just the same, as will, I predict, 'Palestine,' if it is established -- and the British Guardian newspaper now leading a boycott of the apartheid state Jimmy Carter hates so much. What is so worrying is that here in Britain books by Jimmy Carter and reports by James Baker were never needed to inspire the unique rage that I have seen on the faces of Englishmen and women when the word 'Israel' is uttered. Increasingly one sees the words 'Jews' and 'Jewish' also cause the hackles to rise. This is, after all the land of the Blood Libel, the York Massacre, the Expulsion, the Jew Riots not to mention the land of Mosley, the Dowager Lady Birdwood and David Irving. What is so interesting too is that the British Muslim community, embodied by the Muslim Council and MPACUK, tries to flame the fires of division with obsessive hatred of 'Zionazis' and boycotts of Holocaust Day, seems to be ripe for an unholy alliance with the likes of David Duke, the ex- Klansman who loves Ahmadinejad. Even the obsessive attention paid by the British media to Lord Levy, Tony Blair's close confidant, and the newspapers' seeming determination to bring the Jewish peer down, is scary and sobering. Americans will be blissfully unaware of the campaign to bring down Lord Levy in the admittedly troubling 'Cash for Peerages' scandal, but he is a far, far cry from Jack Abramoff. The alliance of the liberal Left, of anti-war activists who march in the 'Death to Israel' demonstrations, of the KKK and radical, genocidal Muslim leaders is a mix that every Jew in the world must sit up and notice. One gets enough invitations from American Jewish groups to 'an evening of Bridge, Bagels and Borscht' to know that much of world Jewry is in denial. But they need to know that here in the United Kingdom we are in a multi-faceted tsunami of Jew-hatred cleverly disguised in anti-Israel rhetoric. The naïveté of American Jewry manifests itself in the positive comments I receive about the Iraq Study Group's suggestion the USA engage with Assad and Ahmadinejad. If you have lived, as I have, in that neighborhood, you know that this is like engaging with Mussolini and Hitler in 1937. Amongst the core issues that have marked Jewish aspirations in the post-Holocaust era are the concepts of Aliyah and of Jewish nationhood. What has surprised and at times shocked me in the past six years or so is the anger these concepts engender here in Britain. Perhaps I have lived out my life in Britain in the naïve belief that everyone on earth understands the calamity of the Nazi genocide and the desire of Jews thereafter to live only amongst each other after two-thousand years of persecution in the Diaspora. Is this such an outrageous thing to allow Jews to do? In three decades in Britain I have come to learn that the concept of the Jewish 'Right of Return' is regarded as an outrage by a large chunk of the population. Never mind that there are over one-hundred countries one would classify as Christian and over fifty now regarded as majority Muslim. Putting aside the fury of many who have confronted me about 'stealing Palestinian land and the fifty-year genocide by Israel' there is a genuine, old-fashioned 'how dare they?' discomfort about the concept of Jews being able to settle in Israel from anywhere in the world. It is painful and has made sustaining long-term friendships a less and less viable option in my adopted country, Britain. Right now Britons are flocking to musicals in the West End of London. They are immune from polio and their children and grandchildren will be, too. Perhaps if the Guardian really wants to boycott things Jewish they should ban the polio vaccine and ban plays and musicals, 90% of which are written by Jews. As the Guardian blogger quoted above said, the world would have to sink into Third World levels of technology and scientific activity if Israeli work was to be boycotted. Israel is not perfect, but Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, China and other outrageous human rights violators are far, far worse. The amount of attention paid to Israel's shortcomings by outsiders who should be attending to their own countries' calumnies is out of proportion to anything in recent memory. My last word is this: it is not true that virulent, unfair, biased, obsessive and often genocidal rhetoric about Israel is 'just criticism.' It is anti-Semitism. It is a particular hatred directed at a concentrated connubation of Jews. Six million Jews, to be precise. A chilling figure. A figure Ahmadinejad wishes to dispute as fiction. But please note he is very willing to eliminate six million real, living Jews next door. So are the liberal Guardian bloggers and the Muslim activists sitting in Luton and Birmingham and Glasgow writing in about 'eliminating the Racist Apartheid Entity' to their organizations. So is Muslim convert and rabid Israel-hating radical Yvonne Ridley, shouting about 'that vile little country' and calling the anti-terror police 'jackboot Britain. ' So is David Duke. World Jewry, take note. You are a tiny speck in the world community of Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. James Baker, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Jimmy Carter would like to see a 'technical correction' that could result in that tiny speck being blown away. Buy Israeli goods. Drink Israeli wine. Horde Israeli Chanukah candles. And buy a box of Yahrzeit candles. Remember. Never again. Contact Aramy at aramy964@gmail.com |
|
ARIEL ZILBER SHIVERS THEIR TIMBERS
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 24, 2006. |
|
1. Ariel Zilber is the Israeli pop singer that the Left most loves
to hate. He upset the PC crowd for criticizing homosexuality. He
endorsed political parties of the Right. He called for transferring
Israeli Arabs to Arab states Now he is back to give the Left an even bigger dose of them heebie
jeebies. As you know the Left wants a new different national anthem,
one that does not mention Jews or Judaism. Zilber has composed his
OWN alternative national anthem or at least a national protest anthem
It is entitled Yula Yula Yula La The Hebrew is on the above web site. In Hebrew it rhymes. Here is a rough translation of some of the lyrics: Let's all sing the song of Yula
The missiles are flying about the nation is in a trauma,
Yula Yula Yula La
General Dan Halutz demolished Gush Katif One Two Three
The media are a big festival devoted to throwing sand in our eyes
Yula yula yula la
Aharon Barak holds the reins up in his tower of ivory
Yula Yula Yula La What will be with us
2. Several years ago, Yossi Beilin, the godmother of Oslo, started floating the idea for a new form of "secular Rabbi" and "secular religion". The idea would be that people who have no interest in or knowledge of Judaism, people who feel nothing but disdain for Jewish tradition, would invent and practice a new "secular Jewish religion". It would NOT be the sort of Judaism Lite promoted by the Reformies and the Conservatives, which maintains at least some symbols and content from Judaism. Beilin's "secular religion" would consist of promoting socialism, eating bagels and lox, striving for Palestinian statehood, and learning all the dirty words in Yiddish. Some of the loonier forces in Israel liked the idea and picked it up. This week the first batch of "secular Rabbis" was "ordained" by the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism in Jerusalem." Seven men and women, none wearing yarmulke or hat, at least some of whom are heterosexual, were so "ordained". See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881948042&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 3. The grandson of Alexander Penn: A remarkable article was carried in the weekend Haaretz culture
section. Unfortunately it can only be read in Hebrew
Alexander Penn was one of Israel's leading poets and songwriters.
He was born in 1906 in the steppes of Russia. His father was a
descendent of the Baal Shem Tov and his mother was a Swede (not
Jewish). He was at first raised by his grandfather, a bear hunter.
When the grandfather died, he moved in with his father and converted
(although there are some who challenge this). In Russia he was a
personal friend of Pasternak and other leading poets. He made aliyah
in 1927, knowing no Hebrew. While he was a communist and member of
"the party" most of his life, he also was a gifted poet and song
writer. He also was unfashionably patriotic for a communist and broke
with the party when he wrote a poem denouncing Adbul Gamal Nasser, and
resigned from the party after the Six Day War.. Some of Israel's
greatest patriotic songs were written by him (for example, "Adama
Admati"). (See his bio at
The news piece in question is about Penn's grandson. Growing up in Israel as a WASP (white Ashkenazi Sabra with 'protektzia'), an ultra-secularist and standard left leaning middle class Israeli. He is now a Conservative Rabbi and a political hawk. Dr. Jonathan Fine is a lecturer at the Lauder School of Government in the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya and a fellow researcher at the center's Institute of Counterterrorism. He grew up knowing almost nothing about his famous grandfather. (Penn had divorced his wife, and Fine was only in touch with her and her family.) Fine's went to LA as a counselor in a Reform synagogue summer camp in 1980. He quickly realized that even those Reformies knew far, far more about Judaism than he did. He was just out of the IDF, and the campers included Beverly Hills brats and even the son of Dustin Hoffman. He felt like an idiot at the first Kabbalat Shabbat. When he returned, he studied history at the Hebrew University but also started filling in the blanks in his knowledge of Judaism. He visited yeshivas. He started carrying a prayer book with him, esp in the army. He fought in the first Lebanese War in 1983. One time he and his fellows literally stepped on a land mine. It did not go off. Miracle? He traveled and understands that anti-Semitism has nothing to do with "occupation" and that the Arab war against Israel is a war for destruction and genocide. He considers himself a Labor Party guy who woke up from delusions. He still has a way to go. He repeats the Conservative movement's party line about how homosexuality was only prohibited in the Torah because the Canaanites did it (sure they did!) but today is different because people do it out of love. He is interesting largely because of who his grandfather was, and in what he may yet become. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
THE WAR IN LEBANON
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, December 23, 2006. |
|
This articlewas written by Mark Helprin,
a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He is a novelist and journalist.
His website is at http://www.markhelprin.com.
It appeared in the Fall 2006
issue of the Claremont Review of Books
|
|
Imagine an Israeli guerrilla organization based in the Galilee, a power unto itself, with seats in the cabinet, a generous welfare apparatus, and the oft-stated goal of Lebanon's destruction and replacement with a Jewish state governed by Jewish religious law. Upon instructions from its foreign patron and supplier of arms, it crosses the border to capture and kill some Lebanese soldiers. Lebanon, however, is in no mood to tolerate such a provocation, especially in light of the guerrillas' arsenal of 10,000 or so short-range missiles targeted at Lebanese civilians. For a month, the Lebanese air force ranges freely over all of Israel, and, without losing a single plane, cuts every major bridge and road link in the country, destroys its power plants, bombs ports, airports, military facilities associated with the guerrillas, and the guerrillas themselves, obliterating all but their buried infrastructure. Significant portions of Tel Aviv and Haifa, and many of the small towns of Israel's north, are reduced to rubble. With the loss of four sailors and minor damage to a frigate, the Lebanese navy blockades Israel's coasts with 100% effectiveness. More than a thousand Israelis are killed, four times that number wounded, and a quarter of the Jewish guerrillas slain in combat. Because the guerrillas choose to fire their rockets amid the civilian population, the homes of almost a million Jews are razed by the Lebanese air force, the Israeli economy comes to a halt, foreigners are evacuated, and the world looks on in horror. Meanwhile, its own economy humming, Lebanon deploys in the battle zone on average less than 2% of its army, of which 118 fall in combat. Thirty-nine Lebanese die in the Israeli guerrillas' barrage of 4,000 missiles, a kill rate of less than 1%. Lebanon is able to destroy more than 3,000 of the remaining 6,000 missiles, including almost all those of greater range, putting to rest the guerrillas' threat to attack Beirut. The guerrillas and their supporters repeatedly beg for a cease-fire. The Israeli prime minister cries that his country has been destroyed, and weeps on camera. Israel is blockaded by sea, its other links to the world cut at will by the Lebanese air force. The Lebanese army remains in key positions in the north of the country, and the world's powers, great and small, sympathetic and not, look on both unwilling and unable to intervene, finally coming to Israel's aid only on the stated condition that Israel accept the presence of alien troops on its soil to disarm the guerrillas and protect Lebanon from further incursions. Who won? Unrealistic Expectations To reflect the common wisdom in regard to the real war that has just taken place in Lebanon, one would have to say, absurdly, that in the fictional example Israel won. For the whole world and Israel itself perceives a Hezbollah victory, even if in a blind test as above, the judgment most certainly would be different. This is explicable on many levels. With the same kind of intellectual lethargy that led to the obligatory description of the proposed international force as robust (I hope never to hear the word again), people who do not pretend to knowledge of either the Arab-Israeli conflict or military affairs habitually declare that Israel is invincible. Insensitive to fact, variation, potential orders of battle, or the effects of nuclear weapons, they have been saying this since the Six-Day War of 1967. That war, the 100-hour 1956 Sinai Campaign, and the 1976 Entebbe operation are responsible for expectations that Israel produces miracles every time it takes to the field. These decisive victories were a surprise to many, who were shocked that the Jews, whom the Russian Empire's Cantonist Decrees of the 19th century had subjected to 25 years or more compulsory military service, had a military tradition and could hold their own in battle. And thus the swing of the pendulum from irrational contempt to irrational awe. Irrational because even in 1967, in a war that borders on the miraculous perhaps more than any other, the struggles for Jerusalem and the Golan were hard fought, costly, and closely run. Irrational because for Israel the 1948 War of Independence dragged on with high casualties and much destruction, and left it with borders that were a strategical nightmare. Irrational because the War of Attrition spanned several difficult years and brought Israel no gains whatsoever. Irrational because in the 1973 War Israel came perilously close to extinction. And irrational because none of the campaigns in Lebanon has been anything but slow and bloody, and collectively they have given birth not to miracles but to the Hezbollah garrison that in this war Israel was compelled to reduce. Perhaps surprisingly, because now and then they pay for it dearly, the Israelis themselves are prone to the same unrealistic expectations. And in this war these were supercharged by their new prime minister, a man of civic rather than military affairs, who, when the most that could be achieved was Hezbollah's reduction, promised its destruction. Contrast this with the 1967 War, in which, in the words of Michael Oren, There was no thought of altering ... [the] context fundamentally, of eliminating the possibility of similar wars erupting in the future. Rather, all Israel strove for was an end to the immediate threat, and for an indefinite period of quiet thereafter." And that is all it got. No one may ever know what possessed Israel and the world to imagine after four decades of Fatah ineradicable, many years of Intifada, and the rise of Hamas, that it could in a single strike destroy an organically rooted terrorist organization, but this unreasonable elevation of its aim helps to explain the public's perception of the war. Perhaps the most serious damage one can do to oneself in a military campaign is to fail to have a clear, disciplined, and consistent set of objectives. In reaching these, improvisation is the highest virtue. In defining them, it is the greatest sin. The lack of conceptual rigor and the resulting fluid and promiscuous adjustment and expansion of America's aims in Iraq have become a continuing tragedy. In a lesser sense, Israel has followed suit in Lebanon. The war there is not, however, comparable to the war in Iraq. For three and a half years we have been trying to pacify and transform a country of 28 million, larger than California, and many thousand miles distant. The Israelis had a less ambitious objective in a contiguous territory the size of San Antonio, Texas, with perhaps 100,000 people left in it at the peak of hostilities that lasted a month. In Iraq, we expect to compel the lion to lie down with the lamb, and have rejected as inappropriate to our greatness merely holding our enemies at bay, and so, applying this template to the Israelis, we fault them for not fully eradicating theirs -- as if they ever did, and as if they ever could. For you beat this strain of guerrilla neither by conversion nor elimination, but only with endurance, patience, an assiduous defense, and well executed punitive measures sometimes timed to enemy attacks and sometimes not. To some extent we judge the war as we do because our view has been unduly influenced by enemies who feed joyfully on death and have unshakable confidence, while we are no longer certain of the justice of our self- defense. Thus, when Hezbollah says it has won a "historic" victory, large segments of European and American opinion that reflexively defer to hostile judgment, whether Soviet or Arab, simply acquiesce. And yet Hezbollah is part of a people who claimed on the eve of the 1967 War that, "If the Sixth Fleet intervenes in our struggle ... we have the power to turn it into a can of sardines"; who, as their armies were being slaughtered in Sinai, danced in the streets of Cairo; and who, after fleeing Kuneitra without a shot, called it the greatest military action in history, "even greater than the Russian defense of Stalingrad." Theirs is hardly a sober or disinterested assessment, and we have no reason to take them at their word. Hezbollah has proved that it can survive an Israeli campaign of small scale and limited duration, but it has also proved that this can destroy Lebanon, and that 10,000 carefully accumulated "strategic" weapons -- in the main, glorified artillery rounds -- were during four weeks of engagement less potent than one suicide bomber. Damage Report Although efficiently lamented by many Israelis in interviews with the American press, the war's effect on the economy is not yet statistically apparent at the time of this writing, other than that, in July, exports of goods declined while exports of services grew, and the already thriving composite index of economic health actually advanced. Overall, the shut-downs, dislocations, and damage cannot have been major. The north outside Haifa is primarily yet thinly agricultural, and comprises many "unproductive" Arab villages, park lands, and rocky hills. Most crops were unaffected, and the region within range of (relatively) heavy bombardment accounts for only a small portion of Israel's agricultural production, which itself is only a few percent of GNP. Industrial facilities in the north other than in Haifa, whose heavy industry and refining completely escaped, are simultaneously just a fraction of Israel's capacity, highly dispersed, and unscathed. Tourism was set back, but the month of warfare probably had less effect on the economy as a whole -- with its strong growth and remarkable technological thrust -- than a traditional French August. The Washington Post's estimate of $1.3 billion in damage to infrastructure must be viewed vis-à-vis Israel's $120 billion GNP, and in sharp contrast to the Lebanese government's estimate of a $2.5 billion loss to its own GNP of less than $20 billion. Damage to Lebanon's south, Hezbollah's base, is proportionately far greater and of far greater import. For although Hezbollah has won the outward support of the carefully cultivated Shia in southern Lebanon, because it is a political organization more attentive to its constituents than was Tip O'Neill, as a practical matter it cannot subject them either often or soon to what they have just been through.Though Hezbollah has certainly galvanized the Arab street, galvanized no less are the Sunni regimes from the Gulf to Morocco, for whom a de facto Iranian mandate in Lebanon is of no small consequence. Hoping that the presence of the Lebanese army and an international force will discourage Israeli attack, Hezbollah must also deal with the possibility that these contingents, with the backing and encouragement of a naturally coalescing anti-Iranian front among most Arab states and Lebanon itself (in whose interest taming Hezbollah is paramount) may close down or heavily restrict arms traffic from Syria and the sea, and that its reconstitution will be fettered not only by Israeli action but by the planned 15,000 foreign troops. They may not be "robust," but they will be unpredictable. Hezbollah will rearm, although to what extent is unknown, and one cannot count on the efforts of either Lebanon or the Sunni Arab states to suppress it. But given that its arsenal proved ineffective and that obtaining new weapons will be subject to varying degrees of local, international, and Israeli obstruction, the rearmament is not quite what popular fears suggest. Israel's Strategy If one accepts Hezbollah's self-description as a resistance movement, in which case one must, in light of the fact that Hezbollah never ceases to provoke, view Israel's mere existence as a continuing act of aggression, then Hezbollah has indeed shown that it can initiate conflict, resist, and survive. But survival is not its aim. Because by resist what it means is to destroy Israel, one must ask how much closer to its goal the war has brought it. The answer is that Israel faces many existential dangers, but Hezbollah has never been, and -- with its arsenals depleted, a quarter of its fighters dead, and its supporters savaged -- is not now one of them. Israel, on the other hand, if it is realistic, aims not to destroy Hezbollah, for Hezbollah can recruit from a bottomless well, blend into the population, and take refuge beyond the Litani or beyond Lebanon itself. Unlike Hezbollah, Israel's more modest aim is to survive, and that it has done. The notion that Israel was defeated flies below the level of war aims, the complications of regional politics, and long-term effects, and is born from the particularities of battle. The general opinion of a war, which is a very large thing, is at first formed by apprehension of the smallest details. And though at close range the many deficiencies of Israel's campaign may cumulatively suggest failure, even these have often been misjudged. In the war's early days, when the prime minister met with military advisors who in reversal of the norm were mainly air force officers, it was clear that the campaign -- under the direction of an air force general as chief of the general staff -- would stress aerial bombardment. The Israelis had had a decade to create with their many means of technical and traditional reconnaissance a detailed and comprehensive picture of the battlefield. This, combined with precision-guided munitions and small, focused raids, seemed appropriate to a highly dispersed, mobile, and well dug-in enemy. The object, a recurring theme in military history, was to avoid high Israeli casualties by relying upon machines instead of men. Hezbollah, however, was eager to fight amid and sacrifice its civilians, and the Israeli picture of the battle space was not what it should have been. But the strategy was sound. Crossing enemy ground to a launch site, one can destroy everything in the way, as opposed to descending upon the objective from the air and keeping it in isolation. And pop-up targets don't wait around for armored columns to reach them. Had the army gone in en masse, the few thousand Hezbollah regulars would have taken refuge among the population or beyond the Litani, and to the extent that they would have stood their ground, the Israelis would have incurred far more casualties in the kind of "whack-a-mole" war that took place, and inflicted more on the civilians among whom Hezbollah hid, for more or less the same result: guerrillas melt away, but then filter back. The fault lay not in strategy but in extended toleration of Hezbollah's buildup. This very campaign four or five years ago would have looked much different. A subsequent campaign sooner rather than later, and dogged attention from the air until then, will also look different. Looking to Iran The lessons for Israel? Not to let things go for so long; to have a better picture of the battlefield (using, for example, ground-penetrating radar); to "up armor" its tanks; to adapt naval point defense systems that, once emplaced, are capable of bringing down "Katyushas" cheaply; to determine carefully, state publicly, and not depart from the aims of the campaign; to calibrate military action to the time limits imposed upon Israel in all its wars; better to inform the Lebanese and the world that Israel has no choice but to strike at missiles launched against it from residential areas if Hezbollah's will is to make Lebanon a free-fire zone; and to be prepared to deal with West Bank and Gaza variations of the Hezbollah technique. For example, the war has been a strong argument for continued Israeli control of the Jordan crossings and the sea and air approaches to a Palestinian state, lest Qassems become Katyushas, and as such is Iran's gift to the Palestinians of yet another setback. The preeminent lesson is that Israel must create more of a margin of safety in its military operations. It has no alternative but to over-spend, over-prepare, over-fortify, over-stockpile, and over-train. And it must abandon permanently the hubris that arises in part from the world's Manichean view of it, in favor of a garrison mentality that befits its persistent vulnerability. I believe that history will see that the essence of this war is that it has served as an exchange of messages and proofs in the prelude to an Islamic nuclear confrontation with the West. Nations can and often do speak to one another in a way that transcends the intent of even their highest authorities, and the question Iran has posed to Israel, the Muslims to the Jews, and the East to the West, is: What will you do if we open the door to Armageddon? Israel has provided the answer, and it reads quite simply. To an Iran that calls for its destruction and is proceeding headlong toward nuclear weapons, Israel has stated in the war in Lebanon that it will not go down alone. This is not the subtext of the July war, it is the prime text. What one commentator after another termed the "disproportionate" destruction of Lebanon was indeed a message about proportion and intentions: that the three or four nuclear detonations in Israel which would be enough to destroy it will yield many, many times that number in Iran and possibly elsewhere. Iran is neither exclusively rational nor irrational, and as rash and determined as it may be, it is yet probing for information. The United States, in overextending its forces, keeping a dangerous rein on military expenditures, and following Europe into the Russian-Chinese-Iranian diplomatic swamp, has partially answered Iran's query as to what it may do in regard to Iranian nuclear development. Even if in the unlikely event that the immediate Hezbollah provocation was not of Iranian origin, the question exists and Israel has addressed it. In light of Ahmadinejad's fanaticism, some doubt the utility of deterrent signals, but whether or not productive or even received, such signals must be sent, as they are fundamental to survival. And, then, counter to many impressions, Iran is in fact moving with some care. Both it and Syria possess chemical and biological weapons, Iran's stockpiles being rich and varied. And yet not one of Hezbollah's 10,000 missiles capable of carrying a chemical or biological warhead was so equipped. Without guidance, they would not have achieved maximum impact, and merely turned the public relations battle on its head. But, more importantly, had they been used, they would have given Israel not only the occasion it does not need to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, but reason to attack Iran itself. Iran now knows exactly what kind of game it is in, and will calibrate its moves accordingly: perhaps emphasizing deception all the more, hardening its facilities as never before, or even reaching some sort of deal. Whatever it does, it has been unambiguously put on notice. The dense traffic in symbols and signals among proxies and principals, as in the conduct of the Cold War with a similar language and millions of casualties, has moved all parties closer to the denouement. What that will be no one can say, but even without the use of nuclear weapons Israel is capable of the certain destruction of the Iranian nuclear project, and the clash in Lebanon, as much a pre-nuclear clarification as anything else, has brought it much closer to this than ever. To judge the war solely according to its devastation (for which Hezbollah, deliberately sheltering missile launches against Israel among its own people, was entirely responsible and too little condemned), by its tactical efficiency, by numbers and metrics, in view of carelessly stated objectives, or in thrall of the compelling testimony of the participants and victims of both sides, is to overlook its greater import. It was a war like most of Israel's wars rather than the few, and its egregious missteps beg for correction. But as Churchill said of a weak, 17th-century England that did not enjoy the wealth and power of the Victorians who condemned its immoralities in the affairs of state, "We had to keep ourselves alive and free, and we did so." Israel has lost the battle for public relations but achieved a number of necessary objectives -- reducing the growing arsenal arrayed against its civil population, putting a large stick in the spokes of Hezbollah's wheels, perhaps buying a period of relative peace in the north, and holding Lebanon to account for grafting onto its political structure a Spartan state at war with Israel for the purpose of its destruction. Existential Battles To the Iranian de facto declaration to Israel, the Arabs, and the West that it possesses a belligerent outpost on the Mediterranean, Israel has weathered world condemnation to reply that the rent for this outpost is high and can be made higher. When Iran spoke to Israel in the language of war, Israel spoke back with absolute clarity even if not with the mythical brilliance attributed to it by friend and foe alike. Which is not to say that it is incapable of fighting the stunning existential battles that once it fought. For it is indeed capable of them, and they are yet to come. Mordechai Ben-Menachem can be contacted by email at quality@computer.org |
|
WHY HAS YOUR ADMINISTRATION TURNED AGAINST ISRAEL?
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 23, 2006. |
|
To: President George Bush
Mr. President and Madam Rice: What is with you cutting off sending arms and technology to Israel? Is it because you expect Israel not to fight her enemies, just lie down to die?! Is this by any chance what your clearly anti-Semitic State Department wants? For all we know this is what Madam Rice, the "brilliant star" you put to head the State Department who thinks she has a grasp of Middle East policy, promised your friends and supporters, the Saudis, to do. And you also ambushed Israel PM Olmert, broke his 'arms' and forced him to release to the terror entity PA frozen funds in Israel hands the PA need so badly so they can finance more killing of more innocent Israelis. It is clearer than clear now that your war on terror was and is nothing but a farce and a bloody and very sad joke. It ends up it is Israel you are fighting not Islamo fascism. You do so by sending arms to her killer terrorists while withholding arms and technology from her. For a long while I have been wondering but am now sure you have left the sensibility arena a long while back. You have no shame! And to put it mildly, you are an embarrassment to all of us; more so, you scare us with this display of crazy behavior. More and more you could be equated with extremely anti-Israel Jimmy Carter. Much worse, we are beyond being disgusted and are rather sick of your failed, pro Arab policy and your pro Arab terror administration. So let me remind you Ambush Israel Mr. Bush: The God of Israel will take care of Israel. You, however, will have to answer to Him what you have done to his people. God's people will survive but your Presidency legacy will be perceived you threw our democracy under the Islamo-fascism bus and us to the dogs and pigs of oil and money Muslim terrorists. There is not enough sadness in me and not enough tears to cry. Nurit Greenger
|
|
AMERICAN WOMAN'S VISIT TO SAUDI ARABIA IN A LAND WHERE WOMEN ARE INVISIBLE ONLY HUMAN
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 23, 2006. |
|
Saudi Arabia is not an easy place to be...a lesson in Islam from an American woman's visit to Saudi Arabia. She is Kathleen Peratis, a partner in the New York law firm Outten & Golden. Please read and educate yourself! Casual, gratuitous anti-Semitism is widespread in Saudi Arabia..."cosmopolitan" and "progressive" human rights activist thinks that the Saudis of the September 11 attacks did not have the technological know-how to have pulled it off...so who did it? "Mossad," says the "cosmopolitan" and "progressive" human rights activist..."Mossad"?! I guess Saudi Arabia is by far not a good place to visit or be...and this anti-Semitism! Ooooooffff! |
|
I write this from Saudi Arabia on the eighth day of a 10-day visit. My small band of human rights activists has been sponsored by the Saudi Arabian Human Rights Commission, a governmental body that was created last year to "protect and promote human rights in conformity with international standards" and to do so "in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia." Like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz," the Saudis believe six impossible things before breakfast every day. We would have preferred to come without "sponsorship," but that is not how things work here. Apart from the 1.5 million or more religious pilgrims from all over the world who come to Mecca on hajj every year, there are few other foreign visitors -- no more than about 1,000 "single entry" visas are issued per year -- and these (mainly business) visitors are required to have official Saudi sponsorship. To the foreign visitor, Riyadh, where I have spent the whole week, is an environment virtually devoid of women. In our meetings with government ministers (each ministry building, by the way, is grander than the last), we have yet to see a single female on any of the premises in any capacity. Even the people serving the coffee are men. Sex segregation is comprehensive. There are few women on the street; there are separate shopping malls for women, and there are separate sections for them (sometimes curtained) in restaurants, even in our Sheraton hotel. There is little social mixing, even in private spaces. When males who are not close relatives are present in a woman's home, she retreats to a separate space (for the affluent, a separate living room). Saudi women were never present at any of the several gatherings we attended at private homes. One man at one such dinner told me, as others nodded, that he never before had sat at a table in the Kingdom (which is what everyone calls it) with a woman who was not his wife, daughter or mother. (But he does so routinely when he is in the United States, where he lived for years and where two of his five children were born.) The few women one does see are swathed in black from head to toe all the time, a phenomenon that is legally enforced only in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Most of them also cover their faces. Call me a cultural imperialist, but it took me only a day or two to hate this get-up (in which I myself am got up), not only in principle but also in fact. It makes women invisible. Women rarely hold jobs where there are (or might be) men around. Their parents, husbands and often their own sensibilities will not permit it. Because there are just not enough jobs in female-only environments to go around, the proportion of women in the work force is tiny -- most observers put it at about 3%-5%. (Women do not lack education -- they constitute more than half of university graduates -- but once educated, they have practically nothing to do.) The Labor Ministry recently proposed to increase the available jobs by requiring that salespeople in lingerie shops be female. The religious establishment went crazy, and the proposal was withdrawn. Famously, women here are prohibited from driving; so even if you have a job, you can't get to work, or anywhere else, unless you have a male to drive. There are, of course, cracks in the sex segregation that the visitor seldom sees. A young Saudi man told me very confidentially, out of the hearing of his boss, that some young people do date and form relationships but, especially here in the Riyadh "Quran Belt," they do so furtively. These prohibitions are enforced by the religious police, whose name translates as "The Committees of Ordering the Good and Forbidding the Evil," regarded by some as so ignorant and fanatic that they run afoul not only of human rights standards but also of Islamic law. They have arrested thousands of women for nothing more than being seen talking to a man to whom they are not related. To a Western observer, these religious police are brothers (maybe cousins) to suicide bombers and other terrorists. But that is not how the Saudis see it. They are aware that some Americans blame them for the September 11, 2001, attacks, but they don't blame themselves. As officials tell it, the terrorists simply get Islam wrong by rejecting the legitimate religious authority of the Saudi king, who alone can authorize jihad. (The king's official title, "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah," sounds ancient, but it was introduced in 1982 by King Fahd as part of the Saudi drive to consolidate religious authority under the king.) Saudi promotion of religious fundamentalism suited the United States just fine when Saudi Arabia served as a bulwark against godless communism. But it all backfired when the fundamentalists turned on both the Saudis and their American patrons. "In many ways September 11 is the price we paid for winning the Cold War and the strategies we chose," said Rachel Bronson in "Thicker Than Oil," a 2006 study of American-Saudi relations since the 1930s. Officials and activists here say that the kingdom is in transition, and this may be true: 70% of the Saudi population is under the age of 20, and every young person I spoke to (a self-selected group, to be sure) favors a more liberal society, the rule of law and employment opportunities for women. Most of them think the driving ban is ridiculous, and many favor making the abaya (the black cloak) optional. Plural marriage, increasingly unusual in the higher social strata, is disappearing among urban young people of all classes. It sounds hopeful, but inequality is so ingrained and people of good will are so cowed by the religious fanatics that real change seems very far away. And then there is this: Casual, gratuitous antisemitism is widespread. For example, the writer of an opinion article in this past Friday's Arab News, the best of the local English-language dailies, states: "Jewish voices have been prominent" among those who have "made light" of the death toll in Iraq. I heard otherwise intelligent and open-minded people say that the Jews' departure from Saudi Arabia in the early 1950s was entirely voluntary. And a particularly cosmopolitan and progressive human rights activist told me that the Saudis of the September 11 attacks did not have the technological know-how to have pulled it off. "So who did?" I asked him. "Mossad," was his chilling reply. I am glad to be leaving soon. This is not an easy place to be. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
NOW THIS SAYS IT. WHAT A LETTER!
Posted by Michael King, December 23, 2006. |
|
WOW ... is this laying it on the line or what? The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq ... Read it! I am not deleting this, I am sending it on, but only after I add: --"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
I have another quote that I would like to add ... "If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,
|
|
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all. I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care ! ! ! ! ! If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country. Contact Michael King at mlkknk@hotmail.com |
|
EGYPT DEMANDS ISRAEL VACATE PORT CITY OF EILAT
Posted by David Bedein, December 22, 2006. |
It will be remembered that the 1967 Six-Day War broke out after Egypt closed the straits of Tiran and strangled the trade from Israel's southern port city of Eliat. Yet few are aware that Egypt has staked a claim to the city of Eilat, ever since it lost Eilat to the nascent state of Israel in the wake of the Egyptian army's defeat in the 1948 war, followed by the expulsion of the Egyptians from this southern port city on the Red Sea. Now, in the wake of recent reports about plans to dig a canal linking the Red Sea on the Israeli side and the Dead Sea on its Jordanian side, a fiery argument broke out in Egypts parliament, with the members of parliament (MPs) speaking out against the "Israeli plot to choke the Suez Canal to death." In the course of the debate, which has been going on in parliament for the last two days, Abed el-Aziz Sayef a-Nasser, an aide to the Egyptian foreign minister, was called as an expert witness. A-Nasser is the director of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry's legal department. "Eilat, or by its former name Umm Rashrash, belongs to the Palestinians," he said, representing the opinion of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. His predecessor, Dr. Nabil el-Arabi, was the head of the Foreign Ministry's legal department and headed the delegation for negotiations at Taba. He also emphatically declared: "Eilat belongs to the Palestinians." A-Nasser's response was meant to calm tempers in the rowdy debate in the Egyptian parliament, after dozens of opposition representatives demanded holding negotiations to have Eilat returned to Egyptian sovereignty. Opposition MPs recruited several legal experts, international law lecturers and experts on geography and topography who showed documents and opinions that Eilat is territory that belongs to Egypt and was captured in 1949 by Israel. They contend that the Egyptian negotiating team to Taba conceded Eilat to Israel 20 years ago "in the framework of the wish to build confidence and to display Egyptian good will in the spirit of the peace agreement." This was not the end of the matter. An Egyptian international law expert presented an intermediate position in parliament: "Eilat belongs formally to Egypt and administratively to the Palestinians." In the debate in parliament two days ago, an opposition MP, Mohammed el-Aadali, whipped out a document from 1906 which states, in the name of the Ottoman sultan: Umm Rashrash belongs to Egypt. In this spot - said the Egyptian experts on topography and geography - Egyptian pilgrims would stop and rest on their way to the holy cities in Saudi Arabia. Another document brings testimony relating to 350 Egyptian police who were in Umm Rashrash just before it was captured in March 1949 and who were killed in battles with IDF soldiers. Significantly, in the debate among the Egyptian MPs, the experts and the Foreign Ministry officials, no mention is made of possible legitimate Israeli sovereignty of Eilat. The debate in Cairo is between two camps: the Egyptian Foreign Ministry which claims that Eilat belongs to the Palestinians, and the opposition MPs who claim that Eilat belongs to Egypt. The opposition Egyptian MPs threatened on Thursday to relay their demand for an Israeli withdrawal from Eilat to the Arab League to handle. Despite Israel's 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, the Arab League's 1948 declaration of war to liquidate the state of Israel remains in force. While Egypt was the kingpin of the Arab League from 1948 until 1977, the current dominant power in the Arab League is Saudi Arabia, which remains in a consistent state of war with the Jewish State until the present day. To that end, Saudi Arabia finances all Islamic terror groups that fight Israel, and continues to forbid any Jew from stepping on the soil of the Saudi kingdom. David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency.
(http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of
Center for Near East Policy Research.
Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il
This article was published yesterday in the Bulletin in Philadelphia
|
|
CARTER'S ARAB FINANCIERS
Posted by Janet Lehr, December 22, 2006. |
|
PLEASE SUPPORT THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY www.acdemocracy.org It achieved these unprecedented successes and there is much more work to be done. Achievements are: . Most recently: The ACD has produced the complex research below exposing ex-President Jimmy Carter, as reported Dec 21, 2006 in The Washington Times. This list of solid achievements in fighting terror financing is the result of years of study, research, and experience by ACD staff. Director Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who coined the term "narco-terrorism" is the author of three books on terror financing and one of the world's leading experts on the subject. Presently ACD is researching: --The ACD is carrying out a major study on "Economic Jihad" -- the ways in which terrorists and their supporters are slowly infiltrating the U.S. economy to affect U.S. public opinion and policy. --The ACD is investigating whether a major information technology company used by the U.S. government is owned by a suspected terror financier. --The ACD and Dr. Ehrenfeld are at the forefront of a first amendment battle to expose foreign financiers of terrorist groups. You can make a difference. All that is required to preserve our values is for good people to stand up for what they believe in. The ACD is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and donations are tax deductible. Donating online at http://www.acdemocracy.org/support/ or by sending a check to: American Center for Democracy
This article by Rachel Ehrenfeld was published yesterday in the Washington Times. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy. |
|
To understand what feeds former president Jimmy Carter's anti-Israeli frenzy, look at his early links to Arab business. Between 1976-1977, the Carter family peanut business received a bailout in the form of a $4.6 million, "poorly managed" and highly irregular loan from the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). According to a July 29, 1980 Jack Anderson expose in The Washington Post, the bank's biggest borrower was Mr. Carter, and its chairman at that time was Mr. Carter's confidant, and later his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance. At that time, Mr. Lance's mismanagement of the NBG got him and the bank into trouble. Agha Hasan Abedi, the Pakistani founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), known as the bank "which would bribe God," came to Mr. Lance's rescue making him a $100,000-a-year consultant. Abedi then declared: "we would never talk about exploiting his relationship with the president." Next, he introduced Mr. Lance to Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon, who fronted for BCCI and the Saudi royal family. In January 1978, Abedi paid off Mr. Lance's $3.5 million debt to the NBG, and Pharaon secretly gained control over the bank. Mr. Anderson wrote: "Of course, the Saudis remained discretely silent... kept quiet about Carter's irregularities... [and] renegotiated the loan to Carter's advantage." There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from the Saudis. But "according to... the bank files, [it] renegotiated the repayment terms... savings... $60,000 for the Carter family... The President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest beneficiary." Pharaon later contributed generously to the former president's library and center. When Mr. Lance introduced Mr. Carter to Abedi, the latter gave $500,000 to help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later, Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects. Even after BCCI was indicted -- and convicted -- for drug money laundering, Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his "good friend." A quick survey of the major contributors to the Carter Center reveals hundreds of millions of dollars from Saudi and Gulf contributors. But it was BCCI that helped Mr. Carter established his center. BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and "the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists." Shortly after assuming office, in March 1977, Mr. Carter made his first public statement regarding a Palestinian "homeland." Since then, he has devoted much of his time to denouncing Israel's self-defense against Palestinian terrorism, which he claims is not only "abominable oppression and persecution" of the Palestinians, but also damages U.S. interests in the region. By the time BCCI was shut down in July1991, it operated in 73 countries with a deficit of $12 billion, which it had managed to hide with wealthy Arab shareholders and Western luminaries. Among them Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Yasser Arafat and Palestinian terrorist groups, and who branded the United States: "our enemy number one"; Former head of Saudi foreign intelligence service, and King Faisal's brother-in-law, Kamal Adham -- who with another Saudi, the banker of the royal family, Khaled bin Mahfouz, staged BCCI's attempt to illegally purchase the Washington-based First American bank, in the early 1980s. True to its agenda, BCCI assisted in spreading and strengthening the Islamic message; they enabled Pakistan's nuclear ambitions, and helped the Palestinian leadership to amass a $10 billion-plus fortune, used to further terrorist activities and to buy more influence in the West. BCCI founders also supported the Islamic fundamentalist opposition to the Shah of Iran, and saw it as an opportunity to undermine Western influence in the Gulf. They assisted the revolution financially, reinforcing their position within the leadership of the Iranian revolution. Ironically, the success of that revolution cost Mr. Carter his presidency. BCCI's money also facilitated the Saudi agenda to force Israel to recognize Palestinians "rights," convincing Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to sign the Camp David Accords in September 1978. Since then, Mr. Carter repeatedly provided legitimacy to Arafat's corrupt regime, and now, like the Saudis, he even sides with homicidal Hamas as the "legitimate" representative of the Palestinian people. In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Carter again laid responsibility for U.S. bias against the destitute, depressed and (consequently) violent Palestinians on American policy makers' helplessness, over the last 30 years, against the menacing tactics of the powerful American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). However, it seems that AIPAC's real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty. "There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia," the New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy. Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter's global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his loyalty. Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at veredart.com |
|
UNO TO SEND BISHOP TUTU ON FACT-FINDING MISSION; ARAB EXODUS; OLMERT RULING JEWS BY DECREE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 22, 2006. |
|
UNO TO SEND BISHOP TUTU ON FACT-FINDING MISSION Bishop Tutu is set for a "fact-finding" trip about Israel's accidental shelling of a civilian area in Beit Hanoun. Someone should introduce him to facts. He does not seem to be acquainted with many involving Israel. He makes up his mind and then travels. That's how the UNO operates. THE "MOMENTUM" ON WHICH SEC. RICE WOULD BUILD Sec. Rice considers the Arab-violated ceasefire in Gaza as "momentum" for building a ceasefire in Judea-Samaria and then a peace agreement. What have the western Palestinian Muslims done with ceasefires? They arm during them and they break them. What have those Arabs done with peace agreements, such as the Oslo Accords and the (US-dictated) Road Map? They violated them. Then what is her purpose in extending the phony ceasefire and making another phony peace agreement? Her purpose is to get Israel out of its traditional homeland and its secure borders in the Territories, pretending to have accomplished something that Bush's successor would have to confront the debris from, and use this phony accomplishment as cover for retreating from Iraq. It is as shallow as that. The US has honeyed words and poison policy for the Jewish state. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT POWER Conservatives warned that Mayor Bloomberg would try to dictate what we eat. They were right. It is one thing to encourage schools not to overload students with junk food. At least that leaves students a choice. It is another to prohibit restaurants from serving trans-fats. People support Bloomberg on restaurants, because they agreed, as do I, with its outcome. But that was an opening wedge. The means is improper government dictation of what we eat. Sooner or later, the ends will be improper. Now it is happening. Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn want a food Czar. I have studied nutrition as an avocation. I think the government was wrong about cholesterol, fluoridation, irradiation, and genetic engineering, and exaggerated the dangers of fat. The City has been pressing bodegas to stop selling whole milk, although refined carbohydrates and over-eating are the real dietary problems. I don't drink milk but do eat whole, organic, milk yogurt. The cream makes it tastier, and the fat helps absorb certain nutrients. I don't overdo fat. I know what I'm doing, why shouldn't I have a choice? Who is the Mayor to deny it me? He is just following a fad. Fads come and go. I would not object to an educational campaign, though Bloomberg probably would disseminate propaganda. I would welcome a requirement that all ingredients sold for consumption be listed, so allergens can be spotted before anaphylactic shock sets it. That gives consumers the opportunity to make an informed choice, Bloomberg reduces choice. By the way, I noticed he has a paunch. Take him away and allow him only diet foods until he normalizes! I'm kidding, but he isn't. He's dangerous. FOREIGN OBSERVERS THERE JUST TO BE OBSERVED Former Israeli general Shlomo Brom remarked that the international observers are working well at the Sinai-Gaza border. Yet he admits that arms smuggling through that border is rife. He did not acknowledge that sometimes the observers had to run away, when foreigners were being kidnapped there, and in any case have no power to prevent smuggling. He refuses to deduce that Egyptian failure to stop the smuggling is deliberate. He says it must be due to incompetence. (Result is the same.) He suggests more foreign observers and clearing the border of housing, so smugglers wouldn't have houses to tunnel into. The latter suggestion makes sense (IMRA, 12/1). The observers are there for show, put there to help get Israel to agree to stop guarding the border. Sec. Rice insisted that Israel agree, although the arrangement gave the observers no power, and her arrangement has led to extensive smuggling and warfare. Since Brom finds Egypt incompetent, why doesn't he conclude that Israel has to guard the border, itself, as it did before? Rice shows no remorse for her deadly policy. CHINA & THE GULF China is contracting for Saudi and other Gulf states' oil reserves. It may shut the US out (IMRA, 12/2). All those years of the US being pro-Arab but less than 100% so, amount to little. WORKING WITH THE UNO? A resolution passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council calls for a mission to "assess the situation of victims, address the needs of survivors, and make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against further Israeli assaults." The resolution, like many others put forward by the Human Rights Council, did not address the continuing barrage of Kassam rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza, killing and maiming Israeli citizens." "'The appointment of Desmond Tutu as head of the fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun is an extension of the anti-Israel kangaroo court tactics used by the U.N. Human Rights Council,' said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. 'No fact-finding mission can produce balanced and trustworthy results if its leader professes to know all the answers beforehand. Tutu has already publicly expressed his anti-Israel views and his opinions regarding what happened in Beit Hanoun, and combined with the one-sided anti-Israel mandate provided by the resolution, the results of the mission are all-but preordained." (IMRA, 12/2). What shall we make of Bush's critics, urging him to work more with the UNO? The UNO does more harm than good, on issues of international security. ARAB EXODUS In the past four months, 10,000 Arabs have fled from the P.A. because of its warfare, impoverishment, and radicalization. Among youths, 44% would emigrate, but they are restricted from reaching the foreign embassies in Tel Aviv (IMRA, 12/2). This presents a special opportunity for Israel to be humanitarian and serve national security. It should set up escort buses of the youths to the foreign embassies. The youth would leave, and fewer would become terrorists in Israel. Alas Canada, their favored destination! IRAQ'S GOVERNMENT QUISLING? The Grand Ayatollah of Iraq is an Iranian. He has ordered all the Shiite parties to stick together, even though some of them are Islamist. The Prime Minister, al-Maliki, is from an Islamist party and spent 23 years of exile from Saddam in Iran and Syria. His coalition depends on al-Sadr, who has a parliamentary bloc and the largest militia, and was trained in Iran. When Maliki was in charge of the security committee in Parliament, he placed Shiite militia men in the Iraqi police and intelligence forces. Now they murder Sunnis. Eventually they may attack Americans. Waiting the call for action in the southern region is another Shiite militia of 20,000, trained and financed by Iran. These people may be playing the US for a fool (Youssef Ibrahim, NY Sun, 12/1, p.5). The US played into this. It interfered in Iraq politics, until the extremists took charge. It failed to destroy the militias. It disqualified Saddam's soldiers down to too low a rank. It has failed to protest some of the policies described above. OLMERT RULING JEWS BY DECREE? The Israeli military has ordered about 20 young Jewish men to leave Judea-Samaria -- homes, families, and jobs -- without trial and without explanation. The men have no way to refute non-charges. The Army said it had secret evidence of a grave nature. Defense lawyers say only the Knesset has such authority (Arutz-7, 12/2). Israel long ago should have annexed most of the Territories and ended pre-democratic emergency measures as the law, there. The government has too much power to punish its critics via laws meant for national enemies. RELIGIONS UNITE AGAINST ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS A faction at Kingston College in Britain proposed six anti-Israel resolutions. A majority vote seemed assured. The Jewish students felt that they had the better arguments, but the majority didn't care. Then the Muslim roommate of one of them campaigned against the resolutions. His point was that these are outsiders' ideas, they would divide the college body, and the student union is not the place to take up politics. He won over his co-religionists, and the Christian student group came over, too (IMRA, 12/3). 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. |
|
DEFEND AMERICA. CONTRIBUTE TO THE PAUL WILLIAMS DEFENSE FUND
Posted by Michael Travis, December 22, 2006. |
|
Paul L. Williams is an award-winning journalist/author. The Paul L. Williams Fund has been established by his friends. He has been sued by McMaster University for investigating terrorist activity at McMaster. Please read below why the lawsuit is important. And then contribute to Paul's defense. |
|
Why is this lawsuit so important? Why is the situation at McMaster University so alarming? And why must you give to fight the lawsuit against award-winning journalist/author Paul L. Williams? Consider the following: 1. McMaster has harbored leading al Qaeda operatives, including
Adnan el-Shukrijumah, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Abderraouf Jdey, and Amer
el-Maati. This finding was a result of the interrogation of Khalid
Sheikh Mohammad, who was taken into custody in Karachi by ISI
officials on March 3, 2003. A BOLO for these operatives was issued by
former US Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert
Mueller on March 21, 2004. A reward of $5 million has been posted for
each of these agents. Adnan el Shukrijumah has been described by the
US Justice Department as "the next Mohammad Atta" who has been
commissioned to commandeer the next attack on U.S. soil. McMaster is
an ideal location for these operatives to study since it houses a 5
megawatt nuclear reactor, one of the largest reactors for educational
purposes in the western hemisphere. The first account of these
operatives at McMaster was written by Bill Gertz of The Washington
Times in a piece entitled "Al Qaeda Pursued a Dirty Bomb." It
appeared on October 17, 2003 and remains posted on the internet.
Subsequent and considerably more substantial articles appeared on
DEBKA, the Israeli intelligence website -
Go to Insight at this site for additional information: http://www.acsa2000.net/dirtybombplot.html 2. When the operatives left McMaster, 180 pounds of nuclear material was reported missing. The story of the missing waste was first reported by John Loftus of WABC News on November 7, 2003. This story also remains on the internet. McMaster has insisted that no material was ever missing from the reactor but radiological material was reported missing from their pharmacological and medical facilities. The matter of the missing material was mentioned by Attorney Janice L. Kephart of the 9/11 Commission in an address before the House Committee on the Judiciary entitled "The Need to Implement WHIT to Protect Homeland Security. This address is also accessible on the internet. 3. The College of Engineering at McMaster contains an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries. In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, 9 out of 10 faculty members are from the Universities of Cairo and Alexandria. For verification, go to this site: http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/civil/vibs/ Similarly, the three full-professors at the College of Engineering all hail from The University of Cairo. Ditto the Dean, Vice President, and the Department Head of the same department. Jane Corbin of BBC points out in her book on al Qaeda that the engineering department at the University of Cairo remains under the control of the "Syndicate." The Syndicate, or Trade Union of Engineers, has always been a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood. 4. Members of the Ontario Provincial Police have confirmed that McMaster has been under scrutiny for a long time; that many of the students have ties to radical Islam and terrorist organizations; and that Islamic members of the faculty have conducted clandestine meetings at an off-campus address in Hamilton. 5. Egyptian Islamic websites affirm the presence of jihadists at McMaster, verify reports that professors within the Faculty of Engineering at McMaster are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the university may be the epicenter for the next terrorist attack on American soil. 6. Hundreds of postings on the internet calling for the jihad and the nuclear destruction of America have been traced back to McMaster. Many of the postings have been made by a graduate student at McMaster who transports dangerous goods for the Canadian government. 7. Two of the terrorists who were taken into custody in the plot to kill the Canadian Prime Minister and to blow up Parliament were students from McMaster. 8. Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has confirmed that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al Qaeda operatives, to steal 180 pounds of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school. For reporting these findings, Dr. Williams has been sued by McMaster University for $4 million plus punitive damages. This suit has been allowed to proceed in Canadian court despite the fact that Dr. Williams is an American citizen who should be protected by the Bill of Rights and American law which stipulates that truth is an ultimate defense. The case, fuelled by Islamic contributions, represents the first attempt of an academic institution to limit the research of an academician, despite the fact that such research is vital for our national security. If he loses the case, the American people will be left in the dark and the American Hiroshima may become a reality. Donate online -- http://www.paulwilliamsdefensefund.com/donate.html OR send donations to: The Paul L. Williams Defense Fund
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
ISRAELI LEFT: LIVING IN ANOTHER REALITY
Posted by Will Blesch, December 22, 2006. |
|
This morning as I was reading the morning news in the Jerusalem Post I was not surprised to see Shimon Peres again talking, purposefully spewing a most unrealistic viewpoint into Israel's media. The headline of the article was 'Peres Predicts Eventual Peace With Syria'. It was written by Paula Slier. In this article Peres does indeed predict eventual peace with Syria, reminding all and sundry that no less than four Israeli Prime Ministers offered to give up the Golan Heights to the enemy in exchange for peace. Unexplainably, Syria never went for the deals offered by those Prime Ministers. Hmmmm...lets see...what could those reasons be? Ah! I know. They don't just want the Golan Heights you see. In another article in the J-Post this morning entitled `Syria Building "Death-Trap" Villages' written by Yaakov Katz, the IDF has come to the realization that the villages Syria has been building along the Syrian/Israeli border are intended to draw Israel into an "asymmetrical war". They are basically replicating the tactics of Hezbullah in Lebanon. Some of the villages have no people living in them, while others do...but those that do also have commando troops being moved into them along with medium to long range missiles designed to hit deep into Israel's heart land. When it comes to peace talks, Syria has no desire to speak directly to Israel. They just want direct talks with the United States of America ABOUT peace in Israel. They will say "Yes, yes, we want peace...but here's what we want you to do...put pressure on Israel to give up the Golan Heights...while leaving us in the clear to continue to fortify and militarize our border. Never mind what the purposes for that are!" Shimon Peres was at least mildly sarcastic and mildly correct when he suggests that if you want to make real peace with Israel; shouldn't the Syrians be speaking to the Israelis about that desire? Are the actions of Syria those of a nation that wants peace with its neighbors? Of course not! Besides, everyone knows Syria is in bed with Iran and we all know Iran has declared that Israel's destruction is close at hand. It seems to me that perhaps Syria is maneuvering itself to a position that would allow it to play a significant role in Iran's plans for Israel. But, the article by Paula Slier just goes to once again prove in light of the article by Yaakov Katz, that the Israeli left is not only willfully putting on blinders to reality, they have actually left this plane of reality and have moved on to an imaginary wonderland. William Blesch can be reached at his website: http://willblesch.blogspot.com |
|
THE BAR-COCHVA FAMILY RETURNS TO THE "SHUK" IN HEBRON
Posted by David Wilder, December 22, 2006. |
|
Background information: First and foremost it is important to stress, that the "SHUK" in Hebron rests on Jewish Land, and to this there is no dispute. The property was legally owned by the Sephardic Kollel "Magen Avot", who legally transferred the property to The Jewish Community of Hebron. Evacuation by consent without violence: Approximately one year ago -- in the month of Shevat 5767 -- two days before the violent evacuation of Amona, the Jews of Hebron living in the "Shalhevet" neighborhood (the "SHUK") quietly left their homes. The quiet evacuation was done in conjunction with a written agreement between the military commander of Judea and Samaria Brigadier General Yair Golan and the Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron. According to the agreement, the families who left their homes quietly would be returned to these same homes within a short time period at which time the government would rent the houses to them. Mazuz negates agreement: The Attorney General immediately claimed that "there is no agreement". After the written agreement was presented to him he claimed that the agreement was made without official guidance and instruction by the government, and because of this the agreement is null and void. The military commander received an official reprimand for the fact that he made an agreement with the residents of Hebron. In spite of this the Attorney General Mr. Mazuz continued for months both verbally and in writing to respond. He presented to the high court a plan that after the Jews of Hebron left their home the government should cancel all rent agreements with the Local City Council of Hebron of the Palestinian Authority and afterwards rent to the Jews of Hebron. The Plan would be implemented in 3 phases. At the end of last summer Mazuz revised his commitment to this plan and officially announced that he would not implement this 3 phase plan because in his opinion the "SHUK" should remain empty. Suffering of the families and entering the house: In the meantime months went by and the families who had left their homes for a short period of time -- were left homeless without a proper solution for a place to live until one of the families -- Bar-Cochva -- decided to try and return to their home. In one lightning-quick operation, in less than 24 hours, they returned all of their personal belongings -- even their books and pictures to their original place in their home. (It is important to emphasize, that until this quiet return to their home, the 8 Bar-Cochva children were living scattered amongst many relatives, without a proper home and no place to call their own.) Gershon Bar-Cochva was one of main proponents of the agreement with the area commander. At the meeting of the residents of the Jewish Community of Hebron, on that fateful night when the evacuation of the "SHUK" was proposed he took the podium at the Avraham Avinu synagogue and convinced his neighbors to support the peaceful evacuation. Gershon believed in the government authority but they disappointed him and left him homeless. After a number of days when the family secretly lived in their house, the army discovered them. Following legal judgments and writings -- the family was required to leave their home again, quietly. The children were again dispersed to different houses living with different relatives. The family returned again to their home and settled in with a number of techniques to prevent detection from both the Israeli Defense Forces and the local officials of The Jewish Settlement of Hebron. In time the family had the telephone line restored, water and electric bills were paid, friends and family came to visit with the family and the house became a home again - all without notice from the police department and the army. Legal proceedings: Recently, after more than 3 months, the Bar-Cochva family was discovered by the police living in their home. The family was served a summons to appear for interrogation and an expulsion order was issued. The police received an unpleasant surprise because they didn't realize that the family had been living in their home for more than 30 days which means that according to law they can't be removed from their property under a "quick expulsion" law. The police department didn't give up, however, even after they received all of the proper documentation that proved beyond a shadow of doubt the amount of time that the family had been living in their home -- the Hebron Police Department ignored the evidence and put out an arrest order for the Bar-Cochva couple. At this point, Advocate Chaim Cohen, the Bar-Cochva's lawyer, decided to involve the courts. The appeal achieved a double result: 1. Cancellation of the arrest order for Gershon and Shlomit Bar-Cochva, with the court reprimanding the police for presenting inaccurate evidence. The Hebron Jewish community expects that the police and other law-enforcement officials, will obey the law and the present court decision, will decide to forego an immediate expulsion, and will allow the family to proceed with the legal options available to them. Gershon Bar Cochva: We have experienced very difficult times: From a family view, we were left without a place to live and afterwards had to live secretly, 'undercover' in our own home. From a national point of view also: the disgrace of an agreement which was violated, seeing people supposedly representing the state of Israel being deceived, and above all, watching the best interests of Israel being trampled. We now hope and pray for positive results, knowing that there are good people within the framework of our government who know that justice is with us, and will eventually be revealed to all. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
IS REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS POSSIBLE?
Posted by Elan Journo, December 21, 2006. |
|
Irvine, CA--The new secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has pledged to "restore trust" in the embattled organization. What would an effective international organization dedicated to peace, freedom and individual rights look like? According to Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "such an organization would have to scrupulously judge the moral character of nations and accept as members only regimes that protect individual rights. It would have to recognize the objective difference between right and wrong, punishing aggressors and protecting their innocent victims--otherwise it can neither resolve conflicts justly nor achieve peace. "What would it take to 'reform' the UN into such an organization? It would have to be smashed and re-created from scratch. One would have to completely repudiate the UN's defining policy of offering nonjudgmental membership to tyrannies and free nations alike. This founding 'ideal' of moral neutrality, which is fundamental to the UN, protects and bolsters the evil regimes. "For example, the discredited Human Rights Commission enabled dictatorships to deflect censure from their own violations of rights; the new Human Rights Council--a product of the UN's vaunted 'reforms'--is now doing exactly the same in spades. The UN's moral neutrality grants evil regimes what they desperately crave: a license to commit any depravity, yet still be seen as peaceful and civilized. "Since it is only America's cooperation, financing and moral sanction that lends the UN any legitimacy, Washington must withdraw from this corrupt organization--rather than support futile 'reforms' that tinker with it." Mr. Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. He specializes in foreign policy and the Middle East. His writings have appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Sun Times, and the Globe and Mail of Canada. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. |
|
PSYCHOLOGICAL KEY TO INTERNATIONAL STRIFE; ARAB OLIVE TREE FRAUD; PLO TAKES PRIDE IN TERRORISM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 21, 2006. |
|
PSYCHOLOGICAL KEY TO INTERNATIONAL STRIFE; Defense against international aggression requires a supportive economy, a prepared military, and will. Being engineering-oriented, Americans often fail to deal with the psychological aspect. We don't study how the enemy thinks and what he values. Totalitarians understand the importance of psychological warfare. They employ propaganda as a weapon. They are all the more effective as we are naïve. Many of our people take the Muslims' word seriously -- we have not studied the enemy and discovered that deceit is an Islamic tactic. We reserve doubt for our own President, not that he is unfamiliar with dissembling, but he is not in the Muslims' league. Ignorance and naivety foster hopes for conflict-resolution with the Muslims by means of negotiation. Ostensible peace plans imposed upon Israel, however, have an element of malice in them, besides. The State Dept., long an antagonist of Zionism, proposes plans that cut the ground out from under Israel. Psychological inertia and mind-set, besides political correctness and excessive multi-culturalism, keep half the Europeans, but especially their leaders, media, and intelligentsia, from acknowledging the Islamic menace. Think of the Western Communists who remained loyal to their failing ideology even after the USSR and China had murdered at least 50 million people! Ironically, the worse the menace, the more reluctant are people to confront it. It is like the difficulty on cold days of getting out of a warm bed to turn up the heat. Certain cultures are stuck in old roles. The leaders of France and Russia want their countries to be thought important, so they buck US leadership instead of letting it help protect them. Looking backward, they fail to perceive the incoming tide of history. The Muslims don't care about the folly and irresponsibility of their nuclear development and threats to use it, for they have an obsolete culture of conquest or death -- our deaths, preferably theirs if necessary to achieve ours. The US is undecided between being imperious and appealing for allies. China's goal is inscrutable, except for its drive for raw materials and Taiwan. The Bush Administration, for example, followed its plan for Iraq slavishly for about four years, refusing to re-evaluate it. It confused major modification with abandonment. There is a general need in government to re-evaluate the efficacy of policies often and honestly, instead of pretending success even as failures mount. In recognition of this, some statutes include "sunset" clauses, ending appropriations and laws if not renewed after a review. Unfortunately, re-evaluation is derided as admission of incompetence. Nor did the Administration explain itself or campaign for its policies, beyond a few, brilliant Presidential speeches. In the same way, it rejected the Kyoto pact, but didn't really explain why. It left the issue to be taken up in the media, which also didn't explain the rejection but denounced it. Our enemies have propaganda; our government neither has much propaganda abroad nor much explanation at home. Further impeding general awareness is the media's being tendentious rather than dedicated to presenting news, i.e., the truth. Western society, which prides itself on freedom of thought, increasingly represses unpopular views. Sometimes it does so in the name of tolerance towards the intolerant. The result is a lack of debate. People in power don't have to defend their views. The media rarely admits significant mistakes in judging major events. It acts as if above the fray, passing judgment from on high, but it prints politicians' lies unchallenged, and it presents issues selectively. Much political manipulation occurs. Although the people are suspicious of politicians, they don't want to know how much the State Dept. manipulates Israel and Israeli leaders. Israeli voters keep selecting leaders who promise security but produce insecurity by agreeing to concessions the State Dept. wants them to make to the Arabs in return for Muslim lies. Israelis haven't figured that out yet. Its establishment doesn't afford much opportunity for dissident voices to be heard. In Israel, the establishment is Left and Far Left. America needs people in and out of office to sense trends and problems and propose answers before the problems become cute. In turn, that requires deep education, sound thinking, and genuine freedom of thought, a receding American goal. New York City is an example of waiting for its bridges to rust so thoroughly as to come in danger of requiring major replacement. On the other hand, it did react promptly to the loss of competitiveness in the financial market, largely by the Sarbanes-Oxley law that the Senate had passed 95:1 without a further backward glance. LIBERALS, COMMUNISTS, FASCISTS, & MUSLIMS AGAINST ISRAEL Taking a leaf from the antisemitic Harvard "study," George Soros expressed concern that AIPAC has too much influence over US policy. (I am concerned that it has too little. US policy confirms how little.) He does not express concern that the Arab lobby has too much influence over US policy (although a Saudi prince boasted that the State Dept. is in its pocket, the pocket with the wallet. US action confirms the boast). Soros implies that Israeli influence retards peace, although Israel has made concessions and withdrawals, lobby or no lobby, whereas the Arabs offer hatred and war. Having billions, Soros means to underwrite an anti-AIPAC lobby, including many of the usual anti-Zionist agitators such as Yossi Beilin and Zbiegnew Brzezinski and members of the leftist Israel Policy Forum (i.e., appeasement-minded at Israel's expense). They pretend to care about Israeli security, which they claim would be bolstered if the Arab-Israel conflict ended. (It can't end but only worsen if their proposed territorial concessions go through, in a war based on Islamic imperialism.) Soros' claim to care about Israel, to which he never donated much, and which he unfairly condemned for its attempt to eradicate the menace from Lebanon, is belied by his record. His new initiative really seems part of his promotion of leftist Democratic Party politics (Zalman Shoval, former Israeli Ambassador, NY Sun, 11/30, Op.-Ed.). Soros is in line with the liberal, Communist, fascist, and Muslim line against Israel. His behavior almost justifies confiscatory taxation of excessive income, so individuals don't get sufficiently wealthy to wreak great harm paying for their neuroses. Another example is Mayor Bloomberg, who favors government expropriation of people's homes for his favorite developers' private schemes, who dictates what restaurants may serve, and who suggests that rich individuals band together into a formidable lobby. ARABS SABOTAGE TREES, BLAME SETTLERS, DEMAND MONEY After the Arabs of Judea-Samria harvest olives, they harvest compensation for damage to the trees. They "cut" them. (Does that mean "cut down" or "prune," two different things? Leftists have complained about settlers damaging trees that the Arabs had pruned. Israeli reporters don't know idiomatic English well enough to be precise.) Then the Arabs blame settlers and submit claims for financial compensation from Israel. Foresters and police caught four Arab youths "cutting" trees for firewood. They said the owners had invited them to do so (IMRA, 12/2). Arabs have been caught, before. Jews have been accused without evidence. Based on complaints of fraudulent Arabs, the Left accepted Arab complaints and filled columns of the NY Times with calumny against settlers. Rent with hatred of fellow Jews, the Left chose the settlers as the enemy and demanded government protection of Arab harvests. The Arabs turn out to be the vandals. Arabs also burn down the national forests that Israelis enjoy. One should pick his enemies on the basis of their hatred of him, not on ideology blind to that reality. Welcome to the bi-national state! RUSSIA CIRCLING THE DRAIN Moscow has the largest Muslim population of any European city! The news brief claims that the total is 2 million. Muslims immigrate from other parts of Russia and beyond. Then they multiply, while native Russians self-decimate. By mid-century, the population would be half Muslim, if current trends continue. A nativist Russian reaction is setting in, one way or another, here or there. It has no organized, systematic scheme and is more xenophobic than anti-Muslim. Although most of the Muslims were not fervent, many are becoming so (IMRA, 12/3). That means they will become a menace. It doesn't take a majority of voters for Muslims to take over a country. When they become a large bloc, they start demanding preferences, on pain of rioting. They solidify their control over parts of countries, by keeping law enforcement out and decreeing Islamism within. Later they could stage a coup by virtue of having more younger people than the aging natives. The Russian mentality is imperialist and authoritarian. With the Muslims, it is exercising the former but not the latter. It begrudgingly gave up the Central Asian and other republics, but now that oil is both a source of funds and a means of extortion by withholding supplies, Russia is trying to fight democracy and recover them. It retained large territories peopled by non-Russians and especially by Muslims. That may have been a blunder. What was the use of retaining traditionally bandit-ridden Chechnya, cause of rebellion, expense, and terrorism? So it can claim to be a great power. Big deal! Putin reverts to various Communist policies. Will he crack down on religion in general, the way Lenin and Stalin did, as the way to control Islam? Then the Jews would have to remove to Israel, if Russia doesn't help the Muslims destroy that haven. Alternatively, the nativists would ban all but Eastern Orthodoxy, with the same effect upon the Jews. ISRAELI OVER-CONFIDENCE Israeli officials risk national security by policies that experience and logic show must fail (but which the Left and foreigners demand. It would be wiser to explain the reasons for anticipating failure than to take the risk and fail as expected). The officials excuse the risk-taking by calling it a "calculated risk." Calculated or not, the risk is great that whatever the Arabs promise won't be kept, and whatever is given to them would be turned against Israel. Why would it be different now? Are they calculating that by withdrawing from Gaza, and having a ceasefire, they may let the Arabs build bunkers and armories that would take many more casualties to destroy, when the ceasefire inevitably fails? Are they calculating that the Arabs would be able to develop longer-range missiles, and bombard more Israeli cities? Perhaps the Israeli public does not accept that risk. The government does not discuss that risk (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 11/30). There is no potential gain to that risk, except current P.R.. DEALING WITH IRAN People contend that if the US destroyed Iran's nuclear capability, the Mideast would turn against us. The opposite is true. First, they wouldn't have much support from Iran, any more. Second, the taming of Iran would be a salutary lesson for them and weaken their efforts and resolve in Iraq. It is US hesitancy that has emboldened Syria and Hizbullah to move towards a coup in Lebanon. Third, the Sunni Arabs would feel great relief at having been saved from Shiite Iran. It is Pres. Bush's turn to save the Western world the way the once despised Winston Churchill did against an earlier totalitarian foe that also wanted to kill off all the Jews (Michael Freund in IMRA, 11/30). They called Churchill stupid, too. SEC. RICE PRAISES ISRAELI RESTRAINT She praised Israel for not reacting militarily to the daily P.A. violations of the ceasefire (IMRA, 11/30). She didn't much condemn the Arab violators. Hmm. The US often praises Israelis for letting themselves get killed for no purpose. That restraint is not praiseworthy. Such praise is blameworthy. PLO TAKES PRIDE IN TERRORISM On November 14, the Secretary of Fatah in Gaza boasted that the PLO "gave the world," new methods of terrorism emulated by other Islamists, such as the use of children to throw stones and shoot rocket propelled grenades and male and female suicide-bombers. The PLO invented other forms of terrorism, too (IMRA, 11/30 from Palestinian Media Watch) such as airplane hijacking. DISUNITY WITHIN ISRAELI CABINET PM Olmert has rivalry and personal disputes with the Defense Minister, Chief of Staff, and the temporary Justice Minister. There are other divisions in the government over minor matters, too. The lack of professionalism and failure to cooperate threaten Israeli survival (Arutz-7, 11/30). He makes appointments for politics rather than for talent to get the job done. UNO CONDEMNS ISRAEL, AGAIN The UNO condemned Israeli closings of border crossings as violations of an agreement and degraders of Arab life. Israel closes them upon discovering plots by terrorists to pass through them and attack Israel (Arutz-7, 12/1). Why should the UNO expect Israel to adhere to agreements that the Arabs are violating by exploiting those agreements? I haven't heard of the UNO condemning Muslim terrorism for its effect upon Israeli life or for its repercussions upon Arab life. 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. |
|
A PLACE ONCE SETTLED IS NOT TO BE ABANDONED
Posted by Alex Grobman, December 20, 2006. |
|
As Israel continues its quest to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Jimmy Carter and others are pressing Israel to leave parts of Judea and Samaria. Before even considering such a move, which would repeat the disaster of Gush Katif, Israeli leaders might learn from the experiences of former Zionist leaders. On March 1, 1920, Joseph Trumpeldor, a political activist, along with five of his men from the Tel Hai settlement, was killed in a fight with Arabs from a nearby village. Historian Anita Shapiro notes that two months before the encounter, Aharon Sher, a settler, wrote an article in which he asked for help to defend the settlements in this lawless and remote northern region. One sentence became a rallying cry to battle: "A place once settled is not to be abandoned." In subsequent discussions about whether to defend or desert these communities, leaders of the Labor movement essentially adopted Sher's view. Yitzchak Tabenkin, a leader of the kibbutz movement, argued that if the Arabs terrorized the Jews enough to leave a few settlements, they would not stop until the Jews were forced out everywhere. Only by taking an "obstinate, desperate stand, without looking back," could the Jews guarantee their right to the land. The moderate, left-of-center HaPoel HaTza'ir party paper asserted that their work in settling the land was based on "mutual understanding and amicable relations" with their neighbors: "Yet, wherever Hebrew soil is drenched with the sweat of Hebrew workers, and with their blood, that place is holy to us, and we have no right to abandon it." In the 1930s, when the Arabs rioted in Palestine over increased Jewish immigration, David Ben-Gurion thought the Arabs might be more receptive to Jewish settlement if he could demonstrate how it would benefit them economically. In 1934, he went to see Musa Alami, a young "moderate" Arab lawyer, who served as the Private Secretary to Arthur Wauchope, High Commissioner for Palestine. Alami's response to Ben Gurion was quite telling: "That's true," he said, "but we don't want your blessing. We prefer the land to remain impoverished, barren and empty until we ourselves are capable of doing what you are doing. And if it takes another century, then we will wait a hundred years." Shortly after the Arab Rebellion began on April 19, 1936, Ben-Gurion didn't even bother trying to convince the Arabs of the morality of Zionism or about the economic advantages that would accrue to them from increased Jewish settlement, according to Shapiro. "It would be extremely naive to assume that the Arabs would determine their attitude toward us from the standpoint of abstract justice," Ben-Gurion declared. "The Arabs are adamant that this country is an Arab country, and they wish it to remain so. That is quite elementary!" Arthur Ruppin, the foremost authority on Jewish efforts to settle the land, explained the difficulty of reaching an accord with the Arabs. On February 21, 1931, he wrote in his diary, "We are not offered what we need, and what we are offered is of no use to us." Ruppin, who was chairman of Brit Shalom, which advocated a bi-national state, recognized that the "conciliatory tone" the group took toward the Arabs was "interpreted by the Arabs as weakness." In November 1929, German Zionist members of Brit Shalom suggested that an appeal for a reprieve be made to the British for the Arabs convicted of killing Jews in Hebron and Safed. On Friday August 23, 1929, the Arabs began a week of rioting, killing and looting. More than 400 Jews were murdered or wounded. In Hebron, eight American Jews were killed and 15 wounded. The dead were students at the Slobodka yeshiva, who were not Zionists and not involved in the Jewish national movement. Neither were those attacked in Safed. Although "in principle" Ruppin opposed the death penalty, he felt in this case it would be too dangerous to stop the practice. Prisons don't "frighten the Arabs," he said, "since they are relatively better off in jail than they were at home." Furthermore, "they would not regard a prison sentence - with the hope of amnesty after a few years - as a serious punishment, and thus might encourage others to slaughter Jews." The lessons learned by early Jewish leaders should not be lost on those in power today. The Arabs have not yet accepted the Jewish right to live in the Land of Israel. Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh made this clear when, on December 8, 2006, he declared, "We will not give up our Jihadist movement until the full liberation of Beit Al-Muqqadas [Jerusalem] and Palestinian land." Israeli leaders would do well to heed the words of Edmund Burke, who said, "The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear." Appeasement has a place in resolving disputes, he believed, but not in dealing with aggression. An historian, Dr. Grobman's most recent book is Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe. He is also co-author of Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened? His newest book is Nations United: How the UN is Undermining Israel and the West. Contact Dr. Grobman at agrobman@nj.rr.com This article was an Opinion Piece in Arutz-Sheva today
|
|
"HUMAN RIGHTS" ORGANIZATIONS DEMONIZE ISRAEL
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, December 21, 2006. |
| This was written by Alan Dershowitz and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post. He is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways. |
|
The two principal "human rights" organizations are in a race to the bottom to see which group can demonize Israel with the most absurd legal arguments and most blatant factual mis-statements. Until last week, Human Rights Watch enjoyed a prodigious lead, having "found" - contrary to what every newspaper in the world had reported and what everyone saw with their own eyes on television - "no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack." Those of us familiar with Amnesty International's nefarious anti-Israel agenda and notoriously "suggestible" investigative methodology wondered how it could possibly match such a breathtaking lie. But we didn't have to wait long for AI to announce that Israel was guilty of a slew of war crimes for "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports, and Beirut's international airport." There are two problems with the Amnesty report and conclusion. First, Amnesty is wrong about the law. Israel committed no war crimes by attacking parts of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. In fact, through restraint, Israel was able to minimize the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, despite Hizbullah's best efforts to embed itself in population centers and to use civilians as human shields. The total number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Israeli weapons during a month of ferocious defensive warfare was a fraction of the number of innocent Muslims killed by other Muslims during that same period in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, and other areas of Muslim-on-Muslim civil strife. Yet the deaths caused by Muslims received a fraction of the attention devoted to alleged Israeli "crimes." This lack of concern for Muslims by other Muslims - and the lack of focus by so-called human rights organizations on these deaths - is bigotry, pure and simple. AMNESTY'S EVIDENCE that Israel's attacks on infrastructure constitute war crimes comes from its own idiosyncratic interpretation of the already-vague word "disproportionate." Unfortunately for Amnesty, no other country in any sort of armed conflict has ever adopted such a narrow definition of the term. Indeed, among the very first military objectives of most modern wars is precisely what Israel did: to disable portions of the opponent's electrical grid and communication network, to destroy bridges and roads, and to do whatever else is necessary to interfere with those parts of the civilian infrastructure that supports the military capability of the enemy. That's how the American and Britain militaries fought World War II. (In fact, Israel shows far more restraint than Britain did during World War II. Prime Minister Winston Churchill directed the Royal Air Force to bomb the center of towns with the express purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.) Had the Allies been required to fight World War II under the rules of engagement selectively applied to Amnesty International to Israel, our "greatest generation" might have lost that war. The strategy of destroying some infrastructure was particular imperative against Hizbullah. Israel first had to ensure that its kidnapped soldiers would not be smuggled out of the country (as other soldiers had been and were never returned), then it had to prevent Hizbullah from being re-armed, especially given that Hizbullah damaged a ship using advanced radar technology provided by the Lebanese army and rockets provided by Iran. Hizbullah was being armed by Syria and Iran - as those countries themselves admitted - and the president, government, and population of Lebanon overwhelmingly supported the militia's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilian population centers. The Lebanese army actively supported Hizbullah's military actions. Israel was, in a very real sense, at war with Lebanon itself, and not simply with a renegade faction of militants. HERE'S HOW law professor David Bernstein answered Amnesty's charge: The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime." In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities. THE MORE troubling aspect of Amnesty's report is their inattention to Hizbullah. If Israel is guilty of war crimes for targeting civilian infrastructure, imagine how much greater is Hizbullah's moral responsibility for targeting civilians! But Amnesty shows little interest in condemning the terrorist organization that started the conflict, indiscriminately killed both Israeli civilians (directly) and Lebanese civilians (by using them as human shields), and has announced its intention to kill Jews worldwide (already having started by blowing up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina.) Apparently Amnesty has no qualms about Hizbullah six-year war of attrition against Israel following Israel's complete withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. As has been widely reported, even al-Jazeera expressed surprise at the imbalance in the Amnesty report: During the four week war Hizbullah fired 3,900 rockets at Israeli towns and cities with the aim of inflicting maximum civilian casualties. The Israeli government says that 44 Israeli civilians were killed in the bombardments and 1,400 wounded. AI has not issued a report accusing Hizbullah of war crimes. Amnesty does not even seem to understand the charges it is making. Take, for example, this paragraph from its report: Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. But the issue of human shields and infrastructure are different. The first relates to civilian casualties; the second concerns property damage. Of course Israel intentionally targeted bridges and roads. It would have been militarily negligent not to have done so under the circumstances. But it did not target innocent civilians. It would have given them no military benefit to do so. The allegations become even more tenuous, as when Amnesty writes, "a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature." By this reasoning, terrorists could commandeer any structure or road initially constructed for civilian use, and Israel could not touch those bridges or buildings because they were once, and still could be, used by civilians. This is not, and should not be, the law. Consider another example: "While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population." Well that's certainly nice sounding. But what does it mean? What would Amnesty suggest a country do in the face of daily rocket attacks launched from civilian populations? Nothing, apparently. The clear implication of Amnesty's arguments is that the only way Israel could have avoided committing "war crimes" would have been if it had taken only such military action that carried with it no risk to civilian shields - that is, to do absolutely nothing. For Amnesty, "Israeli war crimes" are synonymous with "any military action whatsoever." The real problem with Amnesty's paper is that its blanket condemnations do not consider the consequences of its arguments. (It doesn't have to; it would never advance these arguments against any country but Israel.) Amnesty International's conclusions are not based on sound legal arguments. They're certainly not based on compelling moral arguments. They're simply anti-Israel arguments. Amnesty reached a predetermined conclusion - that Israel committed war crimes - and it is marshalling whatever sound-bites it could to support that conclusion. Amnesty International is not only sacrificing its own credibility when it misstates the law and omits relevant facts in its obsession over Israel. It also harms progressive causes that AI should be championing. Just last year, for example, Amnesty blamed Palestinian rapes and "honor killings" on - you guessed it - the Israeli occupation. When I pointed out that there was absolutely no statistical evidence to show that domestic violence increased during the occupation, and that Amnesty's report relied exclusively on the conclusory and anecdotal reports of Palestinian NGOs, Amnesty stubbornly repeated that "Israel is implicated in this violence by Palestinian men against Palestinian women." This episode only underscored AI's predisposition to blame everything on Israel. Even when presented with an ideal opportunity to promote gender equality and feminism in the Arab world, it preferred to take wholly unrelated and absurd shots at Israel. Amnesty International just can't seem to help itself when it comes to blaming Israel for the evils of the world, but rational observers must not credit the pre-determined conclusions of a once-reputable organization that has destroyed its own credibility by repeatedly applying a double standard to Israel. Mordechai Ben-Menachem can be contacted by email at quality@computer.org |
|
HOLOCAUST DENIAL IS NO JOKE
Posted by Jonathan Rosenblum, December 20, 2006. |
|
I doubt that last week's gathering of Holocaust deniers in Teheran, convened by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, registered high on the radar screen of many in our community -- at least until a small group of clowns in Chassidic garb showed up to hug and kiss Ahmadinejad and exchange their business cards with various Islamic clergy. While denial of the greatest tragedy in modern Jewish history is profoundly offensive, we instinctively discount its impact. After all, we reason, surely the deniers will be dismissed as either insane or pathological liars by every sentient person. Some of us might even have thought that Ahmadinejad's convening of such a conference was positive in that it would expose his lunacy and hate-driven agenda to all and sundry. I will confess to having shared those views. In retrospect, however, it now seems to me irresponsible to cloak ourselves in a false sense of security with regards Holocaust denial. The world still treats Ahmadinejad as a head of state in good standing, despite dozens of statements calling for the destruction of Israel and past instances of Holocaust denial. European nations have a seemingly endless string of rationalizations and justifications for every Arab or Islamic departure to generally accepted norms of political behavior. The fact that the theories are demonstrably wrong is no protection against their spread. After all, the tired myth that the Arab-Israeli conflict lies at the heart of all that ails the Middle East, recycled again last week by the distinguished members of the Iraq Study Group, demonstrates that no theory -- no matter how weak or devoid of factual support -- can be counted upon to refute itself. TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PHENOMENON of Holocaust denial I recently read a superb study called Denying History by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. In particular, I wanted to understand why those who are often open about their loathing of Jews, and free with Nazi-like theories of racial contamination, are so keen to deny the Holocaust rather than embrace it. The journals, websites, and fundraising lists of the Holocaust deniers are filled with references to "our traditional enemy." Though a few of Holocaust deniers with pretensions to academic seriousness have on occasion complained of the fact that they are forced to spend their time lecturing to crazed racists and anti-Semites, their own publications pander to these groups and they themselves inevitably show themselves to be tainted with the same disease. So why are they so eager to clear Hitler and the Nazis, yemach shemam, of responsibility for the murder of 6,000,000 Jews? Ahmadinejad himself poses the question starkly. He frequently announces the imminent destruction of Israel and the five million Jews living there. So why does he deny that there is precedent for just such an event? In the case of Ahmadinejad himself the answer is relatively clear. In his view, the creation of the state of Israel was an act of compensation by the world for the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. If that suffering can be shown to be wildly exaggerated, or the normal consequence of a brutal war, and not the result of a deliberate state policy of extermination, then the original grant of statehood to Israel was made on false pretenses and is therefore null and void. And therefore the destruction of Israel is perfectly legitimate. In the case of Holocaust deniers like Richard Verral, editor of the journal of Britain's right-wing National Front journal and author of Did Six Million Really Die?, the Holocaust represents a public relations problem that must be overcome. They greatly admire Hitler's Aryan philosophy and willingness to promote racial purity through legislation, and even advocate similar policies for their own countries. But they sense that the deliberate murder of six million human beings might be a bit much even for some like-minded supporters. Thus they claim that Hitler never intended more than the expulsion of Jews from Germany and later German-conquered territory in order to make the case for Nazi-like race laws. Holocaust denial fits seamlessly with the most virulent anti-Semitism. Indeed it provides just one more proof of Jewish perfidy and manipulation. If the Holocaust is a "myth," as the deniers claim, then it serves as a prime example of the way in which Jews control public discussion for their own benefit -- i.e., an even more nefarious version of the "Israel Lobby," the existence of which has now been confirmed by a former U.S. president. WHILE I ORIGINALLY TURNED TO Denying History in search for an answer to my question why do virulent anti-Semites bother to deny the Holocaust, what I found there was far more important than any answer to my original question. Above all, the book is a profound essay on the nature of historical argument and proof. Along the way, the authors categorize and refute the basic claims of the Holocaust deniers and analyze their methods of argument. The Holocaust deniers do not deny that many -- perhaps even millions of Jews -- died in the course of World War II. What they do deny is that there was any systematic plan to exterminate all Europe's Jews or that Hitler ever gave an order for their destruction. In addition, they deny that there were gas chambers in the six leading extermination camps and that the total number of Jews who were killed or died approaches anything like six million. Though few of the deniers have any academic training or credentials, a few do. Nor are they universally stupid. David Irving, for instance, is considered a first-rate archivist.. In this battle, as in almost every intellectual encounter, it is wise not to underestimate the opposition or overestimate one's own strength. Grobman and Shermer make clear is that most university students would be ill-equipped to confront the most articulate deniers unless they knew a great deal in advance about their methods and about the Holocaust. To prove the point, they quote at length from a disastrous T.V. interview by host Phil Donahue with two prominent deniers. Arguing that both sides must be heard, Holocaust deniers like Bradley Smith will gain admission to college campuses. And once there, it would be foolish to rely on college faculty, many of whom have been infected with terminal relativism, to protect the students. Grobman and Shermer relate a well-known case where a Afrocentrist gave a speech at Wellesley College arguing that Aristotle had stolen all his ideas from African manuscripts deposited in the great library of Alexandria. Professor Mary Lefkowitz asked him how that could be since the library was only built after Aristotle's death. After the lecture, she was attacked as a racist by members of the audience. But more frightening, when she complained to the dean of her college about such nonsense being foisted on students, she was told each of us has a different but equally valid view of history. The question is: Will Holocaust denial also find its way into the pantheon of "valid" historical views? TYPICALLY THE DENIERS DO NOT OFFER their own theory for what happened to Jews under Nazi control, or support with evidence such theories as they do offer -- e.g., the starvation of those Jews who survived until liberation was a consequence of the German's difficulty of supplying adequate food because of Allied advances. Rather the deniers seize upon discrepancies in the accounts of survivors of the gas chambers -- e.g., how long did they take to complete their ghastly task? -- as proof that they never existed. Occasional errors, long since corrected, such as the claim that the Nazis engaged in the commercial production of soap from human fat (as opposed to occasional experiments in this direction) are held by deniers aloft as proof that all the historical accounts are falsified. Deniers take out-of-context quotations from disputes between historians over such issues as when was the extermination plan finalized to suggest that there is an argument over the existence of such a plan. They repeatedly demand production of the "smoking gun" -- e.g., a signed order from Hitler ordering the extermination of all European Jewry or the construction of gas chambers -- as if an event of the magnitude of the Holocaust can be reduced to a single frame. They focus on what is not known rather than the immense amount of information that is known. And they attempt to discount or reinterpret documents and oral testimony one-by-one rather trying to explain the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. While rejecting the interpretations of historians who connect six different strands of proof of the Nazi Final Solution, they offer no coherent theory of their own. Grobman and Shermer have provided an immense service in destroying the various strands of denier argument. For instance, deniers ask, if Auschwitz was an extermination camp, why did its architectural design not conform to that purpose? Answer: It was originally built as part of a model city, later became a prisoner of war and slave labor camp for Russian POWS, and only in its last stage an extermination camp. They survey the various strands of evidence for the existence of the gas chambers, including the voluminous testimony from the trial of Rudolph Hess, the camp commandant, and Hess's own confession, the eyewitness testimony of both Germans and Jews who worked in the vicinity of the gas chambers and the ovens, and aerial photographs from Allied bombers. In addition, they stress that Auschwitz and the extermination camps were only one aspect of the Final Solution. The Einsatzgruppen extermination campaign in conquered areas of the Soviet Union claimed between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 Jewish lives even earlier in the war. It is ludicrous given the scope of the Final Solution and the consistent diversion of valuable German military resources to the extermination effort, even in the final stages of the war, that it was not executed with Hitler's knowledge and upon his orders. Grobman and Shermer explain that Hitler learned after the public outcry in Germany against his murder of 75,000 physically and mentally handicapped adults and children in the late '30s never again to put his signature to an extermination order. At the same time, they compile an overwhelming array of quotations from Hans Frank, the military governor of Poland, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Adolph Eichmann, (including the Wannsee Protocol, authored by Eichmann, after the infamous gathering of top of the Nazi hierarchy, explicitly delineating the stages of the Final Solution) and Hitler himself, which singly and cumulatively leave no doubt of a well-developed plan, ordered from the top, to eradicate the Jewish "virus" once and for all from Europe. When General Dwight D. Eisenhower arrived at the Buchenwald concentration camp on April 13, 1945, he insisted on touring every nook and cranny of the camp, and subsequently sent communications to London and Washington urging the British and American governments to sent groups of journalists so that the evidence of Nazi crimes should be immediately laid before the public. Eisenhower correctly anticipated the day when the last survivor had passed away and when many would say such things could not possibly have happened. That day is fast approaching. And with it should come recognition of the vital importance of all those battling against Holocaust denial: the Spielberg Foundation, which has recorded the testimonies of tens of thousands of survivors; the many superb Holocaust museums and research institutes around the world; historians like Grobman and Shermer and Professor Deborah Lipstadt. The latter not only exposed David Irving but then vigorously and successfully defended, along with her publisher Penguin Press, against Irving's libel suit in Great Britain, where the burden of proof rests on the defendant in libel actions. Had they lost Holocaust denial would have received an immense boost around the globe. Jonathan Rosenblum is with
Am Echad- Jewish Media Resources. Contact him by email at
amechad@bezeqint.net or go to the website:
|
|
WHY DO IRISH ACADEMICS PERSIST IN ADVOCATING BOYCOTT AND DIVESTING FROM ISRAEL?
Posted by Dr. Alex Grobman, December 20, 2006. |
|
Divestment campaigns are back in the news once again after a short lull. Their objective is to terminate university investments in Israel in order to impede the country's economic growth and development. By using "economic warfare," they want "to destroy Israel's economy," according to Fred Taub, president of Divestment Watch. As part of this campaign, attempts are made to prevent Israeli academic and political leaders from speaking on university campuses. Another goal is to eliminate Israeli academic research funds since Israeli academics are viewed as key elements and "collaborators" of the Jewish state. An association of dozens of Palestinian charities, unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) organizes these divestment campaigns according Gerald Steinberg, professor of political studies at Bar Ilan University. Why do "politicized churches" and academics demand divestment from Israel, he asks, but not from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? A number of the groups and individuals are ideologically opposed to Jewish sovereignty and to the existence of a Jewish state. Others have simply been duped by the media that all too often reports Arab propaganda as fact. Irish academics are particularly adamant in boycotting Israeli academic institutions. In a letter to the Irish Times on September 12, 2006, 61 Irish professors urged academic institutions throughout the world to boycott Israeli institutions of higher education. The Jerusalem Post reported that when Professor James Bowen of the Department of Computer Science at University College Cork was questioned about Hamas's charter and inflammatory language, (which openly calls for the extermination of Jews in Israel), and was asked whether those who signed the petition would consider boycotting Palestinian academic institutions as a result, Bowen replied, "the accusation of genocide against Hamas is libelous. The responsibility for ending the conflict lies with the aggressor. Israel is the aggressor." The Irish embassy in Israel condemned the petition as "counterproductive," yet the Irish government has helped foster this enmity because of its own negative attitudes towards Israel. By examining the government's views toward the Jewish State, we can see how Irish academics reflect their own government's attitude toward Israel, and why they are so tenacious in advocating this boycott. In Ireland and the Palestine Question 1948-2004, professor Rory Miller explains that the Irish believe they possess a unique insight into the Arab/Israeli conflict because of their neutrality and their distinct "moral" position in the international arena. This endows them with the right and obligation to seek peaceful solutions in international interaction. Ireland granted Israel de facto recognition in 1949,but did not grant it de jure recognition until May 1963. Part of the reason was Ireland's aversion toward partition, which was a result of its own fight for independence from Britain. The Irish saw partition as a cruel means of solving territorial disputes that would not bring peace. An even more fundamental reason for Irish opposition to granting Israel recognition Miller suggests, was that from the late 1940's, the Irish clergy, political parties, the general public and the media have had a special interest in the Holy Land because of their concern about the Christian Holy Places, especially in Jerusalem. The Vatican had supported the internationalization of the city and the holy sites, and the Irish were greatly influenced by the "Vatican factor," and adamant that the rights of Catholics be maintained. When the Irish granted de jure recognition, this did mean any inherent or overt acceptance of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. Oil is an additional factor why the Irish side with the Arabs. Miller quotes the Irish Times in mid-1963 that "if it comes to a matter of competition for the friendship of Israel or the Arab League, nobody can doubt what the outcome will be: the oil- rich Arab states possess an attraction denied to Israel" The rights of Arab refugees are another ongoing concern as was Israel's refusal to withdraw from the Golan Heights and the "occupied territories" Failure to resolve the refugee issue is viewed as the "greatest single obstacle," to peace in the region. The Irish did not have the political and diplomatic clout to compel Israel to compensate the Arabs and allow some of the refugees to return to Israel. Instead, they donated funds to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA). A further area of contention occurred after the Irish provided troops to serve first as UN observers and later as members of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Whenever there was a conflict between the Christian militias and Irish soldiers, the Irish blamed Israel. This led Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov, Israeli Ambassador to Britain and Ireland, to wonder how people in Dublin could sit around "smugly" and "pass judgment" about events in another part of the world. He found it particularly difficult to understand how the Irish could be so "insensitive to the Christian minority in Lebanon," and later charged Ireland "of leading the pack in [the] constant flagellation of Israel" Miller sees PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's visit to Ireland in mid December 1993 as recognition of Ireland's ongoing effort to advance the position of the Arab refugees and support of the PLO. The visit also demonstrated the extensive backing the PLO enjoyed among the Irish people. When Israel instituted roadblocks to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks, Irish politicians attacked Israel. This demonstrated a callous disregard for the suffering of Israel at the hands of Arab terrorists, and a failure to recognize that a major provision of the Oslo Accords was that the Palestinians were now responsible for the security of the Israel. The Irish Times reported that between 1994-1997, 131 Israelis had been killed and 446 wounded by Arab terrorists. The Irish government condemned the escalation of violence against the Israelis between 2000-2004, but criticized Israel for its policies and actions that exacerbated or prolonged the need for Arabs to use violence. They even had the temerity to stand behind Yasser Arafat even when there was evidence of his corruption and duplicity. Given the Irish government's rationalizations for Arab terrorism and intransigence, it is not surprising that Irish academics would be among those who want to harm the Israeli economy and its schools of higher education. Americans should actively oppose the Irish and any other academic groups that engage in this unjustified and morally reprehensible activity, because as Fred Taub points out, divestment campaigns are an attack on the U.S. "Foreign governments," he urges, "should not be allowed to dictate US foreign policy," and they must not be permitted to promote the destruction of the economy of another democracy. Israel's economy, Taub concludes, "has a direct impact on the US economy because Israel is a key developer of new technologies, including in medicine, computers and even space exploration; not to mention that it is the democracy and free-market economy example for the Middle-East.... The Arab boycott of Israel is the single biggest impediment to peace, as peace can not be sustained without economic cooperation" An historian, Dr. Grobman's most recent book is Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe. He is also co-author of Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened? His newest book is Nations United: How the UN is Undermining Israel and the West. Contact Dr. Grobman at agrobman@nj.rr.com |
|
APPEASEMENT SICKNESS, ARAB 5TH COLUMN IN ISRAEL; JIMMY CARTER STILL DISSEMBLING
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 20, 2006. |
|
RELENTLESS APPEASEMENT BY SICK MINDS A short time ago, the Israeli debacle in Lebanon and the renewed war in Gaza proved the folly of withdrawal. PM Olmert admitted that his plan for further withdrawal was thoroughly rejected by his people. Now he is resurrecting that scheme, and piggybacking it and other concessions, such as lopsided prisoner release and statehood, upon the ceasefire. Why did the Arabs request a ceasefire? So they could prepare for war. Statehood would give them stronger legal status, against Israeli defense in the form of carrying the war to its source. There is no reason to make deadly concessions to the Arabs in return for a promise to behave. They have made promises before. They broke them all. Let them behave! But then, if they behave, and since they have no legitimate grievance, they shouldn't get concessions. Their misbehavior earns them punishment, not concession. Nor is a prisoner exchange reasonable. They kidnapped an Israeli soldier wantonly, and held him in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions. The prisoners Israel holds are for terrorism. Releasing them would be criminal folly. THE UNDEFEATED Just saw that old John Wayne movie, and was moved to tears. Wayne's group of Union Army veterans was herding horses to sell to the Maximilian regime in Mexico, shortly after the Civil War. They come upon Rock Hudson's group of ex-Confederates, joining Maximilian as mercenaries. The Rebs host the others, and soon there is the usual fist fight in which all the men childishly indulge as if it were fun. That is the part about Wayne's movies that I detest. But later I saw it had purpose, this time. Wayne gets the herd to its destination, and is awaiting payment, while a pretended Maximillian general brings Hudson's group is brought to a dinner. The dinner is a trap set by the Juarez rebels. The Juaristas threaten to kill them all, including their women and children, unless their colonel persuades Wayne to hand the horses to them. Wayne asks his men what they wish to do. One put it that they never had anything, and if they give up these horses, they won't be worse off than before. After condeding the horses, both sets of veterans set off for home, side-by-side. One of them keeps playing Dixie, until Wayne asks, doesn't he know anything else. He starts playing The Battle Hymn of the Republic, and a southerner rejects it, too. So he takes up Yankee Doodle, the all-American song that predated the Civil War. That song symbolized the re-Americanization of the warring factions. That is when I started sobbing. There was, among them, national unity. We don't have it now. We don't have much patriotism among the people I know. They hate not only Bush but many also despise our country. They fear the religious Right, but tolerate the religious Muslims striving to destroy us. They turn to the declining Europeans as countries we should listen to. I love my country. I know its faults, but I also know its good points. We here all should work to polish the good points and iron out the faults. Don't just hate and complain. ARAB FIFTH COLUMN IN ISRAEL The Islamic Movement in Israeli distributed a calendar to Arab students of Haifa U. that favorably "marks the birthday of Al-Qaeda founder Bin-Laden, the date of PLO leader Yasser Arafat's death, and significant dates in the lives of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and jailed Fatah arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti." The Arabs explained that they wish to commemorate their leaders and events, such as the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that led to the "brave" wars against Israel. The University states that it would not permit this to recur (Arutz-7, 11/29). "Their leaders" are not their country's. In other words, they sympathize with the enemy because the enemy shares their religion and nationality. They are not loyal to their country. This is an old story, but many Jews can't grasp it. They should, for they often are accused, though falsely, of dual loyalty. As the Arabs indulge in sedition, Israel discriminates in favor of Arab admissions to its universities. They should not be given preference, and the Islamic Movement should be banned as subversive. I think that Muslim Arabs should not be allowed to immigrate legally or illegally, avoid national service, taxes, and land use regulation, and to riot. Then their citizenship should be repealed. If law enforcement and rescinding of government subsidies does not prompt them to emigrate, pay them to emigrate. IRAN'S MISSILES The world focuses (slightly) on Iran's nuclear development. However, Iran also is developing missiles of all sorts, more than any other country. It is seeking the ability to threaten every other country, however distant (IMRA, 11/29). Why try to ban the one without banning the other? Why destroy the one without destroying the other? It takes scientists and technicians, both domestic as foreign, to perfect such weapons. If the US destroys what those scientists have developed, shouldn't they also destroy at least the domestic scientists, too, capable of reconstituting the means for war crime? TURKEY'S KURDISH TERRORISTS The Kurdish terrorists originally were Maoist and nationalist. Now they sound more Islamist. After having made peace and gotten concessions from Turkey, they resumed the struggle, fighting as much in Turkey as the insurgency does in Iraq. They likewise are helped by Iran and by the Kurdish region of Iraq, as tools against Turkey. Turkey lost its influence with the US, by not cooperating with the invasion of Iraq. The US lost influence with Turkey, by allowing the terrorists to maintain bases and havens in Iraqi Kurdistan. (Turkey's non-cooperation was because its government is Islamist. The US contradicts its war on terrorism by not cracking down on Kurdish terrorists.) The terrorists also find safe havens in Europe. They raise funds and engage in criminal activities by networking among Kurds there. Several countries host Kurdish terrorist broadcasting. This is turning Turkey more anti-Europe (MEFNews, 11/29). Europe should not let in or let stay alien immigrants from a culture that doesn't assimilate. JIMMY CARTER STILL DISSEMBLING Former Pres. Jimmy Carter continues his untruths about the Arab-Israel conflict. According to him, Israel violates the Road Map and the P.A. fulfilled it. Actually, the P.A. met none of its major requirements: (1) Declare Israel a legitimate state with the right to exist; (2) Cease inciting the Arabs to violence against Israel; (3) Dismantle terrorist organizations and confiscate their arms (IMRA, 11/29). Israel is not obliged to strengthen an enemy making war on it, in the name of an agreement supposed to bring peace but which the Arabs nullify by their violations. If Jimmy Carter made an occasional mistake but were objective in tone, one could forgive him. He has made statements expressing affection for the Arabs and hostility for most Israelis. He gets so many facts wrong, though he has access to people who know them, one must conclude that he is a biased, vicious propagandist who is lying. WHAT ROLE, JOURNALISM? Abbas, the man whom the NY Times calls a moderate, referred to "a barbaric Israeli offensive that has left more than 400 dead and 1,500 wounded while thousands of homes have been destroyed." According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the UNO, 73 houses were destroyed and some official buildings. (No comment was made about casualties.) Problem is, the NY Times, L.A. Times, and Haaretz repeated Abbas' alleged figures without question (IMRA, 11/29). Doesn't it occur to them that he is partisan? The press' unquestioning relay of Islamic propaganda encourages exaggeration. The P.A. has exaggerated before. It had alleged a slaughter and havoc in Jenin. Investigation showed a minor casualties and limited damage. Same for Syrian claims about Kuneitra and Lebanon, citing Arab-inflicted damage predating the Israeli incursions. Journalism should be informative, not lend itself to totalitarian war. Lying is an accepted tactic under Islamic jihad. I think that Arab culture encourages exaggeration, too. Note that the Muslim Arabs murder people on the basis of rumor. They prefer conspiracy theory to evidence and common sense. They garble history. They constantly and inconsistently juggle factoids and sound bytes to bolster their current aim. SEC. RICE GREETS ABBAS She praised him for what he has spent a "lifetime doing for his people," and said that Pres. Bush admires him. She hoped he would succeed in forging a coalition government with Hamas that would gain international support (IMRA, 11/30). Abbas spent a lifetime as Arafat's deputy in terrorism, and continued after Arafat. How could any decent person admire him? A coalition government means that instead of all Cabinet officers belonging to one terrorist organization, they belong to two. What a poor excuse for conferring international support! It is a fig leaf for the war on the Jews. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
ABOUT THAT GENTLEMAN FOR WHOM 450 MURDERERS WERE SET FREE
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 20, 2006. |
|
Almost three years ago, Ariel Sharon released 450 murderer
terrorists from Israeli prison in order to free Elhanan Tannenbaum, an
Israeli criminal who had entered Lebanon under suspicious
circumstances and was kidnapped there by the Hizbollah. Sharon also
obtained the three bodies of Israeli soldiers (two Jews and one
Bedouin) murdered in cold blood by teh Hizbollah, murders that were
never avenged by Israel. At the time I published an article, "I am
Ashamed to be an Israeli"
At that time, and in that article, I reported the theory that the civilian held by the Hizbollah and released in the deal, Elhanan Tannenbaum, was in fact a drug smuggler, in Lebanon to buy drugs. In fact, I suggested that Israel might consider releasing some terrorists as a reward for the Hizbollah keeping Tannebaum in captivity. Some people criticized me harshly for that and for reporting the theory when Tannebaum was a fellow Jew who had not been convicted of drug smuggling nor had admitted publicly to it. Yediot Ahronot today reports Tannebaum was testifying in a customs smuggling trial for two other criminals and admitted all this in court. Tannenbaum, who personally did more to damage Israel than almost anyone else outside Israeli politics, has not been indicted in Israel for anything. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
HEROISM IN OUR TIME
Posted by Batya Medad, December 20, 2006. |
|
During the 25 years I've lived in Shiloh, I've learned to just take opportunities and not to plan in too much detail. Yesterday was a perfect example. The bare outline of my plans was to get to the Aliza and Menachem Prize Giving Ceremony at the Begin Heritage Center. I had also hoped to be able to get to "Ozen Shlishi," "The Third Ear," video/dvd place and take out a movie. Ever since they changed all of our buses,I haven't the vaguest idea of the schedule. When I count on a bus to leave Shiloh, I'm usually left waiting, but when I just go down to wait, things are better. Yesterday was a classic! I had one of my ESP-ish feelings that I had better run out of the house, so I did. These "feelings" have done me well on various occasions, usually for leaving Jerusalem and going home. The internet bus schedule said there should have had been a bus a few minutes ago, but I just didn't organize my time well. As I ran down, neighbors stopped and offered me a ride to Neve Neeman, since they know that I have a cousin there, but... That's not where I was headed. Too bad. Then just as I was getting to the bus stop, I noticed a car stop, and they invited me in. To Jerusalem, but not the direct route. My neighbor was giving a "tour" to friends visiting from the states. Instead of Route 60, the quickest way, we'd be going via Shvut Rachel, to the Alon Road to the East, by the Jordan Valley. Then they were planning to see Migron, which is battling the Israel Government for its survival. I did have time, and I believe in taking advantage of opportunities, so I got in. Even though I've been on the Alon Road before, I was as amazed as the tourists at the total emptiness of the land we saw. Nobody lives there. Closer to Jerusalem we passed the roads to Kochav HaShachar and Rimonim, two Jewish communities housing a few hundred families. Those barren hills we had passed could easily be filled with a million people. There were no signs of ownership or habitation, but this is land that "Peace" Now demands we give to Arabs. The road was also very empty, so even though it was longer than #60, the trip was quick. So before we knew it, it seemed like we were at the end of the road, but the road signs weren't clear as to which way to Jerusalem. We asked the soldiers we saw, who looked a bit confused but gave us directions. We followed them and got to the southern end of Route 60, near the turn-off to Migron. We followed the narrow, winding road to Migron and eventually saw a quiet community with lots of "caravans," trailers, surrounded by gardens and children's toys. There were also "buildings" which were obviously used as pre-schools. The school-aged kids are bussed to a nearby elementary school.
Nothing in the peaceful scene, which was before us, gave a hint to the fact that Defense Minister Peretz wants to distract the nation from the "PA" kassam attacks on his home city Sderot by destroying Migron. After that, we were off to nearby Jerusalem, where I noticed the bus I had "planned on taking." So, obviously our timing was perfect! Then I got out and took a bus to my destination, plenty of time, but then I found myself in a major traffic jam, which added about a half hour to the trip. I kept calm, convincing myself that I still had plenty of time, and yes, I did. I picked up a couple of movies, "The Sting" and the new "Oliver Twist" by Polanski, and then I ran over to the Begin Center. They were still "eating." The menu had something for everybody--vegetable sticks, cookies and "sufganiyot," those doughy jelly doughnuts Israelis love to eat in the winter. Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The theme of the awards this year was Heroism. They honored the People of Sderot and also Roi Klein and Emanuel Moreno two of the soldiers killed in last summer's nameless war. I'd say that the residents of Migron are heroes, too!
Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at
Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com
|
|
NEW ISRAEL FUND MONEY MAY BE HELPING MOSSAWA, BUT MOSSAWA HURTS ISRAEL
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 19, 2006. |
|
In case anyone is thinking of contributing to the New Israel Fund (NIF), I encourage you to research thoroughly where your NIF contributions go. As I have pointed out in the past, there is evidence that the NIF turns a blind eye to the possibility that some of its money to Arab charities in Israel may be used for demonstrably anti-Israel purposes. The Mossawa Center, in Haifa, is a recipient of NIF funds. Check
out what Daniel Pipes says about the center. His article is called
"Israel's Domestic Enemy," and it appeared in the New York Sun
December 19, 2006. It is archived at 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 |
|
HITLER'S LITTLE HELPERS AT WORK IN BETHLEHEM AND THE UK
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 19, 2006. |
|
Dear Christian leaders, The leading luminaries of Christianity in the UK are not just silent in the face of the Muslim threats of a new Holocaust against the Jews of Israel, they actually legitimize the lies and help spread the mendacious propaganda that enables the Muslim diatriabalists to dupe the Christian West into thinking that, in fact, Israel deserves to be destroyed. Melanie Philips is right when she states: "I'm sorry if this pains the many decent Christians who uphold truth and fight evil...but it has to be said that, at a time when Iran is openly threatening to destroy Israel, the churches in Britain are not only silent about the genocidal ravings emanating from Iran, but are themselves helping pave the way for a second Holocaust...The time has arrived for decent Christians around the world to raise their voices as loudly as they can against this terrible, primitive anti-Jewish stain that once again besmirches their religion." Happily, some leading luminaries of Christianity in the USA are speaking out; but they are few and far between; and their censure of Islamofascism and Muslim Jew-hatred is barely heard over the chorus of Muslim apologists and non-Muslim cheerleaders who use the Goebbelian strategy of "repeat the lie often enough" in order to galvanize support in the Christian community for what amounts to a second Holocaust. And the greatest, indeed most dire, irony is that the same Muslim leaders who proclaim "death to the Jews", "The Holocaust is a Zionist hoax but it is too bad that brother Hitler did not finish the job", and "As soon as Iran has nuclear capacity, we will wipe Israel off the face of the earth", are also saying, in Arabic/Farsi, to their own people, "when we are finished with the Saturday people, we will start on the Sunday people". Hitler's little helpers among the Christians of the UK, EU and USA are digging their own graves and the graves of millions of their flock, as they support the lies, legitimize the diatribe, and blame the Jews for what Muslims are doing to the Christians in the Holy Land, and especially in the village of Jesus' birth. And if you have doubts about the veracity of that statement, just note the reality of what has happened to the Christian communities in most of the Arab, and much of the Muslim, world over the last 20 years. Here are two articles, the first from Melanie Phillips' website, the second by Tom Harper and Ben Leapman in the Sunday Telegraph in the UK. from. |
|
1.) This essay appeared December 18, 2006 on Melane Phillips'
website Christmas is almost upon us, the time of goodwill to all men, and the occasion for the latest vicious attack upon the Jews by the Church of England. In the Catholic weekly The Tablet, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was reported as saying: 'People are leaving Bethlehem in large numbers. It is now very difficult to get in and out of and we thought we could go there, and do what we can to encourage that very beleaguered community, and remind others that it matters that there are Christians in the middle of that conflict.' That solidarity with the people of Bethlehem causes Dr Williams to challenge the Israeli Government. He is careful in his choice of words, but he asks, in these days leading up to Christmas: 'I would like to know how much it matters to the Israeli Government to have Christian communities in the Holy Land. Are they an embarrassment or are they part of a solution? That's a question.' Is that so? Well here's another question. Does Dr Williams realise that he is giving voice to a Big Lie about the Jews of Israel, or is he just astoundingly and unforgiveably ignorant? The assumption behind his question is that the very real beleaguerment of the dwindling number of Christians in Bethlehem is caused by Israel. This is a diabolical falsehood. The overwhelming reason why the Christians of Bethlehem have fled is because they have been forced out not by Jews but by Muslims. A story in today's Mail on Sunday, which reports 'deep concern' by Dr Williams and the leader of Britain's Catholic, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, provides a very different picture indeed of the cause of the Bethlehem Christians' suffering: Life for Palestinian Christians such as 50-year-old Joseph has become increasingly difficult in Bethlehem - and many of them are leaving. The town's Christian population has dwindled from more than 85 per cent in 1948 to 12 per cent of its 60,000 inhabitants in 2006. There are reports of religious persecution, in the form of murders, beatings and land grabs. Meanwhile, the breakdown in security is putting off tourists, leading to economic hardship for Christians, who own most of the town's hotels, restaurants and souvenir shops* The story goes on to say that that isolation is exacerbated by Israel's security barrier. But the only reason that was erected was as a desperate last resort to prevent the Palestinians from murdering large numbers of Israelis by human bomb attacks. As the story makes clear, however, the principal reason for the Christians' flight is Muslim violence. Indeed, if it were Israel's behaviour it would hardly be only Christians who were fleeing. There is no shortage of correct, factual information about this. A report by the Jersualem Centre for Public Affairs provides an informed riposte to the Christian lies: *The Christian population of the areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) has sharply declined in recent decades, as tens of thousands have abandoned their holy sites and ancestral properties to live abroad. Those who remain comprise a beleaguered and dwindling minority. In sharp contrast, Israel's Christian community has prospered and grown by at least 270 percent since the founding of the state. Not a peep of any of this from the Archbishop of Canterbury, or indeed any other prominent Christian leader. Instead the Church blames Israel for the flight from Bethlehem, part of the systematic campaign of libellous propaganda against the Jewish state and the sanitisation of Arab murderous hatred that is circulated and believed as holy writ among so many Christians in Britain and elsewhere. Recently, a cleric of the Church of England sent me - as an apparently pointed rebuke - a truly wicked book, Bethelehem Besieged, by one Mitri Raheb, a Palestinian Christian pastor in Bethlehem. With a jacket garlanded by encomia from Hanan Ashrawi, George McGovern, James Zogby, Desmond Tutu and others, this book presents a picture of Bethlehem's Christians suffering under a yoke imposed by the cruel and belligerent Israelis. Page after page is devoted to claims about the 'apartheid-like wall'; unwarranted 'invasions' of Bethlehem by overwhelming Israeli military might; the siege of the Church of the Holy Nativity when Israeli troops 'clearly had instructions to go in and destroy' (doubtless that's why there was a stand-off for days while the Israelis tried to persuade the Arab gunmen inside, who were trashing the church, to surrender) - a scandalous misrepresentation with more than a whiff of old-style theological prejudice, when the author compares his family locked inside the parsonage for safety to 'the first disciples after the crucifixion of Jesus'; the 'devastating impact' of the closures and the curfews under the Second Intifada; and so on and dishonestly, virulently, sickeningly, on. No mention whatsoever of the never-ending violence and mass murder of Israelis perpetrated by the Palestinians; no acknowledgement whatever of the fact that Israel's military actions in the town were occasioned solely as acts of self-defence against Palestinian aggression; no mention at all of the truly unwarranted aggression towards and persecution of the Bethlehem Christians by Palestinian Muslims. Instead, the Israeli victims of Arab aggression are blamed by this Arab Christian as a source of unredeemed evil - a nationalistic scapegoating of the Jewish state that mirrors the theological scapegoating of the Jewish religion in the Gospels and the calumnies of the early church fathers. This vile travesty merely mirrors the kind of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli filth that pours out of places like the Sabeel centre and other sources of Palestinian Christian writing, along with NGOs like Christian Aid. As Canon Andrew White has more than once observed, not only does this all smell of replacement theology or supercessionism, the ancient Christian calumny against the Jews, but it has become once again standard fare within the Church of England and many other churches. The results of all this incitement to hatred are on display in a gruesome opinion poll in The Tablet: Do you believe the security wall is needed to protect the population of the Holy Land from suicide bombers? Read that last figure again. Almost 80 per cent of British Christians polled do not accept that Israel is fighting enemies who are pledged to destroy it. Almost 80 per cent of British Christians are ignorant of the truth, have swallowed a diabolical lie and as a result have turned Jewish victims into global villains. Where, alas, have we heard this before? I'm sorry if this pains the many decent Christians who uphold truth and fight evil and therefore support Israel in its existential struggle to survive the attempt to exterminate it; but it has to be said that, at a time when Iran is openly threatening to destroy Israel, the churches in Britain are not only silent about the genocidal ravings emanating from Iran but are themselves helping pave the way for a second Holocaust. The time has arrived for decent Christians around the world to raise their voices as loudly as they can against this terrible, primitive anti-Jewish stain that once again besmirches their religion. This was written by Tom Harper and Ben Leapman and it was published December 17, 2006 in the Sunday Telegraph; it is called "Jews far more likely to be victims of faith hatred than Muslims." Jewish people are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than Muslims, according to figures compiled by the police. One in 400 Jews compared to one in 1,700 Muslims are likely to be victims of "faith hate" attacks every year. The figure is based on data collected over three months in police areas accounting for half the Muslim and Jewish populations of England and Wales. The crimes range from assault and verbal abuse to criminal damage at places of worship. Police forces started recording the religion of faith-hate crime victims only this year. They did so on the instruction of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which wanted a clear picture of alleged community tensions around the country, following reports of Muslims being attacked after September 11 and the July 7 London bombings last year. However, the first findings, for July to September, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph under freedom of information legislation, show that it is Jews who are much more likely to be targeted because of their religion. The figures also suggest that many faith-hate crimes remain unsolved, contrary to the picture painted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in a report this month. The CPS said only 43 people were charged with "religiously aggra-vated" offences last year, and concluded that the large rise expected after the July 7 bombings had not materialised. Police figures suggest, however, that hundreds of faith-hate crimes are being committed, with very few ever reaching court. Those figures include any crime that is reported to police which the victim believes is motivated by hatred of his or her religion. The CPS report revealed that not a single person accused of an anti-Semitic crime had been prosecuted on a charge of religiously aggravated offending. It said: "The police statistics include incidents where no defendant has been identified or where there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution." A report by MPs in September said British Jews were more vulnerable to attack and abuse now than for a generation. Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, who sat on the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, said it was "perverse" that not all police forces recorded anti-Semitic incidents and said that some forces "verge on the complacent". The Acpo directive was ignored by most forces, whose systems are not designed to record religion, though they routinely record ethnicity. Acpo said large organisations take time to adjust to new systems. The Sunday Telegraph has obtained information on faith-hate crimes from the Metropolitan Police, Greater Manchester, South Wales and West Mercia forces. In London and Manchester, where Muslims outnumber Jews by four to one, anti-Semitic offences exceeded anti-Muslim offences (see table). The figures do not record the faith of the offenders. Rabbi Alex Chapper, 33, was the victim of a "faith-hate" crime in July last year. He was returning from a synagogue in Ilford, Essex, with three Jewish friends after conducting a service. All were wearing skull caps. Seven Asian teenagers followed them down the road shouting "Yehudi", which means Jew in Arabic. One of them shouted, "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you", before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face and hitting one of his friends over the head with a bottle. "It was very frightening, we were all very shaken," said the rabbi. "I thought we were going to get seriously hurt but someone threatened to call the police and they ran off. "We identified the youths and told the police but they were never prosecuted. They just did not seem interested. I feel very let down." A spokesman for the Community Security Trust, which monitors attacks on Jews, said: "Many people hoped and believed anti-Semitism had burnt itself out. This is not the case." 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 |
|
THE WEST NEEDS A WAKE UP CALL!
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 19, 2006. |
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite apparent defeat of kindred spirits in local races, attempts to solidify his own national power by rigging a 'presumably' democratic Iranian election, Iran's ally Syria accelerates arms shipments to Hizbullah terrorists as they attempt to overthrow the Siniora government in Lebanon, Iranian underwritten Hamas battles Fatah with ever increasing zeal as Gaza's civil war intensifies, while the West dawdles, in fact leans in the direction of appeasement. What would erstwhile Prime Minister Winston Churchill say from the grave, spiritually viewing Prime Minister Tony Blair asking the world to support Mahmoud Abbas' decision to call for early elections, and the Baker Hamilton conciliatory analysis, supported by former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, of the Iraq debacle, suggesting the Bush Administration makes nice nice with Iran and Syria. Facing the Hitler Nazi juggernaut, obsessed with ridding the planet of all non-Aryans, The British Bulldog brilliantly and bravely asserted,"You ask: 'What is our policy?' I will say: 'It is to wage war by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime.' That is our policy. You ask: 'What is our aim?' I can answer in one word: 'Victory! Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.'" Although the horrific human misery and devastation inflicted during World War II, punctuated by the systematic slaughter of over six million Jews, cannot now be compared with an emerging jihad led by Iranian madman Ahmadinejad and his contemptuous crew of infidel/Jew/Israel despising mullahs, one must calculate such potential as Iran continues to develop a nuclear infrastructure, and indeed would not hesitate in detonating a nuke to someday wipe out Israel, perhaps another infidel nation, or possibly just to set a chaotic stage for the coming of an Imam that will guarantee a planet bereft of non believers. Indeed, no prescient observer ever accused such Persian movers and shakers of being acquainted with the concept of sanity. There is little doubt that a Shiite Iranian/Syrian/Islamic terrorist axis has declared holy war on all Sunni Arabs, would do whatever it takes to 'wipe Israel off the map', and threatens to someday seize Western Europe; indeed an insidiously ambitious agenda. Yet the comatose West dithers, waffles on sanctions, will not cease paying an extortionist per barrel price for fossil fuel thus in effect underwrites that agenda, and surely will not now consider any military action to put out a relative brush fire metastasizing into a blazing inferno of Dr. Strangelove proportions. Even the imperiled Sunni House of Saud hesitates to lead the way by substantially increasing oil production thus lowering it's per barrel price. Is there any limit to the greed of those madrassa financing Jew despising scoundrels? What might it take for their survival mechanism to kick in? Forget about those Arabs, where are you Winston when your inspiration is ever needed by America, Britain, Israel et al? We so need a wake up call! Every war requires a different strategy, yet all wars have one thing in common; they must be recognized as such when declared. Preemption by negotiation has left the barn, yet the West alas remains in denial. No doubt, America has prompted Iranian chutzpah by breaking Iraq, letting the Shiite genie out of a bottle once corked by Sadist Hussein, bizarrely supports a government that would someday jilt Uncle Sam for madman Mahmoud in a Tehran minute, and most stupidly allows its embattled troops to remain targets in a thirteen century Sunni Shiite uncivil war with no end in sight. Deploy those U.S. troops into friendly Kurdistan now so they might keep vigilant eyes and ready trigger fingers on erstwhile Persia, the real threat to planetary stability! Let the Sunnis and Shiites duke it out, they will do so either now or later. Winston would surely approve of that first step at least suggesting Western strategists are not totally brain dead. Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
PETITION: BRING IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADI NEJAD TO JUSTICE FOR INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE!
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, December 19, 2006. | |
Contact Eli Hertz by email at today@mythsandfacts.org |
|
OUR SAUDI FOES
Posted by Michael Travis, December 19, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Edward Cline, author of SparrowHawk. |
|
Enough about the Iranian bogeyman, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He is our certifiable enemy. Let's shift our focus for a moment to our venal ally in the "war on terror," Saudi Arabia, his chief rival in the conquest or destruction of the U.S. Ahmadinejad, addressing a conference in Tehran a year ago, proclaimed that "those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible." The Saudis agree with half that statement; for them, the eradication of Israel is a mutual goal, but it would rather convert the U.S. into an Islamic nation, instead of destroy it. "Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq," read the headline in the Sunday Telegraph (London, December 3), and in my previous commentary, "The Sandstorm of Western Confusion," I quoted one interesting paragraph from that article: Saudi Arabia, America's closest ally in the Arab world, is considering backing anti-U.S. insurgents because it is so alarmed that Sunnis in Iraq will be left to their fate -- military and political -- at the hands of the [Iranian-backed] Shia majority. How would the Saudis accomplish such backing without alienating the prostituted affections of the Bush administration and the State Department? The Associated Press provided an answer in an article that appeared in the Newport News, Virginia Daily Press on December 8th under the headline, "Saudi citizens finance Iraq's Sunni fighters, report says." The report is that of the Iraq Study Group. Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni Muslim insurgents in Iraq, and much of it is used to buy weapons, including shoulder-fired [Russian Strela] anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash. This is an interesting subject in the ISG's report that hasn't received the attention it deserves by the American news media, whose news anchors and Washington correspondents are barely able to contain their joy over the bipartisan recommendations that President Bush abandon the idea of victory in Iraq and begin talking with Iran and Syria with the goal of "stabilizing" the chaos in Iraq. Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition. But the ISG report said Saudis are a source of money for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by the Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq -- money they said was headed for insurgents. The article reports that the Saudis claim to be tracking "suspicious financial operations." Tracking and policing such operations, however, are two distinct actions. The AP article continues, "The ISG report said that 'funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and other (Persian) Gulf states.'" Oman? Kuwait? Qatar? Bahrain? The United Arab Emirates? In the moral dustbowls of all these medieval enclaves, such "private individuals" must have close political and economic connections to their royalist governments to be wealthy enough to indulge in such generosity. Their "charitable" donations must have the tacit approval and knowledge of the powers in the royal palaces and compounds. As evil and perversely bizarre as the notion is that an alleged American ally would condone or sanction its citizens enabling "insurgents" to kill American soldiers -- but not incite the rage of either the Bush administration or the news media or members of the ISG -- the Saudis are also funding another kind of insurgency in the U.S. itself. Its chief front organization is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The goal of this "insurgency" is two-fold: to whitewash Islam by projecting it as a benign creed deserving of special dispensations and treatment vis-à-vis American law; and to insinuate the Islamic ethos into American society with the ultimate goal of transforming it from a secular to an Islamic society (which means discarding the Constitution and replacing it with the Koran). Its chief weapons until now have been lawsuits and press releases. CAIR is a lobby-cum-"civil rights" organization that advances Saudi interests in the U.S. It is staffed by Wahhabists and financially supported by surreptitiously donated Saudi and other "Gulf" money. That is, by American motorists, without their knowledge, at the gas pump. Now CAIR has allies in Congress. Up to now, it has counted on the gullibility and short-ranged mentalities of the news media and even the White House to lend it an air of innocence and concern. Up to now, the rule has been dinners for Muslim guests at the White House, receptions for them in swank hotels, and a congenial first-name-basis camaraderie. When Congress reconvenes next year, CAIR and its phalanx of interlinked Muslim organizations in the U.S. will expect their leftist and Democratic allies in the Senate and House to work for and deliver legislation that will protect the Islamic beachhead in America. For a detailed summary of the goals and backgrounds of the "usual suspects" -- Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and Keith Ellison -- see Robert Spencer's article, "CAIR's Congress" in FrontPageMagazine of November 13, 2006; Robert Novak's article in the Chicago Sun-Times of December 10 on Zalmay Khalilzad, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Iraq and a Muslim who will likely become the U.S. envoy at the United Nations; and "John Conyers and the Muslim Caucus" in the Investor's Business Daily of November 9. More disturbing, however, is another article from the December 4th FrontPageMagazine, "CAIR KOs '24'," by Henry Mark Holzer. "Early in 2005, CAIR met with representatives of the Fox television network and producers of the hit drama '24' to discuss concerns about the depiction of a 'Muslim' family at the heart of a terror plot on that popular program," cites Holzer from CAIR's Annual Report, titled "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2006, The Struggle for Equality." "CAIR was concerned that the portrayal of the family as a terrorist 'sleeper cell' would cast suspicion over ordinary American Muslims and increase Islamophobia. "Rabiah Ahmed, spokeswoman for CAIR, said that the show was 'taking everyday American Muslim families and making them suspects. It's very dangerous and very disturbing." CAIR's Annual Report continues: At the meeting, which included CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Fox officials agreed to distribute a CAIR public service announcement to network affiliates and ask that it be aired in proximity to '24.' Network officials also agreed to air a disclaimer stating the American Muslims reject terrorism. Mr. Holzer writes: Although many Americans were rightly enraged at Fox's capitulation to CAIR, they wrongly complained of 'censorship.'" Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, correctly counters that Fox's submission -- and remember that "Islam" means "submission" -- did not constitute censorship. "Only the government has the power to censor (subject to whatever protection that might be afforded by the federal First Amendment and state constitutions). What Fox's decision did constitute was: cowardice. CAIR insisted that Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the intrepid Jack Bauer, a counterterrorism agent, issue the politically correct version of a parental guidance warning: "...Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching '24,' please, bear that in mind." Which Sutherland did. Technically, it was called a "disclaimer." What it disclaims and abdicates, however, is the right of Fox in "24" to portray Muslims as it sees fit, regardless of the accuracy of such a portrayal, regardless of the fact that most American Muslims are an alien fifth column of manqués, conditioned by the Koran and their clerics to do the bidding of Allah, Mohammad, and CAIR. CAIR's Annual Report could just as well have been titled, "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2006, The Struggle for Supremacy." Holzer then lets fly at CAIR: Wrapping itself in the flag, invoking the Constitution, and hiding beneath its veneer of a self-styled 'civil liberties' organization -- modeled on its anti-American mentor and template, the American Civil Liberties Union -- CAIR is the preeminent domestic mailed fist of Islam in the velvet glove of civil liberties....CAIR is using the American legal system to intimidate the exercise of free speech, to undermine our homeland defense and to advance Muslim cultural infiltration of our domestic institutions by seeking special dispensations concerning dress, national holidays, educational texts, the content of books, movies, television, and more. In addition to its incessant intimidating complaints about the alleged violation of 'Muslim Civil Liberties.' (The balance of Holzer's article is a description of the extent of CAIR's legal activism in the U.S., to which the news media and our elected representatives are either oblivious or criminally ambivalent.) While Fox's decision to "submit" to Islamic sensibilities indeed does not constitute censorship (see Ayn Rand's definition and discussion of censorship in The Ayn Rand Lexicon), it is symptomatic of what could be called "mirror censorship," that is, self-censorship from fear and moral cowardice without the excuse of being subjected to or threatened with government force. In the fog-bound ethics of approximations, relativism, and non-absolutes, the one absolute that pragmatists, "realists" and the "practical" fear to encounter in that fog is: the necessity of opposing censorship. Censorship is the forcible suppression of free speech by the entity that has a monopoly on force, the government. Facing naked censorship, they know they must take a moral stand. So one must wonder about the moral stature of men who readily submit to faux force, that is, to the whims and wishes of a "community" that threatens lawsuits, demonstrations, or boycotts. Since force is not threatened, the pragmatists and "realists" feel comfortable by acknowledging a group's "displeasure" and claims of "persecution" and by calling their penance "public service." One cannot but conclude that they would rather not face a moral decision at all, and that, confronted with genuine censorship, they would sanction that, as well, in the name of the "public good." Let us not forget the power behind CAIR, which is chiefly Saudi money. That money has been funding gangs of tribalist killers who target American soldiers in Iraq, as well as funding "civil liberties" insurgents in this country who target the First Amendment. And now the Baker-Hamilton team of compromisers is proposing that the U.S. hold direct talks with Iran and Syria, which have also been sending other tribalist killers money and weapons to Iraq to kill American soldiers. One of Bush's gravest errors was not asking Congress for a declaration of war against the "axis of evil." As a friend explained, such a declaration would give the U.S. the right to deem an organization like CAIR an enemy agent and to take the appropriate wartime punitive actions. But no such declaration has been made; one consequence of that failure is that the moral behavior of private individuals and organizations like Fox has too often mirrored that of our foreign policy: cowardice and appeasement. Remember the Danish cartoon imbroglio? At least American soldiers can fight back and kill the enemy in Iraq. But where, Holzer asks, are the "dedicated lawyers with the desire to meet CAIR on the legal battlefield...?" Are they all dead? Are they too busy passing statist legislation in Congress, such as the selective censorship of the Campaign Finance Law, or cooking up class action suits against businesses? In Book Four -- Empire of my Sparrowhawk series, Patrick Henry, a lawyer and freshman burgess, about to introduce his Stamp Act Resolves in the Virginia General Assembly in May of 1765, states: We propose that this House adopt and forward to those parties [Parliament and King George the Third], not genuflective beseechments or adulatory objurgations, but pungent resolves of our understanding of the origins and practice of British and American liberty, resolves which will frankly alert them to both the error of their presumptions and our determination to preserve that liberty. These resolves, in order to have some consequence and value, ought not to be expressed by us in the role of effusive mendicants applying for the restitution of what has been wrested from them, but with the cogently blunt mettle of men who refuse to be robbed. The historical irony is that when Henry made his speech, the Wahhabist Saudis were engaged in the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula, which they completed in 1806. Who could have predicted then that their descendents and their hired fellaheen would invade America unopposed two and half centuries later with the express purpose of gagging the likes of Henry in the name of Allah? Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
WHEN IN DOUBT, SHOUT ABOUT ISRAEL
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 19, 2006. |
|
Dear friends, Here is another excellent (and true) article by Victor Davis Hansen, Private Papers, www.victorhanson.com. Your Truth Provider,
|
|
These are strange times. Perennially beleaguered Israel, for instance, was hit all summer long with rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, as the world watched and kept score in an absurd new game of proportionality: Israel was to be blamed because its hundreds of air strikes against combatants were lethal, while Hezbollah was to be excused for shooting off thousands of rockets aimed at civilians because of its relative incompetence. This week Iran hosted an international conference on Holocaust denial. The gathering was as bizarre as a bar out of Star Wars, a collection of every crackpot anti-Semite the world over, all there for a scripted, tightly controlled hatefest advertised as a "free" exchange of ideas unknown in Europe. Jimmy Carter, silent about Iran's latest promotion for its planned holocaust, is hawking his latest book - in typical fashion, sorta, kinda alleging that the Israelis are like the South Africans in perpetuating an apartheid state, that they are cruel to many Christians, and, as occupiers, are understandably the targets of suicide bombers and other terrorist killers. Sadly, all that shields this wrinkled-browed, lip-biting moralist from complete infamy is sympathy for a man bewildered in his dotage. Meanwhile, some members of the Iraqi Study Group apparently think that since Israel's neocon surrogates got us into Iraq, their puppet master must pay the price for getting us out. Thus, Israel must give up the Golan Heights, or perhaps the West Bank, since that would make the Islamic nations so collectively happy that they would join us in ridding Iraq of the terrorists whom many of these nations have subsidized, trained, and sheltered. The surprise is no longer that the cretin Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for the destruction of Israel, but only that his serial threats have still not become banal. In any language, there can be only so many synonyms and idioms for "wipe-out" and "vanish," yet Ahmadinejad always finds some fresh way to express his fundamental desire. In Washington, realists are back, and they have a point: Israel really does remain at the heart of the furor of the Middle East - just not in the way they suppose. It is not "stolen" land, or "Zionist" killings, or Jewish "aggression" that gnaws at the Arab Street. And the solution is therefore not to be found in short-term Israeli land-concessions, but only in the now caricatured and apparently waning policy of supporting democratic reform inside the Middle East. Why? The real problem is that Israeli success, and the resulting sense of failure in the surrounding Arab world, fuels much of the rabid hatred. Many of us have been writing exactly that for years and have been dubbed novices - and worse - who don't understand the complex undercurrents of the Middle East. In January 2004, for example, I suggested in passing the following on these pages: Instead, [Israel] stoked the fury arising from Arabs' sense of weakness and self-contempt. In the world of the Palestinian lobster bucket, Israel's great sin is not bellicosity or aggression, but succeeding beyond the wildest dreams of its neighbors. How humiliating it must be to be incapable of even muttering the word "Israel" (hence the need for "Zionist entity"), but nevertheless preferring an Israeli to a Palestinian ID card. To suggest primordial envy as a cause of the present conundrum is to be written off as a reductionist by the realists and Arabists of the State Department. Most instead insist that the return of the Golan Heights and the West Bank would at last inaugurate the missing peace in a way the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza so far have not. As with the writings and rantings of bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri, these experts should perhaps listen to what is actually being said by the prominent Palestinians themselves - not what we keep thinking they should say. They might examine, for instance, an excerpt from the recent statements of the Palestinian-born Al-Jazeera editor-in-chief, Ahmed Sheikh, who granted an interview this month with Pierre Heumann, the Middle East correspondent of the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche. He is not a mere propagandist, but a keen and influential observer of the current Arab temperament. Sheikh: In many Arab states, the middle class is disappearing. The rich get richer and the poor get still poorer. Look at the schools in Jordan, Egypt or Morocco: You have up to 70 youngsters crammed together in a single classroom. How can a teacher do his job in such circumstances? The public hospitals are also in a hopeless condition. These are just examples. They show how hopeless the situation is for us in the Middle East. How strange that Mr. Sheikh, if for the wrong reasons, has inadvertently echoed the neoconservative thesis that only with fundamental reform will come Arab prosperity - a progress that in turn will bolster the "collective ego" enough for Arabs to forget an Israel that seems to "gnaw" at the Middle East. Elsewhere in the interview Ahmed Sheikh, who enjoys a prominent role in forming recent public opinion throughout the Arab world, is largely prescient about the West's misunderstanding of the "genes of every Arab." As we see with the latest return of the surrealists to foreign policy influence, we surely do not understand the depths or causes of Arab and Muslim psychological exasperation with Israel. Thus Jim Baker & Co. or a Jimmy Carter apparently assumes that Ahmed Sheikh's dreamlike Arab version of middle class tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, or Open Enrollments for HMOs will usher peace to the region if only Israel would concede what its enemies demand or disappear entirely. This is utter nonsense, precisely because Arab detestation of Israel is a symptom, not the malady, of the current Arab crisis of the spirit. Ahmed Sheikh himself stumbles onto that truth. To gain the necessary maturity and self-confidence that would mitigate scapegoating Israel, the Arab Middle East would have to make vast structural changes in traditional Islamic society that would usher in freedom, prosperity, and security. In other words, new Arab consensual societies would have to create the sort of landscape that they see elsewhere in Europe, Asia, North America, and Israel when they turn on their satellite TVs and browse the internet - and also understand that such success came from within, not merely from foreign aid or the accidental discovery of oil beneath their feet. And what would that landscape look like? Something along the lines of what the West has been attempting in both Afghanistan and Iraq: freedom of the press, alliance to the state rather than to the tribe, constitutional government, tolerance for diverse opinion and belief, equality of the sexes, an open economy, and government transparency to ensure the protection of capital and investment. Meet even a partial list of all that, and soon an economy would prosper without oil; schools would teach knowledge rather than hatred, bias, and religious superstition; and clinics might have their own competently trained and equipped medical personnel. Palestine really is the touchstone of the Middle East, insofar as it is a valuable window into the minds and hearts of Middle Easterners. The sources of Arab anger about Israel should remind us of the need both to keep pressuring Middle East governments to reform and to continue trying to stabilize Iraq in hopes that something can emerge there different from the theocracy to its south, the autocracy to its west, and the monarchies to its east. Finally, there is yet another irony to Mr. Sheikh's lamentations (which we will apparently soon be privileged to hear, when al Jazeera goes live in English throughout the West): Where alone in the Middle East is there his dream of an Arab middle class of sorts? Where do Arabs have good schools? And where is there adequate medical care? Ask the over one million Palestinians who live in a democratic Israel. |
|
IRAQ IS JUST TEST OF WILL FOR AMERICA
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 19, 2006. |
|
Oraq is just a test of will for America, a test it appears we are no longer, emotionally and physically trained, to endure. The unpatriotic, removed, non-committed and spoilt beyond belief EXIT generation is being tested! Are we, Americans, ready to show the world that America is a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power and no will?! Are we, Americans, ready to fall into the category that 'America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend? Are we ready to punish our friends (Israel) as a means of rewarding our enemies (Iran and Syria) for killing our forces (in Iraq)? Are we, Americans, ready to tell the world that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule? We have military might, we do not have the political will, and this must change as of this writing! The self-humiliation Baker's Iraqi Study Groups is a bipartisan sellout -- the Republicans cut and the Democrats run! Once the rest of the world figures this out, it'll be America that's the Green Zone not the Green Zone in Iraq! Americans, do you like this picture? I don't! I have had enough of politicians? Haven't you? This was written by Mark Steyn, Sun-Times Columnist, December 3, 2006. |
|
James Baker's "Iraq Study Group" seems to have been cast on the same basis as Liza Minnelli's last wedding. A stellar lineup: Donna Summer, Mickey Rooney, the Doobie Brothers, Gina Lollobrigida, Michael Jackson, Mia Farrow, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Jill St. John. That's Liza's wedding, not the Baker Commission. But at both gatherings everyone who was anyone was there, no matter how long ago it was they were anyone. So the fabulous Baker boy was accompanied by Clinton officials Leon Panetta and Bill Perry, Clinton golfing buddy Vernon Jordan, Clinton's fellow sex fiend Chuck Robb, the quintessential "moderate" Republican Alan Simpson, Supreme Court swing vote par excellence Sandra Day O'Connor...God, I can't go on. I'd rather watch Mia Farrow making out with Mickey Rooney to a Doobie Brothers LP. As its piece de resistance, the Baker Commission concluded its deliberations by inviting testimony from -- drum roll, please -- Sen. John F. Kerry. If you're one of those dummies who goofs off in school, you wind up in Iraq. But, if you're sophisticated and nuanced, you wind up on a commission about Iraq. Rounding it all out -- playing David Gest to Jim Baker's Liza -- is, inevitably, co-chairman Lee Hamilton, former congressman from Indiana. As you'll recall, he also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in accordance with Article II Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Ye monopoly of wisdom on ye foreign policy, national security and other weighty affairs shall be vested in a retired Representative from the 9th District in Indiana, if he be sufficiently venerable of mien. In the event that he becomes incapacitated, his place shall be taken by Jill St. John." I would be calling for a blue-ribbon commission to look into whether we need all these blue-ribbon commissions, but they'd probably get Lee Hamilton to chair that, too. Don't get me wrong, I like a Friars' Club Roast as much as the next guy and I'm sure Jim Baker kibitzing with John Kerry was the hottest ticket in town. But doesn't it strike you as just a tiny bit parochial? Aside from Senator Kerry, I wonder whether the commission thought to hear from anyone such as Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore. A couple of years back, on a visit to Washington just as the Democrat-media headless-chicken quagmire-frenzy was getting into gear, he summed it up beautifully: "The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail." As I write in my new book, Singaporean Cabinet ministers apparently understand that more clearly than U.S. senators, congressmen and former secretaries of state. Or, as one Baker Commission grandee told the New York Times, "we had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out." An "exit strategy" on those terms is the path out not just from Iraq but from a lot of other places, too -- including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Russia, China, the South Sandwich Islands. For America would be revealed to the world as a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- or, at any rate, no will. According to the New York Sun, "an expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions in a gambit to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference..." On the face of it, this sounds an admirably hard-headed confirmation of James Baker's most celebrated soundbite on the Middle East "peace process": "F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway." His recommendations seem intended to f - - k the Jews well and truly by making them the designated fall guys for Iraq. But hang on: If Israel could be forced into giving up the Golan Heights and other land (as some fantasists suggest) in order to persuade the Syrians and Iranians to ease up on killing coalition forces in Iraq, our enemies would have learned an important lesson: The best way to weaken Israel is to kill Americans. I'm all for Bakerite cynicism, but this would seem to f - - k not just the Jews but the Americans, too. It would, furthermore, be a particularly contemptible confirmation of a line I heard Bernard Lewis, our greatest Middle Eastern scholar, use the other day -- that, "America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend." To punish your friends as a means of rewarding your enemies for killing your forces would seem to be an almost ludicrously parodic illustration of that dictum. In the end, America would be punishing itself. The world would understand that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule. It has been strange to see my pals on the right approach Iraq as a matter of inventory and personnel. Many call for more troops to be sent to Baghdad, others say the U.S. armed forces overall are too small and overstretched. Look, America is responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending: It spends more money on its armed forces than the next 43 biggest militaries combined, from China, Britain and France all the way down the military-spending hit parade to Montenegro and Angola. Yet it's not big enough to see off an insurgency confined to a 30-mile radius of a desert capital? It's not the planes, the tanks, the men, the body armor. It's the political will. You can have the best car in town, but it won't go anywhere if you don't put your foot on the pedal. Three years ago, when it was obvious Syria and Iran were violating Iraq's borders with impunity, we should have done what the British did in the so-called "Confrontation" with Indonesia 40 years ago when they were faced with Jakarta doing to the newly independent state of Malaysia exactly what Damascus and Tehran are doing to Iraq. British, Aussie and Malaysian forces sent troops on low-key, lethally effective raids into Indonesia, keeping the enemy on the defensive and winning the war with barely a word making the papers. If the strategic purpose in invading Iraq was to create a regional domino effect, then playing defense in the Sunni Triangle for three years makes no sense. We should never have wound up hunkered down in the Green Zone. If there has to be a Green Zone, it should be on the Syrian side of the border. Perhaps the Baker Commission's proposals will prove not to be as empty and risible as those leaked. But, if they are, the president should pay them no heed. A bipartisan sellout -- the Republicans cut and the Democrats run--would be an awesome self-humiliation of the United States. And once the rest of the world figures it out, it'll be America that's the Green Zone. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
CUSTOMARY JOURNALISTIC PRACTICE?; OLMERT FAILS BASIC DUTY; "CEASEFIRE"
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 19, 2006. |
|
ISLAMIC CENSORSHIP IN AUSTRALIA A popular author of high quality children's books wrote one for Scholastic Inc.. It had a plot about Muslim terrorists. Librarians and booksellers said they would refuse to use it, because of its subject matter. They don't ban pro-terrorist books (Arutz-7, 11/27). That is censorship, imposed by the West on itself in behalf of its enemies to hide the truth from its people. How are we to prepare our children for the age's greatest political challenge, if we don't advise them what it is? Why did the librarians to ban the book? Fear? Political correctness? Ignorance? IMPLICATIONS OF GAZA CEASEFIRE The ceasefire substituted for what the people of Israel demanded, rooting out Hamas from Gaza. It thus saved Hamas while giving Israel only a brief respite from most of the rocket bombardment. Worse, it was the same failure to mount a full and sustained ground offensive that failed in Lebanon. Thus after the government claimed to have learned from its mistakes in Lebanon, it repeated them in Gaza. Its hesitancy again showed a face of weakness to Israel's worst enemies. The Israeli government's pacifism means further bombardment ahead. The ceasefire is a form of Israeli recognition of the Hamas regime. It is likely to undermine Western non-recognition and financial boycott of the P.A.. An end to the boycott would give Hamas a victory, because it will not have had to meet Western demands to recognize the legitimacy of Israel or end terrorism (IMRA, 11/28 from MK Shteinitz). The government of Israel is making mistake after mistake. No wonder some people think the leaders wish to bring down their state! The leaders act as if they do. When will the people rise up against them? CUSTOMARY JOURNALISTIC PRACTICE The US government had found two Islamic charities supporting terrorism. It planned to raid them. Before the government could act, the NY Times telephoned the charities to elicit comment. The journalists called this "customary practice." US Attorney Fitzgerald said the calls tipped off the terrorists and endangered federal agents. The US Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling entitling prosecutors, investigating the leaks, to review the reporters' telephone records. The Times deems this government is interfering with freedom of the press (Josh Gerstein, NY Sun, 11/28, p.4). It is not customary journalistic practice to spy on the government, and hamper its attempt to protect us. In earlier years, the press would wait until law enforcement officials (or the military) could act. Then it would tell the story. The public wouldn't suffer from waiting a while. Freedom of the press does not permit treason. On the other hand, government over-classifies in order to cover up. The media could be a watchdog. Unfortunately, it is more a partisan adversary. PROPOSED PRISONER EXCHANGE PM Olmert says he would release many Arab prisoners after the P.A. releases its one Israeli captive. Speculation has it that he would release 1,400 (Arutz-7, 11/28). For such lopside exchanges and no punishment, the Arabs are sure to kidnap more Israelis. Olmert's policy, same as some of his predecessors', increases terrorist ranks by hundreds. Many more Israelis have been injured by released terrorists than have been saved by the exchanges. Olmert is party to murder. PROPOSED EXTENSION OF CEASEFIRE Speculation also has it that the Arabs may extend the ceasefire to Judea-Samaria. The government of Israel probably would feel it must follow suit. It also would be likely to remove most of the roadblocks, to stimulate the P.A. economy. The IDF warns that a ceasefire is like withdrawing, and the moment that the forces withdraw, the Arabs would arm and then fight (IMRA, 11/28). Glad to hear that the IDF retains some sanity; the political echelon doesn't. It reacts helplessly to world public opinion, instead of its own and planning its own strategy. Problem is, it has not acquired a wartime psychology; the Arabs have, and they plan. Removing roadblocks to stimulate the P.A. economy means that the P.A. would become able to withstand more war and buy more weapons. A better policy would be to erode that economy. It is more insane than foolish that Israel treats its enemy as a charity case rather than as an enemy. Of course if the IDF ceases operations and removes roadblocks, or if it withdraws, the Arabs would arm and fight. The Arabs of Judea-Samaria have been trying to obtain more weapons for the purpose not of making peace. The Olmert regime may oblige. GOVERNMENT BREAKS PACT WITH THE PEOPLE The primary function of government is to protect its people. The Israeli government does not do that. It was so afraid of incurring casualties in Lebanon, that it hardly fought there and canceled a battle because it would have lost some men. Th Arabs find terrorism successful and feel encouraged to attack a fearful enemy. (The Israeli soldiers are not fearful;their political and politicalized leaders are.) Citizens may well ask why spend so much on a military the government hardly uses (Prof. Steven Plaut., 11/28). Foreign critics of Israel and the US make those countries hesitant to use proper military force, lest they incur criticism. Democrats reinforce the power of that criticism for ill, by making their main criticism of Pres. Bush his alleged alienation of foreign countries. If they are alienated because they don't want to fight to survive and criticize the US for its willingness to do so, more power to him! ANOTHER PROBLEM FROM LOSS OF BORDER CONTROL The West has suspended most of its foreign aid for the P.A., while Hamas rules. The P.A. Foreign Minister just took 20 million euros through the border between Egypt and Gaza, that Israel no longer guards. How do we know? He declared what was in his dozen suitcases. So long as he declares it, nobody is authorized to stop it. The funds carried in do not make up for most of the lost aid (IMRA, 11/29). No, but they help stave off collapse. Collapse might end Hamas rule. NOT A CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ The terrorists in Iraq have little popular support. Baathists and Sunni Islamists kill Shiites to provoke civil war. Some Shiites take revenge. Most Shiites do not care for the Shiite militias, but feel that the militias protect them more than does the government (IMRA, 11/29 from Wall St. J). If the government weren't dependent upon the militias' parties for parliamentary support, perhaps it would eradicate them and then concentrate better against the insurgents. ARABS VIOLATE CEASEFIRE The ceasefire was supposed to take effect in Gaza on Sunday. Thereafter, rockets were fired on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the date of this report. Initial reports were that these rockets were from minor organizations. However, Fatah boasted of having fired the latest two. Fatah is the organization of Abbas, you know, the peace-loving "moderate" whom the US and Israel are arming to stop Hamas. Israel did not retaliate against the ceasefire. PM Olmert expressed being "slightly disappointed." "I am sure that the European Union will greatly appreciate Israel's approach in keeping the ceasefire." In Judea-Samaria there is no ceasefire, but the P.A. had signed the Oslo peace agreement. The IDF accelerated raids on terrorists, upon discovering their intensified plans. A woman "...tried to stab an Israeli soldier near Bir Zeit, north of Ramallah. She was apprehended. In Gush Etzion, a policeman was lightly-to-moderately wounded when an Arab ran him down at a checkpoint near Efrat. His car - a stolen vehicle - was later found, but the driver escaped. A woman was lightly injured by Arab-hurled rocks Tuesday afternoon near Shechem, and several Israeli vehicles were damaged in other similar attacks" (Arutz-7, 11/29). Those are the peaceloving people whom Israel is urged to help prosper. They are costing Israel prosperity. Sure the EU appreciates Israel's restraint. Europe traditionally wants Jews not to defend themselves. PM Olmert should be more interested in protecting his people than in pleasing his people's European enemies. 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. |
|
IS AMERICA DEAD?
Posted by Barry Rubin, December 19, 2006. |
|
Suddenly, there's a new fad in discussing international affairs today, which may be summarized as the "America is dead" school. Echoing Iran, Western--including American--analysts are claiming that recent events prove the United States is a pitiful, helpless giant. What the heck is this based on? The only two pieces of evidence seem to be the fact that the United States is unable to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into stable democracies in a brief span of time. And one might add at the extreme limit that it has not ended the Arab-Israeli conflict, defeated the forces of radical Islamism, or stopped Iran from developing nuclear weapons either. This is going to be a very short-lived myth based on an extremely near-sighted view of the international situation. Regarding Iraq, the Baker-Hamilton report--which basically proposes that America throw itself on the mercy of its worst adversaries to save itself--is already the thing that is dead. The Bush administration has already clearly rejected the report and is working on its own plan to be issued in January. The administration's rhetoric has also changed quite noticeably. Instead of speaking of "victory" in Iraq, it talks of "success," which is explicitly defined as a regime in Iraq that can defend and sustain itself while being an ally in the war against terror. This is no petty verbal shift. It is a long-needed lowering of goals and expectations. No longer will the United States seek a perfect Iraq but rather a realistic scenario of a country which can fight its own civil war. The United States will help but cannot deliver victory in Baghdad. The style and methods used to carry on the battle will be Iraqi, not American. And this fits into a wider picture. Even at the wildest extremes of mainstream unilateralism, no one in U.S. policymaking circles accepted the notion that the United States could do everything itself. As far as the Middle East is concerned, other countries could largely be divided into three categories: those determined to sabotage U.S. efforts (notably Iran and Syria, along with their clients); those unwilling to help at all (basically the rest of the Arab world); and those read to play at cooperating without actually doing much (most of Europe). Then, when problems aren't solved, all three groups can conveniently blame the United States. And if the United States does not deliver pain-free, rapid solutions against all these odds, they can proclaim that America has failed. I am not referring here mainly or purely to the invasion of Iraq, which other countries had every right to think a mistake. Still, it should never be forgotten that the perceived failure of will at pursuing sanctions led U.S. policymakers--mistakenly or otherwise--to conclude that an attack was the only solution. Nor is it fitting for those who have so consistently criticized U.S. efforts, failed to help, and often tried to subvert them, to speak of an American failure of will simply because Americans are persuaded by their arguments. In addition, what also should not be missed here is the fact that the United States can sustain governments in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely. The United States is not abandoning that effort; it is just switching to another, more reasonable, strategy. Willingness to reevaluate mistakes is a sign of strength, it was the rigidity previously demonstrated by President George Bush before accepting the real situation in Iraq that was the weakness. But, after all, the same charge could be brought against European countries that demanded the United States pursue the diplomatic route in combating Iran's nuclear weapons campaign, and now will not recognize the failure of their strategy. The same applies to those who have put forward a peace-process-above-all strategy on the Arab-Israeli conflict and refuse to see that it failed completely because the Palestinian leadership (which is far worse today than in 2000) rejected peace. Anyone underestimating continued U.S. primacy is going to be making a big mistake. Of course there are limits to that power, first and foremost the ability to transform the political culture of other countries. Moreover, terrorism as a strategy tries to wear down a stronger power through attrition, persistence, and propaganda. In essence, the perpetrators show their willingness to destroy everything in order to blackmail their adversary. This is what we have seen among the Palestinians, with al-Qaida, and in Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. In none of these cases, however, has this approach brought victory to the insurgents, only the ability to sustain bloodshed and crisis. If the United States has not won victory, it is also far from being defeated and still holds the upper hand. If U.S. policymakers realize that putting all their resources in the Iraq basket limits the ability to employ them elsewhere, that is a necessary preface to sustaining that ability to apply power. Still another point that should not be neglected is that past predictions of American decline rested largely on the belief that one or more substitutes would be found. A very fine speculative fiction writer brought out a novel around 1990 about the Soviet Union emerging as victor in the Cold War. Needless to say, sales suffered. Japan, one candidate, has undergone a severe economic downturn; a united Europe, another, has stalled in its forward progress. The last of the potential candidates is still at an early stage of development and it remains to be seen if there will ever be an Age of China in humanity's future. Prospects for the United States, then, remain quite good on the international scene. If you believe that Bush has done a dreadful job, all the more reason to attribute setbacks temporarily to him and to assume his successor will return the United States to its position of primacy and leadership. If, however, anything will bring about the decline of America, it is the kind of policies of appeasement and deliberate weakness advocated by so many of its critics and false friends. Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now available in paperback and in Hebrew. His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in November 2005. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. This article was submitted December 19, 2006 |
|
HOW TO TALK TO ARABS
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 19, 2006. |
|
Dear friends, Avigdor Kahalani, is a twice decorated Israeli war hero, a former Knesset
member and Minister of Internal Security.
Yesterday, December 17, 2006, he was interviewed on Israel radio. In one short exceptionally definitive sentence he managed to define everything, the reason for the interminable Middle East conflict as well as the only way to resolve it. His succinct sentence should be internalized by anybody who is genuinely interested in the eventual resolution of the conflict. It applies to the Israeli "Palestinian" conflict as well as the war in Iraq and any other conflict in the world in which Arabs or Muslims are involved (all of them!). It is one of those rare sayings that sound so simple, but contain layers upon layers of depth and truth. Here is what Kahalani said. Think of it: WITH ARABS WE MUST TALK ARABIC NOT YIDDISH! Your Truth Provider,
Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
TIME, MEMORY, REMEMBRANCE AND KADDISH
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 19, 2006. |
|
Since that Iran's President Ahamagenocide Holocaust Denial Conference with the odd ball Neturei Karta Jews participating, this entire Holocaust denial issue that for years was already settled in my mind and soul to be what it was, has erupted in me like a powerful volcano. The reality is that Holocaust survivors' numbers are reducing daily. These Holocaust survivors set a standard of strength and the will to live. They came from hell to become spiritual and philosophical and their survival and determination to live by far exceeded their children courage to emulate them. As I grow older, I more and more realize that so much has not been said yet; there is so much left to do in order to fulfill our Holocaust surviving parents' vows they made to all those they left behind in the Holocaust ovens, gas chambers, transportation trains, labor camps, death march and the like. So much left to do BEFORE the last survivor, who can tell the story, leaves this world. The survivors are too old and too weak to fight back, thus it is we, the 2nd and 3rd and even 4th generation who are left to continue the fight they are too fragile to carry on. We must, no question or argument, with no but, if and why, continue lighting the candle of life for all those who perished without knowing why and without leaving a trace! This was written and sent to me by my dear friend, Jeanette Friedman, a 2nd Generation (2G) in New Milford, New Jersey and editor of Together, the newspaper of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors. |
|
Madonna has a hit song that begins with the sound of a clock ticking -- her voice chimes in: "Time goes by, so slowly, so slowly, slowly," maybe sometimes. But not right now -- for the sons and daughters of survivors who are watching their parents fade away time is passing like a runway train. Yes, the Holocaust survivors are getting old and sick and are dying. Everyday, another link is broken. Sadly and broken-heartedly, some survivors literally lose their minds before they go -- a horrible thing for a child to watch. Others soldier on, determined to set an example for their children. Once again they will defy reality and survive. Watching them walking, despite agonizing pain, seeing them carry on despite the odds, is a little scary. They set a standard of spiritual and philosophical living that some of their children may not have the courage to emulate. For watching our parents and their friends face the challenges of the elderly reminds us we're next -- and yet there is so much left to do to fulfill the vows our parents made to those left behind, and to keep the promises we made to our parents. A conscientious 2G can spend everyday, all day, paying respects at funerals and making Shiva calls. It is a wrenching experience, made more difficult by knowing the far from completed task of teaching the lessons of the lives of those who are passing -- from the Judaism of their childhoods, to the terror of the Holocaust, to the lives they rebuilt and gave us. In fact, in some places there is already erosion, a misinterpretation, a trivialization, and perhaps worst of all, the exploitation of the Holocaust in unsacred and even in evil ways. It is a desecration to the Six Million Jews that the aging and often ailing survivors, along with their prohibitively expensive medical care, find hard to swallow. Only that now they are too weak to fight back. They just don't have the energy. We have to help them and carry on for them. Six Million, a number they've tried to realize in paper clips and pennies. Who were they? They were our aunts and uncles, our grandparents, and yes, even sisters and brothers. I lost a half-brother in Auschwitz. His name was Chaim Lazer, and his mother's name was Sarah Gelb, the furniture maker's daughter. I mention them because no one else does. There is my uncle Chaim Lazer Friedman, too, who disappeared in the morass of murder, grandfather Naftalie, and cousins whose names I never knew. How shall we remember each soul? David Gold, a Modern Orthodox 2G sitting shiva in Wesley Hills put forth an idea. His mother, who hailed from the Carpathian Mountains, died from ovarian cancer, surrounded by her children and grandchildren. He and I were fellow troublemakers at Brooklyn College 36 years ago, when the Jews began to assert themselves on campus and demanded and got courses on the Holocaust. Davy handed me the eulogy he'd given on Friday morning, and it brought tears to my eyes, for he had done something others had forgotten to do. When he spoke of his mother, he spoke the names she taught him to remember, the names of those he never met -- his grandparents, his aunts, his uncles, his cousins. To those in the chapel, he recalled what had happened to them under the hands of the murderous Germans and their allies.
He said, "Maybe we should remind all the 2Gs, when they have to
give hespedim for their parents and family members, to remember those
who didn't have a funeral, and give them a place to have kaddish said
for them. After all, our parents promised to remember them, and we
said we would do the same. Wouldn't it be something if everyone did
it? We could actually say kaddish for some of the kedoshim and
remember them by name."
Allgenerations, Inc., a non profit 501(c)(3)
organization, is a resource for Holocaust Survivors,their descendants,
Holocaust related museums and organizations, historians, educators,
authors,filmmakers and other concerned and interested
individuals.www.allgenerations.org. If you wish to help support our
efforts your kind donations may be sent to: Serena Woolrich,
President, Allgenerations, Inc., PO Box 11113, Washington, D.C. 20008
Thank you for your contribution and being a part of Allgenerations,
Inc. If you wish further information, please e-mail us at:
allgenerations@aol.com Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
THE [RUSSIAN] APOCALYPTIC JACKPOT
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 18, 2006. |
|
Did the former Russian KGB agent turned become dissident, Alexander Litvinenko murder brought to surface new reality about Russia? I think so. He brought to light the demise of ethnic Russia and the uprising of Islam there. Litvinenko converted to Islam...out of 10 million people living in Moscow two and a half million, or a quarter of the population are Muslims...experts reckon that by mid-century the Russian Federation will be majority Muslim and by 2015 the majority of the Russian army will be made of Muslims too! No wonder Putin objects to opposing Iran's nuclear ambition! If he does, he has opposition right at his doorsteps. What is possible to happen in Russia:(i) A remorseless evolution into a majority-Muslim state, (ii) Bosnian-style civil war, (iii) The secession of a dozen or so of Russia's 89 federal regions, (iv) A Muslim military coup, or (v) Selling off the few remaining assets, including national resources to the Chinese and nukes to anyone who wants them, as a panicky last attempt to arrest decline. As I have been saying for at least two years, Russia substituted Soviet Communism with Putin regime for which I did not have a defined name and I can now comfortably call it Islamization. Slowly but surely, with their patience that the West does not have, with propaganda and proselytization -- Islamization, Islam is taking over the entire world, right under our nose! And by the way, relating to a chapter of the article below, the Iraq Study Group with its foolish, rather embarrassing report, more and more appears to be shallow and totally lacking understanding of world or Middle East politics; what I mean, they are ignoramus of the big picture of the region, but they got paid big bucks for doing worthless work! This article was written by Mark Steyn and it appeared in National
Review Online
|
|
You gotta love these alternative theories for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the late "Russian dissident" (and there's a phrase one hadn't expected to make a comeback quite so soon). Relax, say the Kremlinologists (and there's another), it wasn't Putin who had the guy whacked. It was rogue elements within the state apparatus who gained access to supposedly secure facilities and then contaminated five international jets and dozens of joints all over London in order to pull off the world's first radiological assassination. Oh, well, that's okay then. Nothing to worry about. The late Mr. Litvinenko, on the other hand, added to the story some last-minute wrinkles of his own. On his deathbed, the former KGB agent converted to Islam and asked that one day his corpse be reburied in a peaceful and independent Chechnya. Now what's that about? Well, like many in Russian political and media circles -- including his fellow murder victim Anna Politkovskaya -- Litvinenko had become intrigued by the 1999 Moscow apartment-house attacks that killed 300 people and provided the pretext for the Second Chechen War: Were they, in fact, a setup intended to advance the career of Vladimir Putin? In other words, his entire presidency is founded on a lie. One can understand why a belief in such a conspiracy might destroy one's faith in one's country, and even that it might lead one to embrace Chechen separatist leaders, as Litvinenko did. But it doesn't entirely explain the Muslim-conversion business. I say somewhere or other in my new book that, just as the export of Russia's ideology was the biggest destabilizing factor in the last century, so the implosion of that ideology could be one of the biggest in this century. That's to say, what's left of the Soviet Union has hit the apocalyptic jackpot: The Middle East has Islamists, Africa has AIDS, and North Korea has nukes, but only Russia has the lot -- a disease-riddled Slav population and a fast-growing Muslim population jostling atop a colossal nuclear arsenal. The Litvinenko murder is only the first of many stories in which Islam, nuclear materials, and Russian decline will intersect in novel ways. There are 10 million people in Moscow. Do you know how many of them are Muslim? Two and a half million. Or about a quarter of the population. The ethnic Russians are older; the Muslims are younger. The ethnic Russians are already in net population decline; the Muslim population in the country has increased by 40 percent in the last 15 years. Seven out of ten Russian pregnancies (according to some surveys) are aborted; in some Muslim communities, the fertility rate is ten babies per woman. Russian men have record rates of heart disease, liver disease, drug addiction, and AIDS; Muslims are the only guys in the country who aren't face down in the vodka. Faced with these trends, most experts extrapolate: Thus, it's generally accepted that by mid-century the Russian Federation will be majority Muslim. But you don't really need to extrapolate when the future's already checking in at reception. The Toronto Star (which is Canada's biggest-selling newspaper and impeccably liberal) recently noted that by 2015 Muslims will make up a majority of Russia's army. Hmm. That'll add an interesting dimension to the Chechen campaign. Say what you like about Russia but it doesn't want for plot twists. It is, in that sense, a textbook example of Donald Rumsfeld's "known unknowns": a thing we know we don't know. What will happen in Russia? A remorseless evolution into a majority-Muslim state? Bosnian-style civil war? The secession of a dozen or so of Russia's 89 federal regions? A Muslim military coup? Or a panicky attempt to arrest decline by selling off your few remaining assets, including national resources to the Chinese and nukes to anyone who wants them? None of us knows, but we should know enough to know we don't know. The Russia of 15 years ago is already ancient history. Which brings me, alas, to the Iraq Study Group. This silly shallow report, of which James Baker, Lee Hamilton, and the rest should be ashamed, betrays no understanding of how fast events are moving. It falls back on the usual multilateral mood music. It wants Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel, and everything else to be mediated by the transnational jet set -- the Big Five at the U.N., the EU, the Arab League. Just for starters, look at the permanent members of the Security Council: America, Britain, France, Russia, China. What's the old line on those fellows? The World War II victory parade preserved in aspic? If only. By 2050, Russia will be the umpteenth Muslim nuclear power, but the first with a permanent seat on the Security Council. Or maybe the second, if France gets there first. And, judging from London literary offerings like George Walden's Time To Emigrate?, Britain might not be far behind. But, as I said above, forget the extrapolations: Already, domestic Muslim constituencies are an important factor in the foreign-policy thinking of three out of the Big Five. Are Baker and Hamilton even aware of that? As I always say, there is no "stability." We thought we'd "contained" Soviet Communism. Instead, the social pathologies that took hold during the Russian people's half-century of "containment" will have profound consequences for us and the rest of the world long after the last Commie is dead and buried. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
OLMERT'S SAUDI FRIENDS
Posted by Women in Green, December 18, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Caroline Glick and appeared December 5, 2006 in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
The world has gone mad. As Lebanon teeters on the brink of Iranian and Syrian instigated collapse, senior American and British political officials urge President George W. Bush to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria. As the Palestinians push forward with their Iranian-sponsored, Arab supported jihad, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responds by announcing his intention to release thousands of terrorists from prison and throw thousands of Israelis out of their homes while giving their lands to Hamas. While Saturday found the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh meeting in Teheran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and applauding his plan to annihilate Israel, Olmert decided Sunday that, in the interest of peace with the Palestinians he would forbid the IDF from attacking terrorists positions in Gaza even if doing so would prevent imminent rocket attacks against the Negev. And now, according to Britain's Sunday Times, Saudi Arabia is becoming the "principal peace broker" between Israel and the Palestinians. Reportedly since meeting in Amman in September with the former Saudi ambassador to the US, Saudi Prince Bandar, Olmert has been seriously considering embracing the so-called Saudi peace plan from 2002. Senior Israeli officials told the Times that the plan, which would establish a Palestinian state, "could lead to a formal peace deal between Israel and seven Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the Emirates, Morocco and Tunisia." IT WOULD really be terrific if Israel could have peace with Saudi Arabia and the rest of those Arab countries. A true peace with Saudi Arabia would mean an end to the illegal Arab economic boycott of Israel and their boycott of companies that do business with Israel. Peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia would mean that the Saudis would stop financing Islamic terror groups dedicated to killing Jews in Israel and around the world. Since having peaceful relations with Israel would presuppose Saudi acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, obviously a Saudi peace with Israel would mean an end to Saudi financing of mosques, schools and media organs throughout the world which indoctrinate hundreds of millions of people to believe that Jews are dogs and pigs and vermin and must be annihilated. Peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel would mean an end to Saudi pressure on Europeans to criminalize Israel and marginalize the Jewish communities in their countries in exchange for a stable oil supply. The calls by professors who teach in Saudi-financed US and European universities to boycott Israeli academics and end the US alliance with Israel would be muted if Saudi Arabia was at peace with Israel. Similarly, former US officials employed by the Saudis would stop calling American Jews traitors for supporting the US-Israel alliance. So if there were a possibility that the Times report that "The Saudi Arabian government is emerging as a key player in talks to broker a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement," were true, it would be a true cause for a celebration in Israel. BUT OF course, like the view that the turmoil in Lebanon is an internal Lebanese affair; and the view that a US retreat from Iraq could be anything other than a strategic victory for the global jihad, the belief that the Saudis are interested in brokering peace with Israel is a complete fabrication. Indeed the "deal" that the Saudis are "brokering" is nothing less than a blueprint for Israel's destruction. The 2002 Saudi "peace plan" requires Israel to agree to be overrun by millions of hostile foreign Arabs in the framework of the so-called "Right of Return." Moreover, the text of the initiative, "Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian partition which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries." That is, the Saudi plan prohibits Arab states from granting citizenship to these millions of Arabs and so leaves them no choice other than to destroy Israel. Saudi Arabia's "peace plan" also demands that Israel surrender east Jerusalem - including the Temple Mount, all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the entire Golan Heights to the Palestinians and the Syrians. This Israeli surrender would enable the formal establishment of a Palestinian terror state. It would also strengthen Iran's principal ally - the Syrian Ba'athist regime. HERE TOO, the Saudi plan is a recipe for Israel's destruction. Without these territories, Israel would be rendered indefensible. Without Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, Israel would be so vulnerable to missile and artillery attack that it could be overwhelmed even before conventional invading Arab armies set foot on its remaining territory. As a reading of the Saudi plan makes clear, it would only be after Israel surrendered all this land and allowed itself to be overrun by millions of hostile Arab immigrants that the Saudis and their Arab brethren would "establish normal relations with Israel." That is, the Saudis will be ready to talk to Israelis only after Israel is destroyed. The Times' report claims that Olmert's speech at David Ben Gurion's grave last week where he offered to surrender to Hamas, "was not Olmert's own initiative but a dictate given to him last month when he met George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice in Washington." The Americans reportedly were acting at the behest of the Saudis who wanted proof that Olmert is truly committed to capitulation. IT MAKES some sense that the Bush administration would express such devotion to the Saudi plan. The most glaring Achilles heel of Bush's entire war against the global jihad has been his refusal to contend with Saudi Arabia's central role in fomenting the jihad. Bush's father's secretary of state James Baker III is the senior partner of Baker, Botts law firm which is representing Saudi Arabia in the lawsuit filed against the kingdom by the relatives of the victims of the September 11 attacks. As the co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, Baker is about to recommend that Bush pressure Israel to capitulate to Hamas and Syria in Judea and Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights order to facilitate the US's capitulation to Syria and Iran in Iraq. Prince Bandar, Olmert's reported interlocutor is a personal friend of Baker and the Bush family. After 15 Saudis and four Egyptians carried out the attacks on the US on Sept. 11, it was Bandar who persuaded Bush to become the first US president to ever make the establishment of a Palestinian state an official US policy goal. Olmert's motive for providing the Saudis with an unwarranted propaganda victory in the US and Israel is similarly understandable. Quite simply, Olmert will do anything to take the Israeli public's attention away from his failure in office. And to successfully "spin" the public, he needs the support of the Israeli media. Olmert's embrace of a new imaginary "peace process" will win him the support of Haaretz and the other radical leftist elements in the Israeli media. These media organs will then work to prevent the opening of police investigations into Olmert's alleged criminal activities. Friday, Haaretz columnist Gideon Samet made clear that in exchange for the media's support, Olmert must release thousands of Palestinian terrorists from jail even without securing the release of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit; scale-down IDF counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria; facilitate the free flow of goods from Gaza into Israel and so render Israel even more vulnerable to terrorist penetration from Gaza; destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria; and provide free medical services to Palestinians in Israeli hospitals. OLMERT'S SPEECH at the gravesite of Israel's founding father was a signal on his part to the radical leftist media that he is accepting their terms. And in exchange the media ignores the ever escalating allegations that Olmert has been involved in criminal activity. More importantly, the media makes light of the fact that by losing the war this summer and adopting a strategy of total capitulation to all external forces Olmert has placed the country in the greatest existential danger in its history. Similarly, the media hides the ideological bankruptcy of Olmert's Kadima party - whose platform of capitulation has failed completely, and ignores the fact that Kadima has no clear constituency. It is a Faustian bargain these leaders of Israel and the US make when they prefer good press to good policies. What the self-satisfied grins on the faces of the leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" countries these days clearly signals is that it is a bargain we cannot afford. 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 |
|
IN DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY
Posted by Professors for a Strong Israel, December 18, 2006. |
|
The judicial activism instituted by Aharon Barak during his long rule of the High Court has weakened the system of checks and balances in Israel's democratic government. The immense power of the judiciary, together with the weakness of the legislative and the executive branchse, has brought the judges to intervene excessively in matters where they don't belong. Barak reached new heights in his last decisions, which cause severe injury to the ability of Israel to defend herself against her enemies: strict limitations on targeted prevention of terrorist attacks, and obligations on the state to compensate enemy citizens injured in this war of self-defense. Professors for a Strong Israel calls on the new President of the High Court to give back some of the excessive power accumulated by the judiciary. She can thus help restore the checks and balances that are essential to democracy, as well as the trust in the Court's impartiality that has been lost by large parts of the public. To contact Professors for a Strong Israel
|
|
PRAYING AND MEETING GOD HALF WAY
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 18, 2006. |
|
I certainly believe in prayer; prayer can accomplish great spiritual miracles. I however, strongly believe that (i) God helps those who help themselves, and (ii) We have to meet Him halfway. In order for God and the world to know what we are asking for and actively making it come to fruition, in addition to prayer, we must be active visually and vocally. There is a metaphor story about the man who was stranded in a house during flood. The house was fast filling with water. So the man prayed for God to save him. A man came by and threw the man a rope but the man refused to hand to the rope. He was waiting for God to save him his replied. As the water level was rising inside the house, a man on a boat floated by and offered the man his assistance. He again replied, "thank you, but I am praying for God to save me. " The water level got so high the man could no longer stay inside the house so he climbed to the top of his house roof. A helicopter flew overhead and threw a rope to save him but, again, he replied that God would save him. Alas, the house submerged and the man drowned. When he met up with God, the man asked Him "I prayed! Why you did not save me?" And God replied, "I did; I tried to save you -- three times -- but you (the fool) failed to do your part. " Believing and praying is important, very important, as it makes one stronger to meet God halfway. What is most scary is when we received those e-mails asking people to click on and sign a petition, or send in a check, or give a generous donation to some organization at some over-priced dinner event and this is where it all ends with many, way too many. Jews living in the Diaspora are fortunate ONLY because our brothers and sisters -- Israeli Jews -- are fighting on our behalf in Israel. They are obligated to participate with all their might to ensure that our mutual -- Jewish -- survival endures and continues. If not, after it is way too late, God will say to us that He was there to save us and we failed to meet Him halfway. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
NETUREI KARTA - FROM OUT OF THIS WORLD!
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 18, 2006. |
|
[Editor's Note: For those who have been out in space and don't know about the Neturei Karta: it is a Chasidic sect that doesn't believe that there should be a Jewish state before the Messiah comes. They often show up at demonstrations organized by Arabs, demanding that Israel be destroyed. Until now, it's been sort of embarrassing -- like having a fruitcake klepto uncle. But last week they went beyond outrageous. They showed up at the Holocaust Denial conference in Iran, and broke bread -- well, sipped bottled water -- with the nutter who convened the conference, President Ahmadinejad himself.] |
|
In one of the most remarkable scientific discoveries of all time, a CD-Rom containing the protocols of a high-level secret meeting of NASA, the American space agency, has just been leaked to the media. The content of that meeting is so dramatic that it is likely to change the entire course of human history. We bring you the highlights of that meeting as a special service to our readers:
2. "Rabbi" claims Holocaust dead "deserved it"
A British rabbi who angered fellow Jews by speaking at a "Holocaust denial" conference in Iran now says millions did die in gas chambers but may have deserved it. Ahron Cohen, an Orthodox Jew from Greater Manchester and a leading member of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta movement, sparked new controversy on his return from Tehran by suggesting that God would have saved the victims of the Nazis if they had deserved to live. Cohen, whose house in Salford was pelted with 1,000 eggs last year because of his extremist views, told The Sunday Times: "There is no question that there was a Holocaust and gas chambers. There are too many eyewitnesses" "However, our approach is that when one suffers, the one who perpetrates the suffering is obviously guilty but he will never succeed if the victim did not deserve it in one way or another." "We have to look within to improve and try to better ourselves and remove those characteristics or actions that may have been the cause of the success of the Holocaust." Cohen's trip to Tehran -- along with four American rabbis from the same sect -- was paid for by the Iranian foreign ministry, which organised the conference entitled "The Holocaust: A Global Vision." They were warmly greeted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, and had two meetings with him. Cohen ended his speech to the conference with a prayer "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved." The rabbi claimed "learned gentlemen from both sides of the fence" were at the latest conference. They included David Duke, former "imperial wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan. Cohen said on his return: "President Ahmadinejad is not a man of war. He is a man of peace. I have received criticism for meeting him and attending the conference, but Jewish people are adopting an attitude of criticism from an emotional point of view, not a logical or sensible one." "We know there was a Holocaust. We lived through it. I had relatives who died in it ... But in no way must the Holocaust be used to further the aims of the Zionist concept." Rabbi Yehuda Brodie, registrar of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Court for Greater Manchester, said: "Rabbi Cohen has for a long time been ostracised by the vast majority of Jews for associating with and thus giving support and legitimacy to the enemies of Israel and the Jewish nation." "He represents an insignificant minority. His involvement is a stab in the heart of the Jewish community and of all decent law-abiding people." Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at stevenplaut@yahoo.com |
|
THE NAZI HOLOCAUST THAT WAS HIDDEN AWAY--REVISITING THE HORRORS
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 18, 2006. |
|
For all those who missed last night '60-Minutes' Revisiting The Horrors Of The Holocaust: Millions Of Nazi Documents Are Being Made Available To The Public In memory of most of my Mom's family and ALL of my father's family, who were all wiped out to never leave a trace, For all those who TRY denying the Holocaust and claim it never took place, For the Mel Gibson and Iran's Ahamedinejad-Ahamegenocie, the millions of Muslims and anti-Semites, and the likes, And for all those who think they can simply wipe history with their propaganda... I suggest reading the following and memorizing it! |
|
"Revisiting The Horrors Of The Holocaust"
The vast archives of Nazi documents stored at Bad Arolsen, Germany, are finally being made available to the public. Scott Pelley traveled there with three Holocaust survivors, who for the first time got to inspect their own records. CBS -- For the first time, secrets of the Nazi Holocaust that have been hidden away for more than 60 years are finally being made available to the public. We're not talking about a missing filing cabinet - we're talking about thousands of filing cabinets, holding 50 million pages. It's Hitler's secret archive. The Nazis were famous for record keeping but what 60 Minutes found ran from the bizarre to the horrifying. This Holocaust history was discovered by the Allies in dozens of concentration camps, as Germany fell in the spring of 1945. As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, the documents were taken to a town in the middle of Germany, called Bad Arolsen, where they were sorted, filed and locked way, never to be seen by the public until now. The storerooms are immense: 16 miles of shelves holding the stories of 17 million victims not only Jews, but slave laborers, political prisoners and homosexuals. To open the files is to see the Holocaust staring back like it was yesterday: strange pink Gestapo arrest warrants as lethal as a death sentence, jewelry lost as freedom ended at the gates of an extermination camp. Time stopped here in 1945. Pelley walked through the evidence with chief archivist Udo Jost. He showed 60 Minutes a list of 1,000 prisoners saved by a factory owner who told the Nazis he needed the prisoners labor. This was the list of Oskar Schindler, made famous by the Steven Spielberg movie. "Here are the 700 men and the 300 women whose names were on Schindler's list," Jost explains. The 60 Minutes team also found the file of "Frank, Annaliese Marie," better known as Anne Frank. It's her paper trail from Amsterdam to Bergen-Belsen, where she died at the age of 15. But most of the names here are of unknown people. While the Nazis did not write down the names of those executed in the gas chambers at places like Auschwitz, they did keep detailed records of millions of others who died in the camps. Their names are listed in notebooks labeled "Totenbuch," which means "death book." The names are written here, single-spaced, in meticulous handwriting. "Here we see the cause of death: executed. And you can see, every two minutes they shot one prisoner," Jost explains. "So they shot a prisoner every two minutes for a little over an hour and a half?" Pelley asks. "Yes. Now look at the date: it's the 20th of April. That was Adolf Hitler's birthday. And this was a birthday present, a gift for the Führer. That's the bureaucracy of the devil," Jost says. The devil is in the details - the smallest details. Pelley and the 60 Minutes crew were amazed to see the Nazis kept records of head lice. "You can see the names and numbers of each prisoner, and the amount of lice that were found," Jost says. The Nazis couldn't have disease spreading among slave laborers. "You can see he was a perfectionist. He even put down the size of the lice. Large, small or medium-sized lice," Jost comments about the Nazi lice inspector. Paul Shapiro helped pry open the archive. He's Director of Holocaust Studies of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. "I'm curious. Why did the Nazis keep all these records? If they were gonna murder these people anyway, why keep the paperwork?" Pelley asks. "Because they wanted to show they were getting the job done. So, in terms of people whose destiny was to be murdered, recording how well that was being done was very important," Shapiro explains. And those records make up the largest Holocaust archive anywhere. Run by the Red Cross, the International Tracing Service was set up after the war to trace lost family members. Survivors could write for information, but there was a backlog of 400,000 unanswered letters. And neither survivors nor scholars got past the lobby. "What was the stated reason for keeping these documents out of the public eye for more than 60 years?" Pelley asks. "A respect for privacy of individuals was the most-often cited reason," Shapiro says. "On the one hand, you had governments stating 'We're protecting people's privacy.' And on the other hand, you had those very people saying 'No, no, we want the material to be open.'" When Germany, last spring, became the last of 11 countries to agree, they began the process of opening the archive. It will take about a year. But 60 Minutes brought three men to Bad Arolsen for an advance look. Walter Feiden, Miki Schwartz and Jack Rosenthal are the first Holocaust survivors ever in the archive. Schwartz, of San Diego, was 14 when he watched his parents herded to the gas chambers at Auschwitz and then, later, was forced to sign himself in at Buchenwald. Schwartz came across some documents bearing his handwriting. 60 Minutes asked the Red Cross to find all the documents for these three survivors. There were plenty of surprises, including a mysterious reprieve. "This is a transport list for prisoners leaving Buchenwald and going to a camp called 'Dora,'" Pelley remarks. "You know what Dora was?" "Yes," says Schwartz. "Some sort of a fabrication of armaments." The arms fabricated at Dora were the V-1 and V-2 rockets that rained on London. "And the story of that place is, hardly anybody got out of there alive. Look at your name. It's on the transport list to go there. And somebody's drawn a line straight through the middle of it. They took you off the list. Did you know until this moment that you were headed to Dora?" Pelley asks. "No. Never, never, never, wow," Schwartz says. He had no idea why he was taken off the list. Of 50 people named, he was one of just two with a lifeline straight through his name. "I'm sort of, yes I'm shaking. I'm scared right now," Schwartz says. "Right now, it makes me think back, and I'm living like there is this 14-year-old youngster and they wanted to kill him," Schwartz says. "I don't know why, I did not ever do anything, any harm to anybody. I think I should have a middle name, my middle name to be Mr. Lucky." Walter Feiden, of New York, was 13 and a prisoner in a Nazi ghetto, where both his parents died. Later, he too signed into Buchenwald. Among the documents was the paper Feiden signed. "Hey, you're right. I had better handwriting then than I have now, but, yes," he remarks. "Who was the boy who signed this card?" Pelley asks. "A young, actually, teenager who had gone through a great deal, become less trusting of what's told to him. ... But glad to be alive. You got to overcome it," Feiden says. Asked what he has to overcome, Feiden tells Pelley, "The breaking down. Because that's one thing we never did in camp. We never wanted to break down in front of some of SS men, and give them the pleasure of seeing us breaking down." "How do you stop yourself from breaking down?" Pelley asks. "I chew my lips. Have you noticed that the lower lip..." Feiden explains. It's what he did in the camps. "Oh, yes and you have to swallow after that. That helps also," he adds. A card carried his barracks number, "66." That number alone opened his memory. In Block 66, Feiden says a thousand people lived. "Oh yeah, that's correct. That's correct. Oh, oh, my God, what just popped into my mind. Between each block there was a trough you could urinate in. And I can see it now: the block manager, whatever, felt that this person is just about dead. We put these near-dead people into that trough that other people urinated into, and let them die in those things. The brutality of it, you know?" Feiden recalls. Jack Rosenthal, of New York, arrived with his family at Auschwitz. During the selection process after their arrival, Jack and his uncle were sent to a barracks while his mother and five sisters and brothers went straight to the gas chambers and the ovens. "I remember that night," Rosenthal says. "There was a little window in the barracks where we were. He told me: "Look out the window. What do you see?' and I said 'The sky is aflame.' The sky is burning, you know. You saw the flames licking the sky. The stench was terrible. You smelled burning flesh." His family burned that night. Yet, incredibly, 60 Minutes found the Nazis had bothered to create a form to keep track of Jack's mail at Buchenwald. "But as you can see, there are no records of letters. You didn't..." Pelley remarks. "Who was gonna send me mail? I got news for you, if I would have died in Buchenwald, nobody would ever shed a tear for me, because my, my whole family was wiped out before then. We were a family of eight. And I'm the sole survivor." American soldiers liberated Jack in 1945. On a personal effects card that he had signed at Buchenwald, there was reference to a number: A11832. Asked if he's seen that number before, Jack tells Pelley "I see it every time. You wanna see it?" A11832 is the inmate number the Nazis tattooed on Jack's arm. "It's there. And when I die, they shouldn't cover up my arm. They should keep it like this, because when the good Lord will see this, I hope he's gonna put me front row, center. Because I deserve it," he says. These men were first to see their documents, but the Bad Arolsen archive is being digitally scanned, to be distributed to research centers. Other survivors may yet discover unknown history still waiting to be written. Asked if he's glad he looked back at the documents, Miki Schwartz tells Pelley, "Definitely. I feel like I learned about me, at least, what happened and specifically what I'm glad about, for those people who said the Holocaust didn't happen, like the president of Iran. If they have any questions about it, please come to Bad Arolsen and check it out for themselves." "Millions Of Nazi Docs Opened To Public: 16 Miles Of Files In Germany Available For Research After 50 Years Of Tight Security" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/18/world/main2199121.shtml Bad Arolsen, Germany, Nov. 18, 2006 Before a clerk of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate's office, describing the furnaces at Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp where he had been a prisoner until a few weeks previously. "I saw with my own eyes how thousands of Jews were gassed daily and thrown by the hundreds into pits where Jews were burning," he said. "I saw how little children were killed with sticks and thrown into the fire," he continued. Blood flowed in gutters, and "Jews were thrown in and died there"; more were taken off trucks and cast alive into the flames. Today the Holocaust is known in dense and painful detail. Yet the young Russian's words leap off the faded, onionskin page with a rawness that transports the reader back to April 1945, when World War II was still raging and the world still knew little about gas chambers, genocide and the Final Solution. The two pages of testimony, in a file randomly plucked off a shelf, are among millions of documents held by the International Tracing Service, or ITS, an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross. This vast archive -- 16 miles of files in six nondescript buildings in a German spa town -- contains the fullest records of Nazi persecutions in existence. But because of concerns about the victims' privacy, the ITS has kept the files closed to the public for half a century, doling out information in minimal amounts to survivors or their descendants on a strict need-to-know basis. This policy, which has generated much ill-feeling among Holocaust survivors and researchers, is about to change. In May, after years of pressure from the United States and survivors' groups, the 11 countries overseeing the archive agreed to unseal the files for scholars as well as victims and their families. In recent weeks the ITS' interim director, Jean-Luc Blondel, has been to Washington, The Hague and to the Buchenwald memorial with a new message of cooperation with other Holocaust institutions and governments. IT has allowed Paul Shapiro, of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, to look at the files and has also given The Associated Press extensive access on condition no names from the files are revealed unless they have been identified in other sources. "This is powerful stuff," said Shapiro, leafing through the file containing the Russian's statement and some 200 other testimonies that take the reader into the belly of Hitler's death machine -- its camps, inmates, commandants, executioners and trusted inmates used as low-level guards and known as kapos. "If you sat here for a day and read these files, you'd get a picture of what it was really like in the camps, how people were treated. Look -- names and names of kapos, guards -- the little perpetrators," he said. Moved to this town in central Germany after the war, the files occupy a former barracks of the Waffen-SS, the Nazi Party's elite force. They are stored in long corridors of drab cabinets and neatly stenciled binders packed into floor-to-ceiling metal shelves. Their index cards alone fill three large rooms. Mandated to trace missing persons and help families reunite, ITS has allowed few people through its doors, and has responded to requests for information on wartime victims with minimal data, even when its files could have told more. It may take a year or more for the files to open fully. Until then, access remains tightly restricted. "We will be ready any time. We would open them today, if we had the go-ahead," said Blondel. When the archive is finally available, researchers will have their first chance to see a unique collection of documents on concentration camps, slave labor camps and displaced persons. From toneless lists and heartrending testimony, a skilled historian may be able to stitch together a new perspective on the 20th century's darkest years from the viewpoint of its millions of victims. "The overall story is pretty well established, but many details will be filled in," said Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "There is a great deal of very interesting material on a very large number of concentration camps that we really don't know much about," he said. "It may contain surprises. We don't know. It has material that nobody's ever seen." A visitor to the archive comes into direct contact with the bureaucracy of mass murder. In a bound ledger with frayed binding, a copy of a list of names appears of Jews rounded up in Holland and transported to the death camps. Buried among the names is "Frank, Annelise M," her date of birth (June 12, 1929), Amsterdam address before she went into hiding (Merwedeplein 37) and the date she was sent to a concentration camp (Sept. 3, 1944). Frank, Annelise M. is Anne Frank. She was on one of the last trains to Germany before the Nazi occupation of Holland crumbled. Six months later, aged 15, she died an anonymous death, one of some 35,000 casualties of typhus that ravaged the Bergen-Belsen camp. After the war, "The Diary of Anne Frank," written during her 25 months hiding in a tiny apartment with seven others, would become the most widely read book ever written on the Holocaust. But most of the lives recorded in Bad Arolsen are known to none but their families. They are people like Cornelis Marinus Brouwenstijn, a Dutchman who vanished into the Nazi gulag at age 22 for illegally possessing a radio. In a plain manila envelope are his photo, a wallet, some snapshots, and a naughty typewritten joke about women in the army. After the war, his family repeatedly wrote to the Red Cross asking about him. In 1949, his parents received a terse form letter saying he died sometime between April 19 and May 3, 1945, in the area of a German labor camp. The personal effects, however, remained in Bad Arolsen, and with the family long deceased, there is no one left to apply for their return. To critics who accuse them of being tightfisted with their information, the Red Cross and ITS counter that they have to abide by German privacy laws and protect the reputations of victims whether alive or dead. They say the files may contain unsubstantiated allegations against victims, and that opening up to researchers would distract ITS from its main task of providing documentation to survivors or victims' relatives. One area of study that will benefit from the ITS files is the "Lebensborn" program, in which children deemed to have the "proper genes" were adopted or even kidnapped to propagate the Aryan master race of Hitler's dreams. Another subject is the sheer scope of the Holocaust system. The files will support new research from other sources showing that the network of concentration camps, ghettos and labor camps was nearly three times more extensive than previously thought. Postwar historians estimated about 5,000 to 7,000 detention sites. But after the Cold War ended, records began pouring out of the former communist nations of East Europe. More sites were disclosed in the last six years in claims by 1.6 million people for slave labor reparations from a $6.6 billion fund financed by the German government and some 3,000 industries. "We have identified somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 camps and ghettos of various categories," said Geoffrey Megargee of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, who is compiling a seven-volume encyclopedia of these detention centers. The archive has some 3.4 million files of DPs -- Displaced Persons. They include names such as John Demjanjuk and Viorel Trifa, who immigrated to the United States and later became internationally known because their role in the Holocaust came into question. Between 1933 to 1945, the Nazi persecution grew to assembly-line proportions, slaughtering 6 million Jews and an equal number of Gypsies, homosexuals, mental patients, political prisoners and other "undesirables." Tens of millions were conscripted as forced laborers. To operate history's greatest slaughter, the Nazis created a bureaucracy that meticulously recorded the arrest, movement and death of each victim. Sometimes even the lice plucked from heads in concentration camps were counted. But as the pace of genocide stepped up, unknown numbers were marched directly from trains to gas chambers without being registered. In the war's final months, the bookkeeping collapsed, though the extermination continued. What documents survived Nazi attempts to destroy them were collected by the Allies to help people find missing relatives. The first documents were sent in 1946 to Bad Arolsen, and the administration was handed over to the Red Cross in 1955. Some 50 million pages -- scraps of paper, transport lists, registration books, labor documents, medical and death registers -- make reference to 17.5 million individuals caught up in the machinery of persecution, displacement and death. Over the years, the International Tracing Service has answered 11 million requests to locate family members or provide certificates supporting pension claims or reparations. It says it has a 56 percent rate of success in tracing the requested name. But the workload has been overwhelming. Two years ago it had a backlog of nearly half a million unanswered queries. Director Blondel says the number was whittled down to 155,000 this summer and will disappear by the spring of 2008. New queries have slowed to just 700 a month. One of ITS' critics is Sabine Stein, archivist at the Buchenwald concentration camp 150 miles from Bad Arolsen. She says the archive's refusal to share its files has caused heartbreak to countless survivors and their descendants. For instance, in 1989, Emilia Janikowska asked ITS to trace her father, Ludwig Kaminski, a coal miner from Poland who was never heard from again after his arrest in 1939. It took more than three years to send her a standard form reporting Kaminski had died in Buchenwald Dec. 1, 1939. But there was more she could have been told. Documents copied by the U.S. Army before they went to Bad Arolsen, which were seen by AP at Buchenwald, include mention of Kaminski. They say he was prisoner No. 8578, that he had arrived in Buchenwald six weeks earlier with 600 other Poles and had been placed in Camp 2. The known history of Buchenwald says Camp 2 was a wooden barracks and four big tents, jammed with 1,000 Poles and Vienna Jews. Dozens of inmates died from the cold that winter. The cause of Kaminski's death was pneumonia. No one ever told his daughter any of this. "We had no news from my father since the moment he was arrested," Janikowska said when contacted at her home in Krakow, Poland. She now wants more information for a compensation request. Archivist Stein says: "Former inmates and their families want to see some tangible part of their history; they want to tell their stories," she said. "What I find most frustrating is that they have all these documents and they are just sitting on them." Earlier this month, ITS went some way to make amends, delivering a full inventory of its records on Buchenwald and promising to give priority in searching for 1,000 names Stein had requested. Compounding the delay in releasing the files is the cumbrous makeup of the governing committee. Any decision on their future requires the assent of all 11 member nations -- Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and the United States. Last May's agreement to open the archive stipulates that it will remain off-limits until formal ratification by the 11 governments. After that, each of the 11 countries can have a digital copy of the files and decide who has access to it. But some delegations are worried the process will take too long, at a time when aged survivors are dying every day. "What victims of these crimes fear the most is that when they disappear -- and it's happening very fast now -- no one will remember the names of the families they lost," said Shapiro of the Washington museum, who was a delegate to the talks. "It's not a diplomatic timetable, and not an archivist's timetable, but the actuarial table. If we don't succeed in having this material public while there are still survivors, then we failed," he said. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ISRAELI LEADERS DECEIVE THEMSELVES; OLMERT THE APPEASER; PHONY
MORALISTS, PHONY CEASEFIRES, PHONY PATRIOTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 18, 2006. |
|
MAYBE MUSLIMS WON'T ACT LIKE MUSLIMS? Hillel Halkin still turns every NY Sun article into propaganda for his pet scheme that Israel withdraw from most of Judea-Samaria. He argues Israel needs it to prevent Israel from being overwhelmed demographically. It is not a real menace. I'd find Mr. Halkin's argument more sincere if he thought to get the Arabs to withdraw from Israel, in exchange. What he does, in each piece, is to list all the risks, but then suggest that Israel chance its national survival. How imprudent! This time, he fastens on the current truce as a start for withdrawal. He says the danger is that the Arabs of Gaza would continue to smuggle arms in, in preparation for war. Just a "danger?" It is a certainty. This is what they do. They have announced they intend to go to war. Their whole society is organized to be fanatical about fighting the Jewish state. He says that the US and Europe would guarantee Israel that they would supervise the demilitarization of the areas withdrawn from, and they would let Israel retain the rest. That is a fairy tale. Imagine, depending on the very countries whose foreign ministries detest Israel and are letting enemy areas arm, to disarm them! All those countries want Israel to withdraw totally. Jews must not depend on gentiles but safeguard their own security. They should annex desired parts of their homeland as the Mandate recognizes they are entitled to do. ISRAEL DID NOT WIN IN LEBANON One of the signs of Israeli victory in that war, according to PM Olmert, is that Hizbullah's rockets were destroyed. The resulting ceasefire, however, let Hizbullah completely rearm (Ibid). Therefore, Israel did not win. A war isn't won until the subsequent arrangements confirm that one's objectives were met. ISRAEL DEFEATED IN GAZA No, Israeli forces met no reverses in Gaza. But their withdrawal from Gaza without having achieved their objectives, and leaving the enemy free to replace the destroyed weapons, in favor of a ceasefire, is as much a defeat for Israel as was the withdrawal and ceasefire in Lebanon. In Lebanon, too, none of Israel's declared objectives were attained, except perhaps temporarily. In Lebanon, Israel's confused leadership and lack of preparedness exposed a vulnerability of Israeli forces that encourages the Arabs to challenge Israel again. Israel's deterrent is gone. The Arabs are rearming in both places. When they renew the war, again, perhaps in months, they will have proved this analysis correct (IMRA, 11/30 from Ehud Yatom). BAHRAIN TURNING ISLAMIST The ruling family has most of the power, but there is a parliament. The elections pitted Shiites and liberals against Sunnis. Islamists registered the most impressive vote in that country, host of a US fleet (IMRA, 11/27). The US thought it could count on that supposedly liberal Arab state as an ally. Alas, the Islamists are gaining power in many places. There is no comprehensive strategy against them. Some countries, such as Russia, China, and the EU, protect them. OPEN-ENDED ARAB GRIEVANCE The Arabs continue to demand a suicidal concession from Israel, that all the descendants of refugees be permitted to crowd into Israel. Therefore, no matter how much land Israel were to cede to the Arabs, the Arabs still would complain. (Complaining is what jihadists do, with their false sense of grievance as if those imperialists are the victims.) The rest of the world is likely to urge Israel to make concessions on that, "for peace" (IMRA, 11/27). The refugees were defeated aggressors bent on declared genocide. Why should they be let in? Descendants are not refugees. Why let them in? The Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states created the refugee problem in a failed attempt to destroy Israel, so let them solve it! The requested concession by the beleagured Jewish state would not bring peace. It would enable the Arabs to seize Israel and purge its Jews. The requested demands would be a form of appeasement of imperialists. Such appeasement usually brings war. OLMERT'S NEW APPEASEMENT He offered to free "numerous" terrorist prisoners, if the P.A. releases the one Israeli soldier it holds. He said this would prove that Israel intends friendship (Arutz-7, 11/27). It would prove his folly, since half the prisoners released before have resumed terrorism. Olmert's premises are false. Israel doesn't have to prove peaceful intentions to the Arab aggressors. Yes, they accuse Israel of wanting war, but that is propaganda, not something that Israel is obliged to disprove by weakening itself with a lopsided release of dangerous enemies. Let the aggressors prove that they now want peace. Even after real peace, the Arab prisoners should not be released to disturb it. They are not POWs but war criminals. Since the P.A. is devoting its whole society to war, it is absurd to think they might now make peace. Islam thinks it is winning. I agree. The Muslims commit aggression, because that is what jihad is. It doesn't matter what Israel does. They seized the Israeli soldier in order to induce a lopsided trade. Olmert confirms the efficacy of their tactic. He guarantees further Arab attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers. All over the world, terrorists find that kidnapping produces income or concessions. ISRAELI PREACHERS OF MORALITY The Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian peace petitioned Israel against killing civilians in Gaza and fighting disproportionately. As if to provide balance, a muted statement was included condemning all violence and urging that the P.A. declare it does not seek to destroy Israel. (Hamas declarations and the PLO Covenant vow to destroy Israel.) The petition omitted mention of the rockets that Gaza Arabs have been firing against Israel, which terrorism drew Israeli counter-fire. The petition complains about the counter-fire, without showing Israel's justification. That is not fair. The petition did not state what would be a "proportionate response to the constant shelling of Israeli towns. ("Proportionate" has a specific meaning in international law of war. Israel abides by its meaning. Israel's critics don't understand it. I've discussed this, before.) The petition would deny Israel any defense against terrorists firing from amid civilians at civilians. It petition would shelter war criminals! Unethical (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/27). WHAT THE GAZA CEASEFIRE IS FOR "The cease-fire offers a period of calm for our fighters to recover and prepare for our final goal of evacuating Palestine," said Abu Abir, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, a Hamas-allied terror organization in the Gaza Strip responsible for many of the recent rocket attacks against Israeli communities." (They are arming for it.) PM Olmert hopes that the ceasefire would lead to peace (IMRA, 11/27.) Guess Olmert does not know what the Arabs intend to use the ceasefire for. Neither does he know that Islam considers Jewish sovereignty and rule over Arabs in an area once conquered by Islam, an affront. Islam considers itself entitled to rule all other religions. Hence its unrelenting, anti-Zionist war of more than 80 years. THE CHARGES AGAINST POLLARD Ronald Olive wrote a book critical of Jonathan Pollard. Only one charge was brought against Pollard. At his sentencing, Sec. of Defense Weinberger gave the judge a 130-page memo, much of which was classified and denied to the defense counsel, despite their having security clearance! Olive admits that he did not see the classified material, which would be a crime for him to receive and for anyone to divulge to him. Presumably he has to rely upon the public record. Nevertheless, he accuses Pollard of crimes not on the public record. His book is libelous. Prosecutors made a careful damage assessment and did not charge Pollard with damage to the US. Olive fabricated extensive damage assessments (IMRA, 11/28). One would wish that government officials would cite the record and decry the libel, instead of letting the libel stand uncorrected. They are covering up pro-Arab policies to which our current war can be traced. They are phony patriots. 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. |
|
THE NAZI ROOTS OF URI AVNERY
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 18, 2006. | |
|
Alon Dahan is a graduate student at the Hebrew University in "Jewish Thought" (not to be confused with a B-film actor in Israel with the same name). He also may well be the very best columnist in the Hebrew media. His features appear on the web site of Maariv, Israel's second daily, regularly. While he writes on a number of subjects, he specializes in exposing the anti-Semitic foundations of Israel's radical Left. Unfortunately his articles are not available in English as far as I know. What may well be his very best piece yet came out Dec 13, 06 at
I am trying to find someone to translate the entire piece but let me give you a synopsis here:
The full article is far more detailed. As I say, if I can obtain an
English translation, I will post it.
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and
satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.
Contact him by email at stevenplaut@yahoo.com
|
|
THE ROLE OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN THE IDEOLOGY AND STRATEGY OF THE IRANIAN REGIME
Posted by Professor Eugene Narrett, December 18, 2006. |
|
This article comes from Middle East Media Research Institute --
MEMRI (www.thememriblog.org). It was written by Yigal Carmon, who is
President MEMRI. He presented it at Yad Vashem; it is entitled
"Holocaust Denial: Paving the Way to Genocide"
MEMRI can be contacted by email at memri@memri.org This is a fine work of research as always. I would add that the claim of the Jews to all of Israel is not contingent on the Shoah at all: it is the ancient and historic (amply documented in the records of other cultures, e.g., Egypt and Assyria, Babylon and Persia) homeland of the Jewish people and this, regardless of European behavior, is the basis of the Jewish inalienable claim to the land, period. |
|
"The persistent Holocaust denial of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raises a vital question that needs to be addressed: What function does this denial serve in the ideology of the Iranian regime and in its strategy? The answer to this question bears cardinal importance to the future of the State of Israel. "When we, at the Middle East Media Research Institute, collect and analyze the statements made by Ahmadinejad and others in the Iranian regime, we can distinguish two major goals, both of which lead to the same conclusion: the Iranian regime's Holocaust denial is not a manifestation of irrational hatred, but a premeditated and cold-blooded instrument to achieve its goals." Denial of Israel's Legitimacy The first of these goals is the attempt to deny any legitimacy to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel as a safe haven for the Jews after the Holocaust. In order to achieve this goal, he proclaims that no Holocaust occurred, and that if Jews were indeed harmed in World War II -- a claim that requires thorough and "objective" research -- this was no different than the experience of others in World War II. At any rate, Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian officials claim that this "myth" cannot justify the establishment of Israel in Palestine. Elimination of the Zionist Entity, i.e. Israel The second goal is -- as often proclaimed by Ahmadinejad -- to "wipe Israel off the map." His Holocaust denial is therefore planned, intentional, and premeditated. He is aware that as long as the world remembers the Holocaust, it will resist any new attempt to perpetrate another genocide against the Jews. Thus, eradicating the memory of the Holocaust is essential in order to achieve his goal. Demonization In order for Ahmadinejad to bring his plans to fruition, however, he has to demonize the Jews and the State of Israel. Demonization is a necessary precondition for genocide. As we well know, Hitler first engaged in a major campaign of demonization of the Jews before actually murdering them en masse. Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are taking the same path, and are conducting a similar virulent, antisemitic campaign of demonization. To this end, Iranian state-controlled television produces various TV series dedicated to the demonization of Jews. These include classic blood libels, depicting Jews as using the blood of non-Jewish children to bake their Passover matzos, and as kidnapping non-Jewish children to steal their body parts. Jews are reduced to sub-human levels, depicted as pigs and apes. They are accused of persecuting the Prophet Muhammad in voodoo ritualistic scenes, and as tormenting a historic figure reminiscent of Jesus on the Cross. All these TV series exist alongside others that deny the Holocaust. Again, it should be stressed that all these phenomena are interrelated, and are state-directed at the highest level. It is most indicative that Ahmadinejad's first public appearance after coming to power was made before television producers. All this is done in order to achieve the goal of demonization of Jews and Israel, which, as I mentioned earlier, is vital for their elimination. However, it is not possible to demonize a people as long as it is viewed as a victim of the Holocaust. Therefore, as long as the Jews are perceived as victims of the Holocaust, this demonization cannot take root. Holocaust denial is thus vital, in order to wipe out the image of the Jews as victims. This is the reason why these three elements -- Holocaust denial, the elimination of the State of Israel, and demonization of the Jews -- are constantly present in statements by Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials. Let us hear the Iranians in their own words. True, many of these statements have already circulated separately in the media. But hearing them together, in the context I have just outlined, will enable us to understand their function and significance within the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime. In his well-known speech at the Iranian "World Without Zionism" conference on October 23, 2005, Ahmadinejad laid out his views on the State of Israel. It is an absolute evil, a tool in the hands of the West to dominate the Muslims. In reply to those who ask if it is indeed possible to bring about a world without America and Zionism, he says: "You had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and can surely be achieved." Later, he cites Khomeini: "The Imam said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'" Commenting on this statement by his spiritual mentor, Ahmadinejad says: "This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise." Later he adds, "Very soon this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world -- and this is attainable." This speech clearly announced the ultimate goal: the elimination of Israel. At the Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting, which took place in Mecca in early December 2005, Ahmadinejad made statements that explicitly tied this goal with Holocaust denial: "Some European countries are insisting on saying that Hitler burned millions of oppressed Jews in crematoria. They insist so much on this issue that if someone proves the opposite, they convict him and throw him into prison. Although we do not accept this claim, let's assume that it is true, and we ask the Europeans: Does the killing of oppressed Jews by Hitler [justify] their support for the regime that is occupying Jerusalem?..." This statement by Ahmadinejad is telling. The implication is that the Holocaust is the only justification for the existence of Israel. The line, therefore, is twofold: a) the Holocaust is a myth, and b) even if it is true, it cannot justify Israel's existence. In either case, Ahmadinejad's primary obsession is not with the Holocaust, but with Israel's very existence. If the Holocaust gets in the way of achieving this goal, it must be denied. Later on in the same speech, he adds: "If you [Europeans] think that you committed an injustice against the Jews, why must the Muslims and the Palestinians pay the price for it? All right, you oppressed [the Jews]. So put some of Europe at the disposal of this Zionist regime..." Again, the guiding principle is that Israel cannot exist. Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad because the Holocaust lends moral justification to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel. In the speech you saw earlier on the DVD, from December 14, 2005, Ahmadinejad once again linked these two elements together. He calls the Holocaust a "myth," but also adds: "If you [Europeans] are correct in saying that you killed six million Jews in World War II... If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal -- in Europe, America, Canada, or Alaska..." Once again, Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad first and foremost as a means of de-legitimizing Israel's existence, and since the goal is the elimination of Israel, the speech includes the necessary element of demonization as well. Then the Iranian president takes pains to portray the Jews as the true oppressors, and not as victims. "Zionism itself is a Western ideology and a colonialist idea, with secular ideas and fascist methods, which was founded by the English. So far, with the help and direct guidance of America and part of Europe, [Zionism] is slaughtering the Muslims." Later on in the speech, he says: "An important question that the Western countries and media must answer clearly is: What crime did they [i.e. the West] commit at that time [i.e. WWII] that the Zionists are not committing today? In essence, Zionism is a new Fascism..." This, therefore, is Ahmadinejad's truth: the Zionists are the true oppressors and murderers. But while at times Ahmadinejad claims to differentiate between Zionists and Jews in general, in truth, this campaign of demonization uses and abuses history to depict Jews throughout the ages -- not Zionists alone -- as oppressors and murderers. As you have just seen in the DVD, the true Holocaust, as portrayed by Ahmadinejad, was committed by the Jews: for example, by the Jewish king of Yemen, Yosef Dhu Nuwas, who, he claims, burned the Christians in the early days of Christianity, and by the Iranian Jews, as described in the Book of Esther. Moreover, Jews in modern times are continuing their murderous ways: killing large numbers of Christian children in London and Paris -- again, as you saw with your own eyes -- in order to procure blood for Passover matzos. To sum up, Holocaust denial is an inextricable part of demonization, on the way to the final goal: the elimination of Israel. All these elements figure prominently in the identity and works of those invited by the Iranian regime to the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. First and foremost is their explicit opposition to Israel's existence. This is why members of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect of Neturei Karta were invited, following the ongoing, strong ties maintained by the Iranian regime with them. Then comes the demonization of Jews in order to justify the agenda of elimination. Thus the invitation of Holocaust deniers, such as Frederick Toben, who not only denies the Holocaust, but also claims that the Jews intentionally spread the AIDS virus in the U.S. In essence, the speech made by Ahmadinejad at the Holocaust denial conference best illustrates the role of Holocaust denial in the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime. He begins his speech by addressing the Holocaust deniers participating in the conference: "Iran is your home, and here you can express your opinions freely, in a friendly manner and in a free atmosphere." Then, without batting an eyelid, he adds: "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall... I tell you now... the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated." |
|
LIGHTING OF THE NATIONAL MENORAH IN WASHINGTON DC
Posted by Carrie Devorah, December 17, 2006. |
|
Carrie Devorah is an international award-winning photojournalist, covered news, sports, celebrities and everyday superstars in Europe who is now based in Washington, D.C. Devorah, a CCIA, MPI, DRS and CA-BSIS, is a member of the National Press Club, Senate Press Photographer's Gallery, National Federation of Press Women, IRE, Equine Photographers Network, National Union of Journalists (UK), White House News Photographers Association and is MPDC credentialed. Contact her at devorahcarrie@hotmail.com. For other photos of this and other events, go to her website at http://www.carriedevorah.com |
|
DEAR HATERS OF ISRAEL
Posted by Steven Shamrak, December 17, 2006. |
|
My comments are in italics in parens. |
|
Dear Haters of Israel Please, just ask yourself a question and be honest: If Arabs get control over Judea, Samaria, Gaza and even all Jerusalem would it be enough for them to end terror and let Israel live in peace? The long-term goal of most Arab and Muslim states is world domination of Islam. Israel is just a training ground for techniques they have already started and have been successfully using around the globe. Israel is the front line of defense of the Western democracies. The facts I present in my letters have nothing to do (as some of you have alleged in order to diminish the impact of factual reasoning) with my anger, hate or frustration. The desire to establish the global Caliphate is stated, officially on the record, by many Muslim leaders and heads of governments, including the ones from Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah. Just once in your life forget about your hate toward Jews. Open your eyes and you will be able to see and recognize the truth! I do not ask you to become a Jew-lover, it is almost impossible to expect. Your own future and the fate of the Western world's self-preservation demand the basic honesty on the subject now! Otherwise, we are all doomed! Sinisterly yours.
Who is the Enemy? President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Palestinian statehood in a meeting with Indonesia's president. "Both presidents stressed their support for the establishment of a viable, independent, democratic and sovereign Palestinian state that would live side-by-side in peace with Israel," said a joint statement released Monday after Bush met with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during Bush's Asian tour. (At least, we must face reality and realize that they are not true friends.) Betrayed Again Forty years of nuclear ambiguity were blown by designated US defense secretary Robert Gates Tuesday, Dec. 5, at his Senate confirmation hearings. He also denied any guarantee against Iran using nuclear weapons against Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that Iran has begun installing 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment at a plant in central Iran, the first step towards industrial production. (Maybe now Israel will stop looking aver its shoulder and start doing what is good for Jews!) Food for Thought Some high-ranking idiots and hypocrites insist that the Arab-Israel conflict is the reason behind the war Iraq. This war is already costing the American tax-payer almost a trillion dollars, money that would be better spent on encouraging and assisting Arabs to leave Jewish land. It would be a more plausible task, compared to bringing democracy to an Arab state. And it would, at least, bring internal peace to Israel! Fear of Exposing the Obvious Kofi Annan expressed concern about the U.N. Human Rights Council's "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel." Annan acknowledged that the new council has not lived up to expectations. (It is not love for Israel, but an attempt to camouflage an evident anti-Israel stand of the UN that has prompted this comment.) Israeli Arabs Want and End to the Jewish State Israeli Arabs have produced a radical document demanding cultural autonomy and the right to veto government decisions that concern them. Drafted by representative mainstream organizations and not by extremists, it constitutes an unqualified rejection of the Zionist model of Israel. (Israeli Arabs never had any loyalty toward Israel. How about joining the already existing 22 Arab states? But, it is not enough for them!) No UN Inquiry, No Condemnation! The three young children of a PA intelligence official loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas have been shot dead in Gaza. Gunmen opened fire on the car that was taking the boys, aged between six and nine, to school. The street was packed with school children when the gunmen opened fire. (Deliberate targeting and killing children of Hamas opponents does not prompt UN condemnation. 'Useless Nothing' at it best!) Quote of the Week "If we don't have guts enough to confront this ideology (Islamic expansionism) today, we'll go through World War Three tomorrow." -- US Gen. John Abizaid. Syria Preparing for War A top Israeli military official, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, told the Cabinet that Syria has moved its missile batteries closer to the border with Israel and is preparing its forces for a war with Israel. Syria has increased its production of long-range missiles and has also moved its anti-aircraft missile batteries, as well as building up its anti-tank units, closer to the border on the Golan Heights. Middle East Peace Conference Without Israel The United States government was considering a proposal by former Secretary of State James Baker to hold the second Madrid Conference without Israeli presence. Baker says goal is to "reach an agreement without Jewish pressure". (...but he has no problem with putting pressure on Jews.) Meanwhile Incoming US Defence Secretary tries to justify the Iranian nuclear program by saying that Iran's yearning for nuclear independence may be prompted by the reality that Israel is armed with a nuclear weapon, as well as Russia to the north and Pakistan to the east. (What a pack of repulsive and deliberately misguided foolishness! With enemies, at least, it is clear where they stand and how to deal with them!) Delusional Life of Arabs A new Gallup poll shows that 40-percent of Lebanese adults blame Israel for the 34-day war that followed the kidnapping of IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev this summer. Some 24-percent said, that the United States was most responsible. Only 18 percent of Lebanese adults held Hizbullah responsible for war. Once More: Unlimited Stupidity Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview with Italy's RAI Tg1 television news that he is interested in its proposal to place an international force in Gaza. (Gaza is Eretz-Israel! Deployment of the international force would be a complete surrender of Israel 's independence. Is he [Olmert] stupid or dreadfully mentally disturbed?) The War is Declared In Tehran, Palestinian PM Ismail Haniya said Friday: Hamas will never recognize Israel or give up jihad. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal escalated threats, declared that his terrorist group has embraced the strategic option of armed conflict against Israel. (What is Israel going to do about it? The first practical step is to remove Arabs from Gaza and re-unite it with Eretz-Israel!) Jewish Contribution to Humanity Julius Edgar Lilienfeld (1881 -- 1963) was born in Germany and emigrated to the USA in 1927. Among other things, he invented the transistor and the electrolytic capacitor in the 1920's. More Arabs Leave Eretz-Israel. Travel agents report a brisk demand for visas to Cuba, one of the few places that welcome Arab Palestinians. More than 20 factories have moved out of Gaza in recent months, driven by fear of civil war and increasingly bleak economic prospects. Malta Backs Peacekeeping Force in Gaza Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said serious consideration should be given to the suggestion made by Spain, France and Italy to deploy an international peacekeeping force in the Gaza Strip. (Great, another 'little piglet' feels free to meddle into Israel internal affairs.) Another Feel-Good Exercise Not long ago, an estimated 4,000 Jewish federation lay leaders and professionals gathered in Los Angeles for the United Jewish Communities' annual General Assembly. This year's meeting of the North American federation system, which will run Sunday through Wednesday, is focused on Israel under the theme "Together on the Frontline, One People, One Destiny." (Nice and empty slogans and politicly correct smiles. But nothing is done and nothing will change in order to achieve Jewish unification in the fight against assimilation and toward re-unification of the ancestral land of Israel!) Poll: Halutz, Peretz and Olmert Must Go. More than half of the respondents -- 53-percent -- said Olmert should resign his post or call new elections. Only 17-percent of Israelis believe that Halutz should continue to head the Israel Defense Forces. A bare 15-percent of those surveyed thought he should remain as Defense Minister. (Public opinion usually is quite easy to manipulate. But, sometimes the polls do highlight the obvious!) Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. For the last 3 years, he has been publishing internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict -- independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com |
|
PAY-OUT FOR CHILD CAMEL JOCKEYS
Posted by Michael Travis, December 17, 2006. |
|
This was written by Julia Wheeler,
BBC News, Dubai.
[Editor's note: For many years, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain imported disposable children as young as 3 and 4 from poor countries like Bangladash to act as light-weight jockies and ride their valuable camels in races. The children lived in dreadful circumstances and usually died or were maimed after a few years. Read this and also this.] |
|
The United Arab Emirates says it will give $9m ( £4.6m) to former child camel jockeys employed in the country. The UAE says the money will ensure they receive the salaries owed to them and compensation for losing their income. It will also go towards education. The move is part of a joint programme with the UN children's agency Unicef. The initiative has seen more than 1,000 former jockeys, from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan and Mauritania repatriated to their countries. Lawsuit The prime minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, is among those accused, in a class action filed in the US, of trafficking and enslaving children. The suit is being brought against him, his brother Sheikh Hamdan, and 500 others by some parents and thousands of unnamed children. The allegations have been rejected by the Maktoums. They say they have banned child camel jockeys and overhauled the sport. Remote-controlled robots now sit on the backs of the camels during the long races. Although camel racing is popular in the Emirates, the Maktoums are
better known internationally for their involvement in horse racing and
are the owners of the successful Godolphin stables.
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com
|
|
IRAN GIVES $750,000,000 TO HAMAS TO START JIHADIST WAR WITH ISRAEL
Posted by David Nathan, December 17, 2006. |
|
In the Palestinian prime minister's party was a senior Hamas military delegation led by Abu Obeida al Jerat, who signed military pacts with the heads of Iran's Revolutionary Guards providing advanced combat training for Hamas terrorists. DEBKAfile's military sources say Israel should have prevented Haniya's entry with his party, even without the cash, to prevent the Iranian military training program from getting started in the Gaza Strip This is from yesterday's DEBKAfile. It is entitled "Hamas escalated its internecine feud with Fatah to jihad." |
|
Hamas leaders said Friday: "Abu Mazen and Fatah have declared war on Allah. Whoever joins them is a shahid." They authorized the assassination of Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan, accusing him of orchestrating an attempt on the life of Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya, as his convoy entered Gaza Thursday night, Dec. 14. A bodyguard was killed and five members of his party injured, including Haniya's son. Hamas vowed "to even the score". The Hamas prime minister returned home from a two-week absence carrying $31 million of the quarter of a billion dollars Iran donated to bankroll his organization's buildup for jihadist war. After Israel ordered the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza closed, hundreds of Hamas militiamen seized control of the terminal directing heavy gunfire at the European monitors and Abu Mazen's Force 17 presidential guard. Both fled. Thursday night, Haniya was finally allowed to enter Gaza after leaving the suitcases packed with cash behind in Sinai. It was then that Force 17 shot up the convoy. In the Palestinian prime minister's party was a senior Hamas military delegation led by Abu Obeida al Jerat, who signed military pacts with the heads of Iran's Revolutionary Guards providing advanced combat training for Hamas terrorists. DEBKAfile's military sources say Israel should have prevented Haniya's entry with his party, even without the cash, to prevent the Iranian military training program from getting started in the Gaza Strip. Contact David Nathan at davenathan@aol.com |
|
US STATE DEPT PROMOTES MUSLIM HIP-HOP GROUP
Posted by Michael Travis, December 17, 2006. |
|
Your tax dollars at work. This article was written by Elder of Ziyon and comes from the
Infidel Bloggers Alliance |
|
This is an excerpt from a State Department website, It was written by Carolee Walker, USINFO Staff Writer and it appeared December 13, 2006. Native Deen hip-hop group energizes Palestinian youth in Jerusalem While I didn't see anything explicitly offensive in the lyrics, it is clear that the "tolerance" mentioned is only teaching others tolerance for Islam, not teaching Muslims tolerance for other religions or ways of life. In many ways the lyrics are proselytizing, which is a questionable activity for the State Department to be promoting:
The leader of the band has a blog
We are in Palestine[sic] now. I will have to keep this blog short before I start to get heated and make some political statements that will get Native Deen arrested. It's hard for a Muslim American to visit Palestine[sic] and not get upset. All in all, this is something that raises questions about what exactly the State Department is intending with this sponsorship. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
"OBSESSION: RADICAL ISLAM'S WAR AGAINST THE WEST
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 16, 2006. |
|
I most sincerely urge all of you, if you have not seen the movie yet, to take 12 minutes now to view the abridged version per the url below |
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6331994107023396223&q=abridged
|
|
ARE YOU STILL IN LA-LA LAND?
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 16, 2006. |
|
Dear friends,
Just in case you are still deceiving yourself that the "Palestinians" seek
peace and accommodation by negotiations,
take it directly from them, they do not even try to hide the truth.
Our enemies have single purpose and single message! When will we, Israelis
and Jews learn to do the same?
Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.
PS. Maybe one of you would volunteer to tell the old news to the peanut
farmer?
This is called "PA foreign minister: Cease-fire just a liberation
tactic," and it was distributed by the Israel Foreign Ministry on 14
December 2006, |
|
Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud a-Zahar declared this week that the present cease-fire (hudna) does not constitute recognition of Israel, but is rather one of a number of tactical steps on the way to the "complete liberation" of Palestine. "We as Muslims are the owners of this land and we shall not give up a single handful of Palestinian soil," Zahar told students at Gaza City's Islamic University on Sunday (10 Dec). He declared that a solution to the conflict is not the creation of a Palestinian state according to the 1967 boundaries, but the total liberation of "all Palestinian lands" -- a popular euphemism for the territory "occupied" by the State of Israel. The establishment of a Palestinian state would be followed by an "Islamic cultural enterprise." Zahar told the students that Israelis have already begun to question whether Israel will continue to exist in the next few coming decades. Zahar demanded that the PA renounce all agreements it signed with Israel, which he said have brought disaster upon the Palestinian people. In addition, he rejected any type of security coordination with Israel, which he termed "a betrayal of the homeland." PA Deputy Minister for Religious Affairs Salah Alrakab told the students that Islam forbids signing a peace agreement with Jews, because "The conflict with the Jews is a religious, existential struggle and is not a conflict over borders." At most, he said, Islamic law permits signing a temporary hudna (cease-fire). The Jews have no claim to a Land of Israel but that stated in the Torah, he continued, which has already been proven to be a forgery. Liberation of the land will be accomplished only by jihad through the general mobilization of the Islamic nation, he said, which is the shortest way to restore Palestinian rights and shrink "the greed of the Jews." Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
MOVING UP -- AN ALIYAH JOURNAL, BY LAURA BEN-DAVID
Posted by Ezra HaLevi, December 16, 2006. |
|
A unique book was published this week offering a micro view of one mother's Aliyah (immigration to Israel) journey that embodies the grand phenomenon of Western Aliyah-by-choice. Laura Ben-David, a gifted communicator, captures on paper the clarity and purpose that lead a family to uproot themselves from a very comfortable life in Boca Raton, Florida to move to a settlement town in Gush Etzion. Ben-David's book, called Moving Up -- An Aliyah Journal is a chronological collection of the emails that she sent to friends and family leading up to the move and throughout the first year. These dispatches were forwarded onward to thousands of readers -- many of whom were captivated enough by her family's journey to begin considering their own Aliyah. "Moving Up is not a story about me," Ben-David writes in the very first words of the volume. "It is a chronicle about Aliyah as seen through my eyes and written with my pen." Ben-David's book will put smiles on the faces of fellow olim (immigrants), as will her frank observations about Israeli life and descriptions of the moments that bring her back to the original decision to implement the dream. She describes shopping for the first time at Jerusalem's Malcha Shopping Mall. "Because this mall is in Jerusalem, there happens to be a large percentage of obviously observant Jews. It's really a hard thing for me to explain, it was almost like being at a synagogue, or a special rally for a Jewish cause, except that we are all simply 'at the mall.' The point here is that I became so emotional over the whole thing that I started to cry. It was just one more reminder of where I am and why I am here. Because this land is MINE." She also provides helpful advice for those planning their own Aliyah -- on everything from packing a lift (laments bringing a 40-foot one rather than 20-foot) to dealing (patiently and persistenly) with direct insurance companies after an Arab construction vehicle totaled their parked van. And for those not yet planning the move, Ben-David shies away from preaching but allows subtle jabs in the form of quotes from her kids. " My daughter Lexi made a great comment today," she writes. "She said, 'I don't get why people say that they are so jealous of us making Aliyah. If they feel that way, they should pack up and make Aliyah too!' Right on Lexi!" The Ben-Davids arrived in Israel on the first chartered plane organized by the Nefesh B'Nefesh organization, which seeks to remove the logistical obstacles facing Western olim. Laura's story, though seemingly dealing with personal experience -- raising kids, shopping at the local grocery and learning Hebrew -- is truly one very clear part of the chronicle of the American Jewish return to Zion. The book is an invaluable primary source for those seeking a glimpse into the phenomenon of Aliyah-by-choice from Western countries specifically during these most violent and turbulent years in the State of Israel. These Jews are a mystery to many. They arise, amidst the apex of Western civilization and decide to move to a perceived war zone with third-world cronyism and minuscule salaries -- with no anti-Semitism or persecution to account for the decision to become immigrants. This book offers a glimpse of why they are coming, and why more will follow. For more information, to read excerpts or to order the book, visit
AliyahBook.com |
|
KILLERS! NOT SR. HAMAS INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS!
Posted by Arlene Peck, December 16, 2006. |
|
I usually avoid the L. A. Times like the plague, mainly because I find them to be as favourable to the Jews and Israel as Mel Gibson and Jimmy Carter. However, needing something to wrap the trash recently, I came across a recent glaring front page banner which got my attention. "Killings Put Gaza on Edge" (Frankly I was hoping for "Gaza to be put on the Edge of a Cliff". The lead line said, "The gunning down of a Palestinian official's sons inflames tensions between rival factions." The latest 'incident' from a very long line, brought to us almost daily by these barbaric savages, means Hamas and Fatah are at it again. Wow! Do you think the security fence our anti-Semitic "former President" Carter described as being part of the "apartheid" of these poor downtrodden Palestinians, (all Israel's fault, of course), was the cause? They weren't able to cross over into Israel proper and so now are killing their own, because they can't reach the Jews as easily anymore? Besides, killing for the sake of killing is just part of the Arab mindset! Relax everyone! This latest rampage through the streets of Gaza is only one more of their daily OK Coral-style shoot-out rituals in the middle of the snake pit called Gaza, referred to by our state Dept. and President Bush as the homeland of the Palestinian. We all know there will be more to come; it's what Muslims do! Actually, what I would really like to see now are more photo-ops of Carter, except this time showing him signing his book in downtown Gaza bookstores. Oh! wait, I forgot... this bunch doesn't read anything but the Koran and the idea of a bookshop, where people could possibly learn how to improve their lives, is laughable, given they can't yet build a Hospital or control their sewage. Don't you find it is ever so cute when these flesh-eaters and body mutilators of bodies are referred to in media reports as "Senior Palestinian intelligence officers?" What is a person to think; that this is an acceptable face of Government? Perhaps to post-modernist leftist, culture-haters, it is. Never seems to matter either if they are the ones who are riddling cars and nearby children with bullets or are the ones being riddled. It's what Muslims do, and we have grown so used to it, it passes for normal. Even the weekly be-headings barely get a response. No, the new-speak is to always refer to them, as does the LA Times, as "Senior Palestinian intelligence officers." Or, to lovingly refer to them in their preferred term, "freedom fighters.! Just don't tell the truth. Might upset someone. It is all getting a little predictable though, don't you think? Following their savage rampages the LA Times always seems to manage a blurb which gushingly tells us how "later in the day, hundreds of enraged mourners burned tires, closed roads and shut down the city's central market." This is usually accompanied by pictures of thousands of upset Muslims carrying corpses over their heads, rejoicing over the fallen martyrs. Oh, sorry, I meant.. Mourning the dead. How do they remember which is which? Sweet! I wonder if anyone ever stops to notice that, in civilized societies, such as their neighbour Israel, the first reaction to a tragedy is NOT to burn tires and riot in the streets, NOT to politicise the tragedy. Especially to march around parading corpses. This group kills randomly, mutilates the bodies, and then passes around sweets; before piling in their cars to drive around aimlessly, blowing horns and shooting off guns. Always shooting off their guns. It's what all people do with Aid money, isn't it? Buy an AK-47 -- puts food on the table and clothes on the kids. Frankly, this barbaric group only knows how to have their "Day of Rage". What else is new? They are born in rage and, as they get older, learn that the only way to live is to strive for death. My thinking is fairly simple -- it is our duty to give them what they want! Because, folks, if we don't realize that we -- collectively WE, a world-wide WE -- are in a war where 1.6 Billion people seriously believe that you are an infidel and must either be converted, subjugated or killed, the future is predictable and bleak. DEAD! As politically incorrect as this might sound, has come down to them vs... us! Our leadership here, and the present-day gutless leadership of Israel, has the United States and the Jewish state on a road to hell. That, folks, is the 'roadmap'. It is up to us, the people, We the People, to snap out of our cocoons of apathy and start writing letters, running for office, and marching though the streets by the millions to get our message across. We, in the United States, haven't a clue as to what the people in Israel are thinking other than what we read in rags like the LA Times. Get informed form other, more reliable and less biased sources. They do exist. If I can find them, so can you. What's your excuse? I remember when I was in Gaza, shortly before the first "Intifada'. The lasting image I have is that this is all those people seemed to do; burn tires and sit around playing cards, talking and smoking their 'laughing water', no women in sight. I remember the old-before-their-time and hate filled eyes of the children who surrounded the car. And these people didn't even know that I was a "Jewess." I was presenting myself as a Christian journalist from Georgia, representing the news media for singles and women. They still hated me. The time for transfer is long over-due. I remember years ago when Israel deported four hundred terrorists. Deported folks, not killed, murdered or mutilated, as the Arabs are so fond of doing. These deportees set up camps on the outskirts of the cities, and, for months, the leaders of Israel allowed CNN to film their 'plight'of the Palesinians" on a nightly basis. Under media pressure, the same incompetent 'leaders' of Israel allowed them re-enter in another one of their infamous "good-will gestures". Fine, if the goodwill was returned, but all that comes back across the lines are dead Israeli bodies, and the Jews go about mourning in privacy and decency.away from the indifferent camera crews. Not news, you see. No learning from history though. Olmert is about to the open the jails and let the animals out, to once again roam and bomb the streets of Israel. This is intolerable and the masses should start letting their voices be heard. My thinking is, instead of four hundred terrorists in Israel, they should have rounded up another four hundred thousand who are guilty of violent aggression in the Jewish state and moved them out! The trouble with Israel is that just like a bad lover, they simply roll over and fall asleep. Their 'follow-up' is negligent of the needs of their people, and borders on the criminal. It is certainly insane. In the same theme, history has shown that populations, even large populations, have been forced across borders into other countries. In the interests of national sovereignty and security. It has been done, and it must be done again. These enemies of Israel must be transferred. Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
AVTAARS OF SAVAGERY
Posted by Dr. Steven Gill, December 15, 2006. |
|
Again this year, Christians are going to celebrate the birth of their Messiah who came to establish the culture of peace but the forces of destruction have been also growing in power to spread their desert. I wrote this poem about those forces of destruction. |
|
When the avtaars of savagery
Spiders of sinister news
From the oak of harmony
Dr. Stephen Gill is Poet Laureate of Ansted University in Canada. He can be reached by email at Stephen Gill (stephengill@cogeco.ca ) or visit his website: www.stephengill.ca |
|
PARIS STILL SMOLDERS
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 15, 2006. |
|
This is an important article. The trouble in France that reflects on Europe as a whole...this could easily applied to the USA too... France is gearing up for April 2007 election. With the upcoming election the French will have a golden opportunity to change their country pervasive Islamo Fascism/radical Islam tide. France is a secular state. As such, it must fast develop firm policies, which will stand firm against religious leaders who stoke the flames of the increasingly radicalized religious, mostly radical Islam, thus forming an entire generation mindset. France and all other nations must be inspired to adopt a cohesive national identity; without cohesive national identity, there is no nation, not French, not British, not American or Israeli! This article appeared today in the National Interest Online
It was written by Glen Feder, who is a senior research analyst at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and a doctoral candidate in political science at Boston College and L'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, France. The article refers to Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (January 18, 1689 in Bordeaux -- February 10,1755), more commonly known as Montesquieu, was a French social commentator and political thinker who lived during the Enlightenment years. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He was largely responsible for the popularization of the terms feudalism and Byzantine Empire. |
|
PARIS, France French police continue to round up and prosecute suspects of this year's riots, which occurred on October 27 -- the anniversary of last year's riots. While incidents were minor in comparison to last year, with around 277 cars and buses burned this time, not everyone was spared from the violence. In Marseille, 26-year-old Mama Galledou is still fighting for her life after over 62 percent of her body was burned when several teens doused her bus with gas and set it afire. We have been given a grim reminder that since last year, the root of the problem has not changed. While terrorism experts are correct to dissect the ideological anatomy of the rioters, and indeed the confluence of French policy and that ideology, much of the analysis has converged upon one or two factors, overlooking the prime French policy error and its enormous influence of their religious-secular hybrid ideology. Religion is not the prime reason for the riots, but it is one important element. The current generation of young Muslim immigrants in France no longer adheres to the pious Tabligh movement of their parents, which peaked in the 1970s and 1980s. The Tabligh movement, which was one of the most important Islamic movements by the end of the twentieth century, originated in the late 1920s in India and emphasized the strict imitation of Muhammad's life instead of the politicization of Islam. Part of the reason for this shift is that in 1997, in an effort to strike a compromise between preserving the rights of their minority groups and protecting traditional French secularist principles, France decided to streamline powerful Islamic organizations into one unified coalition called Le Conseil Français du Culte Musulman (French Council for the Muslim Religion). While the French government hoped that this would create one moderate and unified voice within the Muslim community, its effort backfired. The results of the election held amid the Muslim population for the council was the victory of a fundamentalist Islamic organization: the Muslim Brotherhood's Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF). Through the enormously successful efforts of the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF) and figures like Tariq Ramadan, the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology has spread like wildfire among French youth. The Muslim Brotherhood is not simply a religious movement, but a global social movement that promotes a version of Islam that adamantly rejects secularized political and social institutions. Interestingly, this is not the only formative ideological influence on France 's Muslim youth. The current rioters blend an uneasy mix of enlightenment notions of human rights with an increasingly radicalized cultural/"religious" identity -- not to mention the vestiges of a historic animosity towards the very country they live in. While the perpetrators of the violence have produced few official ideological statements, the nature of the riots speaks volumes. Most of the arrests that have been made are of Muslim North African men, with the average age being only 16. They are second and third generation of immigrants who are now fluent in French and protected by their French citizenship, but have still inherited a historical animosity towards French colonization and the war in Algeria. Their Western-inherited notion of "rights" -- which was originally inspired by Rousseau and other enlightenment thinkers -- were passed down to them not by Rousseau directly, but through the tumult of the 1960s, where early Sartrian ideas of "alienation" and the late Sartrian ideas of "social justice" were popularized. They blend this version of "rights" -- which, ironically, were originally made in direct opposition to the divine monarchy -- with their own religious identity. Ten years ago, French President Jacques Chirac campaigned on the theme of resolving these "social divisions", but little has been done. Today unemployment levels in the suburbs have reached 40 to 50 percent, and discrimination towards North Africans among the non-immigrant population is rampant. These are the factors that analysts typically point to, but it is the blending of religious fundamentalism (which was exacerbated by the French government's overt attempt to attenuate it) and the pseudo-enlightenment ideas of the 1960s that is driving the violent reaction of an increasingly alienated population of French youth. Meanwhile, that hybrid ideology, with its strong fundamentalist influence, has created a great disconnect with France's elite. One has only to read French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's 19th century writing style in his 600-page book on Napoleon that he published four years ago in order to understand the political elite's love of French "grandeur." They fear that the language, philosophy, and literature that once flourished in the days of the old aristocracy, described marvelously by authors such as Balzac and epitomized in historical characters like Madame de Sevigny, are being lost forever. Many elites and non-elites alike look upon the cauldron of hate in immigrant neighborhoods and fear French identity is being threatened. They argue that France did not endure a bloody revolution to throw out the laws of 1905, which declare a strict separation between church and state. And the revolution in the 18th century, colonial expansionism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and later two world wars did not take place, in the eyes of many French, to turn France into a giant melting pot. France is a nation where its citizens must be able to speak French. It is a country where the political ideals of "egalite" must combine with "liberte" and "fraternite" -- which require the cohesion of certain fundamental political, social and economic principles that make up the French ethos. The anger felt by immigrants and their children has been simmering for decades in Paris' suburbs, and it now threatens the fabric of what even Nietzsche once called Europe's "most spiritual and sophisticated culture." It has been fueled by the frustration of a generation of immigrants brought over to rebuild France after World War II, who now look enviously out of their shoddy high-rises at only a dim glimmer of the Paris that their parents came over for. Consequently, Europe has clearly become an even more important staging ground for terrorism than the Middle East. The real cause lies not in unemployment or poverty, but in France's 200 year-old identity crisis, which has produced public policy half-way houses. The French government's reaction to these problems has been a push for a stricter immigration policy, mandatory French speaking religious leaders and a ban on the hijab and other religious insignia in public schools. Unfortunately, efforts towards assimilating France's growing Muslim population have been too little too late. While there are few real reactionaries, the mainstream desire to preserve French "culture" has now become an uphill battle. Gearing up for an election in April 2007, the French will have a golden opportunity to change the tide. As a secular state, France must develop policies which continue to stand firm against religious leaders who stoke the flames of an increasingly radicalized religious identity that is forming an entire generational mindset. However, as a democracy, it has to develop policies which also offer greater economic incentives and promote grass- roots civic engagement in order to assimilate its minorities. The worse is yet to come unless power is given to leaders who can combine the theoretical and practical genius of someone like a Tocqueville or Montesquieu. Theory, guided by practice, must enlighten practice. It must be articulated in the language of our century, not that of the past, and seek to inspire the French to adopt a cohesive national identity. Whether this identity takes on the Lockean model of a capitalist and multicultural America, a version of a Gaullist ideal or some European hybrid, is what the French must decide. Reformulating this policy does not mean dreaming of the France of days past. However, it does require disinterested soul-searching for a consistent vision of the future through reconciling theoretical divisions of the past in order to guide present domestic policy reforms. Perhaps former French foreign minister Hubert Védrine was on to something when he said "We need a new Montesquieu who can think everything over again starting from zero. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ISRAELI ARABS CLUELESS
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, December 15, 2006. |
|
Just as one point can not define a line, so one survey can not define a social phenomena. Without knowing what the Jewish perception of Israeli Arabs has been previously, there is no way to view this in perspective. My own, entirely non-scientific intuition is that it has always been about the same. Jews as a group do not trust Arabs as a group while the Arabs as a group are relatively indifferent to anything outside their society. What would be interesting to know is how many Jews, despite their mistrust of "Arabs," believe they have an individually, good relationship with specific Arabs. What percentage believe they have Arab friends or would not be afraid to visit an Arab coworker at his home. It would also be revealing to know what percentage would not hesitate to hire an Arab to work in their home. It is information such as this that would indicate a clearer picture of Jewish attitudes towards Israeli Arabs. As to the political implications of all this, the obvious questions are: * Do you believe that Jews and Arabs can live together or must live separately? Those would have been interesting follow up questions. This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner and it comes from Independent
Media Review and Analysis (IMRA). |
|
Poll question: "How would you describe the relationship of trust between Jews and Arabs in the country today?" Israeli Jews responded: Good 15.7% Bad 83.1%
(Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 Israeli Jews and 500 Israeli Arabs carried out by Market Watch sponsored by the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel (ICCI) www.icci.org.il for the upcoming Kedem Conference) Put simply, the average Israeli Arab is apparently clueless as to just how seriously the situation has deteriorated. And it is understandable. They have confused the incredibly open nature of our society regarding radical and even destructive talk for acceptance of the same. But that isn't the case. How open? It is so open that when the leader of an outlawed radical Palestinian terrorist group is interviewed live (yes -- live) on Israel Army Radio, the program anchor and terrorist address each other by their first names. Open and confusing. The media can broadcast Israeli Arab demands to change our flag, our anthem and drop the Law of Return which allows Jews around the world to immigrate to Israel. But that doesn't mean Israeli Jews are comfortable with this (even if one of the organizations publishing the demands gets part of its funding from Leftist Diaspora Jews via the New Israel Fund). By the same token, the extremely short news cycle for stories about Israeli Arabs involved in terrorist activity or expressing support for our enemies might be mistakenly interpreted by Israeli Arabs as reflecting a lack of concern rather than our media's notoriously short attention span. Where do we go from here? ICCI sponsored the poll with an eye towards using it to encourage interfaith dialogue, but this result is so dramatic that it should go well beyond that. Israeli Arabs must come to grips with the fact that the policies and politics heard from their community today are poisoning relations with the Jewish majority. 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. |
|
ABBAS NEED MORE TROOPS?; BAKER SEEKS USUAL SCAPEGOAT; DEMOGRAPHY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 15, 2006. |
|
CREEPING ISLAMIFICATION OF FRANCE French police fear to enter 751 zones. Islam rules there (Daniel Pipes #731, 11/24). But France looks down upon the US as not having sensible policy towards Islam. PROBLEM WITH THE BUSH DOCTRINE Pres. Bush thinks that upon liberating a country, the US becomes ethically obliged to rebuild it. Daniel Pipes does not think so. Pres. Bush does not want to let the Islamists return to power in Iraq, but his policies have enabled them to make quite a start at that. Hence Pipes suggests moving our troops out of Iraqis' daily life and reserving them to protect the country from armies. For consistency, why doesn't the US propose rescuing Somalia from the Islamist take-over occurring there? Pipe's supposes that it is due to inertia. Having gotten into Iraq, we are unable to focus on anything else, too (Op. Cit.). Bush thought we could induce Iraqis to build democracy. Hence, we tried to rebuild their country. Apparently it was too big an undertaking to tackle in a hurry. If we stop? VOICE OF AMERICA FOLLOWING BBC? The Voice of America broadcast a segment it got from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamist organization. The segment complained about American prejudice against Muslims citing a survey. Daniel Pipes has exposed the self-serving "errors" of that group's earlier "surveys." There were other features of Islamic and Islamist propaganda in the airing (Ibid.). The BBC also acts as a shill for Islamists. IS ABBAS JUST IN NEED OF TROOPS & ARMS? Urged to crack down on terrorism, Arafat complained that his forces were too weak to do so. Abbas offers the same excuse for not cracking down on arms smuggling, and for demanding more arms and men. The US and Israel are providing them, too. Arabs wonder, is that the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy? Is Abbas' excuse valid? Abbas has 45,000 men at arms, Hamas has 6,000. Thousands of Abbas' men marched recently, firing a million rounds of ammunition, as if they had plenty. They recently arrested gangs involved in civil crimes. Why not those in military ones? Because he does not want to, not because he couldn't. Posing as weak, he is donated foreign aid in money and arms. He also smuggles in arms from Sinai. There is no shortage of arms in Gaza. Why should he reform? He won his first election by promising to end corruption and anarchy, which he then increased (IMRA, 11/25). The P.A. would get more foreign aid if it reformed and made peace, but the Arabs don't want peace, they want to bring Israel down. On the other hand, it is said that Abbas' men are dispirited and couldn't fight Hamas. On the third hand, Abbas' men may have been bought out by Iran or may prefer war to diplomacy. BAKER SEEKS THE USUAL SCAPEGOAT It's somewhat like the Vietnam syndrome, again. Our forces are winning, but our public is war-wary. In the Vietnam war, our casualties were high. In the Iraq war, they are low. But the public doesn't see things in proportion. Instead of rethinking our strategy and understanding the stakes, we seem to be ready to give up. Millions suffered the last time. This time it would be worse. Democrats who hate Pres. Bush don't realize that his father is far more devious and sinister. If his former Sec. of State gains influence in the son's Administration, America and Israel are in trouble. James Baker III is co-chairing a committee that may propose all sorts of surrenders to jihad. If we do that, Western civilization goes down. Baker is a poor champion to turn to. He had his turn. His policies failed. He's also a poor choice because of his known biases. We need someone who thinks straight. They say that the committee will propose sacrificing Israel to jihad, in the hope of getting the jihadist-backing states to cease support for militias in Iraq or perhaps just to meet with the US or perhaps for a public relations cover for defeat in Iraq. People and governments that sacrifice victims of aggression don't, themselves, deserve to survive. What does Baker care whether he sacrifices Israel? He has expressed his enmity for the Jews. They pay, not he, thinks he. So he sacrifices that ally and its Army, a country that has helped the US many times, in return for promises from forces that repeatedly break their promises. Where is the wisdom in that half-baked idea? Oh, Baker wouldn't put it as sacrificing Israel. He would put it as urging Israel to make concessions. But those concessions would tilt the balance so much against Israel, that it would bring about immediate, full-scale war and the death of millions. In this war, don't you think Egypt would play its part? It would be too late for the American Congress, American people, the supposedly powerful Jewish lobby, and Israel to complain about the $60 billion that the US gave Egypt to build up a modern army. The US is racking up quite a record of betrayal of allies. They may get hard to come by. This is especially true when the people of the Mideast and everywhere else hear the triumphant cries of the Muslims as they exterminate the Jews. The Muslims will rise up without fear of being put down, and Baker thinks he would take the pressure off the US? The US would be better advised to regroup and rally the free world behind us. The proposed sacrifice is illogical. It assumes that one can make a deal and buy off jihadists. Not when the doctrine of those fanatics is unrelenting struggle, and not when they consider the US their main obstacle to world domination. (They haven't taken China into account.) Not when their code has them make false promises and sign false truces. Their pattern has been to accept concessions and then resume the struggle. If James Baker had any understanding of Islam, he would realize that the centers of jihad must be defeated, they cannot be compromised with. Their people don't care about the niceties of agreements and how they came about. All they would shout about is that once again, they have beaten a superpower, and now Islam is unstoppable. We would be better off stopping Baker and then them. DEMOGRAPHICS The over-populating Muslims export their surplus people to depopulating Europe (Mark Steyn, NY Sun, 11/27, Op.-Ed.). Considering the Muslims' much higher birth rate, Western military forces fighting against them should not try to minimize enemy military casualties but to exact a high kill ratio. Otherwise, the Muslims would win by attrition. JEWISH DEMOGRAPHY The Jewish birth rate in Israel is practically as high as the Arab birth rate. Jews still immigrate to Israel, and Arabs still emigrate from the Territories. Therefore, there is no demographic reason for Israel to retreat from Territory. The opposite is true. If Israel retreated, millions of Arabs would enter and put demographic pressure upon Israel (Op. Cit.). They would consume scarce water and produce untreated sewage flowing towards Israel. TESTING THE ARABS Foreign Min. Livny said that the first few hours of the new ceasefire would test whether PA leaders can restrain the terrorist organizations (Arutz-7, 11/26). There have been quite a number of ceasefires. The Arabs violate them. Why constantly "test" them? Israeli leaders should stop pretending that the jihadists honor agreements or make peace. The purpose of Islamic ceasefires is to accumulate the means for another bombardment. Israel's purpose is to suspend criticism for it's not stopping the Arab bombardment. ASSASSINATIONS IN LEBANON Some Lebanese blame Pierre Gemayel's assassination upon the US or Israel. They think it was to make Syria look bad (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 11/27, p.6). There is no evidence for that or of that being either country's policy. Look bad to whom? Nobody has to make Syria look bad. It is bad. Besides, who does anything about Syria? This conspiracy theory is far-fetched. On the other hand, Hizbullah wants to bring down the Lebanese regime, and by killing enough Cabinet Members, the regime would lose its quorum and fall. That is motive! GOVERNMENT IN CONTROL, IN ISRAEL Regardless of whom Israeli voters pick for Prime Minister, he withdraws from territory or fails to enforce agreements with the Arabs. What once was a right wing in Israeli political parties has turned mostly leftward, ideologically, though the people do want security enough to fight for it. A leader of the Yesha Council has admitted receiving government funds for diversionary protests and for sabotaging the protest against Gaza withdrawal (Barry Chamish, lost date). 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. |
|
FROM THE BLOGS: THE CONTINUING SAGA OF "THE FLYING IMAMS"
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 15, 2006. |
|
This comes from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance website:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/12/continuing-saga-of-flying-imams.html And it was posted by von Schlichtningen. |
|
This was posted by Psion December 2, 2006
Last week Clearchannel radio KFYI Phoenix interviewed Iman Omar Shaid (Spokesman for the 6 Imans on a plane, serial defender of Osama bin Laden) of the East Valley Mosque. After Omar was given the opportunity to spew his propaganda regarding America and Islam, KFYI producer Kate O'Neill brought in Islamic expert Mohammed Saeed to set the record straight. Saeed refuted every detail of the Imam's version of Islam and opined that The Jordanian clerics were out to embarrass the American people by claiming to be "Victims" of racial profiling. Over at Little Green Footballs DEcember 12, 2006 posting with video:
Imagine 6 ordinary non-muslims pulling the same stunt off as a joke. I bet they would only now be able to get out on bail. I dare anyone to try. Somehow when you are Muslim inhuman behaviour is expected and that earns you a discount. Producers are fired for exposing Muslims? This is crazy. Next I expect people like Kate O'Neill will be deported to Iran for just punishment (torture, beheading and quartering). After all, we do not want to anger the adherents of the religion of peace. No, Sir. 3 Comments:
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
HANNUKA AMONG THE HELLENISTS
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 15, 2006. |
|
Of all the Jewish holidays, the one that I think best captures the contemporary Jewish zeitgeist, the one that is the most relevant to the current (and, if certain trends are not reversed, the last?) chapter in Jewish history, is Hannuka. Hannuka is, of course, the story of Jewish national liberation. It is the story of the military victory of the few against the many, of the champions of Judaism against the pagan barbarians. But it is more than this. It is the saga of the heroic struggle of Jewish survivalists (those one would today label "Zionists") against the assimilationists and self-hating Hellenists of the second century BCE. Hannuka is less a story about the battle against the Greeks than it is about the battle against the predominant assimilationist paradigm at the time among the Jews. It is about the battle against the anti-survivalists, those who hated themselves for being Jews, those who seek to be "progressive", "modern", and "in", through rejecting, abasing, disgracing and degrading themselves and their people. The Hellenists who fought the Hasmoneans were struggling against Jewish survival. Sound familiar? In the United States, the main movement of Hellenistic assimilationism has been the school of "Political Liberalism as Judaism", the pseudo-religion that holds that all of Judaism can be reduced to the pursuit of this week's liberal political fads. But the global avante garde of Jewish self-hatred these days is the Israeli Left. The Israeli Left is the main manifestation today of Jewish anti-Semitism. It not only promotes "plans" and policies designed to end Israel's existence, increasingly endorsing the one-state, bi-national Rwanda solution to the "problem" of Israeli national existence, but it also regularly attacks every symbol and concept of traditional Judaism. You think I am exaggerating? Well just consider the Op-Ed a few years back in the Israeli anti-Zionist daily Haaretz, penned by one Yehiam Shorek, a "historian" who teaches at the Beit Berl College in Israel. Beit Berl is a college run by the kibbutz movement. The "historian" Shorek devoted his Haaretz column to proving that the Maccabees were fascist and racist hooligans, bloodthirsty zealots, and downright Likudniks. His column was entitled "Bloodthirsty Zealots". His thesis was that Jews should stop celebrating Hannuka and the exploits of the Maccabees, and should instead feel sympathy for the poor occupied and mistreated Greeks and Hellenists. His article was not a spoof. The evil Maccabees were plotting to perpetrate population "transfer", wrote Shorek, that most evil of all crimes in the "minds" of Israel's fundamentalist Leftists. Population "transfer" is far worse than, say, mass murdering 2000 Jews after signing with them a series of peace accords, or turning the West Bank and Gaza over to barbarian fascists to allow them to carry out such mass murders. Shorek is a member of that same Fundamentalist Left that will not rest until all Jews have been expelled from the West Bank and Gaza in an act of ethnic cleansing, and until no Israeli armed forces are left behind to interfere with the terrorist activities of the "Palestinians." Matityahu, the father of Judah Maccabee and his brothers, was a lunatic, wrote Shorek. He was a warmonger who dragged his country into an unnecessary "war of choice", one that was not a legitimate "war of self-defense". (Never mind that there is nothing at all in Judaism that says Jews should refrain from conquering their lands unless it is part of a war of self-defense.) The Maccabees were the aggressors, insisted Shorek. And they suppressed the free speech of those who supported the Greeks; how undemocratic of them! Judah Maccabee was guilty of causing many families to lose their loved ones by leading people to war, wrote Shorek, instead of pursuing some sort of Hellenistic Oslo appeasement and capitulation, the sort the "enlightened Left" seeks today to impose upon Israel. All Judah Maccabee really wanted to do was to Occupy, Occupy, Occupy, insists Shorek. No better than the West Bank settlers today! And not only that, but Judah and his hooligans were Orthodox Jews, which every leftist knows must make them primitive and barbaric; you know, unlike the enlightened Marxist historians who live on nice kibbutzim or teach at the Beit Berl college. (If you would like to tell the management of Beit Berl what you think they should do with Shorek, write daliabk@beitberl.ac.il or Beit Berl College, Doar Beit Berl, 44905, Israel; Telephone: 972-9-7476333; Fax: 972-9-7454104.) Unfortunately, Shorek is hardly a lone phenomenon. Israel's anti-Jewish leftists have been launching similar jihads against every other symbol of Jewish valor. Masada was a cesspool of non-tolerant fanatics, according to them. The Bible is a backward document full of fabrications. Schools should stop teaching it altogether, they demand, and instead teach something really useful, like the works of Palestinian "poets". Archeology proves the Bible is nothing but lies and fantasy, they insist. One wag labeled such people Pentateuch Deniers (intended as a play on "Holocaust Deniers"). In Israel, the country's politics -- particularly its cultural/educational elite and its chattering classes -- are now largely dominated by those motivated by the desire for their country to commit national suicide. They scorn themselves, their own country and their own people, the same way that the Hellenized Jews did at the time of the Maccabees. Many endorse boycotts of Israel by anti-Semites abroad. Like the Hellenized Jews, they are convinced that traditionalist Jews are reactionary and primitive, and that the greatest national priority should be renunciation of Jewish peculiarity and the striving to assimilate amongst the cosmopolitan progressive "Greeks" of the world. They are ashamed of their Jewishness and convinced that the only path to peace is to renounce it. They insist that a Seleucid "narrative" should replace the Jews' own reactionary national one. Israel's universities are by and large the Occupied Territories of these Hellenists. The Israeli media is to almost the same extent. Hellenists dominate much of the Israeli military and, somewhat incredibly, the intelligence services. (It is doubtful the country could have undergone the Oslo debacle had these intelligence services not operated as lap dogs for the Beilinized Israeli Left.) Hellenists have attempted to rewrite the Israeli school curriculum, to teach Israeli Jewish children to despise themselves. Their message is that Jews must feel ashamed, because they are mean, selfish, evil and immoral people. Surely, there would be no anti-Semitism on the planet were not the Jews such racist and insensitive people. Their aim is to convince the Jews that the only way they may become accepted in the world is to adapt to paganism, to stop seeking to exist as a separate national entity, to commit national suicide. Moreover, their campaign is aimed at challenging the moral existence of the Jews. They realize this is the weakest chink in the armor of the Jews. If Jews can be convinced that they are morally in the wrong, then no Maccabees will emerge. The aim of the Jewish Hellenists is the delegitimization of the Jews as a nation, discrediting the moral position of Jewish survivalism. The message of the contemporary Hellenists is unambiguous: Those who wish to purify the Temple, who seek pure oil for the Temple lamp, who wish to evict the barbarians from Jerusalem, are the enemies of peace. The Maccabees must be arrested for incitement. The Jews must provide Antiochus with concessions and arms and funds and a Road Map. Under no circumstances should the Jews seek to defend themselves militarily against the Seleucids, for there is no military solution to the problem of Seleucid aggression. If the barbarians murder the Jews, it is because the Jews are evil, selfish people and because they have been too reluctant to abandon their primitive survivalism. If the Israeli anti-Jewish Left has its way, the Post-Hasmonean, post-survivalist era will be upon us. Dip the latkes in lard. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at stevenplaut@yahoo.com |
|
ISLAMIST EXTREMIST THREAT IN BANGLADESH
Posted by Salah Choudhury, December 14, 2006. |
|
Referring to the 8/17 bomb blasts in all the 63 districts in Bangladesh, Ambassador Howard Schaffer expressed the view that Bangladesh is probably being used by Islamic fundamentalists and insurgents as a safe haven to enable them to carry on with their activities in an unrestricted manner. Between August and December 2005, a series of attacks hit Bangladesh, collectively killing 12, wounding hundreds of others and involving the country's first suicide strikes. In the most audacious assault on August 17, 434 homemade bombs were set off in 63 districts over the course of just one hour. This unprecedented bout of violence has thrust the country to the forefront of regional and global terrorist attention, generating fears that a new jihadist beachhead is emerging in this predominantly Muslim nation of roughly 144 million people. "This is surely terrorism. It can't be anything else. What was astonishing about these bombings, which took place in late August, was that they were coordinated throughout the country. Only a couple of districts were not affected. Not too many people were killed, and that many people think is evidence that what these terrorist groups were seeking to do was to send a warning to the government and the country, because you can't have such a coordinated attack unless you have a very strong organization," he said. Schaffer said inability of the government to rule the country was a major contributor of growing extremism. "Bangladesh is badly governed. And under those circumstances, there is a tendency to turn to moderate Islamic countries, moderate Islamic parties, or more radical groups. It sets up an environment in which these radical groups can operate," he said. Two main militant organizations currently exist in Bangladesh: Jama'at ul-Mujahedeen Bangladesh (JMB, or the Bangladesh Assembly of Holy Warriors) and Harakat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (HuJI-B, or Movement of Islamic Holy war-Bangladesh). It may be mentioned here that the masterminds of the notorious Islamist militancy group JMB, Shykh Abdur Rahman studied in Medina University, who later came back to Bangladesh and worked for Saudi Embassy for some years. During his student life, Shykh Rahman managed to establish relations with Al-Qaeda. Incidents of extremism and terrorism have witnessed a sharp increase in Bangladesh in recent years, with the number of attacks last year exceeding the total number of incidents in the preceding five years. Most of the attacks have been directed against religious minorities, secular intellectuals and journalists as well as against politicians belonging to secular parties and leftist activists. Islamist extremists have sought to impose an Islamic way of life on people in rural areas, often through the use of force. Women have been coerced into veiling themselves and men have been forced to grow beards and wear skull caps. According to terrorism experts and several analysts, Bangladesh is increasingly recognized as the locus of a significant and expanding threat emanating from radicalized Islamist extremist mobilization and its systematic transformation into political and terrorist violence. Notwithstanding vociferous official denials, it has, for some time now, been an established staging post for terrorism within the region, and is seen as a potential center of Islamist consolidation for the "global jihad" as well. Worse, these processes are rooted in an entrenched political dynamic that has progressively diminished the space for secular or moderate politics in the country. Given the polarization and extreme hostility between the two dominant political parties in Bangladesh, and the near complete split down the middle in voting patterns, the Islamist parties have become central to the processes of government formation in the country, and have gradually expanded their political presence as well. These trends have been compounded further by the combination of religious mobilization, intimidation and extremist violence that these radical parties and their armed allies engage in, as well as their very wide and expanding presence in the social sector, particularly education. Given these broad trends, the scope for any reversal of the Islamist extremist consolidation in Bangladesh has shrunk progressively. It is necessary to understand the dynamics of these processes, as well as to make an objective assessment of their real and potential threat, both in terms of internal stability and external security. Firstly, what are the real dimensions and magnitude of the threat of Islamist extremist mobilization in Bangladesh? The coastal area stretching from the port city of Chittagong south through Cox's Bazaar to the Myanmar border, notorious for piracy, smuggling and arms-running, is the principal area of activity of the Harkat-ul-Jehadi-e-Islami Bangladesh (Movement of Islamic Holy War, HuJI-BD), which is a signatory to Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front and a designated terrorist outfit in many countries, including the United States. Further, the Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB or Awakened Muslim Masses), a vigilante Islamist group, is reported to have created strong bases mostly in northwest Bangladesh, in the districts of Rajshahi, Satkhira, Naogaon, Bagerhat, Jessore, Chittagong, Joypurhat, Natore, Rangpur, Bogra, Chittagong, and Khulna. Elsewhere, the Jama'atul Mujahideen (Party of the Mujahideen) is training small groups of youths for jihad in the northern districts of Natore and Bogra, one in the southwestern district of Chuadanga and another in the mid-eastern border district of Chandpur. It also has a network in the Shaghata, Sundarganj and Sadullapur areas of Gaibandha district as also in Rajshahi district and parts of Khulna city. While both of them espouse the ideal of a "Italianized" Bangladesh, JMJB leaders have openly proclaimed links to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. There have also been reports that JMJB's training of recruits includes recorded speeches of bin Laden and video footage of warfare training at al-Qaeda's (now defunct) Farooque camp in Afghanistan. Professor Abu Sayeed, in his two books, Aghoshito Juddher Blueprint (Blueprint of an Undeclared War) and Brutal Crime Documents, claims that around 50,000 militants belonging to more than 40 groups are now controlling a vast area of the country. Sayeed also says over 50 camps are now in operation across Bangladesh, where Islamists are getting military training and that militant groups have their recruits in all sections of society, including mosques, seminaries, educational institutions, the judiciary, mass media and even the armed forces. The prevailing socio-political dynamics lend themselves to the consolidation of Islamist extremism in the country. For instance, the JMJB is believed to have exploited the countryside's abhorrence towards left-wing extremism to spread radical Wahhabism among the rural populace and in the process also emerged as a significant force to be reckoned with. The group's rapid spread has been primarily achieved through an assumption of the role of "protector" in areas of widespread mal-governance, support of local administration and perceived linkages and claims of contact with the al-Qaeda-Taliban combine. Taking recourse to a policy of appeasement, the Khaleda Zia regime had initially remained largely indifferent to the growing power and clout of such radical Islamist groups. Although, lately after the countrywide bomb explosion by JMB, the former ruling coalition was rather forced to go into a massive drive to arrest the main kingpins and put them on trial. A sharp polarization of the country's polity has led to a situation in which the just past-government sought to maintain an electoral balance, while the Islamic extremists seek to broaden their political and social base. This is crucial and is expected to continue, considering the past trajectory. In the October 2001 Parliamentary elections, BNP secured 40.97% of the votes, with its coalition right-wing parties, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh securing 4.28%, and the Islami Oikyo Jote (Islamic Unity Council, an alliance of seven radical Islamist groups) wining 0.68%. At the other end, the opposition AL received 40.13% of the vote. This extremely close competition between the two main parties gave the Islamists disproportionate leverage, considering their tiny electoral base. It is this battle for electoral balance among the BNP and AL that is being exploited by the Islamic extremists. While it is true that Bangladeshi Islamic extremists, with some exceptions, have not been linked to major international terrorist incidents, it would be perilous to consider the Islamist ensemble as purely internal developments. These movements are, to a certain extent, local variants of an international Islamist enterprise and a significant number of these groups and individuals maintain links with the "global jihad". To that end, it would be hazardous to focus only on the transient geographical location of Islamist terror. Anti-US rhetoric has continued. In December 2001, Maulana Ubaidul Haq, the khatib (grand cleric), of Bangladesh's national mosque, Baitul Mukarram, and a Jamaat associate, publicly condemned the US war on terror and urged followers to wage holy war against the USA. "President Bush and America is the most heinous terrorist in the world. Both America and Bush must be destroyed. The Americans will be washed away if Bangladesh's 120 million Muslims spit on them," the cleric told a gathering of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims which included several high-ranking government officials. Much of the violence in the Chittagong-Cox's Bazar area has been blamed on the Rohingyas, a refugee community of Muslims from Myanmar's Arakan State. In 1991, over 250,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh, claiming religious persecution in Myanmar. They were sheltered in more than 20 camps near the border south and east of Cox's Bazar. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) managed to repatriate most of them, but an estimated 20,000 destitute refugees remain in two camps between Cox's Bazar and the border, which is heavily mined in some areas on the Myanmar side to prevent smuggling and cross border guerrilla activities. There is also an undisclosed number of Rohingyas living in villages outside the UNHCR supervised camps. In one village, Gumdrum, located only a few hundred meters from the Myanmar border, virtually everyone is of Rohingya descent. Some are recent arrivals, while others have settled here over the past three or four decades. According to officials, new refugees arrive daily. In January 2001, Bangladesh clamped down on Rohingya activists and offices in Chittagong and Cox's Bazar. Hundreds were rounded up, and the local press was full of reports of their alleged involvement in gun- and drug-running. Local Rohingya leaders vehemently deny such accusations, and refute claims that they are connected with Islamic fundamentalist groups in and outside Bangladesh: "These are pure fabrications to discredit us," said Nurul Islam, president of the Arakan Rohingya National Organization, a moderate Rohingya group active in the border areas. Another Rohingya spokesman blamed local Bangladeshi gangs with high-level connections for the violence, smuggling and lawlessness in the area. The paramilitary Bangladesh Rifles have also been accused of involvement in smuggling activities around Cox's Bazar. There is little doubt that extremist groups have taken advantage of the disenfranchised Rohingyas, including recruiting them as cannon fodder for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In an interview with the Karachi-based newspaper, Ummat on 28 September 2001, Bin Laden said: "There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Myanmar to Kashmir." He was most probably referring to a small group of Rohingyas on the Bangladesh-Myamnar border. Many of the recruits were given the most dangerous tasks in the battlefield, clearing mines and portering. According to Asian intelligence sources, recruits were paid Tk30,000 ($525) on joining and then Tk10,000 ($175) per month. The families of recruits killed in action were offered Tk100,000 ($1,750). Recruits were taken mostly via Nepal to Pakistan, where they were trained and sent on to military camps in Afghanistan. It is not known how many people from this part of Bangladesh -- Rohingyas and others -- fought in Afghanistan. According to Asian intelligence reports, many of HUJI's members may also have been recruited from Rohingya settlements in the southeastern corner of the country HUJI is headed by an extremist cleric from Chittagong, Maulana Sheikh Farid, who also maintains links with like-minded groups in Pakistan. Bangladesh is far from becoming another Pakistan, and the rise of extremism should be seen in the context of the country's turbulent politics since breaking away from Pakistan in 1971. Bangladesh was formed in opposition to the notion that all Muslim areas of former British India should unite in one country. Bangladesh is the only state in the subcontinent with one dominant language group and very few ethnic and religious minorities. The rise of fundamentalism in Bangladesh is not just a side effect of military politics. Enayetullah Khan, editor of the Bangladesh weekly Holiday, says that a Muslim element has always been present; otherwise, what was East Pakistan could have merged with the predominantly Hindu Indian state of West Bengal, where the same language is spoken. "We're having a bit of an identity crisis here," said Khan. "Are we Bengalis first and Muslims second, or Muslims first and Bengalis second? This is the problem. And when Muslim identity becomes an Islamic identity we're in real trouble." This is a dilemma that Bangladesh has to tackle very carefully. The urban middle class may resent the fundamentalists and dismiss them as irrelevant, and the government -- which is heavily dependent on foreign aid -- has to contain the extremists so as not to upset relations with its powerful donor countries, the West and Japan. However, extremist influence is growing, especially in the countryside. A foreign diplomat in Dhaka said: "In the 1960s and 1970s, it was the leftists who were seen as incorruptible purists. Today, the role model for many young men in rural areas is the dedicated Islamic cleric with his skull cap, flowing robes and beard." As Indonesia has shown, an economic collapse or political crisis can give rise to militants for whom religious fundamentalism equals national pride, and a way out of misrule, disorder and corrupt worldly politics. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is the Publisher & Editor of Weekly Blitz published from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Internet edition of this newspaper is available on www.weeklyblitz.net) |
|
ADL AND JDL THE MACCABEES AND RABBI KAHANE
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 14, 2006. |
|
Rabbi Meir Kahane -- read his biography at http://www.kahane.org/biography.html -- had certain beliefs that, while he was alive an active, sounded extreme and for that reason he was assassinated. In an interview the Rabbi had with Al Rantel, KABC radio talk show host, Al asked him: when it comes to anti-Semitism, whether it is a slur, bigotry action or the like, what is the difference between ADL (Anti Defamation League-Fighting Anti-Semitism, bigotry and Extremism) and JDL (Jewish Defense League -- was formed in 1968 for the declared purpose of protecting Jews, in the most controversial, yet the most effective manner and by whatever means necessary in the face of what was seen by the group's principals as their dire peril), the Rabbi replied: ADL writes a reports and JDL takes action and goes and "kicks ass." Nowadays, it is known how right Rabbi Kahane was. His clear picture of what Israel should be like and what to do to fight the Palestinians and win, within and outside the Jewish state borders turned nothing but the right way, the only way. So who writes reports today: The U.N., the Iraq Study Group, the Human Rights Organizations, and if the Israel Supreme Courts will continue their conduct, IDF will be writing reports instead of kicking ass... Hanukkah commemorates the rededication of the holy Temple in Jerusalem after the Jews' 165 B.C.E. victory over the Hellenist Syrians and Antiochus, the Greek King of Syria. The fighting began in Modiin, a village not far from Jerusalem. A Greek officer and soldiers assembled the villagers, asking them to bow to an idol and eat the flesh of a pig, activities forbidden to Jews. The officer asked the Jewish High Priest Mattathias to take part in the ceremony and he refused; a Jewish villager offered to do it instead. Mattathias became outraged, took out his sword and killed the man, then killed the officer. His five sons and the other villagers then attacked and killed the soldiers. Mattathias' family went into hiding in the nearby mountains, where many other Jews who wanted to fight the Greeks joined them. They attacked the Greek soldiers whenever possible. Judah Maccabee and his soldiers went to the holy Temple, and were saddened that many things were missing or broken, including the golden menorah. They cleaned and repaired the Temple, and when they were finished, they decided to have a big dedication ceremony. For the celebration, the Maccabees wanted to light the menorah. They looked everywhere for oil, and found a small flask that contained only enough oil to light the menorah for one day. Miraculously, the oil lasted for eight days. This gave them enough time to obtain new oil to keep the menorah lit. Today Jews celebrate Hanukkah for eight days by lighting candles in a menorah every night, thus commemorating the eight-day miracle. Thousands of years ago the Maccabees "kicked ass" and stood their ground with the Hellenist Empire! What is wrong with all of us these days that we do not stand our ground and fight for what is right!? Chag Chanukah Sa'me'ach Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
OLMERT TO GIVE MT. ZION TO THE VATICAN
Posted by Lee Caplan, December 14, 2006. |
|
This is from the Save Zion organization. They are calling for public awareness as Israel threatens to hand over Mt. Zion Complex and Tomb of King David to the Vatican as political gift to the Pope. Point of contact: Ellen Horowitz: ellenwrite@bezeqint.net for the Committee to Save Mt. Zion (Int. Sephardic Leadership Council). |
|
JERUSALEM, Israel (December 14, 2006) -- The 'Committee to Save Mt. Zion' wishes to alert the public that the Mt. Zion complex in Jerusalem may be handed over to the Vatican as a political gift to the Pope, ending Jewish sovereignty to the Tomb of King David, a traditional site of pilgrimage for persons of all religions and backgrounds; the Catholic Church has been seeking ownership of the location since 1920. In October 2005, The Times of London reported that Israel was about to hand over control of the reputed 'last supper room' in a building on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. But due to public pressure, protests, political discussions, and the revealment of suspicious documents, the handover was halted. The recent December 2006 threatened handover came to the attention of the Committee to Save Mt. Zion via recent Italian news sources that indicated the Mt. Zion complex is on the agenda for negotiations between the Vatican and Israel. And that it will be a topic of conversation between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Pope on Olmert's recent visit to Rome. In a statement released to the media, the Committee stated that they find the subject of a handover of the Mt. Zion complex unacceptable. "We speak for Jews, Protestants and even Muslims that all revere the site as a place of pilgrimage, we don't want the Catholic Church to seize what has been a site of pilgrimage and turn it into the Eastern Vatican," said, Rick Halpern, a developer who is voluntarily working to restore major adjoining areas of Mt. Zion. He added, "We are having emergency meetings with members of the Jerusalem City Council, and we will use all democratic and legal means to oppose any agreement with the Vatican over the area in, around, or above the traditional Tomb of King David." "Mt. Zion is a Jewish treasure," said Ellen Horowitz, an Israeli author and member of the Committee. "Although Israel's ambassador to the Vatican, Oded Ben Hur, denies any such negotiations over the Upper Room/Cenacle Shrine--Catholic and Vatican news sources continue to relentlessly promote such a concept," Horowitz added. Among the requests of the Committee, they require assurances that the Mt. Zion complex, including King David's Tomb and the Diaspora Yeshiva Rabbinical School campus will not be infringed upon, nor will the Jewish nature and environment of the area be disturbed by Catholic religious rituals and services. The Committee to Save Mt. Zion was established by the 'International Sephardic Leadership Council' during the previous threatened hand over to the Vatican in 2005. The Committee is made up of professionals, educators, media personalities, authors, historians, writers and Jewish leaders in both Israel and the North America. All persons of all backgrounds and religions that interested in saving Mt. Zion should join the 'Save Zion' email list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/savezion/ and visit http://www.sephardiccouncil.org/zion.html for further information. Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com |
|
WINGS OF HOPE FOR JEWISH EXPELLEES? MEETING WITH UJA-FEDERATION OF NEW YORK OFFICIALS
Posted by Buddy Macy, December 14, 2006. |
|
This past Monday, December 11, 2006, at the headquarters of UJA-Federation of New York, I participated in an extremely positive meeting concerning the plight of the expellees of Gush Katif and northern Samaria with the CEO of UJC's largest Federation. In attendance at the 5:00 pm meeting, that had been organized by Fabian Schonfeld, rabbi of Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, were eight rabbinical leaders: Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, Rabbi Yoel Schonfeld, Rabbi Heshy Billet, Rabbi Bernard Rosenzweig, Rabbi Kenneth Hain, Rabbi Shlomo Hochberg, Rabbi David Hill and Rabbi Dale Polakoff. Also present at the gathering were Jan Fenster and Cynthia Zalisky, President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Queens Jewish Community Council, Larry Sheldon, Chairman of the UJA Annual Appeal at Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, Queens and myself, Buddy Macy, an independent activist. Representing UJA-Federation of New York were John Ruskay, Executive Vice President and CEO, Dr. Alisa Kurshan, Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning and Organizational Resources, Dru Greenwood, Director of Synagogue Renewal, Rabbi Michael Paley, Scholar in Residence and David Mallach, Managing Director of the Commission on the Jewish People. Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld began the discussion by thanking Mr. Ruskay for hosting the critical meeting. He then explained the purpose and intent of the gathering: to seek financial help for the expellees from Gaza and northern Samaria, 16 months after their expulsion in August, 2005; and, to discuss humanitarian needs, not politics. Rabbi Schonfeld said that he could not figure out why United Jewish Communities (UJC, the Jewish Federation network in North America), and, specifically, the UJA-Federation of New York, had not provided help to the nearly 10,000 Jewish refugees, victims of the Israeli Government's "disengagement" plan; especially, after the organizations had supported the expulsion plan prior to its execution. (Approximately four months ago, UJC did allocate $400,000 to the expellees, after learning more about their severe needs. The funds from this pledge of support are coming from remaining contributions from the previous Israel Emergency Campaign, that had been conducted several years ago.) Mr. Ruskay responded to Rabbi Schonfeld's concern and amazement, offering his explanation as to why he and UJA-Federation of New York had not helped the expellees. He stated, simply: "I thought the [Israeli] Government was doing it." It was curious to hear this from him, in light of the large volume of reports, articles and commentary written about the Israeli Government's failure to help the Jewish refugees from Gush Katif and northern Samaria -- including the report of Israeli State Comptroller, Micha Lindenstrauss (http://www.mevaker.gov.il/serve/contentTree.asp?bookid=456&id= 186&contentid=&parentcid=undefined&sw=1024&hw=698 - Untranslated) and, far from limited to, the following linked articles (in English) from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4786380.stm), Ynetnews - part of Yedioth Group, Israel's largest media company (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3225148,00.html), Israel National News (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=99863), Independent Media Review Analysis (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=28711), the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (http://www.jta.org/brknews.asp?id=1696), WorldNetDaily http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50676/) and the Forward (http://www.forward.com/articles/newsdesk-march-10-2006/). In addition, during the past 11 months I have had a very public, running "debate" with Howard Rieger, President of UJC, and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, over UJC's silence regarding the devastating plight of the Jewish refugees from Gush Katif and northern Samaria. Therefore, I find Mr. Ruskay's comment extremely difficult to understand. Nonetheless, the Federation CEO informed our assembled group that now that he knew that the Israeli Government failed to care for the victims of the expulsions as it promised it would, he and his staff will work to aid financially the expellees. This is an extremely important commitment on the part of John Ruskay and UJA-Federation of New York. And, he acted immediately towards the fulfillment of his pledge, appointing Dr. Kurshan as the contact person for aid to the expelled from Gush Katif and northern Samaria. Mr. Ruskay said that he would report back to us in a month regarding the progress his Federation had made in its efforts to help the Jewish refugees -- our fellow Jews who have been suffering tremendous emotional, mental and physical hardships during the past 16 months. At the meeting, John Ruskay said that he would be traveling to Israel in February, and that he would meet with some of the leaders of the expellees for a few hours. I am confident that after observing the conditions in which the expellees are currently living, UJA-Federation of New York and UJC will do all they can to provide the necessary funds to relieve their plight. To the thousands of people to whom this email is being sent directly or forwarded, please consider contributing to the needy Jewish refugees from Gush Katif and northern Samaria. It would be a Chanukah mitzvah, especially for the children and youth. Also, it is a perfect time to take a tax deduction for 2006. Here is the simple information for making a generous donation: Friends of Gush Katif
Or, directly to Israel, at: Gush Katif Committee
To donate by credit card, please go to: www.katifund.org. Friends of Gush Katif is a registered 501(c)(3) charity. I will continue to apprise you as to the progress made in securing significant, desperately -needed funds for the expellees. In the interim, if you have any suggestions, comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Most sincerely and optimistically,
Contact Buddy Macy at vegibud@gmail.com |
|
TALK WITH THE ENEMY OR TARGET THE ENEMY?; THE STORY BEHIND THE "CEASEFIRE"; UNO ONE-SIDEDNESS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 14, 2006. |
|
ISRAEL WON'T TARGET HAMAS "POLITICAL" LEADERS Before the ceasefire, Israel's security cabinet decided to continue liquidating terrorist commanders, but not their "political" leaders. The Cabinet decision was accompanied by a terse assertion that liquidating "political" leaders does not pay. It didn't explain. A terrorist movement waging total war does not separate political leaders from military, just as Islam does not separate religion from state and war. At the end of WWII, the Allies put on trial for war crimes the political leadership of Nazi Germany. Israel would reduce foreign criticism if it made propaganda and if its propaganda emphasized that the Arabs wage total war by barbaric means. Israel fights within the rules of war but also extends its restraint to a unilateral, self-defeating code of ethics that protects terrorists at the expense of its own people. That is not the way to survive. How ethical is that? TALKING WITH THE ENEMY On second thought, Israel is not foolish to refuse to negotiate with Syria, and legitimize imperialism. It is foolish, however, not to explain the reason. Here's why Israel should forebear. Certain enemies of Israel seek not some parcels of land but to eradicate Jewish sovereignty anywhere. These enemies are making war on Israel. When not in combat, they are preparing it or fighting by proxies. They commit war crimes, violate truces, and have a doctrine that indicates that treaties are truces to be broken when advantageous. They don't want peace, they want to conquer. Their purpose in negotiating is not to resolve the conflict but to pursue it via diplomacy. Worse, once negotiations would start, the foreign media and governments hostile to Israel and naïve people who think that negotiations are a form of conflict-resolution (whereas by the Muslims they are a form of conflict-exacerbation), would press Israel and only Israel to make dangerous concessions. In the case of Syria, these concessions would put Syria back into the favorable terrain from which it was able to commence aggression against Israel years ago. ONE-SIDEDNESS The UNO Commission on Human Rights is so stacked against human rights and honest discussion of issues, that the US won't join it. The Commission is criticized for ignoring most issues or passing resolutions so general as to accomplish nothing, just what genocidal regimes want. The Commission also is criticized for spending most of its time badgering Israel. Yes, that does show its bias. But complaints that it is one-sided, while correct and valid, also have a built-in bias of even-handedness. One should be even-handed between two comparable entities. One should not be evenhanded between an aggressor and victim. In the Muslim jihad against Israel, the Muslims are the aggressors and Israel, the victim. The Muslim Arabs and Iranians commit war crimes against the Jews. A decent Commission on Human Rights would resolve against the war criminals. THE ENEMY'S "RIGHT TO KNOW"? Some journalists reveal government anti-terrorism efforts, and justify themselves by asserting a public "right to know." Problem is, the revelation tips terrorists off, and they discontinue the detectable practice (Daniel Johnson, NY Sun, 11/16, Op.-Ed.). The US government has sowed suspicion about its intentions by being overly secretive, by imposing policies under false pretenses, and by lacking a war strategy. The public has a right to know about its policies and whether its methods break the law. The public does not have a right to know all the details, just as it doesn't have a right to know about battle plans beforehand. Sometimes the "right to know" is a false excuse for boosting a journal's ratings or, worse, for partisan attempts to lower the President's. THE STORY BEHIND THE "CEASEFIRE" Israelis complain that the enemy keeps firing at it but the Army is not allowed to crush the enemy. The government, civilian and military alike, answer petulantly that the IDF does whatever is necessary to stop terrorism. The claim, however, is false. The government and the military have a sick set of ethics that protects Arab civilians, even willing human shields for terrorists, before it protects Israeli civilians. Self-imposed restrictions prevent Israel from having an open-ended military arms-searching mission, from bombing "sensitive" targets such as mosques, and from bombing residences used as arms workshops or for storage, without a 30-minute warning. The result is that the Arabs can store arms in such places and keep smuggling and manufacturing them. The government may think that this restraint is necessary for public relations. It isn't. The rest of the world is so prejudiced that it either doesn't believe Israeli claims of restraint or it supposes Israel is stupid. It does not give Israel credit for decency. In fact, even moderate military missions have errant shells or wounded civilian bystanders, generating the feared negative publicity anyway. The additional negative publicity for a thorough mission would be minimal. Unable to prevent rocket attacks because of self-restraint, no wonder Israel agrees to a ceasefire. But during the ceasefire, the Arabs not only restore destroyed or spent weaponry, they improve them. When they are ready, they will breach the ceasefire and inflict heavier casualties upon Israel. Thus the ceasefire may reduce negative publicity for a while, but at a price of death (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 11/23). The IDF issues a press release after every operation, reminding the public that it does everything it can to stop terrorism. These press releases are boring and stick to the immediate issue of the attack. They miss the opportunity to show the press how evil an enemy Israel has. Why should mosques be considered sensitive? Those are major targets by both Shiites and Sunni Muslims in Iraq. When Mosques store weaponry, Israel should point out that the religious function was subordinated to the war function, and the mosques forfeit exempt status. Israel has the better case, by far, and should take the lead in public relations, instead of fearing to protect its people lest it get poor public relations. THE ROLE OF IRANIAN SUICIDE UNITS The Revolutionary Guards of Iran have enrolled tens of thousands of volunteers in suicide units. It has not given them much training in it. Then what are they for? Some officials criticize the Guards for announcing the enrollment as giving the rest of the world the impression that Iran is a terrorist state. Those critics don't disapprove of the tactic of suicide attacks, but they think it should be done in secret. The Guards allow themselves to use any means for the cause, and deem any opposition as "terrorist." They announce such units to deter enemy attack. Analysis finds that the units are more a means of internal repression than of national defense. For a century, Iran has used vigilantes to curb dissent. The clerical regime may have used such units, fanatically loyal to it, to liquidate reformers (Middle East Forum, 11/23), without blowing themselves up. The Islamists violate the rules of war and ordinary ethics. We must become more ruthless without becoming barbaric. We must devise better tactics and counter-measures. First, however, we need to realize we are in a world war with a brutal and devious foe seeking to destroy us or at least our free way of life. ISLAM SUBVERTING THE WEST "The petrodollar-backed Islamists are on a fast track to subvert democracies from within. With the best PR money can buy, they use media and communication outlets to popularize and legitimize the Islamist agenda, while deceiving the public as to its very nature. Under the guise of personal freedom, so cherished in the West, they introduce conservative Muslim restrictions on private and public life." You probably heard of Muslim cab drivers refusing to transport blind people with seeing-eye dogs and people they suspect of carrying liquor. Another example is rejection of obey security measures, such as presenting full-face photographs for drivers' licenses. They oppose bans on veils, as interfering with their religion, but the Koran does not require veiling. (It is a custom; security is more important.) They spend many millions of dollars hiring former diplomats and TV personalities and setting up TV facilities. The also instituted Islamic banking, which doesn't separate interest from capital, letting them transfer funds that the government can't determine are contributions to terrorism (Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa Lappen of the American Center for Democracy, 11/23). The franchise also subverts politicians in democracies. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR Israelis demand the resignation of tepid Defense Min. Peretz. They may get Ehud Barak (Arutz-7, 11/23) who ran out of Lebanon, setting the stage for Peretz to run out of Lebanon. DERSHOWITZ & ZOA REVIEW JIMMY CARTER'S BOOK The prejudicial title of Jimmy Carter's new book is: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The book acknowledges that Israel is not racist, and claims the analogy is over land, yet fails to explain that Israel captured the Territories (originally promised to it) in self-defense, held them to prevent terrorism, and offered them for peace but got terrorism. The book falsely blames almost everything on Israel and almost nothing on the Arabs. (That's one definition of antisemitism, blaming almost everything on the Jews.) Erroneously, Carter attributed initial violence to Jews and in 1939. Dershowitz attributes it to the Grand Mufti in 1929. Actually, Arab terrorism began in 1920. Before Husseini was appointed Grand Mufti, he was known for instigating violence. Carter ignores the unprovoked Arab terrorism before and after Israel acquired the territories. Carter asserts (falsely) without citing any evidence, that Israel executes Arab prisoners. "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," the book claims. Why doesn't Carter acknowledge that Jews have lived there far earlier, Dershowitz asks, tellingly. I'd go further. The Arabs became Muslim and invaded in the 700s, after Roman times. They persecuted the Christians. Can't blame the Jews for that. Carter blames the Jews for the recent exodus, but the main exodus is from the Hizbullah and Hamas areas. (Actually, Arafat and Egypt persecuted Christians, too.) Although Israeli custodianship of Christian and Muslim religious sites is tolerant, Carter isn't satisfied. He omits inconvenient facts, such as Jordan's barring of Jewish worship in Jerusalem when it controlled the Old City between the 1948 and 1967 wars (and P.A. destruction of Jewish holy sites). Another of Carter's many false claims is that the Palestinian Arabs long have supported two states and the Israelis always oppose it. Dershowitz reminds us that the Arabs rejected, and the Jews accepted, proposals for partition in 1938 and 1947. The Arabs have not complied with UNO Resolution 242. Israel offered Arafat 95% of the Territories, and could have made a state there, but he rejected it. Carter blames Israel, taking Arafat's version over Pres. Clinton's. Islam rejects any Jewish sovereignty. Dershowitz should have stated that Britain informally and illegally, later formally, partitioned the Land of Israel into a big Arab part (now Jordan) and a small Jewish part (now Israel and Territories. That should have been a "two-state solution." A second Palestinian Arab state would not be a solution". Jihad has none but defeat or reform. A most flagrant falsehood is the book's claim that Israel attacked Jordan in 1967. Every involved person knows that Israel urged Jordan to stay neutral, only to receive a bombardment from Jordanian artillery. Carter's ignorance is as deep as his prejudice. He so misjudges the issues as to criticize Israel for having destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor. As Dershowitz reminds us, Iraq had threatened to build a bomb to drop on Israel. I would thank Israel for sparing US troops from Saddam potentially a-bombing them. (Carter's old-fashioned Christian bias against Zionism blinds him to rising Muslim enemies of the US.) Disliking most Israelis, the author expresses compatibility with Assad and the Arafats. Carter disqualifies himself from public commentary about the Mideast (NY Sun, 11/22, p.1). Carter goes all over the world certifying dictators' "free elections." ZOA added some additional criticisms, for which Carter's book is a gold mine. Carter took the Arab line that Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw from all of the Territories. He also accuses Israel of, heaven forbid, not coinciding with US policy for Israel. But it is Carter who doesn't coincide with US policy, at least regarding 242. The US authors of 242 made clear that they deliberately worded it so Israel does not have to withdraw from all the Territories, so it could withdraw to secure boundaries, after the Arabs made peace with it. The Arabs didn't make peace, so no withdrawal is required yet. (The US Chiefs of Staff study found that for the borders to be secure, Israel would have to keep most of the Territories.) The book claims that "'Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.' Fact: Judea and Samaria are historically, legally and religiously Jewish land and form part of territory originally earmarked for a Jewish state by the League of Nations. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in these areas, despite offers to establish one in 1937, 1948 and 2000...This land was no-one's sovereign territory and had been illegally occupied and annexed by Jordan in 1948. When under Arab control, no Palestinian state was set up there. Jews have more right to live in Judea and Samaria than any other people." Then, too, the Arabs expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews from their states. Most took refuge in Israel ZOA notes that most of the Christian exodus from Jerusalem was accomplished under Jordanian rule (IMRA, 11/30). Carter doesn't know what is good for his fellow Christians. 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. |
|
SUPPORT AN SCHOLARS FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST (SPME) PETITION
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 14, 2006. | |
|
Visit Scholars For Peace in the Middle East website:
| |
|
A Petition To The United Nations and Governments of Good Will to Institute Sanctions Against Iran Following Genocidal Calls Against Israel At Iran's Holocaust Denying Conference Written by: Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East www.spme.net December 13, 2006
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
THE MEANING OF CHANUKAH
Posted by Fern Sidman, December 14, 2006. |
|
In these days before Chanukah, we sit and reflect on the tumultuous events that have unfolded with blinding speed over the past year. We have witnessed the rise of Hamas to power, the dismantling of the settlement of Amona along with the brutalization of its residents at the hands of the Israeli police, as well as the forced removal of Jews from their homes in Hevron and other settlements in the Shromron. We have witnessed the barbaric and inhumane treatment of Gush Katif refugees as well as the restriction of movement of settlement activists. We have witnessed the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah and we have witnessed a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon that saw the devastating defeat of the once mighty and invincible Israeli army. We have witnessed Hamas terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad for continual and incessant rocket attacks on Jewish towns and settlements while millions of dollars and massive amounts of armaments are being smuggled into Israel for future terrorist attacks against Jews. We have witnessed a Prime Minister of Israel who has remained steadfast in his campaign to relinquish Israeli territory to the Arab enemy in his ill conceived realignment and convergence plan, while maintaining the dubious distinction of running one of the most corrupt governments in Israeli history. We have witnessed the astronomical rise in global anti-Semitism along with the global insurgency of radical Islam. We have witnessed the heinous and sadistic murder of French Jew, Ilan Halimi by those connected with Islamic terrorism, while also witnessing a multitude of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel demonstrations on every corner of the globe. We have watched world leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadnijehad and Hugo Chavez spew forth their incendiary rhetoric against Israel with impunity. We have witnessed the memory of six million Jews who perished during the Holocaust mocked and derided at conferences in Teheran that are dedicated to revising history to further their own nefarious agendas. The picture is clear for all those who wish to see. The Jewish nation, the land of Israel and its people are under siege. We are at war for our survival as a people and as a nation. While our enemies of today seek to vanquish and eradicate the physical presence of the Jew, this war goes much deeper than that. It is a war for the very soul of our people. It is a war that is not all that unfamiliar to the Jewish people. It is a war against the forces of righteousness and holiness and it is a war that seeks to destroy the connection of the Jewish people to their G-d. Two hundred years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Assyrian-Greeks rose up to destroy the Jewish people in the very same way that our enemies of today do. Their war of terror began with simple harassment and then escalated into a full scale military battle. The Greek Hellenists were supported in their battle by Jews who embraced Hellenism as the new found path to freedom, as do our Jewish leaders of today. While the Greeks outlawed the observance of our Sabbath, of Bris Milah and other commandments, it was their war on our G-d and his holy Torah that was the key plank in their platform for destruction. Then, as now, the world remained silent as our impending destruction was at hand. It was only the voice of the very few, of the minority of righteous Jews, who rose up, despite insurmountable odds and proclaimed the Oneness of our Creator. It was this small group of rebel Jews who became anathema in the eyes of the Jewish Hellenists. They were the upstarts who dared to speak the truth and who had the courage of their convictions. While the Jewish Hellenist leaders also crafted a plan for national suicide as do our leaders of Israel today, it was the faith and courage of the Chashmonaim dynasty that paved the path to Jewish victory and self preservation. In our prayers and supplications, at this time of Chanukah, we ask for the indomitable faith, tenacity and fortitude to do the will of Hashem. In these times of spiritual darkness, of national disunity and collective pain and travail, we can bemoan the fact that the leaders of the Israeli government, the Olmerts and Livnis of the world lack the basic faith it takes to be a leader of the Jewish nation. As they lead us down a path of further territorial concessions to the Arab enemy, and as they further attempt to foster and encourage the forces of assimilation, our response can and must be one of resolve to do the will of the Almighty without fear of world opinion. We must take comfort, hope, strength and inspiration from true Jewish leaders. During this holiday of Chanukah, we must take a good look at just who the Maccabees were, what they stood for and how the lessons of days gone by still readily apply to us today. We must seek out and explore the true meaning of Chanukah and emulate these values in our hearts, now and forever. The Sages (Shabbat 21b) asked: What is Chanukah? The Rabbis taught: From the twenty-fifth day of Kislev, eight days of Chanukah are observed, during which eulogies are not made and fasting is not permitted. For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all of the oils [used for kindling the Menorah]. And when the Hasmonean House prevailed and defeated them, they searched and found only one jar of oil which was sealed with the seal of the Kohen Gadol -- and this jar had oil sufficient only to burn for one day. But a miracle occurred and the oil burned for eight days. The next year, the Sages designated these eight days as a festival, with songs of praise and thanksgiving. During the period of the second Holy Temple, the Greek kings issued harsh decrees against Israel, outlawing their religious practices and forbidding them to engage in the study of Torah and the practice of mitzvot. They stole their money and their daughters, entered the Sanctuary and ravaged it, defiling all that was ritually pure. They caused Israel great anguish and oppressed them until the G-d of our fathers had mercy upon them and delivered them and saved them from the hands of their enemies. The Hasmonean House -- the Kohanim Gedolim -- prevailed and killed them and saved Israel from their hands. And they designated a king from among the kohanim, and the kingdom of Israel was restored for more than two hundred years, until the destruction of the second Holy Temple. It was on the twenty-fifth day of the month of Kislev that Israel prevailed and defeated their enemies. They entered the Sanctuary and found only one jar [of oil] which was pure. It contained only enough for one day, but they lit the lights of the Menorah from it for eight days, until they pressed olives and extracted pure oil (Rambam, Hilchot Chanukah 3). The wars that the Maccabees waged against the Assyrian-Greek Hellenists are the same wars that we find ourselves embroiled in today. In the Israel of today, our hellenized, gentilized leaders relinquish G-d given Jewish land into the hands of the burgeoning and malignant Arab enemy. This enemy who has vowed our physical and spiritual annihilation. Our leaders do not speak of the uniqueness and special status of the House of Israel. They have contempt for the G-d of Israel and for His Holy Torah while they cower in fear when they face the nations of the world. They have erected gods of silver and gold, better known as US economic aid. Our leaders enact laws that discourage the promulgation of true Jewish values that are predicated on a Divine Source. We are a people that stands alone. In the face of such rabid hatred of G-d and all that He stands for, our only hope is to remain Maccabees. To display the courage to fight, to gird our loins and to prepare to defend our faith. To know in our hearts, that the G-d of Israel goes into battle with us and never leaves our side. Our mission is for each of us to become an Emunah Shleima (a person of complete faith in G-d). There is no question that we are living in the times of Chevlei Moshiach, the birth pangs of our righteous Messiah. We must understand that the chain of world events that are directed at the Jewish people and Israel are wake up calls from the Almighty G-d of Israel. The same G-d who tested Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is now testing us, the Jewish nation on a global and collective scale. It is up to us to recognize and remain cognizant of these warning signs and tests and to summon up our internal strength that will assist us in passing these tests. In these times of spiritual blindness we are an orphaned generation without any real Jewish leaders to emulate. We can however look in to our rich and glorious history as a people to find true Jewish leaders and heroes. Men and women who we can look to, to provide us with an instruction manual on how to pass these tests. Our history is replete with such exemplary persona. We need only look at Mattityahu, the Kohen Gadol of the town of Modin. When a Syrian officer built an altar in the marketplace of the village and demanded that Mattityahu offer sacrifices to the Greek gods. Mattityahu replied, "I, my sons and my brothers are determined to remain loyal to the covenant which our G-d made with our ancestors!" Let us look to Yochanan, the Kohen Gadol, the father of the Hasmonean family, who foresaw the danger to Judaism from the penetration of Syrian-Greek influence into the Holy Land. He knew the Jewish people could never give up their faith in G-d and accept the idol-worship of the Syrians. Yochanan was therefore opposed to any attempt on the part of the Jewish Hellenists to introduce Greek and Syrian customs into the land. He was scorned by the Hellenists for his outspoken beliefs. Let us extol the virtues of Yehudit, the daughter of Yochanan of the Hasmonean Dynasty. We know that the town of Bethulia, in the land of Judea, came under siege by Holofernes, a mighty Syrian-Greek general, at the head of a huge army. Holofernes was notorious for his cruelty in suppressing rebellions. When he captured a rebel stronghold, he showed no mercy to the men, women, and children sheltered there. Now he was determined to crush the rebellion of the town of Bethulia, whose inhabitants refused to recognize the oppressive rule of the Syrians. The men of the beleaguered town fought bravely and desperately to repulse the repeated assaults by the superior enemy forces. Seeing that he couldn't take the fortified town by force, Holofernes decided to starve the inhabitants into submission. He cut off the food and water supply, and before long the town was indeed brought to the verge of surrender. Hungry and thirsty and in utter despair, the townspeople gathered in the marketplace and demanded that, rather than die of hunger and thirst, they should surrender to the enemy. Uzzia, the commander of the defense forces, and the Elders of the town, tried to calm the populace without success. Finally they pleaded, "Give us five more days. If no salvation comes by the end of five days, we will surrender. Just five more days..." Reluctantly the people agreed, and slowly they dispersed. Only one person, a woman, remained in her place, as if riveted to it, and she addressed Uzzia and the Elders, who had also turned to go. Her voice was clear and firm. "Why do you test G-d, giving Him only five days in which to send us His help? If you truly have faith in G-d, you must never give up your trust in Him. Besides, don't you know that surrender to Holofernes is worse than death?!" Yehudit fed the evil Helefornes cheese and wine. He became inebriated and passed out. Yehudit propped a pillow under his head and rolled him over on his face and uttered a silent prayer: "Answer me, O Lord, as You answered Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, when you delivered the wicked general Sissera into her hands. Strengthen me this once that I may bring Your deliverance to my people whom this cruel man vowed to destroy, and let the nations know that You have not forsaken us...." She then took his sword and cut his head off. In our present day spiritual wilderness, we need only examine the deeds of our righteous predecessors. Now, more than ever, the inspiration of Chanukah must pervade our collective heart and soul. We must recognize that this is the time to return to the Almighty G-d of Israel in sincere and true repentance. Our only hope, our only source of true salvation comes not from the nations of the world but from the Master of the Universe. May we learn and impart this message of Chanukah and may we merit to see miracles in our times, as in days of old. Contact Fern Sidman by email at AriellaH@aol.com |
|
IRAN AND THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL CONFERENCE
Posted by Dr. Alex Grobman, December 14, 2006. |
|
On Monday, the Iranian government opened a two-day conference ostensibly to discuss the Holocaust in an open environment where all sides of the story can be analyzed. Aside from well-known Holocaust deniers, no Holocaust scholars are in attendance. The conference raises a number of questions: Why has Holocaust denial become popular in the Middle East? Why is Iran holding the conference? How can we respond to those who seek to deny our past? According to Itamar Marcus, who monitors and reports on media of the Palestinian Authority, the objective of Arab Holocaust denial is to reject the connection of the Jewish people to their immediate history, erode the legitimacy of Israel, and allow the Arabs "to appropriate the role of historical victim and apply it to themselves. Television and modern technology have provided authoritative vehicles for defaming and denying the Jewish people, their religion, history, nation, and land ... in order to sever contemporary Jews from their past and the Land of Israel." A number of governments have denounced the Iranian Holocaust denial conference for what it is: a forum to deny the Holocaust and advance the Iranians' own agenda. In a televised address on Dec. 14, 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, raised Holocaust denial to an international level when he said: "They [the Jews] have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets ... If someone were to deny the existence of God ... and deny the existence of prophets and religion, they would not bother him. However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can." "On the basis of this myth," he said a couple of months later, "the pillaging Zionist regime has managed, for 60 years, to extort all Western governments and to justify its crimes in the occupied lands -- killing women and children, demolishing homes, and turning defenseless people into refugees." Why has Ahmadinejad become such an advocate of Holocaust denial? One plausible explanation historian Victor Hanson offers is that he understands the West's fixation with "multiculturalism, moral equivalence, and relativism." As "a Third-World populist," he assumes that his own fascist government will "escape scrutiny" if he continues to list the past misdeeds of the West. He also appreciates the importance of victimology. If he wants to annihilate Israel, Iran has to be seen as the victim -- not Israel. He turns to the Europeans with a question: "So we ask you: If you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed people of Palestine be punished for it? If you committed a crime, you yourselves should pay for it." He knows that there are millions of educated people in the West who question the need for nuclear weapons and do not hold their culture in high regard. If the West can have nuclear weapons, why can't Iran? "Your arsenals are full to the brim," he says, "yet when it's the turn of a nation such as mine to develop peaceful nuclear technology you object and resort to threats." Ahmadinejad also understands that relativism has become part of Western thought. In this environment, who can be sure that the Holocaust was not overstated, the facts embellished or even made up in order to steal Palestinian land? Iran's success in analyzing Western malaise, Hanson concludes, has persuaded them to create a reality without the Holocaust, thus enabling them to become the victims and Jews the aggressors who need to be punished. In this way, "Ahmadinejad's righteously aggrieved (and nuclear) Iran can ... finally set things right in the Middle East. And then a world that wishes to continue to make money and drive cars in peace won't much care how this divinely appointed holy man finally finishes a bothersome war of destiny." Rather than ring our hands in frustration, we should seize the opportunity to teach about Holocaust denial, which is a threat to the way we transmit history to future generations. If the history of the Jewish people can be distorted, so can the history of other groups. Holocaust deniers seek to make Fascism and National Socialism legitimate alternatives to democracy, which makes this a problem for all those who cherish a democratic way of life. 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, with Michael Shermer, of "Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened?" (University of California Press, 2000) His His latest book is "Nations United: How The UN Undermines Israel and the West." This article appeared today in the New Jersey Jewish Standard
|
|
WAR DECLARED
Posted by Salah Choudhury, December 14, 2006. |
|
[Editor's note: Salah Choudhury is an editor and a journalist. He is also a very brave man. He was arrested in the airport in Bangladash for the "crime" of planning to attend a writers' conference in Israel. He was jailed for 17 months and is now on trial, where he risks the death penalty. He has been accused of spying and sedition.] |
|
War is declared! A war of good against evils! A war to defeat the Islamofascists, to dig their graves right on this earth in Bangladesh. When I heard the news of my quashment petition being summarily rejected in the High Court division of Bangladesh Supreme Court, I was some how confused. But, really I am now absolutely inspired to hear from my dearest brother Dr. Richard Benkin and read a number of mails from my esteemed friends, including my dearest sister Rabbi Sue Levy. Yes, I heard the voice of G-d from them. We have to fight and become victorious. When the petition of quashment was pending with the higher judiciary, some of my 'conservative' friends suggested me to be 'tactful' and to 'fly low' and not to speak my mind so openly. They were possibly expecting 'justice' from a Taliban government. But, now, we all know, we should never expect any justice from this government or any other governments or the judicial system. Hope, you will not ask me why. Because you too know the realities by now. I shall swear, judiciary is not neutral at all in Bangladesh. Some of my friends, suggested me to seek political asylum. But, this is something, I shall never do. There is no dignity, honor or pride in seeking political asylum. Actually the Islamofascists want me to be exiled. I know, under any circumstance, I shall never do that. Now, may I request you all kindly to express your voice in the highest degree? It is not the time to remain silent. It is time to raise our voice. It is time to leave signals for the pro-radical forces in Bangladesh that, the entire international community is watching their evil deeds. It is time to stop buying Bangladeshi goods. Just consider, whether you want to pay for any goods manufactured in a pro-radical country. It is time to accelerate our war against terror. This is not a mere war against radicals or Islamofascists. But, it is a war on terror. Kindly think, if we should prepare for a possible defeat or keep our flags of victory to be hoisted soon. The writer is a journalist, columnist, author, amd editor of "Weekly Blitz". Email him at salahuddinshoaibchoudhury@yahoo.com |
|
"CHANUKAH TODAY -- MOST LIKELY POLITICALLY INCORRECT"
Posted by Daryl Temkin, Ph.D., December 14, 2006. |
|
As strange as this might sound the Chanukah story of over 2,000 years ago is in many ways reoccurring in our own time. The original story, around 160 BCE, was that of Greek Hellenistic ideology and victory over the vast extent of the Greek empire. At that time, the Greek empire covered large parts of the European, Middle Eastern, Persian, and African regions. Greek control was based not only on physically killing the conquered but more so on the successful promulgation of Hellenism and its indoctrination of the masses. With dictatorial authority, Hellenism was the supreme value that everyone, if they wanted to live, had to accept. Hellenism stressed a worship of man's physical perfection and physical pleasures, an encouragement of sexual extremes and pedophilia, a worship of polytheistic gods and idols and a disrespect and distain for monotheistic religious standards, as well as the one decent aspect of Hellenism, a love for science, philosophy, and education. Judaism, which shared a love for learning with Hellenism, shared nothing else. However, over time, the popularity of Hellenistic life began to erode the Jewish soul to the extent where Jewish assimilation into Greek thought and society became a fast-paced reality. This Jewish assimilation which made acceptable, and even popular, the abandonment of Jewish belief and values grew to the point that the future existence of the Jewish people became endangered. Leading Jews were able to make rational arguments for supporting a Jewish appeasement policy to Greek society and Hellenistic thought even though it was an existential risk to Jewish existence. The Jewish desire for Greek societal acceptance and for "being loved" influenced the trend for assimilation and appeasing attitudes. As Hellenism gained strength among Jewish assimilationists and appeasers, the emboldened Greeks embarked upon desecrating Jerusalem and its Temple Mount. In order to more fully express the Hellenistic conquest of Jewish life, the Greeks erected an idol of the Greek god Zeus upon Jerusalem's Temple Mount. Then, to further demonstrate their desecration of Jewish values and the Holy Temple site, they roasted a pig upon the Temple Altar. Although many Jews of that time felt that it was important to just go along with the Hellenist's demands, not to make waves, and just accept that Judaism would have to cease, the Maccabee family refused. They abhorred the attitudes of the Jewish assimilationists and Hellenism appeasers who were accommodating the Greek efforts to wipe Judaism out of existence. A revolt was staged against the Hellenists and the Maccabee army, small in strength and numbers, but grandiose in spirit, conquered the mighty and numerous Greek army in a miraculous fight and a definitive defeat. The 2,000 year old victory made it possible for Jewish life to be reconstituted in the land of Israel. That victory also paved the way for Judaism to continue to this very day. Today, great thanks and praise for the heroic Maccabee leadership continues. However, if the Maccabees were alive today, they would likely be shocked. Their story of 2,000 years ago is virtually the same today. The Temple Mount which they liberated and Israel recaptured almost forty years ago is still off limits to Jews. The Maccabean rekindling of the Menorah on the Temple Mount, if attempted today, would be an inciting act likely considered imperialistic aggression, a breach of International Law, an offense to human rights, and could potentially ignite a most intense intifada. Today, Jews are not allowed to set foot on the Temple Mount without being escorted by an appointed Muslim guard. The guard makes sure that the Jew only stands in a restricted location and makes sure that the Jew does not utter any potential prayer. As many celebrate Chanukah, known as the holiday commemorating religious freedom, it is astonishing that the very geographic location of the renowned religious freedom story is the very place of today's extreme and total religious intolerance. Chanukah, which reminds the world that there is a multi-thousand year long history of Jewish sovereignty throughout the land of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount, is the fly in the ointment for all those who support, tolerate, and excuse the Arab and worldwide attempts to deny as well as erase evidence of Jewish ownership and settlement of the land of Israel, an event which happened centuries prior to any Arab immigration. Today, Jews are limited and in many instances prohibited from having any rights to their own historic roots. Meanwhile, on the Temple Mount, Arabs, in an attempt to erase traces of Jewish history and land ownership, are free to destroy and trash the remaining Jewish historic artifacts from the Second Temple era. Jews who are commonly prevented from building new homes in their ancient biblical lands watch as Arabs are free to build a new and additional mosque upon the Temple Mount. Thankfully, the Maccabees lived at a time when "political correctness" didn't run the world, thereby allowing them to save Judaism and the Jewish people. Today, it is sad to say that many, if not most, Jewish leaders both in Israel and the Diaspora, would likely fear and oppose the "politically incorrect" actions of the Maccabees. The consequences of being "politically correct" and appeasing Hellenism would have only led to Jewish annihilation and extinction. It must be recognized that the Maccabees were right and "political correctness" would have been gravely wrong. Chanukah does not represent the infamous quote that Israel is "tired of fighting and tired of winning". Chanukah is not about political correctness, appeasement, and self-sacrifice so that the nations of the world will like you. Chanukah is a holiday which commemorates Jewish strength and willingness to stand strong for the essential life values and moral leadership which Judaism uniquely contributed to this world. Chanukah, a word which means "dedication", is a devotion to strength, spirit, and passion to stand steadfast for that which is right and to never accept moral or spiritual defeat. Chanukah is also a refusal to be blinded by darkness as well as "political correctness". A mighty light comes forth from Chanukah to not only reveal the desecration of the Temple Mount and the attempts to spiritually destroy the soul of the Jewish people, but also to illuminate the greatest threat now being chanted daily This is the clearly articulated threat announcing the diabolical plan and burning desire to destroy the physical existence of the State of Israel as well as untold numbers of the Jewish people. In 2,000 years, the struggle for Jewish existence and sovereignty remains in many ways the same and what is most important is that the devotion to achieve a Chanukah victory must never wither. Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews throughout the world. He can be reached at: DT@Israel-Institute.com. |
|
DR. DOSSA GOES TO THE HOLOCAUST-NEVER-HAPPENED CONFERENCE
Posted by Michael Travis, December 13, 2006. |
|
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Will the MSM protect Canadian students from Professors of Resentment? Yesterday afternoon, I found myself in a car listening to the CBC Radio news. They had a report on the Iranian Holocaust deniers conference. The CBC's man in Tehran took it all too seriously, basically apologizing for the whole affair as Iran's way of somewhat justifiably responding to Israeli threats to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. I don't recall him mentioning why Iran is such a threat to the very existence of the state of Israel.... Anyway, this reporter in Tehran then went on to mention that a Canadian professor from the University of Toronto was attending the conference, but he didn't know yet what the guy was going to say, or who he was. When I returned home I checked out the CBC online story to find no mention of the Canadian professor, only a rather disturbing photo -- the only one chosen for the story -- of two of that small group of ultra-Orthodox, anti-Zionist Jews who go around shaking the hands of Jew haters, in this case the foreign minister of Iran, as a way of pursuing their dogmatic rejection of the state of Israel. The CBC is full of people who love to distract attention from the real issues at stake in Holocaust denial and hatred of Israel. While this conference is now front page news worldwide, as of 1.20 pm PST today, a search of Google News turns up only one report on the Canadian professor, Shiraz Dossa, in the Western Standard's blog even though Dossa was scheduled to speak yesterday afternoon, Tehran time, more than a full day ago. It seems the Canadian media have no interest in the fact that a guy who teaches in one of our universities is hanging out with a bunch of history-denying hate mongers bent on the destruction of the Jews. [UPDATE -- Dec. 13 -- the Canadian media is today picking up this story -- see the bottom of this post] Who is Shiraz Dossa? Well, first of all it appears he may be misrepresenting himself to the Iranians. The University of Toronto web site has no mention of him. According to his home page, while he earned his graduate degrees from the U of T, he is actually for some time now a professor of political science at (the embarrasingly Christian-in-name?) St. Francis Xavier University of Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Dossa's home page suggests that this man enjoys postmodern irony where one takes nothing seriously, including those who come to your home page, but little class or grace (and I suspect he would concur): Later he succeeded, accidentally, in earning both an MA and Ph.D. at the University of Toronto. But his miseducation, regrettably, continued under the guidance of scholars like C. B. Macpherson, Christian Bay and Peter H. Russell at the U of T ...In 1996, he was invited, inexplicably, to deliver the Josiah Wood Lecture at Mount Allison University in Sackville (NB) on Liberalism and Cultural Difference. In 1998 he was invited, again inexplicably, to deliver a lecture on Human Rights and Global Politics at Middlebury College in Vermont (US). His only significant contribution to making this world a better place is his daughter Shirin. One wonders if he actually sees himself as a fraud and while not openly admitting it will joke about "inexplicable" invitations to give prestigious lectures in the institutions of a society he, as we will see, resents. He exploits his nine-year-old daughter by putting a photo of her and a "quote" at the top of his home page: "My dad is not a bad professor...But he.... he does talk a lot about politics and Chomsky and natives and fisheries...my dad's cool...not totally....but he is sortta cool...." So we learn he is a Chomsky nut. Not only does that give us a sense of this guy's intellectual limitations, but it may explain why he is giving a paper to Holocaust deniers titled "Liberalism, Holocaust and war against Muslims". Chomsky goes out of his way to deny the Jews a unique role as the victims of a modern racism whose extreme possibilities the Holocaust revealed: the possibility of an absolute "Nazi-Jew" model of victimization, a model that is now (mis)applied to all kinds of relationships to assert the undeniability of someone's putative victimization. Chomsky cannot say "holocaust" without asking why some other victim group (it is almost always supposed victims of America) don't get more attention. And to this end, he has supported serious Holocaust deniers in discrediting the victim status of Jews. As Pierre Vidal-Naquet writes in "On Faurisson and Chomsky", in Assassins of Memory (NY: Columbia University Press, 1992): To be sure, it is not the case that Chomsky's theses in any way approximate those of the neo-Nazis. But why does he find so much energy and even tenderness in defending those who have become the publishers and defenders of the neo-Nazis, and so much rage against those who allow themselves to fight them? That is the simple question I shall raise. When logic has no other end than self-defence, it goes mad. Crazy or just funny? is apparently the question on the minds of
some of Shiraz Dossa's students, as we see from the most recent page
of comments at ratemyprofessors.com
interesting, funny, we watched a lot of daily show with John Stewart. He's a hard marker though. Well, it's refreshing to see some of the students know what a sorry joke it is for professors to spend their whole day in resentment of the society that rewards them with comfortable lives and status. But why should the students have to put up with this crap where, when the professor isn't ranting, he is showing Jon Stewart videos? Not only does it waste their tuition money and time, it will be increasingly held against them in the real world as employers learn about the nonsense that pervades our universities. Graduates will be considered idiots until proven otherwise. Now, if you think I am being too harsh about a guy I don't know much about, have a look at one of his book reviews (pdf) from 2002: On Rushdie, though, [Parekh's] handling of the complex issues is fatuous: [according to Parekh] his novel is "brilliantly written", it is a "serious literary work" but Rushdie shows "poor literary judgement" and a "remarkable lack of political judgement" but "brilliant" nevertheless. In their reaction, "the Muslims" however, were moved by a "sense of power" and "a mean desire for revenge" abetted by leaders who were "unwise", who were ill-informed about the history and culture of Britain, and who "were not well-versed in the liberal discourse of free speech" and so on. So, when he is not writing apologetics for women-hating regimes, including one that brutally beat, raped, and killed a fellow Canadian, what does Dossa himself believe in? That is the question that naive students always ask with a prof. like this. They shouldn't expect an answer beyond some fantastic gibberish because this is the kind of writer who takes pride in not being fooled by any normative "western" ideal -- which are always deemed oppressive -- and in being against oppression. That's not saying much; but try as you might, you will find this kind of writing doesn't add up to much, never does, never can, except that it allows some to fall into a fantasy world of heroic freedom fighters spouting bitter words against a fallen creation that only an elect few can understand and remedy. Dossa makes a living criticizing liberalism, but only pushes the gnostic tendencies of liberalism into deeper fantasies that deny the need for shared cultural norms as a basis for human freedoms. This kind of resentment -- like all resentment -- is inherently delusional to some degree, just as the "multiculturalism" he vaguely lauds is an incoherent fantasy ideology, as I have often noted at this blog. But Dossa has found his demon -- "liberalism" -- and he is going to flail it to kingdom come, berating the liberals for asserting some western, white male, bourgeois norm as universal at the cost of oppressing all those for whom it is not, says Dossa, normal. But Dossa is of course playing the same game of those he reviles -- i.e. dissimulating his own institutional power and the reigning norms of the academy -- just read this paper and try to figure out what possible reality, what transcendent truths, he stands for other than the putative victimization/empowerment of those who are his academic allies. This paper appears in a journal, Political Theory. But can someone as resentful as Dossa have a political theory? As Eric Gans, the world's leading thinker on resentment, notes of Dossa's hero, Chomsky: His political writings, from what I have seen of them, are litanies of accusations of immorality and greed directed against those in power, particularly in the United States. At best, such criticism can bring scandals to light; it is incompatible with any kind of political theory. "Anarchism" is just another word for a personal nihilism protected--and in cases like Chomsky's, richly rewarded--by the very order one affects to despise. Were I an anarchist, I would feel myself obliged to reject the benefits of such an order. Diogenes lived in a barrel; I doubt if Chomsky does. Any real political theory must begin with some understanding of, and respect for, whatever cultural norms and values are for. To argue that our ethical values are tools of oppression in a world where mainstream culture only serves the powerful, as if our very culture were a conspiracy against the weak, the many, or the few, is nonsense. It is ignorance of the basic anthropological purpose of culture, which is our collective and univerally-shared means of engaging in exchange, and thus building an order in which we all contribute to keeping ourselves from meaningless violence through our common deference to the transcendent world of signs. If you want better to understand what I mean, check out the Gans link immediately above. If you ask the universities why they allow themselves to be corrupted by angry nihilists, they will tell you about the importance of academic freedom. But what the universities really mean is that they have lost any basis for distinguishing serious intellectual endeavor from resentful nothingness, as long as the latter is of the leftist nihilist variety and is teaching that standards and common sense are tools of an oppressive "liberal" hegemony. In other words, the angry leftist (preferably not white or male) professors can use moral blackmail to gain institutional power and dominate the education sytem. Thus we have, for example, the ridiculous conspiracy theorists of "Scholars for 9-11 truth" teaching in North American universities. Such nutters are apparently tolerated in the name of intellectual and academic freedom. But universities are much less tolerant of conservative loons and a way is found to push them out the door (they can even get rid of the President of Harvard for a minor indiscretion against political correctness), which is where all loony teachers should be pushed. Let's see how long the system protects chaps like Dossa. Let's see if the Canadian Main Stream Media gets on this guy's case. Will they ask whether he was given money by the Iranians? But don't bet on the MSM bringing attention to what nonsense is really in power. UPDATE: 11 AM PST, Dec. 13: the Canadian media are now picking up this story. The Globe and Mail interviewed Dossa so I am now happy to present his explanation for his attendance at what was widely reported, in advance, to be a conference at which Iran would advance its agenda of questioning the established facts about the Holocaust and their connnection to the legitimacy of the founding of the modern state of Israel. Doug Saunders of the Globe writes from London: Gathered in a Tehran auditorium yesterday were some of the world's most notorious figures: Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, leaders of the Ku Klux Klan. And among them, somewhat incongruously, was a soft-spoken political science professor from Nova Scotia. Well, I find it unbelievable that any modestly-educated, newspaper-reading person with an interest in this subject would not have known in advance what kind of conference this was going to be, and not have had some idea of the type of people who were going to attend. Maybe Dossa is massively naive, but I doubt it. While I reject his claim that Olmert has threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation (Israel only claims that it will defend against the explicit threats of Iran's leaders to annhilate Israel) I will not speculate on his specific (to this event) motives further. But take a look at the comments to the Globe and Mail article if you want to be depressed by how many readers of that once august journal will jump to the defense of Dossa -- many fail to distinguish academic freedom from academic nonsense with a vicious agenda; other readers however think he is full of it and don't buy his "excuse" for attending. What is missed in all of this is the question of whose political stance is really the most dependent on both the memory of the Holocaust and on a need to memorialize that event incorrectly. People of Dossa's persuasion argue that the guilt flowing from the Holocaust is misapplied and used to outlaw or shun criticism of Israeli, and by extension, American policies in the Middle East. Quite aside from the fact that Western universities are filled with criticism of Israel and America, from professors and students, and that the media take a largely anti-Israel view as evidenced in the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah, the postmodern, postcolonial left have to obscure the fact that it is precisely their intellectual position that most depends on memory of the Holocaust. The "white guilt" and the idea of "racism" that are essential to the revelation of the postcolonial left stem, historically, from the realization, via the Holocaust, of what racism, when practiced by a modern industrial state can look like in its most extreme form. The fact that this realization came most fully to light through, and at the historical moment of, the Holocaust, and via the butchering of a Western or white people, is part of the unease the Holocaust creates in the postcolonial left and the reason why many deny that the event is somehow unique, somehow specifically Jewish, in nature. What the left refuses fully to engage is the reason for why it was specifically the Jews who were the Nazis' victims. The Jews were hated and scapegoated by the Nazis as supposed agents and manipulators of the modern marketplace that was seen to be an alienating and de-masculinizing force. Jews were also hated, as they had always been, as the discoverers of monotheism and members of the first nation whose special covenant with God, along with the refusal of many to convert to Christianity, made members of the later nations and monotheist faiths susceptible to resentment of Jews for allegedly thinking "they're better than us". Thus the Nazis alleged that the Jews were not simply a backwards tribe but, along with the Anglo-American-led Freemasons, were out to control the world. They were the secret hand behind the Treaty of Versailles, they controlled the Bank of England, etc. etc. In other words, the Jews were hated for the signs of their "firstness" in matters of nations and markets, for being an allegedly destabilizing force, for putting their freedom before others' equality. Little has changed. The present state of Israel, and the United States, are hated for the same reasons. The postmodern left, of which Dossa is clearly a part, is all about denying the universal human need for the kind of firstness, innovation, and freedom, that Israel and the United States represent in this world. The left would rather live under some tyranny (though they will never admit it must be tyrannical) trying to enforce "multicultural" equality on the world, forgetting what all the murderous and inequitous attempts to impose "equality" on the world resulted in in the last century. Hatred of Israel is essentially a lack of faith in the possibilities for maximizing human innovation and progress via the vehicles of self-ruling nations competing in a global economy. The Mullah-led state of Iran is today the leading global force contesting this idea. It does it in the name of the Ummah but attracts many non-Muslim sympathizers. In taking Iran's side, notwithstanding its frequent claims to be about ready to destroy Israel, Dossa is demonstrating Judeophobia, even if he is not aware of it. The postmodern left makes a distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but they naively miss the point that the way they criticize Israel is pretty much the same "logic" with which the Nazis criticized the Jews. This is why the Jewishness of the Holocaust and the uniqueness that attends any and every memorable historical event must be downplayed. The event-based nature of human anthroplogy, the scenic nature of human self-understanding, is thus obscured. Chomsky and his legions assert that the Holocaust is just one of many similar crimes, the most recent being conducted by Israel and America (those "dirty Jews"). And the scary thing is how many at the Globe and Mail comments page have fallen for this postmodern hate mongering. The Brussels Journal (www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1753) has more on "Canada's shame". A CBC online story on Dossa has now appeared in
www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/13/professor-holocaust061213.html. It
reports, sadly, on how Dossa's university has been shamed by his
attendance at the conference; and it quotes most uncritically from
the Globe and Mail interview, portraying Dossa as a sincere
leftist - interested in defending Islam agains the "Zionists" - who
was duped by the Iranians and their bankrolling of his trip to his
ancestral homeland. On Israel, the CBC has no honour, and hence no
shame. (posted by truepeers at 4:01 PM )
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com
|
|
THE CLOAK OF MISINFORMATION AND LIES
Posted by Hebron Organization, December 13, 2006. |
|
This was written by Yehudit Tayar and was distributed yesterday. Yehudit Tayar is one of the veteran spokespeople for the Settlement Movement, she lives in Samaria with Ami her husband, and their four children. |
|
I have had the dubious opportunity of meeting with many varied representatives of foreign countries during the last thirty or so years since I have served as one of the spokespeople of the Settlement Movement in particular, and Israel in general. There have been many occasions when I was doubtful if I should actually meet with these people who are on the most part locked in their own agenda and ignorant of the history of my people and Land. Why knock my head against the wall I wonder each time, and then feeling that since we Jews have little or no platform to air our case I usually give in and meet with these "all-knowing superior feeling human rights" people. Last week I again against my better judgment agreed not only to meet with three such people, but agreed to take them around in Hevron, and Samaria. During the trip which was coordinated by Gro Wenske; perhaps one of the truest and most loyal friends of the Jewish people and Israel ; I took the time and care to present our guests with the history of the areas wherein we traveled, giving both Biblical and modern history. In Hevron we met with my friend; David Wilder; our spokesman for Hevron who took the time and effort to meet us in and take us through the Museum in Bet Hadassah, which today serves as the memorial museum for the Jewish community in Hevron destroyed by the pogroms carried out by the Moslems in 1929. The three young people, two men and a woman are here from Norway and live amongst the Moslems in Bethlehem, Hevron and the Old City of Jerusalem. They belong to a so-called international human rights organization and this was basically the first opportunity they had to be exposed to "our side" of the situation. I understand the well meaning people who travel thousands of miles in order to try and alleviate some of the suffering of people who are living in very difficult circumstances. I understand the frustration felt by these "naïve" foreigners when shown how the Moslem Arabs are living in the areas under the Palestinian Authority/Hamas. I do not understand at all how they accept the fact that terror organizations like the Fatah and Hamas use civilians as human shields and specifically hide themselves, their terror cells and weaponry inside of these civilian populations. I do not accept the accusation that we Israelis, we Jews are culpable for the terror. I do not accept the blame for the suffering of the Moslems who are used by pawns by those who instead of protecting their rights and trying to achieve peaceful coexistence have been intentionally preventing the situation from improving and educate and call for continuous violence directed against the Jewish citizens and State of Israel. I was appalled to hear one of these visitors ask me if I did not think that it was a lot of nerve that the Bible, Israel and the United States opposed the world on the issue of Jerusalem and other "conquered" lands- this from one who maintains that he is a member of the clergy. Touring around and recounting our personal and national experiences of loss and showing the grim proof of the terror attacks directed against us, and telling of our pain and losses of loved ones meant nothing to these human rights activists. They continued to see and hear only what they are programmed to see and hear. They continue to view the barricades, road blocks, barb wire, and enormous fences put up by Israel in the useless, failing attempt to prevent the loss of precious innocent lives as something that the Jews want. They construe that Israel put all of this there in order to make the lives of the Moslems miserable, and difficult. How sad and how infuriating it is that this is how the world views us. After the long and heartbreaking road of continuous pogroms directed against us throughout the decades, we are finally back home by moral right and not by force. We allow these foreigners in to our country and let them go to the Moslems and give them support, we stupidly give them permission to go to the border checks where our sons and daughters in uniform are forced to endanger themselves in order to prevent the next terror attack from happening. This they do not wish to see or understand. They merely see Jewish soldiers with guns forcing Arabs to wait in line to get in or out of certain areas. How can they be so blind to the truth? How can they be silent to those that are the cause of the misery and death to both sides? How dare they come here and talk against our G-d, our Bible, our Land, and our people? Toward the end of their visit one of them had the audacity to say, "you pack people up and ship them to your country in order to ensure an Jewish majority". This sentence does more than anything else in portraying what these "human rights activists" believe. They believe that we, the Jewish people have no rights to exist as a nation in our sovereign Land. They believe that we have no right to protect ourselves from terror. They disclaim our history, our Bible, our Land, our nation and our G-d. I don't know if it was right to meet with them or not. I do know I will not be silent. Never again will we allow lies, distorted half-truths, hatred and blindness to go unanswered. So I guess the next time I am asked to meet with some of these visitors I again will meet with them and at least do my best to tell the truth and show the reality of the situation. Never will I take for granted the fact that we, the Jewish people have finally come home to our Land. The Land promised to us. I only pray that we are worthy of it. |
|
BILL BANS 'PRESSING' MINORS TO BECOME RELIGIOUS
Posted by Shaul Ceder, December 13, 2006. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared in World Net Daily
|
|
Knesset member says influencing involvement in Jewish tradition can 'damage' youth; rabbi: Attempt to rip apart the very fabric of Israel's foundation A Knesset member on Tuesday proposed a bill to ban adults from "pressing" minors into becoming more involved in religion and Jewish tradition. Ophir Paz-Pines, from the Labor party, is seeking to pass legislation to prevent adults from attempting to increase or decrease the religious involvement of anyone under the age of 18. Labor is the main coalition partner in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government. According to Pines' bill, influencing the religious involvement of children can "cause the break-up of a family and cause damage to minors." The bill was seen as targeting religious youth groups and outreach movements such as the Chabad organization, which runs programs for young Jews. Among Chabad's most successful campaigns here are street booths throughout the country that distribute Shabbat candles to Jewish girls and aid boys over the age of 13 in donning tefillin, or Jewish prayer phylacteries. The boys wrap the tefillin on their hands and head and say a prayer. Rabbi Joseph Garlitzky, head of Chabad in Tel Aviv, accused Pines of "trying to rip apart the very fabric of Israel's foundation." "It is the height of absurdity that here in the Jewish state a Knesset member would propose a bill like this," Garlitzky told WND. "The Knesset should be seeking ways to increase mitzvos (acts of loving kindness) among youth, not trying to ban them. And doing mitzvos in Israel has special holiness." 'A very negative law' Asked about Pines' contention youth may be coerced into making decisions regarding religious involvement, Garlitzky replied, "That is ridiculous. These youth know exactly what they are doing when they put on tefillin or light Shabbat candles at home. "They have more ability to differentiate between good and bad than Pines," he said. Rabbi Shalom Butman, a prominent Chabad leader here and head of a tefillin campaign in central Tel Aviv, told WND Pines bill is "anti-Semitic." "This is a very negative law, but even if it somehow passes in the Jewish state we will not stop our activity. We are not pushing ourselves on anyone. Most of the time the youth come up to us and ask us to help them. They put on tefillin with much pride and happiness," said Butman. So far there has not been much outcry regarding Pines' bill from the Knesset's religious nationalist camp. Several senior leaders of the National Religious and Shas parties were not even aware of the proposed bill until being contacted by WND. One Knesset member, speaking on condition his name be withheld, said his colleagues are often unaware of many proposed bills. Effie Eitam, leader of the National Union party and one of the most prominent religious Knesset members, told WND "this bill doesn't interest me." Contact Shaul Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
ABBAS: "ACCEPTABLE" HOLOCAUST DENIAL?
Posted by Yrachmiel Elias, December 13, 2006. |
|
Israel condemns Tehran's Holocaust denial conference...but what about Mahmoud Abbas? This article was written by David Bedein and it appeared yesterday
in Front Page Magazine
|
|
On Monday, the Israeli government issued vehement denunciation of the conference convened by the Iranian government in Teheran to promote the denial of the mass murder of the Jews in World War II, in an act of holocaust denial. Our news agency asked the spokespeople of the government of Israel if they would also denounce the leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, for the holocaust denial which has been an integral part of his legacy. However, the government of Israel would issue no such denunciation of Abbas, who wrote his doctorate in 1982 in Moscow, at the Institute for Oriental Studies. The institute was headed by Yevgeny Primakov, a Jew, an Arabist, an avowed friend of Saddam Hussein and other Arab rulers, and eventually the prime minister of Russia. Of all these qualities, Abu Mazen emphasized mainly Primakov's Jewish origin. The heading of his doctoral thesis was: "Zionist leadership and the Nazis." The introduction dealt, among other topics, with a loaded issue: How many Jews perished in the Holocaust. In the Soviet period, especially in the anti-Israel institute that Abu Mazen attended, they often dealt with such questions. The Soviet Union, more than any other country, was addicted to Holocaust denial. The victims were not recognized by their origin, but rather by their nationality. And this is what the diligent researcher Mahmoud Abbas wrote: World War Two caused the death of 40 million people from different parts of the world. Ten million Germans, 20 million Soviets, and more...Rumors at the end of the war said that 6 million of the world's Jews were among the victims in the war of extermination that was waged against the Jewish people and later on against other peoples. The fact is that no one can confirm this number or deny it. The number could be 6 million, but it could be much smaller, perhaps even smaller than one million. The controversy over the number must not divert us from the severity of the crime committed against the Jewish people. The murder of a human being is a crime that the cultured world must not accept. "Many researchers who discussed the number reached the unconventional conclusion that it is no more than several hundred thousand," he wrote. Later on, Abu Mazen quotes a Holocaust denier who claimed that "at first the Zionists spoke about 12 million Jews who were killed in the death camps. They later narrowed the number down to 6 and to 4 million. It is not possible that the Germans murdered more Jews than existed in the world at the time." He quotes another Holocaust denier who counted 896,000 Jewish victims in all. In May 2003, shortly after Abbas became the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, correspondents from the Israeli media confronted him with his thesis. In that meeting with Israeli reporters, Abbas would not apologize nor retract the Holocaust denial thesis that he had written. Abbas has consistently refused to distance himself from his thesis. However, the Israeli government is not pushing him to do so. After all, there are political considerations, since the Israeli government is currently in negotiation with Abbas. In other words, to deny the holocaust in Teheran is reprehensible; to do so in Ramallah is acceptable. You might call this the first case of "politically correct" Holocaust denial. Yrachmiel Elias can be reached at yrachi@zahav.net.il |
|
CARTER AND BAKER: THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO INFUSE ANTI-ISRAEL IDEALISM INTO A NEW POLITICAL ERA
Posted by Michael Travis, December 13, 2006. |
| This was written by Juda Engelmayer |
|
Had you asked anyone in the 1980s what James Addison Baker III and James Earl Carter Jr. had in common it would have been hard to see anything these two political opposites shared, certainly not a political philosophy. One was a Houstonian, a former Democrat with big oil affiliations; the other was a peanut farmer and Baptist church deacon who became governor of Georgia despite his liberal views. Ask today, however, and the answer would be Israel. Both men see Israel as the root cause of all that is wrong in the world today. The proof is in their most recent offerings-Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and Baker's Iraq Study Group findings, which blames Israel's territorial holdings for the chaos in Iraq and just about everything else that is wrong in the Middle East. Both works suffer from the same grave flaw. They assume-or at least want the reader to believe-that Israel is an aggressor nation out to colonize its neighbors. There is no hint in either work that either Carter or Baker appreciate why Israel is in control of the "occupied territories": (1) It was attacked by Arab states determined to destroy it. (2) In fending off the three-front attack, it captured land then occupied by three of those states. (3) When it sought to return those territories (with some border adjustments) in exchange for peace treaties, it received a loud "three no's" instead-"no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel." As did the defeated attackers declare at the 1967 Khartoum summit. There is also no indication in either work that, had Israel been able to return the captured territories in 1967, it would have been returning those lands to illegal occupiers. While the Golan Heights may have been Syrian land, the West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 until mid-1967 and Gaza was illegally occupied by Egypt during that time. Both territories belonged to the Palestinian Arab state Israel agreed to on November 29, 1947, but that no Arab state was willing to see born. Let us be clear to Both Carter and Baker and those who subscribe to their philosophy about this often ignored fact. It was not Israel that originally kept a Palestinian Arab state from coming into existence nearly 60 years ago, it was the Arab states that did so; and it was the Arab states that continued to do so for several decades. All that happened since that November day in 1947 flowed from that refusal and the illegal Arab occupations that followed. Carter's biased misread of the facts overlooks real attempts by Israel and others since then to achieve peace, only to be thwarted time and again by a Palestinian leadership unprepared to make peace. Yasir Arafat ultimately balked at an incredible deal for peace, and Hamas is dead set against even thinking about any deal that does not involve Israel's total destruction. On the Syria/Lebanon side, Hezbollah seems to be powering the anti-Israel engines. If the return of Gaza shows us anything, land for peace is no guarantee that there will be peace. As for the ISG, its report on Iraq mentions Israel 35 times. While Israel is not its sole focus, the report does try to make the case that the difficulties the U.S. is having in Iraq are partly caused by the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians on the one hand and Israel and the Syrians on the other. Baker's notion that Israel's returning the Golan will somehow make Syria a friendly and a willing partner for the West is as flawed as the notion that one can negotiate with Iran's current president. If neither man is inherently opposed to Israel, then both nevertheless seem willing to have Israel play Russian roulette with its very existence. This would be achieved by a disturbing adaptation of the scientific method of research: Isolate the phenomenon of interest by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it. Here is how that works: On the Arab street, Israel gets the blame for all the ills in the Arab world. Remove the "Israel problem" from the Middle East mix and let the Arab street identify the next bogeyman in line, and the next and the next, until finally the true root is exposed and can be worked on. If this be science, it is callous science, a grand experiment that puts Jewish life at risk on a "what if." Israel is not a mere element and the Middle East is not a Petri-dish. The fact is, though, that both Carter and Baker have long histories of opposing Israel. Carter, early on influenced by his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's adversarial policies toward Israel, and Baker, with his well-known oil-based Arabism, now feel emboldened to hammer Israel. Iraq is a rising sore point for U.S. voters and any answer offered now will seem virtuous-even if that means selling out the only true democracy in the region. The opinions of these men are part of a growing mindset within political circles of every philosophy. Now, Robert Gates, a student of the Baker-Brzezinski ideology, is the incoming secretary of defense. Israel should expect pressure to mount on it to once again return land for nothing more that the promise of a cease-fire during the actual handover as President Bush begins to embrace an "anything that appears to work" attitude. Carter's book and Baker's ISG report bring the vastly separate ideologies of the left and right to a convergence point on Israel. The classical anti-Semitic canard that has beleaguered Jews for centuries-that they are what ails the world- may now begin to evolve here in the United States as it is intensifying throughout Europe. The challenge for America will be to stick with logic and not give in to the fears and animus of the predictable Arabist analysis of Israel that is coming from both the left and the right. Neither Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid nor the ISG report should be taken as reflecting sound diplomatic policy. Rather, they should be seen for what they are: Last opportunities for the old anti-Israel guard to gain a foothold in the new political era. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
MAD MAHMOUD MUST BE TOPPLED!
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 13, 2006. |
|
Iranian President Mahmoud AhMADinejad's attempt to attack the legitimacy of Israel, the Jewish homeland returned by a remorseful world to a people traumatized by Nazi genocide, by attacking the credibility of that Holocaust, hosting a conference for kindred spirit anti-Semitic lecturers, has ironically succeeded in bolstering the legitimacy of the Jewish State. Indeed, any thinking person observing the ignominious event, reviewing the credentials of its participants, noting that all speakers maintained the same knee jerk racist viewpoint, noting that not one shred of evidence presented undermined the fact that six million Jews were slaughtered by sadistic Nazi filth, could only conclude that that the Iranian Jew/Israel hater along with his crew of contemptible cronies would go to any lengths to denigrate a nation populated by descendants of a human tragedy so awful that only intellectual dullards would deny or trivialize its proven details. Concurrently, freedom-loving students at a major university in Tehran cried 'Death to the Dictator', a not to be ignored event proving that multitudes of Iranian youth are fed up with the raving maniac in charge. Let us also note that such students are not immediately silenced by thugs in uniform, suggesting that erstwhile Persia is a potentially explosive pressure cooker, not to be further compressed by heavy handed treatment lest a revolutionary spirit kicks into more aggressive action and kicks out the Jew despising dung heap and his flies from their thrones of power. A leader demonically obsessed by so intense a hatred for any one people, willing to tear asunder by his actions any remnant of tolerance for himself still possessed by truly naïve movers and shakers worldwide, must be construed as someone consumed by his own madness and indeed a liability to an evolving mankind. Does not AhMADinejad have any awareness of the impression he makes on reasonable and semi-reasonable folks in tune with a global economy? Does he really believe that such abominable antics, trivializing the enormity of a Holocaust responsible for so much human misery, will solidify his power base in the Middle East, and if so does he not contemplate at what cost to the planetary stature of the nation he stewards? Might throngs of civil leaders further conclude that the Persian potentate is several bricks shy a load? Will his bizarre disdainful behavior further intensify the disgust of youthful Iranians, already pushed to the breaking point? There is a valid reason many nations criminalize speech that denies or diminishes proven atrocities committed by subhuman Nazis against so many innocent victims. Such acts so blasphemed the very concept of humanity that denying or trivializing them for any reason is indeed an intolerable criminal affront to the essence of human morality as well as human intelligence. It is in civil mankind's interest to forthwith economically sanction Iran, despotically ruled by the jackal AhMADinejad and his henchmen, for such despicable behavior. Simultaneously, Israel and friends should develop a strategy, perhaps through carefully crafted satellite broadcasts, to spur on rebellious Iranian students and other fed up citizens of that regime to topple the fundamentalist Islamic tyrants that so represses their freedoms and embarrasses their nation in the eyes of rational societies including global trading partners. Saudi Arabia might be willing, with or without coaxing by a more focused Uncle Sam, to increase oil production, thus substantially cut the per barrel price at the expense of Iran's fragile fossil fuel dependent economy. Good! Such a prescient move by the Sunni House of Saud, more than a little concerned that Shiite Iran will attempt to dominate the Middle East, will stifle AhMADinejad and kindred spirit maniacal mullahs from fulfilling their ever perilous dream of becoming a nuclear power. Furthermore, an imploding economy will further compress the Iranian pressure cooker, perhaps causing an explosive full-scale rebellion resulting in the collapse of its incredibly dangerous government. If it does, the world will breathe a sigh of relief. Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
CHANUKAH REFLECTIONS
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, December 12, 2006. |
|
Enclosed you'll find a collections of ideas -- on the significance of Chanukah -- expressed by various Jewish Sages. Chanukah inspired the US Founding Fathers, as evidenced also by Benjamin Franklin's Maccabee-inspired "Rebellion against Tyrants is Obedience to God" and Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Give Me Death." Chanukah originated in the town of Modi'in -- located half way between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv -- the hometown of the Maccabees. 2173 year following the emergence of Mattityahu the Maccabee (167BC), my first grandchild(daughter), Noga, emerged on the same site -- Modi'in -- demonstrating the continuity of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel in general, and in the Land of the Maccabees in particular (were the Maccabees "occupiers"???). Noga's name means Light-Glow-Splendor, which is the essence of Chanukah. Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, |
|
1. CHANUKA'S UNIQUENESS. Chanukah is the only Jewish holiday which commemorates a Land-of-Israel national liberation struggle, unlike Passover (Exodus from Egypt), Sukkot & Shavouot (on the way to the Land of Israel), Purim (Persia), etc. Chanukah is the longest Jewish holiday (8 days) with the most intense level of Light (8 consecutive nights). 2. SEVEN CHANUKAH ("Inauguration" in Hebrew)-LIKE EVENTS: Chanukah of the Creation (Genesis 2:1-3), Chanukah of the Sanctuary (Numbers 7:1-11), Chanukah of the First Temple (Kings 1, 7:51, 8:1-11 & 62-66), Chanukah of the Second Temple and the Ingathering (Ezra 6:13-18), Chanukah of Jerusalem's Wall (Nehemiah 6:15-16), Chanukah of the Temple Priests in 165BC (Maccabees 1, 4), Chanukah of the After World. Some attach the significance of each Chanukah to a corresponding day of the Creation. 3. ORIGIN OF THE NAME, CHANUKAH: THE HOLIDAY OF EDUCATION. According to the first book of Maccabees, Yehuda (who succeeded Mattityahu, the priest) ordered the Jewish People to observe an eight day holiday on the 25th day of the month of Kislev, in order to commemorate the INAUGURATION (CHANUKAH in Hebrew) of the holy altar and the Temple, following Syrian desecration. A key feature of Chanukah is EDUCATION of the family (The Hebrew word for education is CHINUKH, spelled with the first four of the five letters of Chanukah). The Hebrew word, Chanukah, consists of two words, CHANU (they rested/stationed) and KAH (25), which refers to the fact that the Maccabees re-consecrated the Temple on the 25th day of the month of Kislev (purging it from the idolatries installed by the Seleucids). Some have suggested that the celebration of Christmas on December 25th and the celebration of the New Year 8 days later (January 1) have their origin in the 25th day of Kislev (which always "accompanies" December) and the 8 days of Chanukah as well as the 8 days of circumcision. 4. ORIGIN OF THE NAME, MACCABEE. Yehuda's middle name was Maccabee, derived possibly from the Hebrew word MAKEVET (The Power Hammer), which described Yehuda's tenacious fighting capabilities. It may have derived from the Hebrew verb CABEH (to extinguish), which described the fate of Yehuda's adversaries. Another possible interpretation of the name is that MACCABEE is the Hebrew acronym of "Who could resemble you among Gods, Jehovah" ("Mi Camokha Ba'elim Adonye" in Hebrew). 5. LEGACY OF THE MACCABEES: Faith, moral clarity, long-term vision, defiance of odds (the few against the many), willingness to sacrifice short-term convenience on the altar of long term national security, and awareness that nations who do not adhere to their roots and are not willing to sacrifice for Liberty forsake their future and do not deserve Liberty. NO FREE LUNCH FOR SOVEREIGN PEOPLES, especially in violent and unpredictable neighborhoods. 6. HOLIDAY OF LIGHT AND REMEMBRANCE. The first day of Chanukah -- the holiday of light -- is on the 25th day of Kislev, the month of miracles (e.g. Noah's Rainbow appeared in Kislev). Moses completed the construction of the Holy Arc on the 25th day of Kislev, as was the date of the laying the foundation of the second Temple by Nehemaya. The 25th (Hebrew) word in Genesis is LIGHT ("OR" in Hebrew). A Jewish metaphor for the Torah is light. The 25th stop of the People of Israel -- on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land -- was Hashmona (same root as Hasmoneans in Hebrew). Chanukah commemorates the victory of Light (Maccabees) over Darkness. While light stands for remembrance, darkness (Chashecha in Hebrew) stands for FORGETFULNESS (Schichecha in Hebrew, spelled with the same Hebrew letters as Chashecah/darkness). 7. CHANUKAH DEMONSTRATES THAT WISDOM IS SUPERIOR TO KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING. Jewish definition of intellect and Jewish history demonstrate the superiority of Khokhma (faith in divinely inspired wisdom, morality and capabilities) over Beena (human understanding and interpretations) and Da'att (human intelligence/knowledge). The Greek/Syrian culture was based on the superiority of human knowledge and (tenuous) moral standards. The Greeks/Syrians felt constrained, and therefore threatened, by Jewish faith in divine (permanent) morality. Chanukah demonstrates the victory of divine morality over convenience-driven human definition of morality. 8. EIGHT DAYS OF CHANUKAH REPRESENT DIVINE CAPABILITIES AND OPTIMISM. The ancient Temple Menorah consisted of seven branches, which commemorated the seven days of creation. The Chanukah Menorah has eight branches, reflecting the additional level of divine capabilities over and beyond human expectations: The victory of the few over the many and the lasting of one day supply of oil for eight days. Some have suggested that the eight day celebration was designed to make up for the holiday of Tabernacles, which could not be celebrated by the Maccabees due to the war. The shape of "Eight" represents infinity: No end to divine capabilities to enhance human fortunes, as evidenced by the survival of the Jewish People against all odds. The root of the Hebrew word for "eight" (Shmonah) is "oil" (Shemen), which is also the root of "Hasmonean" (Hashmonayim). 9 A LESSON TO ISRAEL's LEADERSHIP: Simon the Maccabee -- who succeeded Judah and Jonathan the Maccabees -- responded to an ultimatum by the Assyrian/Greek Emperor Antiochus (Maccabees A, Chapter 15, verse 33: "We have not occupied a foreign land; We have not ruled a foreign land; We have liberated the land of our forefathers from foreign occupation." Thus responded Simon the Maccabee to Emperor Antiochus' ultimatum to end "occupation" of Jaffa, Jerusalem, Gezer, Ekron and Gaza. 10. THE INSPIRATION FOR BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S "REBELLION AGAINST TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD". The Maccabees were a tiny minority -- condemned by the "pragmatic" Jewish establishment -- upon launching their rebellion against an oppressive super-power. They were referred by Jewish "intellectuals" as "the enemies of peace" and "extremists." They prevailed due to their principle-driven, determined and can-do state-of-mind. They have demonstrated the victory of the few over the many, right over wrong and truth over lies. The Maccabees have become a role-model for America's Founding Fathers, including Paul Revere and the organizers of the Boston Tea Party. 11. ORIGIN OF PATRICK HENRY'S "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH" and NEW HAMPSHIRE'S "Live Free Or Die". The Maccabees' sacrifice and political Incorrectness has preserved and inspired today's Jewish religion, language, culture and sovereignty. They followed in the footsteps of Abraham, Pinchas the High Priest, Joshua&Calev, King David and Elijah. 12. HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Alexander The Great -- who held Judaism in high esteem and whose Egyptian heir Ptolemy II translated the Torah to Greek -- died in 323BC following 12 glorious years at the throne. Consequently, the Greek Empire disintegrated into five, and thirty years later into three, kingdoms: Macedonia, Syria and Egypt. The Land of Israel was always militarily contested by Syria and Egypt (and Gaza was always the main invasion route!). In 198BC, Israel was conquered by the ancient Syrians. In 175BC, a new king assumed power in Syria, Antiochus (IV) Epiphanies, who viewed the Jews as pro-Egyptians and held Judaism with contempt. In 169BC, upon his return to Syria from a military victory over Egypt, he devastated Jerusalem, massacred a large number of Jews, forbade the practice of Judaism (including the Sabbath, circumcision, etc.) and desecrated Jerusalem and the Temple. The 167BC-launched rebellion against the Syrian (Seleucid) kingdom featured the Hasmonean (MACCABEE) family: Mattityahu, a priest from the town of Modi'in, and his five sons, Yochanan, Yehuda, Simon, Jonathan and Elazar. The heroic (and tactically creative) battles conducted by the Maccabees, were consistent with the reputation of Jews as superb warriors, who were hired frequently as mercenaries by Egypt, Rome and other global and regional powers. 13. CHANUKAH-PASSOVER-PURIM. The heroes of Passover and Purim had no choice but to defy their enemies. The Maccabees refused physical peace in return for spiritual assimilation and a sellout of the cradle of Jewish history. They were willing to pay any price for the protection of their values and heritage. Chanukah symbolizes the victory of conviction and roots over short-term convenience and over opportunism/cynicism (currently known as "Realism" or "pragmatism"). Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il |
|
THE PROBLEM WITH THE BAKER-HAMILTON STUDY; IDIOT'S GUIDE TO NATIONAL SUICIDE
Posted by Michael Travis, December 12, 2006. |
|
These essays were written by Ilana Freedman. |
|
"The Problem With The Baker-Hamilton Study" The Iraq Study Group Report is one of the most naïve and potentially dangerous documents to impact United States policy in many years. The alarming scope of the panel's ignorance of Middle East realities is made all the more alarming by the respected reputations of those who sat on the panel. They included two former White House Chiefs of Staff, advisors to several presidents, a retired Supreme Court Judge, a former Secretary of State, and several academics and think tank executives. Significantly absent from this commission, however, was anyone with military expertise or experience, with real and recent knowledge of the current situation in Iraq. Considering that America's involvement in Iraq has been first and foremost a military one, this omission is singularly glaring and it casts a long shadow on the findings. This may explain some of the more serious shortcomings of this report, but it does not lessen the dangers that the report will represent if it is accepted as a reasonable analysis and absorbed into policy. This is very clear in the very first pages of the report, which refers to "the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq". In reality, Iran has been one of the key drivers of Iraq's increasing instability since the beginning of America's military involvement in Iraq in 2003. As an element of their national policy, they have offered safe haven, training, and military support to terrorists bound for operations in Iraq. They have flooded Iraq with billions of counterfeit US dollars aimed at destabilizing the local economy, and have provided major military and financial support to terrorist groups within the country. Anyone who has studied the strategic implications of policy changes in Iraq should know this. Yet the Study Group recommends that "Iran should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq", displays a shocking lack of understanding of the forces that drive the conflict. Iran has no interest in a stable region or a strong Iraq, but rather seeks to dominate the entire Muslim world. When the panel suggests that the United States try to "engage [Iran and Syria] constructively", they ignore Iran's vested interest in destabilizing the region. The report also ignores the harsh lessons of history. The patterns of pre-World War II Germany are now playing out again in Iran. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made his game plan clear, just as Hitler did more than 80 years ago. As early as 1919, Hitler was publicly asserting his ideas about "racial purity" and reserving his greatest venom for the Jews, whom he made it clear needed to be "eliminated". The world did not pay attention then, and Hitler did exactly as he said he would. The six million Jews who were murdered represented 25% of the civilian casualties of the war in Europe. Today, as Ahmadinejad develops his nuclear arsenal while unabashedly calling for the total destruction of the state of Israel and its six million Jews, his message is abundantly clear. Yet this point is totally disregarded by the panel. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has also declared -- in letters and speeches - that the West must follow the path of Allah or "vanish from the face of the earth". These are words that must be taken at face value. In a worst case scenario, they will be there to remind us that we were warned. A student of Islam knows that warnings are a part of the tradition of Mohammed, and are declared today as a prelude to war. The fact that these warnings have not been taken into account by the Study Group is reason for great concern. Like Chamberlain, the panel embraces diplomacy while ignoring the threats and clear warnings of the enemy who preaches the destruction of our nation. As Iran moves purposefully towards the acquisition of nuclear power, the ominous threat of a nuclear war looms large. Ahmadinejad has issued thinly veiled threats of his goal in this regard and we ignore at our peril. A nuclear bomb delivered against one of Iran's precieved will mark the beginning of a world war unlike anything we have ever seen. The report shows a stunning lack of interest or concern for Israel's place in the Middle East. It calls for a direct talks between Israel and Syria to "deal directly with the Middle East conflict." But it then provides a list of eight fanciful assumptions that includes "verifiable cessation" of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and arms shipments for Hamas, and a Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist. The end result, according to the report, will be a full and secure peace agreement. The idea that Syria will agree to any of this denies Syria's close alliance with Iran, its history of supplying arms, ammunition, funds, a logistical support to the Hezbollah to support their terrorist activities against Israel. Nevertheless, the panel has recommended that in return for these naïve and simplistic demands, Israel will return the strategic Golan Heights, that overlook its entire northern region, to Syria, with the promise of a U.S. security guarantee and an international force on the borders. Given Israel's past disastrous experience with security guarantees and international forces, it is hardly reasonable to expect them to stake their very survival on such promises. They also ignore the massive support of Iran and Syria, or, no less alarming, the continued movement of long-range missiles to Syria's border with Israel. Finally, the panel's urgent call for US withdrawal from Iraq is both uninformed and dangerous. Given Iran's consistent and deadly meddling in Iraq, US withdrawal would do more to destabilize the region than any other single act. It could throw the Middle East into a war on several fronts that could merge into a conflagration unlike anything we have yet seen in the region. And it would inflame Islamists around the globe to take up the sword in jihad. The historical record shows that the Study Group's assumptions are simplistic at best and, more to the point, they are dangerously lacking realistic perspective. While they have raised serious questions about issues which are in urgent need of discussion and resolution, their lack of knowledge about the complex cultures and issues of the Middle East or the ramifications of Western actions there should disqualify this report from playing any significant role in developing foreign policy. "The Idiot's Guide to National Suicide: Five Easy Steps for the Politically Correct" America's engagement in the global war against terrorism, officially initiated by President Bush on September 12, 2001, has brought us to the most dangerous crossroad in our history. 9/11 set in motion a series of events that place us in greater danger today than two world wars ever did. We now face the total destruction of our free society as we know it. And we race to the finish line in glorious disregard for the role we ourselves are playing in our own downfall. The long list of unintended consequences, brought about by an erratic national agenda and an ambiguous, ill-informed foreign policy has led us to the brink of disaster. The most recent demonstration of our failing purpose, The Iraq Study Group Report, only underscores how far we have allowed ourselves to be led down this path. Since we as a nation are determined to be so politically correct and blindly led as to enable our elected and appointed leaders to bring us to this moment, I have formulated five easy steps to help us transition into our own national demise.
These are my five easy steps to staying safe (as opposed to remaining free). It is a recipe for ending the war against terrorism, a war which we only marginally acknowledge and fight half-heartedly. If you will follow these simple steps, you will be able to conclude this war with a minimum of inconvenience, although it will assuredly end in surrender rather than victory. It will also result in your living under religious tyranny that limits freedom of expression, subjugates women, and promotes jihad against unbelievers. But oh well. Who could ever have imagined it would end up this way? In respect for those who gave their lives for a free America, I offer this final epitaph: R.I.P. Here lies the United States of America. Born in courage, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the inalieanable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Died in appeasement to tyranny and in denial of all the principles
upon which it was founded.
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com
|
|
OUR LEADERS SHRINK FROM CONFRONTING THE THREAT THAT FACES OUR NATION
Posted by Barbara Ledeen, December 12, 2006. |
|
This was written by Rick Santorum,the outgoing junior Republican senator from Pennsylvania. It appeared on National Review Online (article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGUzZTlhMjRiN2NhZjlmYTIxODgzM2I0OTY5ZmRhN2Q). |
|
The Baker/Hamilton Commission report on Iraq presents an understanding of the war on terror fundamentally different from the way the president has presented the war to the American people. The American people asserted their agreement with the president, and their trust in his efforts to prosecute the war, in the presidential election of 2004. This agreement is now in doubt. The Baker/Hamilton report, however, is of minor significance; its predictable prescriptions are noteworthy only for the approach to the war that they reject. Of much greater significance were the elections of three weeks ago -- they are the reason that a revised understanding of the war will likely have a predominant influence on the way in which the war is now carried out. A day after the Democrats won both houses of Congress, President Bush accepted the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. The nomination for Rumsfeld's replacement as secretary of Defense was Robert Gates, a cathartic election's first fruits. Last week, Gates was confirmed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote that saw only two senators vote against him: Senator Bunning and myself. The many failings of the administration in Iraq are well known. Ignored is the larger failing of our country's leaders: their unwillingness to define, with clarity, honesty, and consistency, the enemy we face and the complex and enormous threat it poses to the lives and freedoms of all Americans. If America were not at war, I would have deferred to the president's judgment in his choice for secretary of Defense. Gates is a competent and experienced nominee. But we are at war, and we need exceptional leadership and insight. Gates unfortunately shares the view of the Iraq Study Group that we cannot win the battle in Iraq; at this point, our best option is to withdraw slowly and to negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has been at war with us since 1979, and is today the principle instigator of systematic murder in Iraq; to negotiate a truce with that country at this point would be to negotiate our terms of surrender. This would be seen as an historic defeat for America -- most assuredly, and notably, in the eyes of the radical Islamic world.. The Iraq Study Group and Secretary Gates see clearly the problems in Iraq and the contributions Iran makes to these problems. They do not think we can win in Iraq because they do not think that we can win in Iran; or, at least, they do not think that we must win in Iran. We must confront Iran to win in Iraq, and, more than that, we must confront Iran if we are to defeat Islamic fascism all over the world. The president's nomination of Gates, and the Senate's passive and overwhelming support of him, shows that our leaders have not understood the peril we are in and are not prepared to win the war that is being waged against us. How could it be that a bitterly divided Washington has suddenly come to a consensus that will surely lead us on a path to failure in Iraq, and then to even more disastrous consequences? Can our country's leaders really have concluded that the public's discontent with the war in Iraq changes even one bit the nature of the threat our enemy poses to us? These are questions well worth asking our politicians, and first of all, our commander-in-chief, lest he contemplate changing his mind about the enemy we face. The president is not unaware of the situation in Iran, but his view of the country is informed by the advisers who surround him, a collection of people from the various sectors of the foreign-policy establishment. His intelligence team, led by the director of National Intelligence, will advise him that the opposition in Iran is weak and divided and that there is no legitimate exile community; thus we have no real alternative to either bombing the country or establishing by diplomacy a modus vivendi. The Pentagon will advise the president that our already stretched forces are unable to engage in another conflict. The State Department and our new secretary of Defense do not think that there is a casus belli and that our best hope for mitigating the many crises of that region is to negotiate with Iran. So, if we should not expect the president to explain why we must confront Iran, what of the Congress? The Democrats of course would never confront Iran because they attribute their wins in November to America's growing dissatisfaction with Iraq. If continued instability in Iraq works to their political benefit, why would they change the subject to Iran, particularly when they have no solution to propose and have always been skeptical that military force will do anything to stop Islamic terrorism? Many Republicans understand the problems that Iran is causing in Iraq, but they have no wish to be portrayed as warmongers by the media and the Democratic party. If Americans have had enough with Iraq, it would be only too easy to characterize any confrontation with Iran as the United States becoming hopelessly and dangerously entangled in a region whose ills defy remedy. Iraq is only one front in a larger war being waged against the Western world. We are under siege by people with an ideology, a plan, hundreds of millions of dollars, and an ever increasing presence on virtually every continent. Yet none of the decision makers in Washington is willing to confront Iran; the threat that Iran poses, as the standard-bearer of Islamic fascism, goes unacknowledged. This is undoubtedly an unpopular war. Those who define the enemy as radical Islamic fascism are ridiculed by the media and others; the term is dismissed as inflammatory and inapt. It is not inapt, and thus it is not inflammatory. The term "Islamic fascism" is no harsher than those we used to describe our enemies in the Second World War. And just as we did not call all Italians "fascists" then, so too we do not call all Muslims "fascists" now. Words define the enemy we confront. They help the American people comprehend what motivates the enemy. Without clear, accurate words, we cannot fight effectively: our own people become confused and divided, and the fascists are encouraged to believe that we fear them. When we fail to recognize the connection between Iraq and Iran, we postpone the day when we define a strategy to win the war, instead of a list of steps to retreat from the Iraqi theater. The Gates nomination and confirmation show that our leaders do not understand the true dimensions of the war. So long as they do not understand this, how can we ever expect to win? |
|
THE IRAQ PANEL PLAYS AT DIPLOMACY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 12, 2006. |
|
The NY Times of 12/7 published a news article, a news analysis, a military analysis, and an editorial about the Baker panel paper on US policy for Iraq. Little was quoted from the panel's paper, though a web site of the full text was identified (NYTimes.Com/Iraq). Public discussion largely will be second-hand. People will apply their inclinations to journalists' commentaries. That is the same, second-hand, unsatisfactory manner in which Israelis usually deal with major public issues. It isn't thoughtful enough. The two major problems with the Baker paper, or at least with its newspaper presentation, are omission of justification for its positions and a narrow scope. Without the justification, there is no reason for the public to adopt the major points and premises. The recommendations are presented as speculation without basis. The scope is limited to just one war, or perhaps two, and Israel, whereas we are in a world war. The whole paper falls on its obliviousness to Iraq being part of global jihad. It assumes that we can reach some accommodation in that War which really is just one front, and fight one other, the Afghanistan war. Broader vision is called for. This lack of broader vision keeps the US bogged down in Iraq now. Most Americans never understood that we are in a world war. They indignantly suggest that we should have limited ourselves to Afghanistan, although al-Qaida, their target, made its new headquarters in Pakistan, which they don't suggest fighting. Could one have anticipated a broader vision from the panel? No. Apparently it was stacked, ideologically. That is no way to discover the array of alternatives available to the US. It is the way of blocking all but Baker's views. No wonder the panel claims to have approved the whole set of recommendations unanimously! There were too many recommendations for a normal set of pundits to find them all worthy. Consensus was helped by the resignations of Rudy Giuliani and another member and by vague wording. Vague wording is the product of State Dept. minds that cover up conflict and paper over differences by leaving each side to interpret a treaty or document to its own advantage. After acceptance and during implementation, those differences break out, war, with it. Who, after all, is Baker? He is the former Secretary of State whose foreign policy failed and whose failures helped set the stage for the problems that built up through the Clinton years and bedeviled the incumbent. It doesn't make sense, and it is some nerve, for a proven failure to come forward with what he calls solutions but are the problematic notions of his unsuccessful past tenure. The Times calls the report a "stunning indictment" of Pres. Bush's failure. Yes, but more stunning and contributory were the failures of Baker. No hint of that in the Times. Hmm. If Bush Sr. and Clinton had spent their 12 years preparing the public and the military for crushing jihad when it was more vulnerable, instead of soothing the public and short-changing the military, Bush Jr. would not have suffered this failure. That, of course, doesn't excuse his inability to lead the nation sufficiently for it to understand the stakes. He gave some speeches that did explain much, but he pulled his punches and let the debate turn against him by default and by virtue of stubbornness in the field. Baker also is the official who said, "F... the Jews, they didn't vote for us, anyway." Is it any wonder that his solution is to sacrifice the Jewish state, as if that would slake imperial Islam's thirst for conquest? This is the traditional and unethical State Dept. policy, a policy as relentless as it has proved illogical and non-workable. He doesn't say sacrifice Israel, but the panel proposes a regional conference to come up with demands for concessions from Israel that would emasculate its defenses from Muslim conquest. This also is the policy of the traditionally anti-Zionist Times, whose analyses ignore the real meaning of the "solution." The premise here is let be exterminated another six million Jews, the ones in Israel, in the supposed (and vain) hope that it would spare a few GIs. This would eliminate a strong and very useful ally and help the Islamists consolidate their control over the Mideast, after which they can come after us more compellingly. Don't call that patriotic! The stake, here, after all, is civilization. Appeasing the enemies of civilization didn't work with the totalitarian Nazis and Communists. It hasn't worked with the Muslims, either. It cannot work when the opposing ideology is fanatical, relentless, hate-filled, and now, particularly in light of this panel, seems to be ascendant. For this panel abandons hope of victory. If the US, which accounts for more than a third of military spending in the world, cannot win on this one front, how would we defend ourselves from global jihad? Some of the more perceptive analysts have compared this paper's proposal to give the Arabs the mountainous redoubts of Israel with Britain's proposal to turn the mountainous redoubt of Czechoslovakia over to Nazi Germany. For the latter diplomacy, Prime Minister Chamberlin was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, shortly before his scheme led directly to WWII. Like that plan, the panel proposes to turn Israel's mountainous redoubts over to the common totalitarian enemy, without the sacrificial country having the right to refuse. It seems like a cheap price when someone else makes the immediate payment, but WWII that ensued from Britain's betrayal of its Czech ally did not come cheap. The panel asserts that the US can't achieve its goals in the Mideast without dealing directly with the Arab-Israel conflict and gaining comprehensive peace. That is stating a case for US arm-twisting blandly, to sound reasonable and attractive. Remember, this paper was written by diplomats who obscure what they really mean. What they mean is that since Israel (if its leadership were patriotic, though it is more neurotic) is unlikely to cede secure borders and more of its homeland voluntarily, the US should force it to. That does not achieve US goals but State Dept. goals, Arab imperialist goals, and Islamist goals. It would set the stage for war. Neither does it have the faintest chance of bringing peace. Peace treaty, yes, but peace, no. There is a difference. The Oslo Accords were peace agreements. Nobody paid any attention to Arab obligations under them. Islamists don't adhere to agreements with infidels that hinder jihad. They bide their time, they don't bind their actions. Gaining advantages from treaties and truces, they renew the war when ready to. The way Islamists operate is a piece of reality absent from the purview of the Times and from Baker and associates, who like to call their school of thought, get this, realism. Why shouldn't the Islamists behave as I forecast? Nothing has improved in the ethics of their culture. They are not more tolerant but less so, not less aggressive but more so. They see that they are winning -- and they cite the panel as evidence. The smell of victory, not poverty, makes it easier to recruit fighters. For all their repeated aggression against Israel and their pact violations, the agreements were not nullified, the aggressors were not punished, and the Arabs were not condemned. Rather, the world considers Israel the aggressor. It is in this environment that Baker's suggestion that peace can come from diplomacy, and his implication that coercion and concession -- coercing the victims of aggression and concessions for the aggressors -- either is monumental stupidity or duplicitous malice. My associate thinks it both. My associate, a religious Jew, has an interesting perspective, applying the lessons from the Bible to contemporary times. He notes that the many attempts to harm the Jews were followed by disasters for those who attempted to inflict the harm or who condoned it. Whereas most people see little connection between anti-Zionist policies and attacks by nature and by man on the US, except in time, he sees this as God's continuing retaliation against antisemites. I wish God would take a stitch in time, instead. The panel's thesis typifies American illogic. We Americans think there are two sides to every story, whereas often there are more, though not necessarily reasonable or correct. We tend to pose insufficient alternatives, too. In this case, we are told to fight on in Iraq or flee. This choice neglects a broad strategy for dealing with Islamism. Pres. Bush was stumbling towards a broad strategy, but he had too small an army, didn't want to pay for a bigger one, didn't fully study the enemy, was hobbled by political correctness, and was humbled by Democratic and foreign criticism. The paper offers no broad strategy, either. It leaves the army small, didn't study the enemy, and seeks to appease foreign criticism. Too narrow a choice. Although I didn't read the report, the summation of its recommendations makes plain that the panel lacks an understanding of the enemy and of what kind of a war we are in -- global jihad. The formulators seem mired in their past positions. Global jihad means that Muslims strive wherever they can, to the extent they can, and especially as they radicalize, to gain supremacy. Where they are strong, as in Lebanon, they fight and demonstrate. Where they are gaining strength, as in Europe, they inhibit criticism, bar police, and foster Islamism. Where they have less strength, as in the US, they raise money and pretend to be tolerant. A paper that evinces no understanding of the enemy and the conflict is worth little. The panel makes some useful suggestions for tactics, but not for strategy. Youssef Ibrahim of the NY Sun made a dozen or so suggestions for tactics, himself. Some of them seemed useful, too. His fit a more practical strategy. He is imaginative, as are some of the panel's suggestions within their narrow scope, and as the government should have been. But the panel's basic premise, that we could fight merely on two fronts and by working with hostile local politicians in an international conflict, allowed gunmen to pour into the country and enemy militias to build up under our noses. From the summary of the report: "Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the US should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the US had disincentives and incentives available." The Security Council should "continue to deal with" Iran's development of nuclear weapons. How could the panel not have noticed that the Council doesn't deal with Iran, it avoids coming to grips with the issue? The Council is conflicted about this. Some members support and profit from Iran's drive for super-rogue status. The panel doesn't grasp, or doesn't want to admit, what the Council really is used for. It really is an excuse to pigeonhole or hog-tie controversial issues and to condemn Israel for responding to Arab aggression. What a weak reed the UNO is, a slimy one, at that, with all its corruption and hypocrisy. The panel's suggestion, to give Syria and Iran a one-time payment to stop that flow, because they want to "stabilize" Iraq, is risible. The war is prolonged there largely because Iran and Syria have been destabilizing Iraq. Destabilization is their plan for the world. They think they can pick up the pieces. Iran has made that plain. Why can't our officials grasp that concept? They can't, because they have no broad vision. Neither have they taken the trouble to study the enemy they take our funds to fight. Besides, it is a difficult concept to accept -- it means many years and more funds to struggle. Our officials prefer to imagine a rosier path. The proposals cover a gamut of sub-schemes. If, as the panel suggests, US advisors are embedded in Iraqi units without US combat troops to protect them, who will? (Iraqi units are infiltrated by the enemy.) The panel thus would increase US casualties. That suggestion was criticized in the newspaper analysis by officers with experience in the field of battle. The panel, whose chair sought to keep its ideological make-up monolithic, should have anticipated being offered outside insights. Instead, the authors insist that all the proposals be accepted if any. What temerity! Are they our dictators or, led by a failed official, all-wise? One of the panel's premises, already being applied by the Administration, is to train Iraqis to defend themselves. This takes more time than the paper implies, because of cultural differences. It also is dubious, given Iraq's Quisling government and its deliberate installation of terrorists in the official army and police. Another premise is the abandonment of the goal, which Democrats, at least initially, should have welcomed, of turning Iraq into a democracy that would attract other countries to emulate. Unfortunately, Democrats were more interested in damaging the Administration for partisan advantage than in helping it succeed in Iraq for American advantage. Besides, Iraqi culture, like Lebanon's, is too much based on mutually balanced but antagonistic ethnic groups, for a tolerant and therefore stable democracy. It would take too long and require too much force to change Iraq's culture, and the people would fight an occupation. We must not quit, for we dare not lose. But we need a better strategy to win. That means acknowledging the extent of the struggle and the effort to win it. This requires a public information campaign and a new strategy. Before undertaking a public information campaign, I suggest that our officials inform themselves about global jihad. 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. |
|
A PLEA TO U.S. CHRISTIANS -- STOP IRAN AND SAVE ISRAEL AND THE WEST
Posted by Michael Freund, December 12, 2006. |
|
Three months. That's all we've got. That's all that stands right now between the world as we know it, and one in which the Iranian President will be able to put his finger on the nuclear button. In the column below from the Jerusalem Post, I appeal to US Christians to storm the heavens with their prayers and the White House with their pleas, and to call for military action against Iran in order to save Israel and the West. Time is of the essence -- so please feel free to distribute this article as widely as possible.
This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post thanks,
|
|
The clock is ticking, yet no one wishes to hear it. The countdown to a nuclear Iran has begun, and with each passing day the nightmare scenario draws ever closer to becoming a reality. In just a few months' time, if all goes according to plan, the tyrant of Teheran will preside over a celebration of terrifying, and history-altering, significance. His goal, as he has stated repeatedly in recent weeks, is to complete the installation of thousands of centrifuges, the devices used to enrich uranium, by the end of March 2007. This will give the ayatollahs the ability to start producing nuclear weapons, and to spread nuclear terror far and wide, threatening the existence not only of Israel, but of Western civilization itself. The would-be Hitler of Persia has already made it abundantly clear that he plans to wipe Israel and its millions of Jews off the map. And last week he told Western leaders that their turn would soon be next: "If you do not respond to the divine call," he warned, "you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth." Three months. That's all we've got. That's all that stands right now between the world as we know it, and one in which the Persian executioner will be able to put his finger on the nuclear button. This can not be allowed to happen. The danger is too great, the peril is too real. Now is the time for all those who love Israel to stand up and be counted. Now is the time for pro-Israel Christians everywhere, and especially in the US, to rise up and cry out on behalf of God's people. Storm the heavens with your prayers, and the White House with your pleas. Speak out now and urge US President George W. Bush to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat once and for all. BY NOW it should be clear: Nothing less than US military action is going to deter Teheran from pursuing its nuclear goals. Threats of sanctions and finger-wagging have failed to do the job. Europe is hopelessly weak and conciliatory, and the United Nations is completely inept. There is one man, and one man alone, whom God has put in a position to stop Iran, and that man's name is George W. Bush. But the president is under attack, as the media and his critics do their utmost to tear him down. They hate him and everything he stands for, and will stop at nothing to spoil his remaining time in office. The president is a good man, and a man of faith. He knows what needs to be done; but like any leader, he also needs to hear from those who put him in office. And that, dear Christians, is where you come in to play. With your size and your influence, and yes, with your faith, it is you who can make a difference at this critical juncture for Israel and the West. Many of my fellow Jews in the US are largely silent, afraid to be seen as leading the charge. It is as if they learned nothing from the Jewish people's horrific experience in Europe over six decades ago, when silence in America made possible extermination across the sea. But you know better than that, and you are not afraid. On issues that you care about, you have demonstrated an impressive ability to affect US policy, mustering the passion and power necessary to shape debate. Now, more than ever, is the time to do so again, for the threat to us all is very, very real. Flood the White House and Congress with your concerns. Let them know that you fear for Israel and its safety. Urge your elected officials to hit Iran hard, and soon. Not merely with criticism, but with bombs as well. Because unless the US Air Force goes into action, the mullahs of Teheran will jeopardize everything we hold dear. ISRAEL, AS you know, is the "apple of His eye" (see Deut. 32:10 and Zech. 2:12). And God has made clear in His Scripture what He expects from people of faith at times such as these, when Israel is in danger. "You who make mention of the Lord," says the prophet Isaiah (Chap. 62: 6-7), "do not keep silent, and give Him no rest until He establishes and until He makes Jerusalem unto a praise in the earth." "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem," says the Psalmist, in Psalm 122. "They that love thee shall prosper." These aren't just guidelines or recommendations from books of old. They are a command to each and every one of us, Jew and Christian alike, to stand up and speak out when Israel is under threat. I have no doubt, not one iota of disbelief, that God will save His people Israel. Deliverance comes from Him, and Him alone. But each of us must do our part to help bring it about. And you, dear Christians, now have the power, and the opportunity, to do so. To move the president's heart, and to save Israel and the West from a truly diabolical fate. So please, don't tarry -- we dare not delay. The clock is winding down, the alarm bells are ringing. Raise your voices in prayer and supplication. The time to do something is now, and there is not a moment to waste. The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu.
|
|
WOE TO ARIEL!
Posted by David Ben Ariel, December 12, 2006. |
|
Isaiah 29:1
Carl Sandburg, an American writer warned: "If America forgets where she came from...if she listens to the deniers and mockers, then will begin the rot and dissolution." The same principle applies to our Jewish brethren in Israel. The most merciful God of Jacob-Israel resurrected the nation of Israel from the graveyard of history and offered us a new opportunity to fulfill our unique calling to become a model nation, a kingdom of priests, a light to all nations, based upon the Law and the Prophets. Yet secular Jews, Hellenist Jews, UNJews, have divorced themselves from the Bible and have sought to make Israel just like all the other nations. And the corrupt Chief Rabbinate and blind religious leaders have woefully neglected (and forfeited by default) Judaism's most holy site: the Temple Mount. Despite the faithlessness of many of Israel's leaders, the Great God of the Universe liberated areas of Judea and Samaria and restored Judaism's holiest site (supposedly) -- the Temple Mount -- into Jewish hands. Did Israel immediately invite the God of history to return with our exiles (now making aliyah) by building the Third Temple? Did they honor the God of our fathers by creating an Embassy for the Eternal upon the Temple Mount? No! Instead Israelis despised their most sacred inheritance, the crown jewel of Jerusalem, and permitted militant Muslims to continue their abominable occupation. The foreign foxes terrorize faithful Jews and Christian Zionists who attempt to worship upon the Temple Mount and illegally refuse to let them pray or read the Bible. Israel has failed to uphold religious rights for non-Muslims (that are trampled daily) and has failed to guarantee "freedom of access." The biblical solution is to build the House of Prayer for All Peoples spoken of by the Prophets. Queen Victoria said: "I think it very unwise to give up what we hold," referring to territories of the British-Israelite empire. Judah has been "very unwise" to surrender holy land to the enemies of God and Israel in the name of a lying peace. The accursed and treacherous Oslo accords, like a murderous cancer, continue to eat away ! at the very foundations of the Jewish state and the Jews have only themselves to blame. Does someone have to be a prophet to recognize prophetic trends and to be grieved about them? Or to perceive that divine judgment is surely coming upon our beloved nations? Can't we just be like righteous King Josiah who HEARD AND BELIEVED the inspired words of the PROPHETS? (2 Chron. 34:15-33). He took God's "ancient" warning seriously and then did everything he could to avert national disaster! God respected him for it. Yet the American, British and Jewish peoples today despise those who dare come forth, teaching and preaching the Word of God, encouraging repentance to spare our people from the unprecedented "Time of Jacob's Trouble," "the Great Tribulation" (Jer. 30:7, Matt. 24:21). At least, when they're temporarily crushed under the heels of a German-led Europe, when the Jewish Quarter is made Judenrein and the Temple Mount seized and occupied by Vatican forces that are intent on ripping the heart out of Israel for their pagan purposes (Dan. 11:45, Zech. 14:2), they will remember that they had been warned by a loving God, and hopefully will then have a change of heart and attitude that will hasten the process of redemption and welcome home the Messiah whom Two Witnesses will announce to the cities of Judah and proclaim to the world (Zech. 12:10). Contact David Ben-Ariel at davidbenariel@earthlink.net |
|
FRACAS IN HEBRON; JIHADISTS PLAN, WEST DOESN'T; USELESS PEACE TREATIES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 12, 2006. |
|
KUWAIT BUILDING A BORDER FENCE, TOO It is building a fence between itself and Iraq (IMRA, 11/22). CIRCLE CLOSING AROUND ISRAEL Egypt and S. Arabia held a joint naval exercise. They claimed it was for patrolling. But they also tested their firing of missiles against land and air targets (IMRA, 11/22). Guess what country both of them adjoin? Israel. MORE "NOT DOING ENOUGH" NONSENSE The governments of Iraq and the US "have accused Damascus of not doing enough to stop the flow of foreign Arab fighters" into Iraq (Steven R. Hurst, NY Sun, 11/20, p.9). This is like Sec. Rice stating with equanimity that the P.A. did "not do enough" to repress terrorism. Both the P.A. and Syria promotes it actively. Putting as "not doing enough" is a euphemism. They don't use euphemisms when describing Israel. TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS Israel imposes restrictions upon P.A. Arabs traveling in Judea-Samaria. The NY Times asserted that those restrictions are not just to protect Israel, because some of the Arabs are not going to Israel (11/18). One cannot always tell from the start of a potential terrorist's trip its terminus. Therefore, security officials must be on guard everywhere. Besides, many Israelis live in Judea-Samaria, and they are entitled to protection from terrorism. Why doesn't the newspaper write extensively about the risks and delays for Jewish travelers, and with more sympathy for the Jews as innocent victims of Arab aggression? HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH TRIPS ITSELF Human Rights Watch (HRW) made a rare denunciation of Arab use of human shields. It particularly rebuked the gunmen who urge civilians to surround a house to deter Israeli bombing. The gunmen committed a war crime. (Then so did the so-called civilians.) On the other hand, it advised Israel not to bomb the house, lest it wound those civilians (IMRA, 11/22). If HRW were honest about international law, it would acknowledge that those people had forfeited their civilian status by intervening in the battle. HRW trips itself up when it denounces Arab war crimes but warns Israel against interfering with those crimes. Israeli restraint would give the war criminals a victory. I think Israel is duty-bound to bomb the house and kill as many of the enemy as it can. If there were justice, Israel also would bomb Human Rights Watch as a terrorist auxiliary. FRACAS IN HEBRON I am not a witness, and did not see any reports by disinterested parties. However, I have learned to respect the integrity and sobriety of the Hebron Jewish Community Council spokesmen, and to expect a lack of integrity and sobriety by foreign commentators. Here is what I make of a Hebron Community Council reply to a complaint from the Swedish Ambassador, via IMRA, 11/22. Tens of thousands of Jews come to Hebron to celebrate the first Hebrew roots put down in the Holy Land, 3,700 years ago, according to the Biblical account of Abraham's purchase of land in Hebron. Hebron is Judaism's second holiest city. There also come to Hebron activists from Europe, such as TIPH and the Intl. Solidarity Movement (ISM). TIPH considers itself voluntary peace keepers, but takes the Arab aggressors' side and interferes with Israeli self-defense. Self-defense is important in Hebron, a notorious hotbed of Islamist terrorism against the Jews. The Muslims are trying to drive out the Jews again, as they did forcibly, in 1929. Needed are not peace keepers who meddle on the side of jihad but reform of Islamic intolerance. Israel does bar ISM, which goes further in assisting terrorists and committing vandalism against defensive measures. ISM teaches members how to sneak in. It seeks to provoke violence so it can complain about it. That day, inappropriate for counter-demonstration, ISM launched one. It photographed the crowd, knowing that photographing without permission was offensive to those Jews. It was a form of provocation. That is what these so-called humanist protestors do, they offend people's ethnic or religious sensitivities, something that would not be tolerated if done to blacks or Muslims. As the Hebron Jewish Community acknowledged, however, offensive as the ISM provocation was, it should not have been reacted to with violence. On the other hand, it also observes that coming to provoke people risks violence. One ISM member from Sweden was injured that day. The Council states that its ambulance treated her. The Ambassador protested that members of the community attacked her. The Council advised him to keep Swedes from coming to make trouble. No such members were identified, although Israeli police scrutinize that community relentlessly. There were Web claims that the injuries were not treated and Internet claims that some of the attackers said, "We killed Jesus and we are going to kill you." Why did the Ambassador assume that the attackers were from Hebron, who were a tiny minority of the crowd, that day, and none of whom the police identified as among the attackers? Witnesses heard one of the attackers claim he had to catch a plane back to France that night. I can't imagine any Jew acknowledging the old canard of "Christ-killer." I can imagine the secret service, which commits dirty tricks against religious Jews, and which favors ousting the Jews from the Territories, coming up with that one. So might ISM, seeking a martyr. I think the Ambassador automatically took the side of his citizen without having the facts or logic. He is in the position of protecting wrongdoers from the trouble they bring on themselves. It is part of the world's bullying of the Jewish state. I think that Israel should not merely expel ISM members who sneaked in, it should imprison them. FOR THE JEWS, IT'S BUSINESS AS USUAL There are some great reporters: Alicia Colon of the NY Sun, for common sense and decency; Caroline Glick, for powerful analyses of the Arab-Israel conflict; Miriam Gardner of American Yated Neeman, for Jewish insight; and David Bedein of Israel Resource News Agency for imagination in his questions of officials, which quality IMRA shares. I asked Mr. Bedein what Egypt did with the few arms and smugglers it did capture. He did not know, and thinks that Israeli officials are afraid to raise this question with US officials, because the US does not want to disturb what it considers a special relationship with Egypt. He suggests that Jewish leaders in the US demonstrate at the Egyptian embassy and consulate against Egypt's failure to stop the arms smuggling into Gaza (email, 11/25). Embarrassment might prod action or lay the groundwork for Israel to act. The terrain makes smuggling so easy to stop, that Egyptian complicity is inferred. I think that the West is living in denial. The US imagines that it has a special relationship with Egypt, but Egypt is hostile to the US and uses US aid to build up an army against Israel. Israel is afraid to point this out and disturb the US government. Worse, it pretends that it can count on Egypt to protect it, and invites it to! US Jewish leaders fail to inform themselves of the truth, fail to fight for Israel (they don't defend Pollard, either), they bar non-conformist speakers (such as Barry Chamish) who might enlighten them about what menaces them. Bedein suggests they invite MK Yuval Shteinitz to inform them about Egypt. Far from the monolithic Zionist conspiracy that "systematically" plots mayhem against the Arabs, US Jewry is uninformed, unimaginative, inactive, and divided. The Muslims are uninformed, imaginative, increasingly active, and united in a jihadist conspiracy (although there may come a Sunni-Shiite split). The Jews' worst enemy is complacency. WHO NEEDS MONITORING The Web is such a repository for inaccurate statement, that the press should monitor it and warn against it. Unfortunately, the press is such a repository for inaccurate statement, that responsible participants on the Internet monitor the press and warn against it (Harold Evans, NY Sun, 11/16, Op.-Ed.). HUMANITARIAN OR ANTI-HUMANITARIAN Physicians for Human Rights is sponsoring a course at Israeli facilities for P.A. Arabs in emergency medicine. They would treat injuries from Israeli attacks (IMRA, 11/25). Is this a humane measure? The sponsor generally takes the side of the Arabs against Israel. This measure seems humane, but it teaches the enemy how to preserve its terrorists so they can go out again and kill more Israelis. It also lowers the price to the enemy for iis aggression. I think it is ill-conceived. One should not help an enemy committing war crimes against one's people. PM OLMERT LETS P.A. BUILD UP FOR WAR He agreed to a ceasefire. It does not include a cessation of arms smuggling through the border, use of existing tunnels for smuggling, or manufacturing locally. It included only refraining from building new tunnels. Now the Arabs won't have to conceal their arms importation. Olmert had been warned that the P.A. is gearing up for a war, as is Hizbullah. This ceasefire enables the Arabs to expedite their efforts (IMRA, 11/25), when it would be wiser to crush them while they still are weak. Terrorist organizations are taking their cue from Hizbullah, and bringing in anti-tank weapons and seeking anti-aircraft weapons. It may become risky for Israeli helicopters in Gaza, unless Israel closes down the arms smuggling (IMRA, 11/23) that Egypt was supposed to do. The new ceasefire agreement with the P.A. covers all P.A. factions. Israel removed its troops from Gaza (so the Arabs could bring in weapons unhindered). Israeli leaders declared that any violation of the agreement, as by firing rockets into Israel, would incur severe retaliation. Within a few hours, Arabs fired five rockets into Israel. Israel did not retaliate at all (IMRA, 11/26). Where is world condemnation of the Arabs for violating the ceasefire, as they usually do? If Arab violations won't be punished, Israel should not halt the momentum of disarming the Arabs by making "agreements." Israel usually makes vague pacts with the Arabs. Each side interprets them differently. Israeli TV claims this one forbids arms manufacturing. Hamas claims it involves only shooting (IMRA, 11/26). By not spelling agreements out and enforcing them, Israel is not acting with integrity and therefore not with intelligence. It does not get arranged what it tells its people it does or what it needs. It arranges what the Arabs need. Islam traditionally uses ceasefires to build up for the next war. Either Olmert doesn't know that, or takes dictation from the US that doesn't care about that, or thinks only of the temporary cessation of rockets landing in Siderot and turning it into a ghost town. He has no strategy. PEACE TREATIES WITH ARAB STATES NO USE Daniel Pipes noticed that after Arab states sign peace treaties with Israel, the Arab population sours against Israel. A poll found that 92% of Egyptian adults consider Israel an enemy state. The treaty is papering over underlying enmity. People superficially suppose that the treaty indicates there is peace. Their only evidence is that there isn't a war going on. Neither is there a war going on with Syria, but Israel is not at peace with Syria (NY Sun, 11/21, p.5). People make assumptions about peace treaties and ceasefires without having the facts and without thinking through the little they do know. Many of these people have college and masters' degrees. They do not get a thorough, general education. 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. |
|
BAKER'S STALE IDEAS
Posted by Barry Rubin, December 12, 2006. |
|
Reading the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq reminds me of a weird experience I once had. I've never told anyone about it before but I'm going to share it with you to show the underlying problem with that panel's conclusions. Many years ago, I was participating in a blue-ribbon panel on future U.S. foreign policy. This group's bipartisan members came up with a report that was a compromise but with a strong strategic theme. Best of all, it recognized how the region's actual situation ensured that not much could be accomplished there. We were all staying at a country conference center, and the evening before the press conference announced the conclusions, I went to my little room. To my astonishment, the walls were paper thin and I could hear everything happening in the next room. It just so happened that the room's occupant was a man hoping to be the next president of the United States. (Don't try guessing, it isn't who you think.) He was deep in conversation with another person, a senior consultant to the group who pretended to be knowledgeable about the Middle East. The basic point of the dialogue was that the consultant was urging him to spin the report's conclusions in a direction that would benefit him politically. Sure enough, the next day, at the press conference, the politician totally distorted all the thinking that went into the report. The other participants were startled but nobody said anything. The politician never got to be president but the advisor did get a very senior ambassadorship in the next administration. I'm not suggesting that former secretary of state Jim Baker or former congressman Lee Hamilton distorted the Iraq group report. Far from it. But I am suggesting that Baker has learned nothing in the dozen years since he left office, and also I am pointing out that such reports are far more the result of maneuver than of either common sense or creative thinking. And they have a lot more to do with Washington debates than about Middle East realities. Let's focus on what the report says about the Arab-Israeli conflict. What the report does is to ignore the experience of the last dozen years and throw in just about every mistaken cliche on the issue. One would think the conflict remained unresolved simply because the United States had not tried hard enough. The section on this issue is just silly. The great minds, the senior statesmen, the best and brightest get together and, on this question at least--I'm leaving the issue of Iraq itself out of the discussion for the moment--the result is drivel. Not because it is politically bad but because it is a bunch of slogans with limited links to reality. The report concludes that: 1. The Arab-Israeli conflict is inextricably linked to Iraq. Really? I can't think of a single issue in the region it is less linked to. Iraq is about an internal struggle for power. The radicals are not extremists because of the conflict. By regional standards, nobody in Iraq even talks much about the conflict. This is repeating a mantra, not looking at the facts. Any college undergraduate who has taken a couple of courses on the Middle East should understand the points above. (They probably don't because of the way the region is taught in universities, but you get my point.) What is really needed is a policy that would effectively fight the radicals and help either real moderates or those states whose interests coincide with those of the United States and the West. Instead, the report suggests that what is most important is to get everybody talking. The only way this kind of thinking is going to damage the radical forces is if they fall down and hurt themselves from laughing so hard. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2006). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at gloria@idc.ac.il |
|
SHURAT HADIN FIGHTS FOR US, AND WE MUST JOIN THEIR BATTLE
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 12, 2006. |
|
Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Center is taking the battle against Islamic extremists to court. At a private home in Los Angeles, attorneys Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the Director of the Israel Law Center, and her husband, Avi Leitner, discussed their committed legal battle on behalf of the Jewish people. They believe, like many others, that Jewish blood is not cheap. Anyone who spills Jewish blood should not get away with it.
Residing in Israel, this legal duo has taken on the task of severing the financial arm of terror. They believe that if terror goes unfunded, terror itself will desist. Obstructing the funding of terror, at the very least, will deter it. Since little precedent exists for what they are attempting, much of their efforts are trial and error. By taking baby steps, however, Nitsana and Avi are managing to give us all much "naches" (honorable satisfaction). Endless talks of peace and a two state solution have yet to bring the Palestinians any closer to their own nation. Not a day passes without Palestinians trying to harm Israel and its namely Jewish citizens in any way possible. The Israeli security forces are busy, to be sure, stopping homicide bombing attempts on a daily basis. Israel, the US, and other free world countries have demonstrated a lack of leadership and wayward policy making in regards to dealing with terror. For this reason, non-governmental organizations (NGO's) are growing more useful in helping civilians to "fight back." While Iran fans the flames of terror, Shurat HaDin works to deny the funding that fuels such terror. The center also pursues any funds that belong to individuals guilty of murdering or maiming Israelis. The judgments their efforts earn will be used to compensate the victims of terror. The attorneys aim to get one billion dollars worth of compensation from any and all terror organizations to put it in the hands of victims. The US government has tried repeatedly to compel Israel to release the tax generated monthly and now frozen, to assist the Hamas led Palestinian government needs. Shurat HaDin has succeeded in upholding the restrictions, and the funds remain frozen. Thus, some thirteen million dollars are frozen each month that would be otherwise used to acquire weapons and ammunition to do harm to Israel and Jews. Nitsana and Avi can recount many experiences that could have been plucked from a movie script. The attorneys work vigilantly to follow the many trails of terror funding all over the world. As an example, in the case of Mohamed Dachlan, a murderer who the US government is currently grooming to head security in Gaza, they are working to have him charged for his terror crimes. Winning this case will allow Shurat HaDin to send the world a message: No government will permitted to assist child killers, especially not Israeli child killers. The Leitner duo, aided by law firms worldwide, is fighting government ineptness in an effort to reduce the number of Jews who must bury their loved ones. Governments would be glad to be rid of them, but Nitsana and Avi are not backing down. They pursue banks, other financial institutes, and any organization that manages terrorist funds or that funds terror directly or indirectly. Shurat HaDin presently has placed liens totaling 300 million dollars worldwide and twenty million dollars in Israel on the funds of terrorist organizations. Getting these funds to victims of terror will be challenging, but even this level of compensation will be insufficient. They are expanding the fight by advocating that private citizens join the battle. People cannot sit idly by. They must take a proactive role in addressing a problem that their governments seem unwilling or incapable of tackling. At the cost of one dollar per a bullet, if holding back thirteen million dollars will prevent terrorists from purchasing thirteen million bullets, imagine how much destruction one billion dollars will avert. With each and every dollar that they confiscate, Nitsana and Avi will succeed in fighting terror more so, aiding terror victims. Former Israel Prime Minister David Ben Gurion once said, "If you do not believe in miracles, you are not realistic." The work of Shurat HaDin is a miracle we must all believe in and support. Funds to support the efforts of Shurat HaDin are welcome. Click here for more information. |
|
RESIDENTS PLAN TO RE-SETTLE HOMESH AND SA-NUR ON CHANUKAH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, December 12, 2006. |
|
This appeared in Arutz-Shevah (www.IsraelNN.com) |
|
Jews thrown out of northern Samaria during the Disengagement are planning to return next week on Chanukah, the holiday celebrating the return and rededication of the Temple. The residents will return to the communities of Homesh and Sa-Nur, which although destroyed during the unilateral withdrawal, remain under Israel's security control. Boaz HaEtzni, one of the organizers of the Chanukah return, said the first stage of the long-term plan to rebuild the communities is the ascent of a core-group to the ruins next week. The evicted residents cite Shabak (General Security Service) chief Yuval Diskin's August testimony before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee as proof of the need for them to return. Diskin said at the time, "Northern Samaria has turned into Islamic Jihad land due to the lack of a permanent military presence there." Posters advertising the return read:"Fixing a mistake. The situation of Sderot and the strengthening of terrorists prove: the expulsion of Jews and destruction of communities strengthens the terrorism." The call goes on:"Core settlement groups for Homesh and Sa-Nur call upon the public to join the ascent to the site at Homesh, which will take place Monday, the 27th of Kislev, the third day of Chanukah (December 18), at 1 PM." The posters instruct groups to make their way to Homesh using whatever means possible in case roads are blocked. Limor Har-Melech, a former resident of Homesh, told Maariv newspaper that residents have every intention of returning and rebuilding their homes."The war in the north proved to all that the Disengagement was a mistake," she said, "and it has also become clear that the IDF wants to return to northern Samaria, so there is really no reason that the residents will not succeed in returning home." Many of the expelled residents are today living in the community of Carmel, in the southern Hevron Hills region."Even if the army prevents us from getting there, we will return a week later, and then the week after that. We will not tire and we will succeed," Har-Melech promised. MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union-NRP), who moved to Sa-Nur prior to its destruction, has come out in support of the initiative."The destruction of Jewish communities in northern Samaria created a vacuum in that region, which enables terror groups to operate there," he said."When the IDF enters, it comes as an occupier into enemy territory. To restore a Jewish presence means to restore the IDF's ability to operate in the region in defense of Jewish communities, rather than as an occupation army." MK Eldad says he will join the groups in returning to northern Samaria."The Chanukah return will signify and actualize the Jewish right of return to the homes unjustly destroyed." The IDF spokesman has not commented on the residents' intentions to return home, though a military source told Maariv that the IDF is engaged in dialogue with the residents. Arlene Kushner is an investigative reporter. Contact her at akushner@netvision.net.il
|
|
ISRAEL ON THE ALTER AGAIN
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 11, 2006. |
|
This was written by David Dolan and it appeared on the Battalion of
Deborah.org website
David Dolan is a Jerusalem-based author and journalist. Born and raised in the United States, he has lived and worked in Israel since 1980. website: http://www.ddolan.com |
|
Nearly four years ago, George W. Bush and Tony Blair led a small international coalition into Iraq with the goal of toppling Saddam Hussein's notorious regime and replacing it with a Western-style democracy. I wrote then about my strong misgivings over this dramatic action, despite the fact that I was as eager as anyone who suffered Saddam's nightly 1991 Scud attacks upon Israel to see the evil dictator removed from power. I noted that Israeli security experts were hardly unanamous in expressing enthusiasm over the US-led military campaign. Several told me privately they were convinced that the coalition was focusing on a relatively small player in the regional terrorist-WMD equation, which would probably end up allowing more threatening actors like Iran and Syria off the hook. Haifa's mayor Yonah Yahav told me during a TV interview just one week before the war began that Israeli leaders were certain that Saddam had already passed whatever mass destruction weapons he possessed into Syria. Decimated in the Gulf War, the Arab leader posed a relatively small threat to regional stability, Yahav argued, and was unlikely to prove to be a major backer of Osama bin Laden whose radical Muslim views he feared. Yahav added that it was Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah forces busy building an empire in nearby Lebanon that kept Israeli leaders on edge, fueled as they were by Islamic extremist passions that Saddam simply did not display. As a resident of the turbulant Middle East for over two decades, it seemed abundantely obvious to me that Bush and Blair had practicaly no chance to oversee the formation of a stable democracy in despotic, faction-torn Iraq. Instead, I wrote that the country would likely end up resembling Lebanon with its deeply divided ethnic-religious communites and frequent upheavals, fueled by anti-democratic neighbors like Syria and Iran. In fact, it seemed so apparent to me that the expensive war and hopeless rebuilding effort would end in a Vietnam style retreat for US and British forces that I told some friends I actually wondered if the two leaders were not either willing or unknowing cogs in some grand conspiracy to ultimately weaken both nuclear-armed powers. Although I am not usually into such conspiracy theories, I found it nearly impossible to believe that these two experienced politicians, or at least some of their top advisors, could not forsee the ultimate futility of thier stated lofty goal to create the first stable Arab democracy in the heart of the autocratic Muslim Middle East. Anyway, the whole affair was a clear diversion from their main declared ambition to thwart Al Qaida's open threats to carry out further mega-attacks against the "Crusader" West. With President Bush finally admitting that the plan is hardly unfolding as he had publicly anticipated, along comes his daddy's former Secretary of State to tell us how to fix things. The proposed Baker commission solutions involve further sacrificing the security of the only REAL democracy and stable pro-Western ally in the Middle East--tiny Israel. This was another outcome I also feared and anticipated when the war began in March 2003. You see, the Jewish-run state is somehow the main spark for the radical Islamic violence that is gripping much of the world, and must therefore be forced to allow a Palestinian state to rise within miles of Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (if not inside part of the holy city). That such a state would surely be dominated by Al Qaida's militant twin Sunni brother Hamas, and would therefore strengthen the world jihad movement, is apparently of little concern to Jim Baker and company. Next Israel must abandon the green Golan Heights--source of much of Israel's fresh water--to the vile Assad regime that is busy oppressing its Syrian citizens and attempting to retake full control over Lebanon via its Hezbollah proxies. When Israel is further truncated to the point of emasculation, then the Muslim world will apparently settle down and peace will blossom like a rose both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. No wonder that Aaron Klein reported on WND that various regional terrorist groups are rejoicing over the Iraq Study Group report. Thankfully, the American President has already expressed a healthy skepticism over the proposition that sucking up to the extremist regimes ruling Syria and Iran is the way forward. Didn't an earlier leader named Chamberlain already try that tack--with horrific results? Even as Iraq burns, Western politicians had better keep their eyes on the most ominous threat the world is facing today--Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program, along with Hezbulloh's designs to take full control over Lebanon and Al Qaida's machinations to topple moderate regimes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. For whatever happens in Iraq, it is now becoming abundantly clear that the entire Middle East is on the brink of a massive eruption that could ultimately make World War II look like a mere warmup exercise. |
|
EX-CNN REPORTER'S LECTURE HERE WILL BRING PROTEST AS SOME CALL HIM ANTI-MUSLIM
Posted by Michael Travis, December 11, 2006. |
|
This was written by Stephanie Innes and it appeared December 8, 2006 in the Arizona Daily Star |
|
Some community members are angry about an upcoming lecture by controversial author and former CNN reporter Steven Emerson, claiming Emerson is anti-Muslim. Emerson, who wrote the 2002 bestseller "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us," is scheduled to speak at Tucson's Jewish Community Center Monday evening as part of the University of Arizona's Shaol Pozez Memorial Lectureship Series. "The organizations that sponsored this man are not helping peace between the Muslim and Jewish faiths," said Muhammad As'ad, a Muslim who plans to protest the talk Monday. "This is going to be a very upsetting scene." UA officials say they are aware of the opposition, but the talk is part of the series' goal of rigorous discussion resulting in a better understanding of important issues. According to literature promoting his talk, Emerson is expected to speak about how militant Islamic individuals and groups have insinuated themselves into Western society. He contends that Islamist extremists living in the U.S. often pretend to be moderate while secretly carrying out a terrorist agenda in funding, organizing and coordinating the activities of radical Islamic groups. Emerson's critics say the UA's Arizona Center for Judaic Studies, which is sponsoring Emerson's talk, should not be sanctioning "anti-Muslim rhetoric." "I think he's a racist. ... He runs around and scapegoats Muslims," said Racheli Gai, a member of the local Women in Black group, which is an international peace network. She's also a co-founder of the Tucson Peace Walk -- an annual walk and gathering of Muslims and Jews. As a Jew, Gai said she's very angry that the Jewish community is supporting Emerson. Co-sponsors of the lectureship series include the Jewish Federation of Southern Arizona and the Tucson Jewish Community Center. Gai said she expects a group of Christians, Jews and Muslims will be protesting outside the center. "I encourage them to protest in appropriate ways," said UA professor J. Edward Wright, who directs the UA's Center for Judaic Studies. "Our goal is to have an open exchange of ideas, and through the course of our lectureship series we have all kinds of ideas expressed -- none are the views of the center or anyone in it. ... I think expressing different ideas and viewpoints is the hallmark of the university and of a healthy community." Wright said the center has also invited Scott Lucas, an assistant UA professor of Near Eastern Studies, to give a three- to five-minute response to Emerson's talk. The entire event is expected to be about an hour and 15 minutes, and organizers are encouraging questions from those in attendance. Emerson is the founder and executive director of The Investigative Project, which keeps a database of intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Emerson has been told of the controversy surrounding his visit and is not surprised. He's accustomed opposition, having faced accusations of being anti-Islamic, and has even received death threats in the past, Wright said. [Terrorism and national-security expert Steven Emerson gave a lecture titled "The Grand Deception: Militant Islam, the Media and the West," at the Tucson Jewish Community Center, 3800 E. River Road.] Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT ISRAEL?
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 11, 2006. |
|
From the Arabs and the Palestinians point of view, the newly suggested Western peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians is what a stockbroker will call a unique one-way option. If the Palestinians win, they win everything but if they lose, they lose nothing. There is no reason for the Palestinians NOT to continue rolling the conflict dice forever. However, WHY would a (suppose to be) savvy deal-maker (breaker?) like James Baker proposes to sign up the United States for yet another doomed, futile round of this crooked, endless game the Palestinians have put the United States through many times over?! This was written by David Frum, a resident fellow at AEI. It is
archived at
|
|
Have you seen the sly "demotivational" posters produced by Despair.com? They look exactly like traditional motivational posters--pictures of lofty mountains, soaring eagles, etc.--but with subversively unexpected messages. My favourite: a poster that shows a half-dozen hands--male and female, black, white and brown--clasped together in solidarity, over the words: "None of us is as dumb as all of us." I could not think of a more apt description of the just released report of the Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission. The group included genuine Washington eminences like former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger and shrewd players like Vernon Jordan. I doubt that any one of them on his or her own could have produced anything quite so feeble and unconvincing as they have all produced together. Among the report's big ideas: a major new American diplomatic push to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The report asserts: "The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict." That's a familiar enough thought. British Prime Minister Tony Blair made exactly the same point in his address last month to London's annual Lord Mayor's banquet. "[A] major part of the answer to Iraq lies not in Iraq itself but outside it. ... [W]e should start with Israel/Palestine. That is the core." Nor is Blair alone. You can hear versions of this same idea from almost every foreign ministry, think-tank and newspaper editorial board in the developed world. If pure force of repetition could make a statement true, then the "centrality" of the Palestinian issue to the Iraq conflict would rank up there with Newton's laws. But before our brains are battered into acquiescence, can we request an explanation of how this relationship between the Palestinians and Iraq is supposed to work? An al-Qaeda terrorist detonates a car bomb in a crowd of schoolchildren--and in revenge, a Shiite militiaman kidnaps and murders his Sunni neighbours. How exactly are they motivated by the Arab-Israeli dispute 600 miles away? How would an end to that dispute persuade them to live in peace with their neighbours? The government of Iran is supplying weapons and training to anti-American militias, in the hope of driving the U.S. out of Iraq and establishing itself as the paramount power in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Would the Iranian mullahs feel any less eagerness to rule the Gulf if the Palestinians had a seat in the UN General Assembly? Tony Blair suggests that the failure to solve the Palestinian problem enflames and radicalizes the Middle East. This suggestion is not totally false. But it raises this question: Of all the dozens and hundreds of ethnic and territorial disputes to roil our planet since 1945, why is this one so uniquely unsolvable? Germans do not blow themselves up in the streets of Gdansk to protest Polish rule over Danzig. Greeks do not hijack schoolbuses full of Turkish schoolchildren to demand the return of Smyrna. Bolivia does not wage endless war against Chile to revise the outcome of the War of the Pacific. The Arabs could have had peace with Israel on easy terms at any time since 1949. They have persistently refused it. The Palestinians could have had a state in the West Bank and Gaza at any time since 1967. They have disdained that offer too. Might it not be closer to the truth to say that Arab radicalism is the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute--not the result of it? There is no peace because Israel's neighbours--and too many of the world's Muslims--cannot accept the right of a non-Arab, non-Muslim minority to live unsubjugated in the Middle East. That is the true "core" of the dispute, and it cannot be fixed by negotiation. Indeed, it could well be argued that these endless attempts by Western powers to negotiate Israeli-Palestinian peace make the problem worse, not better. At Camp David in 2000, for example, Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat the most favourable deal ever offered to the Palestinians. Arafat rejected the offer, and started a war to get better terms. He lost. Did that kill the deal? Not for long. If Blair and Baker have their way, the U.S. will soon press Israel to revive and improve it. From the point of view of the Arabs and Palestinians, Western peace efforts create what a stockbroker would recognize as a unique one-way option. If they win, they win everything. If they lose, they lose nothing. There is no reason for them not to continue rolling the dice forever. But why would a savvy deal-maker like James Baker propose to sign up the United States for yet another doomed, futile round of this crooked game? Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL ON THE BAKER REPORT
Posted by Pastor John Hagee, December 11, 2006. |
|
Greetings to all CUFI members across the nation and around the world. As soon as I write this weekly update Diana and I will catch a jet bound for Chicago...to London...and on to Nigeria where I will be speaking later this week. When I went to Nigeria in 2004 more than 3 million people came for one service to hear the Gospel. I ask for your prayers as we journey there and back for this historic gathering. Below, "Beware Jim Baker." |
|
Jim Baker is once again on center stage in Washington D.C. with his "Iraq Study Group." Let's review Jim Baker's anti-Israel posture over the past 15 years. In 1990, Baker lured Assad of Syria into an anti-Saddam coalition. Baker overlooked Assad's leadership role in international terrorism and showered the butcher of Hamas with international legitimacy and gave Assad a free hand in Lebanon. Assad took that free hand to fully occupy Lebanon where thousands of Lebanese were massacred and the anti-Syrian Christian administration was replaced with a pro-Syrian puppet administration in Beirut. We are still suffering in Lebanon from Baker's "pragmatism." This is an example of what Jim Baker calls his "pragmatism" in his dealmaker political role. During the 1980's and until the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, Baker referred to Hussein as "a constructive leader." Baker considered Yasser Arafat (before the 1993 Oslo Accord) as an essential partner to a peace process. Baker's "pragmatism" turned a blind eye to Arafat's record of terrorism, pandered to the PLO and attempted to break the back of Israel's Prime Minister Shamir by denying Israel the loan guarantees (not cash) for the absorption of Soviet Jews and convinced President Bush Sr. to threaten to veto any pro-Israel legislation proposed on Capitol Hill. Baker's "pragmatism" pressured Israel to freeze Jewish settlements and to roll back to the 1949 lines and accused Israel of being an obstruction to the peace process. Baker is once again sticking the knife in Israel's back by connecting America's problems with Iraq and Iran to Israel. He's saying that America's problems can be settled if the Israel-Arab affair is settled. Fact: America's problems with Iran have nothing to do with Israel. Iran's president has said he intends to use nuclear weapons against the United States of America. My father's generation would have considered this statement a declaration of war and bombed Iran by this time. America's problems in Iraq have nothing to do with Israel. The fact is this: Israel cannot make peace with Terrorist Organizations (Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) whose covenants call for the death of all Jews and the absolute destruction of Israel. Israel has no partner for peace. Once again the Jim Baker "pragmatism" is dead wrong! He was and remains anti-Israel. Blessings to you and to those you love. There will be no weekly update next week as I will be in Nigeria. Pastor John Hagee is National Chairman, Christians United For Israel. |
|
WHOSE WAR CRIMES?
Posted by Naomi Ragen, December 11, 2006. |
|
Evidence from Lebanon about how terrorists use civilians. A few scenes from modern warfare: Mohammad Abd al-Hamid Srour moved missiles across southern Lebanon under cover of a white flag. Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman used the porch of a private home to fire rockets. Maher Hassan Mahmoud Kourani dressed in civilian clothes, hid his Kalashnikov in a tote bag and stored anti-aircraft missiles in the back of a green unmarked Volvo. The three men, all members of Hezbollah, were captured by Israel during last summer's war. Now their videotaped interviews form part of a remarkable report by retired Lieutenant Colonel Reuven Erlich of Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, has accused Israel's military of "indiscriminate warfare" and "a disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians." Mr. Erlich demolishes that claim, and in the process shows the asymmetric strategy of Islamist radicals. The most persuasive evidence here is photographic, so we urge
readers to access the report itself on the Web site of the American
Jewish Congress at
Hezbollah's headquarters in Aita al-Shaab, for instance, sits in the heart of the village. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's office and home are in a densely built neighborhood of Beirut. In the town of Qana--site of an Israeli bombing on July 30 that killed 28 and that Hezbollah's apologists were quick to label a "massacre"--an arms warehouse can be seen adjacent to a mosque. There are photographs of rockets in the back seats of cars, missile launchers adjacent to farm houses, storage bunkers hidden beneath homes. There is also a trove of before-and-after photography demonstrating the precision of most Israeli bombing. The report also shows how the use of civilian cover was explicitly part of Hezbollah's strategy. "[The organization's operatives] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories," said Mr. Nasrallah in a TV interview on May 27, several weeks before the war. "You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army." Exactly what Mr. Nasrallah means is illustrated in the testimonials of the captured fighters. Asked why Hezbollah would risk the destruction of civilian areas by firing from them, Mr. Suleiman replied that while in theory private homes belonged to "the residents of the village ... in essence they belong to Hezbollah." Perhaps that's true; if so, then Human Rights Watch has no grounds to accuse Israel of atrocities when Mr. Nasrallah has effectively declared everyone and everything in southern Lebanon to be his fief. Our sense, however, is that not all southern Lebanese were delighted to have their livelihoods appropriated for Hezbollah's political purposes, even if they were too intimidated to register a protest. Either way, it is Hezbollah, not Israel, that is guilty of war crimes here. Beyond the war in Lebanon, these images suggest how Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras and wait for the likes of Mr. Roth to denounce America or Israel for war crimes. None of this means the U.S. shouldn't continue to fight with discrimination and avoid civilian casualties. But it means our political leadership needs to speak as candidly as Israelis now are speaking about this enemy strategy, so the American people can understand and be steeled against this new civilian battleground. Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
HEZBOLLAH HID ROCKETS IN SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS AND MOSQUES
Posted by Steve Carol, December 11, 2006. |
|
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=116953 These are just declassified photos of last summer's Iran-Israel War (Round One) show, what many have believed and known all along. Hezbollah (and Hamas in Gaza as I write) have stored, hidden, and fired rockets against Israel from civilian areas including schools, hospitals and mosques. The Islamofascist enemy is an insidious enemy. To defeat such an enemy we cannot engage in Marquis of Queensbury rules. Dr. Steve Carol is author of "Israel's Foreign Policy in East Africa (1948-1973)", Official Historian "Middle East Radio Forum", www.middleeastradioforum.org and Senior Fellow, Center for Advanced Middle East Studies, (www.cames.ws) in Scottsdale, Arizona. Contact him at drhistory@cox.net |
|
DARFUR -- ANOTHER GENOCIDE BY THE ARAB JIHAD
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, December 11, 2006. |
|
1. Darfur Crisis: Progress in Aid and Peace Monitoring Threatened by Ongoing Violence and Operational Challenges. GAO-07-9, November 9. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-9 Highlights -- http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d079high.pdf 2. Darfur Crisis: Death Estimates Demonstrate Severity of Crisis, but Their Accuracy and Credibility Could Be Enhanced. GAO-07-24, November 9. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-24 Highlights -- http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0724high.pdf Notice the source of this information -- the U.S. Government Mordechai Ben-Menachem can be contacted by email at quality@computer.org |
|
LIEBERMAN: ISRAELIS SHOULD PLEDGE ALLEGIANCES
Posted by Hana Levi Julian, December 11, 2006. |
|
Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman declared at a Washington conference Sunday that Israelis -- Arabs and Jews alike -- should be required to pledge allegiance to the Jewish State. Lieberman, who addressed a group at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, associated with the Brookings Institute, said Israeli citizens on both ends of the political spectrum need to learn that there are obligations as well as privileges connected with living in the Jewish State. "Israel has the right to demand full allegiance from all its citizens," the Yisrael Beiteinu party chairman said firmly. "He who is not ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state cannot be a citizen in the country. This applies to extremists of the Neturei Karta as well as to the extremist factions of the Islamic Movement." Lieberman has repeatedly criticized Israeli-Arab Knesset Members for declaring support for terrorist entities committed to the destruction of Israel and traveling to meet with leaders in enemy countries, such as Syria and Lebanon. "Arab MKs who collaborate with the enemy and meet with Hamas leaders should be dealt with harshly," Lieberman said last month. Speaking in Israel's parliament, he demanded the government punish Knesset Members "who incite and cooperate with terror and who sit in this house... who continue to freely meet with Hamas, with Hizbullah, and who go to make visits in Lebanon." In his remarks, which drew much criticism, Lieberman said such unauthorized meetings should be considered as collaboration with the enemy and treated as such: "At the end of the Second World War, not only criminals were killed in Nuremberg, but also those who collaborated with them. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in this house." He added that Arab MKs "declared Israel's Independence Day as Nakba Day [Day of Disaster] and raised black flags. There is a directive on terrorism, according to which those who collaborate with it must face the law." Lieberman, who has been criticized by left-wing Knesset Members who slam what they refer to as his "racist" ideas, maintained that the U.S. government would never allow anti-American activities to be carried out by its government leaders. "It is unacceptable that a senator or a representative in the American house of representatives assist Afghanistan during the war and meet with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda leaders, express his support for their war against the U.S. -- and then be allowed to return to serve in Congress," he pointed out. Lieberman also said there were a number of misconceptions surrounding the idea of a Middle East peace agreement. Among them he noted these ideas: "The notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, the notion that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and the notion that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict." The leader of the increasingly powerful Russian immigrant party recommended separating Arabs and Jews in Israel altogether, based on the Turkish-Greek Cypriot model. In an interview published last month in the British-based Sunday Telegraph, Lieberman said it was the only way to achieve peace in the region. Minister Lieberman is scheduled to present his views to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington on Monday. |
|
HOW THE TIMES RETAINS READERSHIP; MAKE JOURNALISM ACCOUNTABLE; PEACE NOW VERSUS ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 11, 2006. |
|
TYPICAL UNO DOUBLE STANDARD The UNO is investigating the murder of anti-Syrian Lebanese leaders, but not as fast as they are getting assassinated. The UNO has yet to indict anyone. Meanwhile, a former KGB man investigating murders of opponents of Pres. Putin died of radioactive poisoning. The UNO has not suggested investigating that. The poisoning wasn't an ordinary murder but one with access to special resources. Putin claims foes did it to embarrass him. What "foes" who would go to such lengths? MAKE JOURNALISM ACCOUNTABLE Newspaper journalists finally are recognizing that the Cold War has resumed. I wish I could take credit for enlightening them, but at least I had advised my readers a year or two ago about it. So it goes for a number of issues. A form of accountability that the West needs is for someone to review politician's past stands on issues that have become clear. For example, it has become very clear that Oslo and withdrawals don't work. Someone should review the positions of those who stuck with those policies for years, even while they were failing. The idea is to find out which leaders understand the issues and which do not. One former supporter of withdrawal admitted that the Palestinian Arabs would respond to conciliatory withdrawals by accelerated warfare, as the settlers had predicted, but he couldn't help still describing the settlers as "extremists." The next step in accountability is to ask why one group is proved right and another, wrong. This is a more difficult feat. The answer is that opponents of withdrawals either knew the Arabs better or had studied their culture. Proponents of withdrawals made up their minds on the basis of blind ideology or neurosis (discomfort at Jewish sovereignty, for example). HOW THE NY TIMES RETAINS READERSHIP Several people have told me they like the NY Sun, but don't have time to read it, just for the Times. The Times publishes at such length, that its readers, who think they would be missing out if they omitted any of it, don't get attached to competing papers. If people compared news coverage, they might learn enough from the competition to realize that although the Times writes a lot, much of that is verbosity, and what it writes about certain topics is misleading propaganda. I think that the modern world is too complex for a single newspaper to suffice. One needs contrasts, from which to gain balance or distill a sensible working hypothesis. To its misinformed readers, the Times might seem sensible. But it omits contrary evidence. If you knew the Times' biased assessments of Holocaust, USSR, Cuba, and Jihad, and if you read the Sun, you'd lose respect for the Times. The Sun has its own spots, however. IGNORANCE OF HISTORY DRIVES FOREIGN POLICY VIEWS The US made mistakes in Iraq and has had a difficult time of it. The country takes these mistakes as permanent and the difficulties as insurmountable. (This, after all, is the age of "instant gratification" and the supposed irrelevance of history.) History Prof. Lawrence Schweikart, however, finds this war similar in those mistakes and difficulties to other wars. American wars rarely went smoothly. Our leaders learned on the job. We should not be too impatient and should not give up. The stakes are too high to let a splinter paralyze us (NY Sun, 11/20, Op.-Ed.). Our current leaders, however, are rather slow to learn and stubborn to switch. They have not yet resolved the bureaucratic in-fighting that plagued George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We may no longer have time to learn on the job. We should study the issues in advance and constantly analyze them. We lack a long-range view and a broad perspective. Political correctness and multi-culturalism hobble our resolve. The enemy learns faster and prepares well ahead. WE DON'T PLAY ALL OUR CARDS We allow Iran and Syria to destabilize other regimes. Why don't we destabilize theirs? Iran and Syria are vulnerable and fearful. It is important to put them on the defensive, because people in the region are studying which side is likely to win and be in a position to take vengeance against those who did not support it (Michael Ledeen, NY Sun, 11/21, Op.-Ed.). We are not clever, not in a war mode, and most of all, don't try to develop a comprehensive strategy. If we had a strategy, our government could explain it to the people and gain national support. HAMBURG UNIVERSITY The university is discussing with Syria closer scientific cooperation (IMRA, 11/22). Syria had developed chemical weapons of mass-destruction and surreptitiously is working on nuclear weapons. One can understand an Iranian university cooperating with a Syrian one, but what foolish impulse leads a Western university to boost the scientific capability of an aggressor state that destabilizes others and is part of the jihad that targets the West? The West pretends the world is normal. RUSSIA'S LATEST CONTRIBUTION TO PEACE IN THE MIDEAST Russia has developed a new combat helicopter that it is offering to its Mideast clients (IMRA, 11/21). Too bad Russia doesn't pour its technical talent into solutions for its AIDS and alcoholism that cost it so much, instead of into arms, that cost other innocent lives. PEACE NOW VS. ISRAEL Almost 10% of Israelis live on land acquired in self-defense. Peace Now just claimed that 40% of those towns lie on land privately owned, wholly or in part, by Arabs. It wants to uproot 10% of its own population. The accused deny it. They point out that all the law suits brought by Arabs claiming land were rejected by the courts (known for sympathy to the Arabs and antipathy to the Jews). Unfortunately, the canard was repeated by the world's media (probably eagerly and without publishing the refutation). Actually, town planners researched land ownership carefully, so as to build on public land (or to buy the land), so as not to infringe on private ownership. (Some land for roads was taken by eminent domain, meaning that the Arabs were compensated for it.) Very little land in Judea-Samaria was privately owned (Arutz-7, 11/22). The State found that a few unauthorized outposts were established not on state land as the settlers believed they were, but on private land incorrectly marked on maps as state land. Thus that small amount was not the "land grab" that Peace Now claims. What Peace Now calls private land is public land. It accuses Israel of dishonestly accepting Ottoman definition of "state land" in order to confiscate private land. Israel, however, is obliged by international law to maintain the pre-existing law until the status of the Territories is resolved. Peace Now ignores and misconstrues international law. The Ottoman definition is that state land becomes private land if cultivated by the same person for ten years in succession; certain categories of land remain public land and offer only temporary tenancy even if cultivated; and private land reverts to public land if the owning family dies off; much of the land was in a category of wasteland unclaimable without State permission. Lesser efforts fall short of earning land title, but Peace Now counts Arab claims that run afoul of the law. The data Peace Now relies upon is from an unconfirmed leak! Peace Now's facts are questionable and its premises are false (IMRA, 11/22 from Alex Safian of CAMERA). The report does not recognize Jews' purchase of land! It is silent about the practice of Arabs to sell Jews land and then, either out of fear or cupidity, claim the land. The real problem is not who owns which land, but that two groups claim the same territory (Yisrael Meidad, IMRA, 11/23) and that one group may want to exterminate the other. Some Jewish communities initially were built on what once had been privately owned land. What the report failed to point out was that this land had become unclaimed. Therefore, the Jews did not take the land away from private Arab owners. Arabs are entitled by Israeli law to contest in court any alleged usurpation of their land. Very few have done so. Implication: land usage there is in order (David Bedein, 11/22). Peace Now is a subversive mischief-maker, not a peace-maker. 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. |
|
PREPARING TO SACRIFICE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, December 10, 2006. |
|
It comes as no surprise to most that the Baker-Hamilton Group is recommending an alliance with two of the world's most prominent terrorist nations: Iran and Syria. It is also no surprise that James Baker III, Lee Hamilton and Bob Gates will, in time, use Israel as the sacrifice in exchange for a brief alliance with Iran and Syria to 'temporarily' slow down the killing of American in Iraq so America can withdraw her troops under the illusion that the job is done. While it will be a gross mistake, resulting in further expansion of Global Terror under Iran and Syria's sponsorship, nevertheless, the people of Israel understand the pressure that has been put on President George W. Bush. The Baker report seeks to add to this pressure as Baker leaks his report to the New York Times denials -- notwithstanding. Be assured that Baker and his gang will advance the cause of Iran and Syria, particularly if it inures to the benefit of the oil industry of which they are a part of -- organically. (Why has James Baker III always been a supporter along with a "Shadow Government" in Washington?) But, that is all background static to what they intend for Israel. In the classic demonization of Israel the Baker high priest cult intends to sacrifice the Jewish State of Israel to their idol "Moloch" (Syria and Iran) bathed in the devil's excrement called oil. It's black; it's crude and people kill for it. Clearly, the children of Israel are on Baker's "human sacrifice agenda" as in ancient times -- when children were sacrificed to fiery god/idols like Moloch by the high priest. There are many versions of the idol Moloch and its appetite for children. The priest cults taught and practiced the art of child sacrifice to assuage and please this demon idol god. Sometimes the Moloch idol was made of metal with different compartments. The idol was heated fiery red and different things were placed in each compartment to vaporize in the white hot heat, sending clouds upwards. One compartment was for babies or young children who were fed into the fiery arms of Moloch as the last and most important gesture to their idol god. Baker is well aware of the German Moloch where Jewish babies and young children were thrown alive into the cast iron furnaces made by the efficient German Krupp Corporation. As we move forward into the present we see the Muslims world-wide ready to sacrifice their own children and adults for Moloch's Allah also in fire and burning explosions, some nuclear -- if the advisory report is carried out. Within the Baker Advisory Report there is a recommendation to have a "Ceremonial" Madrid 2, a world conference. However, Israel is NOT to be invited by the Baker priest cult. Only nations hostile to Israel will attend or will benefit by Israel's demise, not unlike Madrid 1 but this time no Jews where Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was trapped by Baker and his contingent of obedient Jew boys: Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer. Not only was everything tilted against Israel but, as I forecast at that time, Baker would enlist some country to recommend that the Middle East (read: Israel) was to be a nuclear free zone. Indeed, on time, the Egyptian delegate (rehearsed by the Baker boys) recommended exactly that and, for Israel to stand down her nuclear deterrence. Clearly, Baker and the U.S. State Department "thought" that Israel would be safe without a nuclear deterrent and safe with 'guarantees' offered by the U.S. State Department, the Arab Muslim nations, and the U.N. (Note! Baker included in his "Wannsee" Iraq Report that the "Right of Return" for Palestinian descendants of approximately 4 million from the original 480,000 Arab Muslim Palestinians who fled what was then Palestine on orders from 6 Arab armies.) Since Torquemada, head of the Spanish Inquisition, would not invite Jews when planning their conversion/execution and Heydrich/Eichmann would not want Jews at the Wannsee meeting to plan for the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", I can see where Baker would not want Jews present at an International Conference planning their elimination. What was it that Arnold Schwarznegger said in the movie, "The Predator" where he fought an Alien? When the Alien took off his mask, Schwarznegger said: "You are one ugly son-of-a-bitch". Sometimes that happens when humans drop their mask. Baker and his "Jew-Boys" (as they were called) Ross, Miller and Kurtzer, pushed the Madrid Conference 1 on November 3, 1981, hosted by the government of Spain and co-sponsored by the USA and the USSR. It was set up as a trap for Israel's PM Shamir. Baker's Jew-Boys were reportedly bouncing from room to room, in manipulating the conference -- all the while denying their overwhelming influence. Madrid was the pre-cursor to the secret negotiations for the failed Olso Accords of September 1993 which resurrected Yassir Arafat, bringing him back from weakness in Tunis to strength in Gaza and 7 cities of Eretz Yisrael. Since Olso was signed, more than 2,000 Jews have been murdered, thousands more wounded, hundreds maimed for life. We predicted that Baker and group would use one of the Arab Muslim countries to call for the Middle East to be declared a nuclear free zone and for Israel to give up her nuclear deterrence. Toward the end of the Conference, on cue, the Egyptian representative proposed just such a nuclear free zone. (Can you imagine how long Israel would last without her alleged nuclear deterrence? Well, Baker could.) Once again Baker, this time through Saudi Arabia, is telling the world that, because Israel has nuclear deterrence, countries like Iran would enter the arms race to acquire nukes. Guess who the spokesman is this time. The designated Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates in Congressional Hearings excused Iran, because of the nuclear powers around it, particularly Israel. Baker, through his lap dummy Gates, has again spoken. Iran could not wish for a better representative in Washington. As I have written often before, I thought that the Bush family would be hesitant to attack Iran and its burgeoning nuclear facilities, lest the oil-laden Arab Muslim countries become angry. I posited that they will wait for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to first nuke Tel Aviv and only then would they felt safe and justified in striking Iran on their own behalf to cut off Iran's nuclear power head. Baker is a devious man and, no doubt will try to deliver Israel to Syria -- just as he delivered Lebanon to Syria under the Taif Agreement. Syria occupied Lebanon and refused to leave Lebanon for 29 years, declaring it was part of Greater Syria. But then again, Syria also views Jordan and Israel as well as Lebanon all as rightfully part of Greater Syria. Then Syria stayed in Lebanon -- as conquerors -- for those 29 years beyond the Taif Agreement's terms -- with nary a word from Baker who had delivered Lebanon into the hands of Syria. (Have you ever wondered who Baker really works for -- beyond himself?) Presumably, the Baker Gang share Syria's attitude or simply doesn't care. Sacrificing the Children of Israel to present day Moloch for short term gains seems a small matter to Baker and his cohorts. Bob Gates, America's new Secretary of Defense, has already started the move to implement what Baker, Hamilton and Gates concluded on their just-released full Iraq report. Where does Israel fit into all this report about Iraq? You'd be surprised. Unfortunately, Israel has been cursed with the weakest and most incompetent leadership in recent history with Ehud Olmert as her Prime Minister. He is the "Yes, Man" personified and seems willing to allow Israel to go under in his pathetic anxiousness to please or to have other crises obscure the various investigations taking place over what may be crooked dealings using his various governmental jobs as cover. Clearly, he is repeating the scheme he offered to Ariel Sharon to quash the numerous pending investigations of Sharon's illegal use of government powers which would force him out of office. Baker and gang are searching for any excuse to blame Israel for world-wide Muslim Terror and particularly in Iraq. Baker is willing to chew noxious bubble-gum and stretch it from here to the moon in his effort to convert terror in Iraq over to Israel. Bush made a decision to replace the most hideous and murderous regime because he knew that Saddam Hussein was capable of anything. But Baker's prior connection to Saddam warrants further exposure as does his role in Iraq's current spiraling into chaos. Recall that George Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker took $5Billion from the U.S. Agricultural Fund and transferred it outright to Saddam (to help with his expenses). Later Clinton and his Attorney General Janet Reno did a silent investigation as a white-wash of this illegal transfer. Do you recall the Bank Laverno affair where the Bush-Baker regime underwrote and guaranteed billions in the name of America to Saddam through an Italian bank with a small branch in Atlanta, Georgia? Recall that strange transfer of more than 100 aircraft from Saddam to Iran during the first Kuwait War. President Bush, Colin Powell, Chief of Staff Schwarzkopf -- with Baker in the shadows first provided a safe air corridor from Iraq to Iran for these aircraft -- all of Russian make. Iran accepted them as war reparations for the 8 year brutal war between Iran and Iraq as we knew he would. Iran, however, did not have infrastructure to maintain or use Russian aircraft. It was reported that these Russian MIGs in Iran were crated and shipped by truck and rail to Syria, all under the eyes of Washington. Syria, of course, uses Russian aircraft and has the maintenance infrastructure. Now comes the money trail: between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait approximately $3 Billion dollars were transferred to Saddam for what amounted to a fire sale of his aircraft to Iran and its final destination: Syria. There are other unresolved questions of the Genesis of the first Kuwait war which Baker may be willing or hesitant to answer Since a great effort was being made to keep Saddam funded so he could pay his $80 Billion debt for weapons and continue with Iran, another question arises. Arafat was also being funded by the U.S., Arafat and 350,000 Palestinians working in Kuwait turned on their host country and assisted Saddam to locate every Bank, every Army base and its officers' personal homes and generally led Saddam's advance forces to confiscate the $80 or so Billion in cash, gold and liquid assets. Therefore, is it not logical that the then senior Bush, Baker and State Department who wanted Saddam funded also knew and/or collaborated with Arafat to achieve what would be the greatest Bank Robbery in history. Perhaps Mr. Baker, Senior Bush, Robert Gates, Brent Scowcroft, George Tenet and John M. Deutch of the CIA among others, would be so kind as to explain their role, if any, to Congress and the American people. `Baker and the others were never investigated or questioned by Congress for the arming of Syria -- which was illegal under laws regarding Terrorist nations. Once again, there was no probe into the "Green Light" given to Saddam to invade Kuwait. Saddam's first step was to confiscate $80 Billion in cash and gold bullion which was close to the debt Saddam owed internationally for the weapons he had purchased and hadn't paid for. Recall that it was Arafat and his Palestinians working in Kuwait that guided Saddam to that money. The U.S. was funding Arafat at this time. American's Ambassador to Iraq under Baker, April Glaspie, who had never before had an audience with Saddam Hussein was suddenly invited to meet him. At that time it was reported that he brought up the subject of Kuwait's slant drilling into Iraq. Glaspie, under direct control of Secretary of State James Baker, said something to the effect that: "America was not interested in Saddam's local border disputes." That was the "Green Light" the U.S. State Department gave Saddam to invade Kuwait, which Baker denied vociferously. This women would never, on her own, would make such a commitment in the name of the U.S. without prior consultation with her boss -- Baker. She later disappeared from the State Department and hasn't reappeared since. Baker is an oil man through and through. Who he really works for is a mystery other than his connection with the Carlyle Group -- which is another story in itself. As you can see, the Baker report and his group of Lee Hamilton, Bob Gates, (now Defense Secretary) is not all above the line. They have prejudiced interests which range from business to visceral dislike of Israel and Jews generally. Remember Baker's crude remark: "F..k the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyhow." The Baker power group steps out of the shadows occasionally but, mainly works in the Shadows of Washington. I doubt that a Democratic Congress will ever investigate the shenanigans, the interlocking directorships, the connections with International oil, etc. Right now, they need an excuse, flimsy though it may be to blame Israel for the rise of Global Islamic Terror. They have "Palestinianized" the problem as their catch-all excuse and solution. While none of it is true, as Goebbels observed, "Tell a lie big enough and repeat it often enough, people will believe it." The High Priest cult of Baker wants to sacrifice the children of Israel to today's Moloch -- the vicious Iranian devil, Ahmadinejad who threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" and to use nuclear weapons to do so. I think a nuclear bomb blast certainly qualifies as today's Moloch. The big question is: Will the Israelis let him?! 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@interaccess.com |
|
JEANE KIRPATRICK, A WOMAN OF VALOR AND GRACE, DEAD AT 80
Posted by Nathan Shuster, December 10, 2006. |
|
From yesterday's Wall Street Journal OnLine Review & Outlook |
|
Jeane Kirkpatrick: Her blunt style and strong defense of liberty will be missed. Jeane Kirkpatrick, who died yesterday at 80, was that rare thing--a public intellectual and a public figure. She excelled at both. Ms. Kirkpatrick is known to the public at large because Ronald Reagan, after defeating Jimmy Carter for the Presidency in 1980, appointed her U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. It is worth mentioning in this context that earlier this week Senate Democrats succeeded finally in driving John Bolton from the U.N. ambassadorship. The mind's eye recalls the televised image in the early 1980s of Ambassador Kirkpatrick, a Democrat then, seated at the U.N. Security Council table and publicly defending U.S. interests against the Soviet Union with an articulate, no-nonsense bluntness that makes Mr. Bolton sound like Little Bo-Peep by comparison. That style--American interests made perfectly clear--will be missed. She knew how to use words as weapons. Her most famous turn of phrase, at the 1984 GOP convention, was "San Francisco Democrats." Ms. Kirkpatrick's "Blame America First" speech marked her most public departure from the Democratic Party. Explaining in an interview years later why she and other Democratic intellectuals--yes, they were neoconservatives--formed the anti-Soviet Committee for the Present Danger and aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick said: "We were concerned about the weakening of Western will." Incidentally, the antipathy to "the neoconservatives" that one hears so often these days flows back directly to those years and the neocon battles with American liberals. No one ever doubted Jeane Kirkpatrick's will or courage. Among those who most appreciated her determination to speak truth to totalitarian power was the celebrated Russian dissident Andrei Sakharov. Exiled by the Soviet government to Gorky, Sakharov said later how important it was to have a person of Jeane Kirkpatrick's stature publicly identify jailed Soviet dissidents by name. For the past 10 years she served on the board of the Center for a Free Cuba, which she helped found. Jeane Kirkpatrick was born in Duncan, Oklahoma, in 1926. She was an ideologue, and her ideas would have come from Duncan. Their tenet was freedom for the human spirit. She dedicated a public life to protecting that freedom. Contact Nathan Shuster at nashu24@yahoo.com |
|
KYL AND WOOLSEY WARN AGAINST NEGOTIATING WITH IRAN AND SYRIA
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 10, 2006. |
|
PRESS RELEASE: (Washington, D.C.): In the wake of the submission to President Bush and the Congress of the Iraq Study Group's report, members of that unelected, unaccountable commission have insisted that all of its recommendations must be adopted forthwith. ISG co-chairman James Baker went so far as to declare: "I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad and say, 'I like this, but I don't like that. I like this, but I don't like that.'" Two of the Nation's foremost national security practitioners -- Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey -- have written an open letter to President Bush urging him not to accept the ISG's recommendations in toto. They note that "people of good will and expertise from both parties can -- and in many cases do -- come to very different conclusions than those offered by the ISG." In particular, the two Honorary Co-Chairmen of the Center for Security Policy's bipartisan National Security Advisory Council warn against one of the commission's most controversial and ill-advised ideas: opening direct negotiations with Iran and Syria. Senator Kyl and Director Woolsey of the Center for Security Policy
In our view, opening negotiations with Iran (and Syria) as suggested by the ISG will have several undesirable effects.
The Center for Security Policy applauds Messrs. Kyl and Woolsey for conveying in this open letter what is on the minds of millions of Americans: We cannot safely and constructively negotiate with enemies determined to destroy us and should not try to do so with respect to Iran and its colony, Syria. The Center thanks President Bush for his determination to date to reject such counsel and strongly supports him in continuing to do so. |
|
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH Hon. George W. Bush
Dear Mr. President: You have just received the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) with its 79 recommendations for policy changes, force redeployments and other course corrections with respect to the conflict in Iraq. We believe you have responded properly in welcoming this product -- but reserving judgment as to whether you will accept its suggestions. This is especially important because of the argument being made in some quarters that, in light of the unanimity exhibited by the distinguished Republican and Democratic members of this commission, the advice offered must be accepted in toto. As leaders of the bipartisan National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy, we would respectfully suggest that people of good will and expertise from both parties can -- and in many cases do -- come to very different conclusions than those offered by the ISG. In particular, members of our Council on both sides of the aisle strongly disagree with what is, arguably, the Baker-Hamilton commission's most strategically portentous recommendation: The United States should immediately launch a New Diplomatic Offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region...Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own. Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. As the ISG's own report documents, far from being proponents of stability, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its de facto colony, Syria, have gone to great lengths to destabilize the Middle East and, in particular, to prevent Iraq from becoming a free, democratic and peaceful nation. Americans have been murdered for nearly three decades by Iranian operatives and Tehran's proxies. U.S. and coalition personnel and civilians in Iraq are being slaughtered today by deadly Iranian I.E.D.s (Improvised Explosive Devices) and other weapons provided to like-minded Islamofascist groups. At the same time, the Iranian regime is working to acquire nuclear arms and long-range ballistic missiles with which to deliver them. When combined with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated threats to "wipe Israel off the map" and bring about "a world without America," we face the prospect that, in due course, the mullahs running Iran will have the means to carry out their apocalyptic intentions. In our view, opening negotiations with Iran (and Syria) as suggested by the ISG will have several undesirable effects.
Finally, we trust that you will recognize the necessity of including Israel in any regional conference in which its security and other equities might be a subject of negotiations and that, in such settings and elsewhere, you will continue to adhere to the principle that America supports fellow democracies and eschews appeasement of terrorists and aggressors. In short, Mr. President, we encourage you to follow your better instincts. By all means, review, assess and, as appropriate, adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and those of the executive branch agencies you have commissioned. We urge you, however, to continue to reject any course of action that would signal that America has become a country that, to quote the scholar Bernard Lewis, is "harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend." Sincerely,
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
WHEN MENACHEM BEGIN'S ORATORY TOOK FLIGHT
Posted by Likud-Herut, December 10, 2006. |
|
This was written by Yehudah Avner, who was on the personal staff of four prime ministers, including Menachem Begin. Contact him at avner28@netvision.net.il. It appeared November 1, 2004 in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
The possible renewal of Saturday flights in the wake of El Al's privatization calls to mind a Knesset oration of yesteryear. For days, tension permeated the Knesset. Stocky, gesticulating men combed its corridors, committees and canteens, their numbers rising daily like tugboats heaving in fresh infusions of lobbying power. They were El Al union men, accompanied by their whispering lawyers, intent on scotching prime minister Menachem Begin's resolve to halt the national airline's flights on the Sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Without let-up, they pressured, pestered and petitioned the parliamentarians. Even the ever-ebullient, highly erudite, and strictly observant interior minister, Dr. Yosef Burg, was collared. He was waylaid by a union man who placed an amicable arm around his shoulder, jabbed a forefinger into his chest and barked into his face so grimacingly that his head was jerked backwards as if to have the arguments shoved physically down his throat. This was on May 3, 1982, the day premier Begin limped into a crowded Knesset chamber tense with expectancy. He was in pain, recovering from a severe hip injury, and it was with heavy, purposeful steps that he mounted the tribune to deliver his El Al speech. He began quietly, factually, declaring that the government had finally decided to halt all El Al flights on Shabbat and festivals -- a revelation that sent eyes glaring and hatreds flashing in the public gallery where the union men sat. Simultaneously, a sudden restlessness seized the opposition benches, which erupted into a paroxysm of heckling: "So why don't you shut down TV on Shabbat, too?" screamed one. "What about football matches on Shabbat?" bawled another. "Are you going to stop Jewish merchant ships at sea, too?" shouted a third. This spasm of derision fazed the premier not one little bit. On the contrary, it supplied him with new inspirations of vitriolic wit. "Shout as much as you will," he ribbed, his deep-set, bespectacled eyes scanning the opposition faces with scorn, his gaze finally settling on the young, secular, radical left-winger Yossi Sarid. "I have nothing to say to you and your kind, Mr. Sarid," he said, with a glance that could wither. "In fact, I have nothing to say to anyone who supports a Palestinian state that is a mortal danger to our people." And then, changing tone, pitching his voice to a muted, sonorous, trembling pitch, this man who believed in oratory as the supreme artful weapon, a matter of style, cadence, and the application of controlled but massive intellectual energy, intoned: "Forty years ago I returned from exile to Eretz Yisrael. Engraved in my memory still are the lives of millions of Jews, simple, ordinary folk, eking out a livelihood in that forlorn Diaspora where the storms of anti-Semitism raged. "So, stop football on Shabbat, too?" butted in Sarid provocatively, triggering off another squall of jeers, hissing, and name-calling. ADROITLY, TO the delight of his supporters, Menachem Begin put his power of mimicry to full use by calmly raising his right hand as if to catch a ball, tossed it back, and resumed his rhetorical flow: "Shabbat is one of the loftiest values in all of humanity," he said, his voice husky with emotion. "It originated with us. It is all ours. No other civilization in history knew of a day of rest. "So, put on a yarmulke," sneered Sarid. "Hutzpa!" boomed Begin, bristling. "I speak of our people's most hallowed values, and you dare stoop to mockery. Shame on you!" Then, arms up, fists balled, he thundered with the devotion of a disciple and the fire of a champion: "One nation alone sanctified the Shabbat, a small nation, the nation that heard the voice at Sinai, ' so that your man-servant and your maid-servant may rest as well as you.' A crescendo of approval from the government benches sent the rafters rattling, muffling every last vestige of dissent. And he, the Great Commoner, idol of the common folk, caught up on the wave of his own enthusiasm and sense of mission, rose to a pitch of almost uncontrollable fervor, and thundered on: "So, are we in our own reborn Jewish state to allow our blue-and-white El Al planes to fly to and fro as if broadcasting to the world that there is no Shabbat in Israel? Should we, who by faith and tradition heard the commandment at Sinai, now deliver a message to all and sundry through our blue-and-white El Al planes -- 'No, don't remember the Sabbath day. Forget the Sabbath day! Desecrate the Sabbath day.' The ensuing ruckus was terrific. The speaker sat ham-fisted, vainly banging his gavel, which thudded as soundlessly as a velvet mallet. So Begin himself raised his palms and then lowered them gently, once, twice, thrice, until the furor quietened of itself. Whereupon, to hammer his point home, he quoted the words of the celebrated secular philosopher of early Zionism, Ahad Ha'am: "More than the Jews kept the Sabbath day, the Sabbath day kept the Jews." With that, he raised his eyes to the public gallery and vouchsafed its occupants an intensely solemn stare. "Let me say this to the good workers of El Al," he told the crowd. "The government has been the object of threats. We disregard them. In a democracy, government decisions are not made under threat." And then, like a sudden bugle call to historical grandeur, he perorated with compelling passion: "Know this: We cannot assess the religious, national, social, historical, and ethical values of the Sabbath day by the yardstick of financial loss or gain. In our revived Jewish state we simply cannot engage in such calculations when dealing with an eternal and cardinal value of the Jewish people -- Shabbat -- for which our ancestors were ready to give their lives. Contact Likud-Herut at info@likud-herut.org.uk |
|
NEGOTIATE WITH ME
Posted by Women in Green, December 10, 2006. |
|
This was written by Sarah Honig and it appeared in the December 8, 2006 Jerusalem Post. |
|
That's it. No more carping, No more heckles from the sidelines. No more righteous indignation. The time has come for me to recommend to Ehud Olmert a concrete proposal, a workable alternative. Olmert, his cunning notwithstanding, is teetering on the precipitous brink of political bankruptcy. His popularity ratings are the lowest ever recorded in this country. His spin-docs advise he acquire an agenda in a hurry. Supercilious rhetoric alone won't do. A snake-oil salesman can hardly go peddling without any snake-oil. Any grifter must have something to market. Our Olmert started out hawking "convergence" (previously hyped as "disengagement"), whose trademark he soon changed, for promotional considerations, to "realignment." All the shills he planted in the crowd to enthusiastically extol his dubious panacea, however, failed after the past summer's Lebanese shenanigans exposed the glaring flaws of his miraculous remedy. Clearly nothing but increased pain was evident wherever unilateral disengagement/convergence/realignment was applied. That sort of made this particular cure-all hard to swallow again -- anytime soon, at any rate. Haplessly our energetic entrepreneur was left without merchandise (i.e. agenda). Desperation breeds risk, and Olmert indeed gambled by heaping unstinting praise on the very brew he had previously denigrated and which his now-discredited marvel medicine was destined to replace. Olmert seemingly rediscovered the very negotiated-settlement prescription which he had earlier pronounced worthless and against whose phenomenal shortcomings he plugged the disengagement/convergence/realignment self-medication potion. Why did Olmert pronounce a negotiated settlement worthless? Because PA President Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen) couldn't deliver the goods. In all likelihood he didn't even want to. He was only after hefty payments for what he couldn't/wouldn't deliver. In his contortionist reversal Olmert now proposes this same Abbas as the ultimate cure -- as the man we negotiate with for our deliverance. WHAT HAS changed? Has Abbas amassed more power than he had before his Fatah faction lost the election to Hamas? Hardly. If anything, Abbas lost the little clout he ever possessed. He is now at the mercy of local Hamas under Ismail Haniyeh's titular leadership, Khaled Mashaal's Damascus-based Hamas overlords and of course Mashaal's Syrian and Iranian masters. Abbas is likewise at the mercy of his own Fatah factions, whose ideological distinction from Islamic Jihad is as deep as the ideological divide between mafia "families." So why deal with Abbas? Basically because Olmert has no other wonder drug with which to entice us. When there's nothing else to sell, you scrape the bottom of already empty barrels. The upshot is that Abbas, whom everyone knew way back as thoroughly useless, is now upheld as the embodiment of our fervent hopes. If we prop him up, we could pretend that he can actually stand on his own, that he is viable and reliable, and that he alone can alleviate our aches and angst. Like any good panacea-purveyor, Olmert too boosts sales via accomplices who attest to the quality of the concoctions on offer, as if the customers hadn't just recently found them foul. Tzipi Livni, for instance, in the time-tried shyster-shill tradition, does her darndest to make us forget our harrowing experience with precisely the Osloite elixir she boisterously pushes at us yet again -- though its willfully mischaracterized ingredients already proved irrefutably harmful to our health and long-term survival prospects. Olmert, Livni, Shimon Peres and the rest of the duplicitous crew know that the scheme they go into raptures over is a non-starter. They can promise Abbas oodles of territory, dozens of evacuated settlements, thousands of freed terrorists and all modes of capitulation, but none of that would buy us even short-term pain relief. While the other side may occasionally oblige and take what Israel cedes, it will never declare satisfaction. Olmert & Co. know that none of their ostensible business partners wants to establish a Palestinian state. If it were otherwise, they'd have done so pre-1967 or following Ehud Barak's egregiously generous proposals at the 2000 Camp David summit. What these purported partners want is to obliterate Israel. Demands for a Palestinian state are one of the means to undermine the Jewish state. Gazans don't even try to pull the wool over our eyes. In an official statement last week, Hamas reiterated its opposition not just to Israel within the pre-1967 lines, but even to a paltry Israeli vestige in the microscopic morsels of territory which the UN allotted Jews in its 1947 Partition Plan. That means no Jewish state whatever. Hamas unabashedly demands "the international community correct its 1947 mistake," while in the same breath affirming that this doesn't negate its readiness to first take over the 1967 territories "without preconditions" -- as per the "phased solution" model (i.e. Israel's phased destruction). HERE'S WHERE my workable alternative pitch for Olmert comes in. It's obvious that his concessions to Abbas can only aggravate our peril. What we give away on narrow-waisted Israel's elongated eastern flank won't buy us even respite, but will inflict such suffering on the country's heartland as to make Kiryat Shmona and Sderot appear idyllically placid. Therefore, Olmert, don't negotiate with Abbas or indirectly with the Hamas thugs he fronts for. Negotiate with me instead. Why not? I have as much of a say-so in the PA or Hamas as Abbas has. Haniyeh and Mashaal will bow to my authority as much as they will to his. Moreover, I can be counted upon not to double-deal, not to smuggle weaponry, not to hoard rockets, not to finance terror, not to extort ransom and not to advance the "phased solution." Unlike Abbas, I'll do Israel no harm. Admittedly, I can't deliver the goods, but neither can he. 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 |
|
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY HYPOCRISY
Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, December 10, 2006. |
| There couldn't be a more perfect time |
|
Today, December 10, marks International Human Rights Day, and the presence in Israel of Irene Khan, head of Amnesty International, highlights the demise of once-lofty goals. Amnesty International is a superpower with an annual budget of almost $200 million, used to promote radical political agendas and photo-ops for its leaders. As a result, little remains of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in the shadow of the Holocaust. Officials of Amnesty and other non-governmental organizations focus their attacks on democracies attempting to defend against terror, with far fewer resources to oppose totalitarian and genocidal regimes such as Sudan and Iran. The silence of Khan and other officials regarding the human rights of the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Palestinians and by Hizbullah, and the human rights of Ron Arad, is damning. Amnesty and HRW (founded as Helsinki Watch) gained their legitimacy by campaigning on behalf of political prisoners, including Natan (then Anatoly) Sharansky. Genuine human rights groups would be leading the campaigns to win the freedom of Israeli prisoners held by terrorists. THE HYPOCRISY and political bias of these NGOs, in collaboration with the United Nations Human Rights Council, is particularly blatant in the case of Israel. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Christian Aid (UK), and pro-Palestinian partners actively implement the 2001 Durban agenda using the rhetoric of human rights to demonize Israel. Adopting the version of history starting with "Israeli occupation," these groups advance an ideology that presents Arabs as victims and Israelis as aggressors. The war between Hizbullah and Israel produced another wave in which defensive actions were automatically condemned as "war crimes," "collective punishment" or violations of international law. Amnesty and HRW together issued dozens of press releases, almost all of which focused on allegations against Israel. Without providing criteria, Amnesty statements declared that the Israeli strikes in Beirut were "grossly disproportionate," while acknowledging this was where "Hizbullah had its headquarters," directing the firing of thousands of rockets against Israel. No one seemed to notice the logical disconnect. THE "DISCOVERY" of Hizbullah's cluster bombs and human shields came weeks or months later. In another surreal statement demonstrating their detachment from reality, Amnesty officials observed that "No investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by Hizbullah is known to have been conducted by Hizbullah commanders...." The NGOs that dominate the human rights discourse also feed journalists and diplomats with false or unverifiable claims. Their reports are based on "eyewitness testimony," such as by Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanese in areas controlled by Hizbullah. During the recent war, HRW and Amnesty claimed to have found no evidence of Hizbullah activities in the areas struck by Israel. There is no reason to conclude that these "researchers" and "military experts" bothered to check the allegiance and credibility of their sources. But HRW's 49-page report -- the largest PR effort during the war -- entitled "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," was headlined without question by journalists around the world. IN ADDITION, the European Union and its member states fund many groups that also use the language of human rights to promote conflict and demonization of Israel. The grandly named Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) issued a torrent of political statements and one-sided condemnations during the Lebanon War. Other EU-supported "human rights" groups campaign against Israel's security barrier, with terms such as "apartheid wall" and call for boycotts, sanctions and other measures that are part of the political war. Some of these NGOs refer to "resistance" and "martyrdom" operations against "Israel Occupation Forces," meaning terror attacks and suicide bombers that have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians. In this way, European governments, including Switzerland and Norway, are contributing to the destruction of human rights based on universal principles, and undermining peace efforts they claim to promote. This moral decay is also evident in the activities of the newly reformed United Nations Human Rights Council, which has focused on gratuitous Israel-bashing. The pseudo-reform process was strongly supported by the NGO network, which criticized the US and Israel for warning that the new UNHRC was no better than the old, discredited version. IT WAS ONLY after the activities of the new UNHRC brought the use of double-standards to record levels that these human rights NGOs finally began speaking out against the abuse. (HRW's recent criticism of the Palestinian use of human shields to protect terrorists was attacked by fringe groups seeking to paint this illegal practice as non-violent protest.) To reverse course, and restore the credibility, universality and substance of human rights the credibility and accountability of groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch must also be restored. Ideology and political preferences can no longer dominate their agendas and publications, and human rights cannot use double standards which punish democracies and reward dictatorships. Ethical norms must be freed from political and ideological agendas, particularly when these are used by those who declare the goal of "wiping Israel off the map." International Human Rights Day is an appropriate time to start. The writer is the director of the Program on Conflict Management at
Bar-Ilan University and executive director of NGO Monitor. Contact him
at steing@mail.biu.ac.il
This was in today's Jerusalem Post
|
|
OFFICIAL FILES ON ILLEGAL ARAB CONSTRUCTION DELETED
Posted by Arieh King, December 10, 2006. |
|
This comes from Wnd's Jerusalem Bureau and was written by Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, and it appeared on www.WorldNetDaily.com March 3, 2006. Report: Files on illegal Arab construction deleted |
|
JERUSALEM -- While Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has the past few weeks directed large numbers of Israeli forces to demolish several isolated West Bank Jewish homes deemed illegal, a report newly released here charges Jerusalem's city hall deleted files documenting hundreds of illegal Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem. Aryeh King, chairman of the Jerusalem Forum, which promotes Jewish construction in Jerusalem, initiated a state investigation into the deletions, which allegedly took place while Olmert served as mayor of the city. He charged Olmert told senior municipal workers not to enforce a ban on illegal Arab buildings, allegedly saying to them eastern Jerusalem would one day be given to the Palestinians. "Ehud Olmert gave the order not to deal with the problem and not to put Israeli security forces to the duty of taking down the illegal Arab complexes. Senior municipal workers told me Olmert said not to bother with the illegal Arab homes because eventually eastern Jerusalem would be given to the Palestinian Authority," said King. The state comptroller was asked to investigate the situation following the publication of a local media report alleging Jerusalem municipal officials erased the files, which detail over 300 cases of Arab construction in eastern Jerusalem deemed illegal starting from 1999. The illegal buildings were reportedly constructed without permits and are still standing. According to law, they must be demolished. The media report alleged the files were erased by Ofir May, the head of Jerusalem's Department of Building Permits, with the specific intention of allowing the statute of limitation on enforcing the demolitions of the illegal construction to run out. King's group asked the comptroller to probe Olmert's and other government officials' involvement in the alleged file deletions. Olmert was Jerusalem mayor from 1993 to 2003. The Jerusalem municipality released a statement in response to the allegations claiming the threat of Arab violence kept it from bulldozing the illegal Arab homes. "During the years of the intifada, the municipality had difficulty carrying out the necessary level of enforcement in the neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem due to security constraints," the statement read. King said the hundreds of buildings allegedly detailed in the deleted municipal files house more than 20,000 illegal units. "We're talking about perhaps 100,000 or more Arabs in eastern Jerusalem living in illegal homes with the government doing nothing about it," King said. While the Jerusalem municipality under Olmert's mayoral administration did not clamp down on illegal Arab construction, the acting prime minister the past few weeks has directed security forces to bulldoze Jewish homes in the West Bank also deemed illegal for lack of building permits. Several weeks ago, Olmert ordered more than 1,500 Israeli Defense Force soldiers and Israeli police officers to bulldoze nine homes in the West Bank community of Amona after the court system ruled the houses were constructed without a permit. The government said the homes could be rebuilt at a later date in the same community if the construction is coordinated with the Ministry of Defense. But Olmert ordered the demolitions be carried out immediately and instructed the military to use "all force necessary." During the bulldozings, horse-mounted police, water cannons and specially trained riot officers faced off against hundreds of protesters who massed in Amona in hopes of halting the efforts. Israeli television broadcast live footage of demonstrators, including women and children, being dragged and beaten by soldiers. Teenagers with bloody noses and head wounds were seen being removed from the scene. Police were videotaped using batons and gas canisters to clear the area of demonstrators. Some protesters were seen throwing rocks and paint at security forces. After more than 100,000 Israelis gathered in Jerusalem to protest against the violence at Amona, the government established a special Knesset commission to investigate whether excessive force was used in enforcing the Amona evictions. Olmert the past few weeks also directed Israeli forces to tear down Chazon David, a small community consisting of a synagogue and several mobile units near the West Bank town of Hebron, home to the oldest Jewish community in the world. Prior to that, Olmert enforced the eviction of 11 families from a Jewish-owned market within Hebron's Jewish community because the families reportedly moved in without government permission. Some Israeli commentators have been questioning the timing of the orders to demolish the Jewish West Bank homes, which came as Olmert begins to launch Kadima's political campaign. The commentators say Olmert will need to demonstrate he is capable of carrying out the policies of Kadima in absence of its founder, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who remains comatose in a Jerusalem hospital following a severe stroke. Many Kadima members have stated the new party is looking to change Israel's borders. Olmert has announced his administration will seek to withdrawal from most of the West Bank, and has previously made statements to reporters about the possibility of vacating certain peripheral areas of Jerusalem. Israeli Nationalist lawmaker Benny Elon accused Olmert of using the recent West Bank Jewish evictions for votes: "Olmert is not a military man. He doesn't have a strong defense background like [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon, who everyone knows can get tough," Elon said. "So Olmert's public relations people told him he needs to act macho against the settlers ahead of the elections to prove to them he can push through what the extreme leftists want, a West Bank evacuation." Contact Arieh King at kingshir@bezeqint.net |
|
CLEARANCE SALE
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, December 10, 2006. |
|
Step right up folks to the end of the State of Israel clearance sale. Everything is for sale. Make us an offer and see if we can't make a deal!! This is called "Israel Agrees to Reopen Mt. Zion Talks with Vatican"
and it appeared today n Arutz-Sheva
|
|
PM Olmert will meet in the Vatican this week with Pope Benedict -- two weeks after Israeli diplomats confirmed the reopening of talks over the status of church property on Mt. Zion and elsewhere. "In a move that surprised observers," www.CatholicNews.com reports, "Israel has agreed to re-launch negotiations with the Holy See over church status in the Holy Land that have been stalled since the Olmert government came to power." A year ago, Arutz-7 reported that a Foreign Ministry official admitted that a blueprint of an agreement with the Vatican giving it control of parts of Mt. Zion in Jerusalem -- also known as King David's burial site -- had been received. The proposed contract read as follows: "The State of Israel hands over to the Holy See the use of the Cenacle [the room of the event known as the Last Supper, above King David's tomb -- ed.], of the access path to it, and of the spaces adjacent to it... It is the Holy See's intention to inform the Bishops -- and through them the world's Priests -- that the Catholic Church has been given the use of the Cenacle, inviting them to visit the Holy Place together with their faithful... The Holy See hands over this use of the Cenacle to the Custody of the Holy Land [which acts on behalf of the Holy See]... [which] will keep the Cenacle open from 6 AM to 8 AM for the celebration of the Holy Mass... Official liturgical celebrations of non-Catholic Churches can take place only upon prior written permission by the Custody of the Holy Land." At the time, President Moshe Katzav was about to embark on a visit to the Vatican. In the face of increasing public pressure, he was forced to deny any plans to sign away the King David's complex in Jerusalem. It now appears, however, that this option has once again surfaced. AsiaNews reported late last month that Israel and the Holy See "have agreed to hold negotiating sessions of their 'Bilateral Permanent Working Commission' in December and in January -- after the Olmert Government had, in effect, declined to do so ever since taking office last spring... The news is being received with relief, and with cautious optimism, in Church circles." The paper reported that "there were apprehensions that the protracted negotiations (begun on 11 March 1999) required by the 1993 Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, might be suspended indefinitely -- with incalculable consequences, both for the Catholic institutions in Israel and for the bilateral relationship." Church's Steady and Discreet Efforts Pay Off "It is not known precisely what caused [Israel's] sudden change of attitude," AsiaNews reported, "though it is understood that the Vatican had never given up on its steady (though characteristically discreet) diplomatic efforts. Furthermore, it has often been reported in the media that both the American Catholic Church and influential components of the U.S. Government -- at the Department of State, in the Congress, and in the White House itself -- have been encouraging Israel constantly to make sure it is faithful to its international commitments vis-a-vis the Holy See and the Catholic Church." At present, since shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, the Diaspora Yeshiva is located on Mt. Zion, and has long warned of the catastrophic implications for Israel if the deal goes through. "This is an enormous issue that is being pushed through without any public debate whatsoever," Yeshiva Director Rabbi Shabtai Herman told Arutz-7 last year. Rabbi Herman explained that if the Catholic Church receives control of the area, just a few hundred yards from the Temple Mount and adjacent to the Old City walls, it will turn it into "the international center for Catholics all around the world -- and if the pope just gives the word, Christians will be flocking over here en masse." Rabbi Mordechai Goldstein, who founded and still runs the Diaspora Yeshiva, officially known as Yeshiva Toras Yisrael, elaborated in a follow-up discussion with Arutz-7: "According to their bible, the land is to return to the Christians, and 144,000 Jews are to return to Mt. Zion. So their plan is for them to take control of the site, and then to announce that they are holding a mass reenactment of the Last Supper, with [all types of religious rituals], and to invite millions of Christians to come to Jerusalem and celebrate." He said that this means much tourism money for Israel, and that someone in the Israeli government is apparently very interested in making this happen. The King David's Tomb complex is a complex of buildings of some 100,000 square feet where David and Solomon, and kings of Judea, are said to be buried. "It is certainly one of the holiest spots in the Land of Israel," Rabbi Herman said. "We've already given away the Temple Mount and the Machpelah Cave, except for here and there when we're allowed in; now they want to give Mt. Zion away as well? For thousands of years, this area was almost always totally closed off to Jews. G-d gave it back to us in 1948, but parts of it were still in range and sight of Jordanian snipers and were not in full use. After 1967, Rabbi Goldstein founded the Diaspora Yeshiva here -- and it became an island of holiness, the first yeshiva for baalei teshuvah [newly religious] in Israel; we were there day and night learning Torah. Rabbi Goldstein was almost prophetic in establishing this yeshiva at that time at that spot; destiny from above intertwined him with Mt. Zion." Rabbi Herman said that the above plan is merely the first step of a larger plan to turn all of Mt. Zion into a Christian site. He explained that the lower level of the complex, containing many chambers, rooms, passageways and the like, has long been under the control of Israeli bodies such as the Lands Authority, and that half of the area was assigned to the Diaspora Yeshiva. MK Benny Elon (National Union), who served twice as Minister of Tourism, told Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine, "This issue was raised several years ago. When I was Tourism Minister, I made it clear to a representative of the Pope that we would allow them to use one room with a side entrance that would not bother the yeshiva. But under no circumstances would we allow the transfer of ownership. But they said they want ownership, and that the Pope sees this place as the second-holiest, after the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. We have to be very strong and not give in to the Vatican on this." 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. |
|
ABJECT SURRENDER AS "REALISM"
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, December 10, 2006. |
|
Foreign policy realism is ascendant these days, we are told ... This was redacted from an irrefutable editorial by William Kristol, Editor, Weekly Standard and Robert Kagan. |
|
Foreign policy realism is ascendant these days, we are told. This would be encouraging if true, because our foreign policy must indeed be realistic. But what passes for "realism" today has very little to do with reality. Indeed, if you look at some of the "realist" proposals on the table, "realism" has come to be a kind of code word for surrendering American interests and American allies, as well as American principles, in the Middle East. Thus, the "realists" advise us to seek Syria's help in Iraq even as the Syrian government engages in a concerted campaign of assassinating every Lebanese political leader who opposes the return of Syrian hegemony in Lebanon. Presumably, the "realist" position is that we should give Lebanon to Syria, or at least turn a blind eye to its murderous efforts to regain control there, as an incentive to Syria to help us in Iraq, where Syria is also engaged in supporting terrorists. "Realism' is letting dictators get away with terror and murder and, in particular, letting them get away with the murder of our friends. The "realists" advise seeking Iranian help in Iraq as well. They are coy about suggesting what the United States could give Tehran as an inducement for such assistance, but the implications of their position are clear. After all, the Bush administration has already offered to talk to Iran, provided the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment of uranium. That has also been the position of the Europeans. The Iranians have refused. So the "realists" are adapting to the reality of Iranian intransigence. They are in effect suggesting that the administration drop its long-standing position and begin negotiating with Iran despite the Iranian regime's refusal to agree to the common U.S.-European demand. What the realists have in mind, then, is that the United States should turn a blind eye to Iran's nuclear weapons program, in exchange for Iran's help in easing our retreat from Iraq. Who cares if this would destroy U.S. credibility, weaken those in Europe who are trying to be strong, undermine the effort to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and lead to a cascade of additional nuclear states in the region? It would at least make possible further "realistic" accommodations to these new and deadly realities. The "realists" also advise putting pressure on Israel to deal in a more "forthcoming" way with the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. Israel should be induced to make concessions despite the ongoing violence and the refusal of Hamas to ratify even Yasser Arafat's acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Thus, in order to conciliate Arab dictators and radicals, Washington should retreat from long-standing principle and hand a dramatic victory to the forces of violence and extremism in Palestine. (Unfortunately, even Wm. Kristol and Robert Kagan have bought into this completely false, archaic, propaganda terminology, "Palestine" _ of course, aided and abetted by the public relations ignorance and now, even historical ignorance, of the Israelis, themselves. -- Jsk). So let's add up the "realistic" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq and thus abandon all those Iraqis -- Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future; We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria's support for our retreat from Iraq; We must abandon our opposition to Iran's nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq; and we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq!!! This is what passes for realism these days! But of course this is not realism. It is capitulation. Were the United States to adopt this approach every time we faced a difficult set of problems; were we to attempt to satisfy our adversary's every whim in order to win their acquiescence, we would rapidly cease to play any significant role in the world. We would be neither feared nor respected nor, of course, would we be any better liked. Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries. What our adversaries in the Middle East want from us is very simple: They want us out. Unless we are prepared to withdraw not just from Iraq but from the entire region, and from wherever else our adversaries choose as well, we had better start figuring out how to pursue effectively and, in truth, "realistically" our interests and goals, This is true American realism. All the rest is a fancy way of justifying surrender. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
NEW TRENDS IN ISRAEL'S LEBANON WAR
Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, December 10, 2006. |
|
Israel's recent war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon has been an act of self defence. Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli cities in the north such as Haifa and Kiryat Shmona had exacerbated the situation to such an extent that Israel had no other option but to retaliate with all the force she had at her disposal. The attack against Israel and the latter's retaliation had invited much international criticism. The argument of condemnation was Israel's alleged use of disproportionate force. Herein lies the blind side of the so-called international community. This is primarily due to the failure to take cognizance of foreign (primarily Iranian) involvement in the on-going proxy war against Israel that has been going on for decades ever since its inception.From behind the scenes manipulation, Iran has now come out in the open in its avowed policy of destroying the Jewish state. This has led to a qualitative shift in the existing threat from merely supplying missiles to the Hezbollah to the declared Iranian policy of vapourizing Israel by the use of nuclear weapons. The President of Iran, Mahmud Ahmedinejad has made no bones of this fact. Hence the 'peaceful' Iranian nulear programme for attaining self-sufficiency in uranium enrichment. In the light of the grave threat that looms menacingly in the Middle East, and indeed the world posed by Iran's nuclear programme, never before has been so much at stake for Israel and the world at large. Israel perhaps faces the gravest threat in its 58 years of existence. In its wars of survival, Israel had repeatedly forestalled the Arabs' policy of 'wiping it off the map'. Indeed one of the major aims of Israel's attack on Egypt in the 1956 campaign was to stop the fedayeen raids sponsored by Nasser. The 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee was aimed at driving out the PLO from Lebanon. But these operations, so to speak, were surgical clean-ups. The terrorist organizations could not match the military might of Israel,any more than their sponsors. The Hezbollah, however, has been a different story altogether. Trained, sponsored and financed by Iran, the organization played the former's proxy for domination in the Middle East. It is serving as a spearhead of attack not only gainst Israel, but the free world in general. Israel, by striking against the organization deep inside Lebanon, has been able to stop Iran dead in its tracks. The danger is not entirely over though it has changed shape. Under the circumstances, Israel would do all that is in its power to safeguard its existence. The possibility of another Osirak cannot be foreclosed. The question is how and when? The memories of yesteryears have comeback to haunt the Israelis, but in a more sophisticated form. Contact the poster at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in |
|
CAPITULATION TO TERRORISM
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 9, 2006. |
|
Dear friends, This article speaks for itself. It is called "Capitulation to terrorism", and was written by Joseph
Farah and it appeared in World Net Daily Your Truth Provider,
|
|
The Iraq Study Group report is in -- and it holds no surprises. What should we expect from a group chaired by James Baker, a legal pimp for Saudi Arabia and the man who single-handedly reversed America's pro-freedom policies in the Middle East during his tenure as secretary of state under the president's father? There have been many great words spoken throughout history -- none by Baker. In fact, the words he is most famous for speaking relate to questions about his reshaping of Middle East policy in the early 1990s. It was Baker who called for a more "even-handed" approach to the region. By even-handed, he meant the U.S. should stop backing Israel out of moral imperative and treat the only free state in the Middle East as a moral equal with the totalitarian, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, racist, terrorist police states that surround it. When asked how such a policy might go over with Jewish voters in the U.S., Baker showed off his touted diplomatic skills with his most famous quote: "They don't vote for us anyway, so f--- 'em." Only he didn't leave out those three letters following the "f." That's really all you need to know about Baker -- the Council on Foreign Relations hack who should be prohibited from having any influence on American foreign policy because of his own conflicts of interests involving the fun-loving Saudis. The "Baker Commission," as it should rightfully be called, came up with two major recommendations as far as I can see: Engage Iran and Syria in resolving the Iraq conflict; Fast-track the creation of a Palestinian state by carving up tiny Israel. Let's talk briefly about these two wacky ideas. One shouldn't have to point out at this late date that Syria and Iran represent the principal problem in the region, not the solution. But, for moral relativists like Baker and others with less impure motives who just don't understand the Middle East, I guess it is necessary to restate the obvious. The terrorists we fight in Iraq today wouldn't last a week without the direct support and encouragement of the mullah government in Iran and the police state of Bashar Assad in Syria. One of George Bush's biggest mistakes as president has been to ignore this reality and to play patty-cake with the terrorist enemy. Either it's a war or it's not a war. Either the terrorists are our enemies or they're not. Either we destroy them or they destroy us. Bush hasn't seen it this way. He really thought major hostilities would end when the U.S. and its allies defeated Saddam Hussein's army on the battlefield. He should have known that was the easy part. And, if he didn't recognize it in advance, he's had plenty of time to figure it out since. Again, this should be obvious, but Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Its president has publicly called for the destruction of not just the state of Israel but America, too. He means what he says. This is the same Ahmadinejad who was active in the holding of American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and 1980. Iran is not going to change its stripes. Neither is Syria. And we are encouraging these terrorist-supporting nations to keep doing exactly what they are doing when there is even a suggestion in the U.S. that we "engage" them to settle the matter in Iraq. It's so absurd, it's really not even something intelligent, rationale Americans should discuss, let along consider. Then there's the matter of Palestine. Here the recommendations of the Baker Commission are even more absurd, more preposterous. The Iraq Study Group suggests Israel should pay the price for America's failed efforts in Iraq by returning the Golan Heights to Syria and conceding that millions of refugees, most of whom have never lived in Israel or "Palestine," have "the right of return." Again, for those short on history, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 in hard-fought combat. Most of those who live in the Golan Heights, the Druze, are very happy under Israeli control. Possession of the Golan Heights offers Israel some protection from future Syrian artillery bombardment and armored invasions. But without any concessions from a Syrian government still officially at war with Israel, Jerusalem is supposed to turn over to a terrorist police state this strategic real estate and the inhabitants who now live freely under Israeli protection. Likewise, even while Israel is being attacked daily by Palestinian terrorists from lands it already turned over to them, the Jewish state is supposed to welcome millions more into the Palestinian Authority and presumably Israel as well. Let's just say such a decision would make the Holocaust look like a bar mitzvah party by comparison. Who do we have to thank for all of this? It's tempting to blame James Baker. But, to be honest, George W. Bush brought all this on himself with his misconduct of the war in Iraq and his own irrational policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Has it occurred to anyone that even linking Iraq with Palestine makes no sense whatsoever? Does anyone truly believe that the establishment of a Palestinian state would persuade Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons? Does anyone truly believe that the establishment of a Palestinian state would persuade Syria to cease its support of international terrorists? Does anyone truly believe that the establishment of a Palestinian state would persuade Iran and Syria to stop promoting the toppling of the elected government of Iraq? Does anyone truly believe that the establishment of a Palestinian state would persuade Hezbollah, supported by both Iran and Syria, to stop its own insurgency in Lebanon? It's difficult for me even to ask such ridiculous rhetorical questions. But I do so to illustrate just how evil is this document produced by the Baker Commission. But, again, what should we expect from James Baker? This lying, deceiving report reflects the evil genius of the man behind it. The terrorists in the Middle East understand this report for what it is -- victory for them. Will Americans recognize it in time? Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE MATTERS
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 9, 2006. |
|
Israel offers empirical evidence, including videos, that Hizbullah used civilians as human shields during its recent battle against the Jewish State, and the world yawns. Shouldn't Hassan Nasrallah and his crew of craven terrorists be held accountable for smashing rules delineated in the Geneva convention, shouldn't the International Court of Justice at The Hague condemn Hizbullah for perpetrating war crimes, and shouldn't the United Nations chastise this terrorist organization while proposing sanctions against a Lebanese government that includes such war criminals in its Parliament? Is it only Israel that takes a sanctimonious hit from planetary movers and shakers for almost anything it does, even if it attempts to defend its citizens from homicide/suicide bombers by installing necessary check points and building a security wall? Granted, many Shiites in northern Lebanon sympathize with Hizbullah and were willing to allow their homes and properties to be used by its war machine, but is it okay for such sympathizers to allow their children as well reluctant adults to be put in harms way? In effect, Hizbullah is responsible for the deaths of those Lebanese civilians, yet Human Rights Watch censures Israel, diminishing the credibility of an organization that purports to be honest in its assessments. As long as Israel is castigated, even occasionally in tandem with jihad junkies, their eyes intently fixated on the eventual prize of an all Islamic Middle East which includes most of Europe, that politically correct fraudulent doctrine of moral equivalency will in effect give Muslim fanatics a reprieve, rewarding an insidious strategy to be used again and again with anticipated impunity. Israel's military forces would never commit the cowardly act of putting Israeli civilians in harms way. Indeed, no moral society would allow its soldiers to behave so ignominiously. Furthermore, no moral society would condone the use of homicide/suicide bombers as a weapon to terrorize even its most perilous enemies, yet that surely is the weapon of choice for fundamentalist Islamic fanatics imbedded within societies bereft of the notion that human life is precious. Indeed, human life on the planet is for all intents and purposes worthless relative to an envisioned paradise in Allahland, replete with compliant female virgins, for those misogynist Muslim males prone to abetting or acting out the perverted act of self- detonation born of that deranged mind-set. When a worldwide culture, composed of perhaps a billion members, is infected with and manipulated by delusional psychopathic concepts embodied in the hearts and minds of many of its souls, most attentive to an afterlife described by persuasive misogynist Mullahs who market joyful rewards for the mere price of one 'God is Great' big bang explosive leap into the spindly arms of martyrdom, taking out all proximate 'infidels' in that process, and the outer world will not react logically by not only loudly condemning such a deviation from mankind's natural survival instinct, but aggressively doing whatever is necessary to neutralize such dangerous ideations before they truly manifest into a nuclear holocaust, the very existence of human life on Earth teeters on the brink of devastation. Yet the recent 'How to Fix a Broken Iraq' report, authored by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, blast from the past diplomats, suggests peace between Israel and so-called Palestine no doubt secured by transferring pieces of Israeli territory to the Quassam launching land grabbing Hamas terrorists, is somehow linked to the out of control violence in the land of the Tigres and Euphrates, as if Sunnis and Shiites immersed in their thirteen century futile feud really care. Furthermore, the diplomatic duo believes breaking falafel with Iran and Syria would lead to fruitful 'get us out of this mess' discourse, yet fails to consider that such folks view 'begging for help' as capitulation thus weakness, and only respect strength. From another perspective, didn't erstwhile Syrian dictator Hafez Assad, father of today's Daddy wannabe Syrian 'strongman' Bashar, deal with about 20,000 upstart Muslims in the town of Hama in 1982 by grinding them into the desert sand? Would negotiating with tyrants or tyrant wannabes prone to such mindsets, not at all opposed to Nasrallah-like human shield tactics, nor upset at human beings blowing themselves asunder, make fruitful negotiating partners? Does it make sense to make nice nice with madman Imam possessed Iranian President Mahmoud AhMADinejad, always in the mood to wipe Israel off the map, as well as someday more than willing to set his infidel bereft stage by setting off a nuke or two, just so the mythical Imam from Allahland can make his grand entrance? I hope a prescient Knesset is watching all this bereft of rose-colored glasses! Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
RABIN'S LEGACY THAT NEVER WAS
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 9, 2006. |
|
Dear friends, To many of you the following may come as a surprise. Here is my December 2006 article to the Toledo Jewish News just published. It is mystifying and deeply disturbing how in short 11 years since Rabin's assassination, his legacy was completely distorted by the Israeli left and the Israeli leftist media. Your Truth Provider,
|
|
On the 4th of November 1995, Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated at the end of a peace rally in Tel Aviv. Many Israelis, particularly those on the political left, believe that this horrifying event also brought about the demise of the peace process. Israelis often ask the haunting question what would have happened if Rabin were alive? Would he have achieved the yearned-for peace? On the 11th anniversary of Rabin's assassination, and in light of more recent events, most significantly the self inflicted destruction of Gush Katif and the troubling war with Hezbollah, it is our duty to examine closely Rabin's true agenda and stir the public debate back to the realities of his legacy. How easily and quickly some of us forget what Rabin stood for, how far was he really prepared to concede and what was his intended peace plan. Yes, he spoke about comprehensive peace but it may surprise you that he never spoke about an independent "Palestinian" state. Since Rabin's death, Israelis have turned Rabin into an emblem of their leftist political cause. They idolize him to further their agenda of appeasement, an agenda to which he never subscribed. This on-going process of false adulation was particularly evident in the latest Tel Aviv rally in his memory, when speakers, most notably the author David Grossman, canonized Rabin as the prince of peace. Had he lived, so they claim, Eretz Yisrael would today be divided into two independent states in which two free nations would be living peacefully side by side. Did Rabin advocate a fully independent Palestinian state? Did he plot the dismantling of Jewish settlements? Did he agree to entrust the security of Israel's borders to the hands of Arabs or international forces? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. The real tragic consequence of his untimely death was not the lost opportunity for a non- existing peace, but the start of a process of erosion in Israel's positions. I am convinced that just as Rabin led Israel into the peace process, he would have had the tenacity to lead Israel out of it at the first sign of the inevitable Arab deceit. Rabin was a strong leader who was prepared to steadfastly defend Israel's vital interests. Had he survived, Israel today would still be without peace, but much stronger. In fact, Rabin today would most likely be spiritual leader of the Israeli right. Now, think for a moment: How many of you were led to believe that Rabin was prepared to grant the "Palestinians" an independent state? That Rabin was prepared to dismantle Jewish settlements? If you are among them, you have fallen prey to leftist propaganda and the re-writing of history! The fact is obvious, Rabin was hijacked by the left! On October 5th 1995, a mere one month before his assassination, Rabin stated his intentions in a pivotal speech to the Knesset. The speech is of course public record, yet the Israeli left persistently ignore its essentials, particularly the parts in which Rabin lists his red lines, lines he believed Israel should never agree to surrender. The occasion was the debate to ratify the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement. You will find the entire speech in Israel's Foreign Office site, www.mfa.gov.il. In the Home page, click on the Peace Process link on the left, and choose Key Speeches. Two issues in Rabin's presentation could not be clearer: Concessions would come only through negotiations and only if the Palestinians strictly adhere to each obligation in the Agreement, including absolute end to terror. Rabin never contemplated any unilateral moves. When you read the entire speech, pay close attention to the importance Rabin attached to our Jewish holy places, not a typical leftist cause. Here are some of Rabin's stated red lines:
It is deplorable how many and how severely Rabin's red lines have been eroded by successive Israeli governments, particularly those of Sharon and Olmert. It is even more appalling how brutally Rabin's positions have been distorted by the Israeli left and the Israeli leftist media. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
THE JAMES BAKER-BAKER BOTTS AND THE SAUDI ARABIA CONNECTION
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 9, 2006. |
|
For your edification... James Baker is in bed with the Saudis, our eternal enemy who smiles to our face and stabs us behind our back in each way possible and the loose way. Does anyone believe that Baker, as the architect of the ISG [Iraq Study Group] can possibly be objective? I am sure if we dig a bit deeper as to who is James Baker and what he hides in his closet we will be nothing less than shocked to our very core! Personally I think he is a dangerous man who is not acting for and on behalf of our nation's interests. This is called "The Baker-Saudi Arabia Connection"
and it comes from homestead.com
|
|
In the past few years, Baker Botts--which employs about 700 lawyers, has had annual revenues of about $365 million and operates offices in Austin, Baku, Dallas, London, Moscow, New York, Riyadh and Washington, DC. · In 2005, the firm expanded its presence in the region by opening an office in Dubai to complement the existing office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
A LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: AMERICA WAKE UP AND SAVE YOURSELF!
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 9, 2006. |
|
To: President Bush and the Iraq Study Group members Gentlemen: Allow me to remind you what Iran's El Presidente Ahamedinejad -- Ahamegenocide said in one of his speeches: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?" But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved!" Think along with me: How many MORE Americans the Islamo Fascists need to kill before we get the point? The Administration and its bad advisors are dangerously OFF TRACK! The USA Administration has dangerously and to our, beyond comprehension detriment, DISCONNECTED ALL the DOTS! Why do you think we need to consider or accept the Iraq Study Group's Report recommendations? This group's Chairman is James Baker who is nothing but a foolish man. From behind their desks this Blue-ribbon panels can afford their juvenilia. After all who are the members of this group? By far none are experts on any of the issues they covered AND as it now appears, their suggestions may put ALL OF US in a trap that will cost many, many more lives. Filing indictments against a handful of savages, or dancing with the Saudis, being recklessly passive when it comes to Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah or fading a chunk of USA support for Israel will not save one American life! Not even one! Dialogue is an excuse of having no position. Where is the American courage to stand on the right side of issues and to take the right actions? I am appealing to this Administration and all Americans: like there is no rational justification for negotiating with Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah that will equally validate a sit-down with bin Laden there is no rational justification for negotiating with Tehran's mullahs or Syria's Bashar al-Assad. Negotiating, appeasing, and looking the other way is exactly what we have been doing for way too long and long before the Iraq Study Group ever got involved. Such behavior will kill MANY, Many Americans! For this Administration and every American edification: Just see who we are working hand-in-glove with: It was on December 12, 1983, when a group of bombers tied to al-Dawa, a terror organization backed by Iran and leading the Shiite resistance against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime, bombed the U.S. embassy in Kuwait, killing six and wounding scores of others. At the time the leader of Dawa's "jihad office" in Syria was none other than Nouri al-Maliki -- now the prime Minister of Iraq. Unfortunately, you, President Bush, support and promote and you have HOSTED in the White House this rogue! And do you think we should think politicians have ANY scruples? Have you already forgotten what to do that is right? Terrorists and their state facilitators, animated by a murderous, totalitarian ideology, cannot be negotiated with. They must be defeated. If not, they are emboldened. That translates, always, into MANY MORE dead Americans! I am here to remind all Americans that the Islamo Fascists do absolutely NOTHING all day, every day, BUT planning the killing of MANY MORE Americans. In the eyes of our enemy, we have displayed nothing but weaknesses the enemy will be using against ALL OF U.S. Please stop your treacherous behavior; connect the links and be aware of our enemy: Iran/Hezbollah/Qaeda partnership is a given fact. ALL of U.S MUST get united behind the appropriate actions, which is NOT useless dialogues. WE MUST ACT RIGHT TO try SAVE as MANY AMERICAN LIVES as POSSIBLE! President Bush: It is SEPTEMBER 10th 2001 ALL OVER AGAIN! And once again the people who are gravely mismanaging our country are ignoring the facts and the death warnings jumping right at us. Iran believes they will destroy U.S and acts on its conviction every day and what we do...we seek negotiations. If we do not act the part of superpower we are, what is left is to go hug our children. Because if we abdicate now, as it seems we are doing, and turn a blind eye as our implacable, insatiable enemies pick off our best and our bravest, we simply shrink from our superpower duty. Since we don't have the will we had in WW II, it will be for our children, yours and mine, to face down this challenge, ALL because we offer to talk while the enemy plots to kill us all. America, WAKE UP and SAVE YOURSELF! Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
'THE ISG SPEAKS NOT FOR ME', OR, 'IT'S THE MULLAHS, STUPID'
Posted by Unity Coality for Israel, December 8, 2006. |
|
This is by Hugh Hewitt, who is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books including Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority. |
|
The almost instant reject of the central recommendations of the ISG Report by key officials in Iraq and Israel, and serious observers of the war is a refreshing bit of resolve. The criticism is withering and deserved. "A fatuous process yields, necessarily, fatuous results," writes Eliot Cohen in today's Wall Street Journal, a piece I hope the editors make available to the public generally. He continues: War, and warlike statecraft, is a hard business, and though this is supposed to be a report dominated by "realists," there is nothing realistic in failing to spell out the bloody deeds, grim probabilities and dismal consequences associated with even the best course of action. Indeed, some parts of the report read as sheer fantasy -- Recommendation 15, for example, which provides that part of the American deal with Syria should include the latter's full cooperation in investigating the Hariri assassination, verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah, and its support for persuading Hamas to recognize Israel. "All conducted under the watchful eyes of Unicorns," Lileks adds in reviewing the ISG's many pronouncements on what needs to happen. Cohen and James are hardly alone in condemning the report as a massive bit of unintentional parody. Watching the replay of the ISG's press conference last night, with solemn pronouncement after solemn pronouncement from somnambulist after somnambulist, I was struck by how absolutely feckless this entire exercise was. Because the ISG was not serious about the nature of the double-headed enemy --al Qaeda-allied jihadists and the Iranian mullah-led Shia radicals and their Syrian thugocrats-- it could not be serious about the way forward. In an interview on the eve of his trip, he said, "Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War." He added, "We must also be prepared to deal alone with this problem." For now, Israel's policy is to remain relatively low-key and to work with the United States and Europe in search of a way to halt or contain Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Lieberman says he supports this position, while making clear he has no faith in the diplomatic efforts. "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea," said Mr. Lieberman, who came here from the Soviet Union in 1978, was first elected to Parliament in 1999 and served in the cabinet of the former prime minister, Ariel Sharon. "A Perfect Failure" is, coincidentally (or not, in some feverish circles), how Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan describe the report, but that is agenerous description. At a time of extraordinary danger, and not just to the democratic government of Lebanon and Israel, but to the United States, 10 of its aging elite sign on to an invitation to return to the holiday from history we took in the '90s. "The report doesn't offer a plan," Ralph Peters notes, "but a muddle of truisms and truly bad ideas." "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue," adds John Podhoretz. Retired Senator Alan Simpson predicted the ISG would be attacked by the far left and the far right. He was quite wrong. The ISG Report has been embraced by Nancy Pelosi and Jack Cafferty and the political and media know-nothings they represent, and scorned by the people serious about the nature of the enemy. Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens share very little in common except an understanding of the enemy. They are neither far right nor far left. They are far-sighted on the war and the consequences of defeat, and their scorn for the ISG Report is complete. So into the vertical file with this enormous waste of time and media attention, and await the Pentagon's strategic review of Iraq. It would be very useful for the president to make a speech warning Syria that it will not be allowed to re-annex Lebanon, and Iran that its provocations in Iraq are being noted and totalled. Book mark RegimeChangeIran and CounterTerrorismBlog, and wait for the State of the Union. The appeasement caucus has had its day and its appeal has failed to persuade anyone who was not already signed on to the concept of retreat. The braying of the Beltway-Manhattan media elite has persuaded everyone trapped in its extended Green Room that President Bush is on the verge of a "180." I don't think so. 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!" |
|
AN OPEN LETTER FROM AN OLD JEW TO THE GOYIM
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 8, 2006. |
|
This is very important, beautifully written plea published at Boker Tov Boulder (http://bokertov.typepad.com/), a terrific blog. The editor writes that it is from her friend Avigdor and is titled "An Open Letter to the Goyim". |
|
I am just an old Jew, of no particular consequence, but I wish you would listen to me for just a minute. The cosmic virus of antisemitism is sweeping our world again. Many of you are already sick with Jew-hatred, so sick that you can never recover. And my own people are not immune. I understand that this letter cannot be received by anyone in the late stages, those already blinded, the Walts, the Mearsheimers, the Judts, the Jimmy Carters and the Jimmy Bakers. But for the rest there is still hope, if only I could get something through your thick heads before it is too late. Throughout our journey together on this planet, you have been presented time and time again with the same dilemma, and I'm sorry to break this to you, but you have yet to get it right. The nations of the world have either come down on the wrong side of the "Jewish question," or have come down on the right side too late. Take the relatively recent and well known example of the Holocaust. If the non-Jewish world had sided with the Jews in 1933, when Hitler first came to power and his government began to pass laws excluding Jews from public life, events would not likely have unfolded as they did... to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935... and then worse. If the non-Jewish world had only come down on the right side at the right time, think how many millions of lives might have been spared over the long haul. Then you had another chance when the Arabs started blowing up buses full of Jews in Jerusalem. Had you been able to see this for what it was, an opportunity for you to get this right, we might not have had to see the intifadeh spread to Paris, the World Trade Center go down, or bombs on Spanish trains and London subways. (Warning: Fact Approaching.) Just since 9/11 there have been almost 7,000 terrorist attacks in over 40 countries -- committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. I worry that this has not gotten your attention nor made you think. For your own sake as well as mine, I wish you would get this right. I can give you advice, a prescription, but only you can take the medicine that will heal you. My advice is that you should stand with the Jews this time. And the sooner, the better. The Christians among you have come to intimately know one Jew, and I see you prepare to celebrate his birth -- and eight days later, his bris -- with great happiness. But even you have not made the connection between this happiness and its source in klal Yisrael, the overarching mega-soul of the Jewish people. Even you who carry Torah in your Bible, have not yet learned... to stand with us. You don't have to be Jewish, or Christian, or anything in particular; you don't have to love or care about the Jews or the land of Israel. You don't even have to be particularly ethical or altruistic. You can stand with the Jews out of pure self-interest, if nothing else. Look at it this way. The Jewish people count for less than a quarter of a percent of the world's population, but consider the miracle that we are here at all. Gone are the great Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman civilizations that opposed us. Gone is the Third Reich that tried to annihilate us. And tell me, when was the last time you met a Canaanite, Hittite, Amorite or Jebusite? Am Yisrael Chai ~ the Jewish people live. The klal Yisrael issues from a covenant with the eternal Gd. Believe it or don't believe it, call it "chosen" or call it what you will, but get on the right side of it. I have a feeling this dilemma you continually encounter, this (highly loaded) "Jewish question," will keep on coming at you until you get it right. Whether you want to be ethically correct, save lives in the long run, or just be on the surviving -if not winning- side, I beg you... to cast your lot with the Jews. You won't be sorry. |
|
THE JIHAD: WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER
Posted by Don Feder, December 8, 2006. |
|
This was delivered to the Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI) National Conference ("America And Israel -- The Present Danger") held in New York City on December 3, 2006.) Contact AFSI at afsi@rcn.com or go to their website: www.afsi.org |
|
You have a problem. It's a problem shared by Jews in Hebron, Serbs in Kosovo, Hindus in the Kashmir, Catholics in Lebanon, and Americans walking the streets of New York. Consider the inter-connectedness of the following incidents, all of which took place in the past few months: * In Indonesia, three Christian schoolgirls were beheaded. What do the foregoing have in common? To quote columnist Mark Steyn, in his excellent book America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It, it begins with an "I" and ends with a "slam." I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. I am saying that almost all terrorists are Muslims -- the mother of all no-brainers -- and that Islam is a faith that is, shall we say, terrorism-friendly. I challenge you to name another faith in which your entry into Heaven is assured by killing those of another faith in a holy war. I am not saying that Muslims are inherently bad people. Most Muslims are like most people everywhere. I am saying that there are elements in Islam that incline adherents to commit the crimes detailed a moment ago. I am saying -- and let me be clear about this -- that a faith embraced by as many as 1.3 billion people worldwide contains within it the seeds of the evil we see all around us -- seeds which require only the right conditions to germinate. It all goes back to the Koran. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the midst of a world war, one every bit as deadly as the Cold War, and with a potential for devastation to rival World War II. Actually, the Cold War is a bad analogy. For perhaps the 20 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, almost no one was willing to die for Communism. Today, ten of millions -- perhaps hundreds of millions -- around the world would gladly die, and kill, for Dar Islam. But we make a fatal mistake if we think of Islam only in terms of suicide bombings, sniper attacks, death threats, forced conversions, female genital mutilation, honor killings, jihad-this and fatwah-that. Every bit as important is what's going on in maternity wards from Brussels to Bombay. Of the 10 nations with the lowest birthrates, nine are in post-Christian Europe. And the ten countries with the highest fertility rates? That's right -- starts with an "I" and ends in a "slam." Fertility rates in the Muslim world look like this: Niger (7.46 children per woman), Mali (7.42), Somalia (6.76), Afghanistan (6.69), and Yemen (6.58). The Palestinian woman in Gaza who -- at age 64 -- just became the world's oldest suicide bomber was the mother of nine and (at last count) the grandmother of 41. Between 1970 and 2000, while the share of the world's population represented by the industrialized nations declined from just under 30 percent to just over 20 percent, the share accounted for by the wonderful world of jihad rose from 15 percent to 20 percent. Compared to the rest of the industrialized world, the United States is experiencing a veritable population explosion -- with a birth rate of 2.11, just about replacement level. From there, it's demographic winter as far as the eye can see: Canada (1.5), Germany (1.3), Russia and Italy (1.2) and not-so-sunny Spain (1.1). The latter three nations could cease to exist, as they are currently constituted, within the next 50 years. According to a November 21st Washington Times story
Within the lifetimes of some in this room, the UK, France Belgium, and the Netherlands could go Islamic green. For the present, Muslims comprise 10 percent of the French population. But of "Frenchmen" under 20, fully 30 percent share the faith of Osama bin Laden, Baby Assad, and Iran's nut-cake leader. You can talk all you want about population control being the happy result of higher standards of living, careers for women, sex education, contraception and access to abortion. In fact, it's becoming the assisted suicide of the West. What it really comes boils to is this: Confident societies have babies. People with a sense of mission have children. Nations with a sense of destiny and faith in the future fill maternity wards, and nurseries and cradles. Those that believe in God as a vague, philosophical concept (if He exists at all), don't. Instead of the future, they put their trust in 401(k) plans, elaborate state welfare systems, and gated retirement communities. There are still enough of those of us who care enough to act. But the hour grows proverbially late. Everyone is so focused on their own thing that they miss the larger picture. Zionists rightly worry about Palestinian terrorism and fate of Israel should Judea, Samaria, and Gaza become Hamas-istan. Serbs decry the destruction of ancient churches, monasteries, and shrines in Kosovo -- not to mention the ethnic cleansing that followed NATO's victory over Slobodan Milosevic -- and worry about the province being permanently detached from Serbia. Hindus anguish over the ongoing violence in Kashmir, supported by Pakistan, which has claimed more than 50,000 lives in the past 20 years, as well as terrorist acts in the rest of India. Groups like Voice of the Martyrs meticulously document Christian persecution in the Muslim world. Lebanese Christians lament the demise of the last Christian country in the Middle East and Hezbollah creating a state-within-a-state. Coptic Christians complain about the treatment of their co-religionists in Egypt. And the beat goes on. But these are all part of a seamless chador. What happens in Kosovo affects the Kashmir. As Judea and Samaria go, ultimately, so go Lebanon and London. In retrospect, it's easy to see that a number of events in the 1930s were steps leading to the Second World War: Hitler's rise to power, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, German and Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese conquest of Manchuria, and so on. It's always easier to see the interconnectedness of events and the significance of trends in retrospect -- well after the fact. But at least after Pearl Harbor, most Americans understood that they were at war. It's been five years since this generation's Pearl Harbor, and most of us still don't have a clue. When word of Pearl Harbor reached London, Winston Churchill called Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The conversation ended with the British prime minister telling the American president: "Well, we are all in this together now." As indeed they were; as they probably had been since the early 1930s, though almost no one was aware of it at the time. Well, my friends, we truly are all in this together -- Jews and Catholics, Lebanese Christians and Hindus, Orthodox Serbs, and Indonesian Christians. Until we begin to understand that, we have no hope of countering the global jihad. When Zionists start caring about the fate of Serbs in Kosovo, when Hindus support Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (designated the West Bank), when Serbs stand up for Indian Kashmir, then we will begin making progress.
Contact Don Feder by email at dfeder@rcn.com or go to his website:
|
|
WE ARE FAMILY
Posted by Michael Travis, December 8, 2006. |
|
This was written by Betty Freauf. Betty is a former Oregon Republican party activist having served as state party secretary, county chairman, 5th congressional vice chairman and then elected chairman, and a precinct worker for many years but Betty gave up on the two-party system in 2004 and joined the Constitutional Party. She is a researcher specializing in education, a freelance journalist and a regular contributor to www.NewsWithViews.com Contact her at bettyboot@wvi.com This article appeared on News With Views November 25, 2006. |
|
The Arab American Institute posted on the Internet on July 14, 2006 all Arab American candidates that were running for a public office. The first Muslim elected to Congress will be sworn into office on the Koran. Unless one sees the long list of candidates, it is difficult to believe. In Brigitte Gabriel's well foot-noted book Because They Hate she tells about Siraj Wahaj, an average American Muslim, who had the privilege in June 2001 (a few months before 9/11) of becoming the first Muslim to deliver a daily prayer before the U.S. House of Representatives. In his prayer he recited from the Koran and appealed to almighty God to guide America's leaders "and grant them righteousness and wisdom." She says the same Wahaj spoke to a Muslim audience a year later in New Jersey. This time Wahaj was singing a different tune to a different audience, and his words were far from his moderate ones in front of the U.S. House of Representatives. "If only Muslims were more clever politically," he told his New Jersey listeners, "they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate (Islamic rule). If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir (leader) and give allegiance to him... (T)ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." Then Brigitte asks, "If Wahaj is the example of the American Muslim community, who needs enemies? If this is whom our government calls a "moderate" and invites to deliver a prayer before the House of Representatives, we have ignorant elected officials sitting in our capital running our country. This is terrorist of a different kind. My mind raced to the "Twenty-Year Plan for the USA: Islam Targets America" by author Dr. Anis Shorrosh, a Palestinian Arab Christian American, who sets forth under #8 of his article: Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way. Then he asks, "Have you ever noticed how numerous Muslims doctors in America have become when their countries need them more desperately than America?" And I noted in my article ("Did the GOP suffer a lack of voter confidence?", www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf90.htm) how the Saudis have invested millions of dollars into our U.S. colleges and universities and Middle Eastern studies have been implemented. These are points #11 and #17 in the Twenty Year Plan. A guest opinion September 10, 2006 by Aslam Abdullah, wrote, "The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks "using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require." Aslam wanted to remind the al-Qaida leader that he was an American too and that there were thousands of Muslims in Las Vegas with him and many more in America who are proud Americans and who are ready to face the challenge of standing up to al-Qaida. He continued by writing the radical Muslims have brought shame and disaster to their religion of peace." But will they really remain courageous? Number 19 of the Twenty Year Plan says intimidating messages and messengers are to be sent to outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook. To reinforce what Abdullah said about thousands more in America, courageous Brigitte Gabriel in her book Because They Hate writes about how Hamas has developed the largest network of cells, spreading across the U.S. She writes there are cells in Boston; New York City; Laurel, Maryland; Potomac, Maryland; Washington, D.C.; Herndon, Virginia; Springfield, Virginia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boca Raton, Florida; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Philadelphia; Cleveland; Charlotte; Orlando; Tampa; Detroit; Houston; Columbia, Missouri; Plainfield, Illinois; Kansas City, Kansas; Chicago; Denver; Oklahoma City; Arlington, Texas; Dallas; Tucson; Seattle, San Francisco; Santa Clara; Los Angeles; and San Diego. For this information Brigitte referred to 1988 Hamas Charter, English translation at [Read] Brigitte was born in Lebanon and lived there for many years so she is very familiar with the different sects that control the Middle East. Frequent bombings caused her family to live in a bomb shelter for seven years. While there are a number of different warring factions, the one goal is to rid the world of the infidels and in order to fulfill that goal, they are all "family" just like our own families where we can have inner struggles and disagreements but just dare an outsider attack one of ours and suddenly "we are a family" united against the outsider. Of course, terrorist infiltration in the U.S. stems from its long,
porous borders with Canada and Mexico. Mark Silverberg, "Sleeper Cells
in America: the Enemy Within" says Muslim Arabs are sneaked into our
country by the notorious Mexican MS 13 gang. It is estimated that
thousands of sleeper agents have been smuggled into the country
illegally through the Mexican border alone. The majority of these
terror cells are made up of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia and other Middle Eastern Muslim countries.
With the exception of the Indians, we are all descendants of European ancestors and do not oppose legal immigration and assimilation and remembering the internment of Japanese, many Americans truly want to believe that the moderate legal Muslims in the U.S. would take a strong stand against the radical Muslims as Abdullah above indicates he wants to do because they are a religion of peace. However, those who flew the airplanes on 9/11 were legal and had assimilated. As an example, Brigitte writes, one 9/11 hijacker's landlord in Florida stated: "They were such nice gentlemen. They kept to themselves, never caused a problem, always paid their rent on time" (as they'd been trained to do.) but she adds: "Throughout the Koran and the Hadith, harb ("war") and qital ("killing," "slaughter") are ordained by Allah as the unavoidable and immutable punishment for refusing to convert or submit to Islam. The most respected collection of Hadith, that of Muhammad bin Ismail bin al-Mughirah al-Bukhari (died A.D. 870), contains 199 references to jihad, and every one uses the term to mean warfare against infidels. "People that tell you that Islam is a religion of peace are only announcing their ignorance and lack of understanding of a poisonous formula that has been developed for mass use on the whole world. This ignorance endangers the lives of millions who live in the West and enjoy a Western lifestyle. People who speak Arabic and can read the Koran in the language it was written, not in any watered down version or in selected verses fed to us by our enemy, know better. "'Moderate' Muslims, and apologists and propagandists for Islam, will attempt to deny or obscure the real meaning, nature, and intent of jihad. Some will say that jihad means only a Muslim's 'inner struggle' to be a better person, and that jihad has no military meaning whatever. Others will acknowledge that Muslims have a religious duty to spread Islam throughout the world, but insist that it is to be spread only peacefully, through dawah -- literally 'the call' -- meaning persuasion and reasoning. Finally, some will go so far as to admit that it can also mean warfare, but insist that in Islam, warfare is allowed only in self-defense or against oppression. However, all of these assertions are examples of a tactic that Islam encourages in waging jihad: taqiyyya or kithman -- 'lying,' 'deception,' 'deceit.' Muslims are encouraged to lie if, in the opinion of the liar, telling the lie will be 'good' for Islam. This is a documented fact according to both ancient and modern scholars of Islam. The renowned classical Islamic scholar and theologian Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058-1111) instructs that '(s)peaking is a means to achieve objectives' and that 'it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.' (Sounds like our own American politicians, doesn't it?) More recently, Amir Taheri, author of numerous books on Islam and the Middle East, states that according to Islam, 'Muslims' have every right to lie and to deceive their adversaries, and a promise made to a non-Muslim can be broken whenever necessary." Brigitte goes into even further detail about lying and deception on pages 149 to the end of the chapter entitled: The Toxic Tsunami of Hate and ends by saying, "If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they could eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world. This is the enemy we face." And her comment gave me the title of this article, "We Are Family." There are still Christians who refuse to believe the recent revelations about Ted Haggard, the now-disgraced former National Association of Evangelicals leader. Brainwashed people are loyal to their leaders. She adds, "It is certain there are genuinely moderate Muslims, perhaps a substantial number, who do not seek to impose Islam on this country and the world through violent jihad. However, they are conspicuous by their silence regarding the more problematic doctrines of Islam. To the extent that Muslim 'leaders' and lobbying organizations in the United States even address the issue, they offer nothing more than vague, tepid condemnations of terrorist violence and heated denials that the behavior of Islamic terrorists has any connection with Islam." She asks, "Where is the Million Muslim March on the Mall in Washington, D.C. -- sending a message to all Muslims in the Arabic world condemning the killing of human beings in the name of Allah? Where is the cry to raise the consciousness of the rest of the Muslim world about their hijacked religion? If something of yours had been stolen, wouldn't you scream to the world that someone had hijacked it?" "Where are the voices of Western Muslims, particularly the American Muslim community, sending a clear message to the Arabic world that we are Americans and when you attack one of us you attack all of us? We condemn and consider the enemy Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al Gamaat al Islamiya, and the rest of the collection of barbaric Islamic thugs and murderers who have neither conscience nor humanity. Where is the outrage of the Muslim community? Why aren't the imams of every mosque holding press conferences, and inviting the media to tell the American public, 'We are Americans first. Any enemy of America is our enemy. We will work to find, stop, arrest, turn in, and condemn anyone in our community who aspires to radicalize our religion and harm our country.'" She goes on to say, "You hear moderates giving excuses for the Muslims in America by saying that maybe they are afraid to speak because of retaliation. What a bogus excuse. What retaliation? This is America. If American Muslims feel free to burn an American flag on any street corner in the USA, they can voice their opinion freely and openly condemning our enemy, America's enemy. They live in America, not in Iran or Saudi Arabia. I can understand why supposedly moderate Muslims in the Middle East are afraid to speak. They would be lynched and have their bodies hung on electricity poles, as they do in the Palestinian territories, Iran, Iraq, and other Islamic countries, to send a message to silence other critics. They'd be hung in the public square for everyone to learn a lesson about speaking about their dictators. But Muslims living in America afraid to speak? Give me a break." I'm the first to admit I'm way out of my element writing about this problem and for that reason I've tried to highlight only a few things for the readers and I would highly suggest you get Brigitte's book. I have barely covered the surface. Brigitte has been interviewed on a number of conservative TV and radio talk shows as well as public speaking engagements. She said in Lebanon they prided themselves on multiculturalism and diversity. "Just as America is a rainbow of different colors, we were a canvas of different colors from the dark skinned to the blonds with blue eyes," she writes and then at age 10 in 1975 militant Muslims from throughout the Middle East poured into her country and declared jihad against the Lebanese Christians and she wants Americans to know this is what is coming to America if it isn't stopped. Brigitte is also featured on the documentary that has been on FOX several times within the last few weeks, as well as other media outlets called OBSESSION: Radical Islam War Against The West, a shocking revelation of actual quotes from Islamic leaders and of the hate instilled into children at a very young age which helps one to understand why they strap bombs to themselves in an effort to kill the infidels. In closing, I commented in my article "The Writing on the Wall"
|
|
BUSH'S WARS NOT STRATEGIC ENOUGH; QUESTIONS ON POLLARD'S CASE; BLAIR TURNS TO APPEASEMENT; MAKING MISTAKES IN IRAQ
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 8, 2006. |
|
SPANISH FLIGHT Bombed by al-Qaeda, and finding that their government lied that the Basques had done it, Spaniards turned out an otherwise sensible government and brought in an appeasement-minded one. The new Prime Minister brought Spanish troops out of Iraq. He thought he had bought safety for his country. France thought it had the same deal with the Muslims, but now it has an intifada. If the Spanish leader been listening to Islamist broadcasts, however, he knows that he has not, at least not in the long run. They refer to the Islamic duty to restore formerly conquered Spain to the caliphate. That is one of the singular principles of Islam -- any area that once was under Islamic sway must be brought back under it. If he could digest all this information, he would agitate to send a hundred thousand Spanish troops into Iraq and to banish the Muslims from Spain. That would mean taking action in advance of is immediate need. Unfortunately, it seems to be a feature of democracies that they don't act until an emergency, if even then. People react to threats as if to torture. One can understand the tortured prisoner acceding to anything, to stop the pain for a while, even though he knows that after the whip comes the noose. There is no excuse for politicians in democracies, acting as if the problem of the moment is too difficult to face and giving in to threats and possible electoral defeat as if it were the whip. The Spanish Prime Minister won the election but risks Western civilization. BUSH'S WARS NOT STRATEGIC ENOUGH Pres. Bush made a mistake in letting it be called the "Iraq War." He should have called it the Iraq Front, part of the international jihad. Americans got the erroneous idea that all we had to do was win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then we would have sufficiently punished our enemies and our forces could go home. Because we limited our effort, we found it hard to win in Iraq. We killed many insurgents, but more came in via Syria and Iran. We may make a deal with Syria at Israel's expense, and for a while, fewer would come in from Syria. So they would come in from Iran. We thought this was just a foreign war, but the Muslims in the West raised money for the enemy and undermined Western efforts abroad. Why let them stay here and turn the home front into a war front? Our effort and focus were too narrow. Partly on account of our difficulties, Democrats won a majority in Congress. If they scuttle the war, the enemy will come after us with a vengeance. QUESTION ON POLLARD CASE The information that Pollard passed to Israel, Israel legally was entitled to. Then was what he did really espionage? Why weren't those who withheld the intelligence punished for violating a legal agreement with Israel? PM BLAIR TURNS TO APPEASEMENT Al-Jazeera is not a news channel but a propaganda one. PM Blair gave an exclusive interview to Al-Jazeera, welcoming its new English-language program, which undoubtedly would be used to radicalize British Muslims and indirectly recruit them for terrorism against Britain, among other places. Blair has turned to appeasement. He is preparing to withdraw from Iraq. He thinks he can buy off the Islamists from their jihad against the entire West by also forcing Israel to make concessions that would put it at Islam's mercy. (Islam doesn't give mercy to infidels.) More frightening than the former Western stalwart's caving in to the Islamists is the general lack of criticism of it in the West. (They didn't even ask him why the switch. No alertness by the Western media, governments, or academia, no sense of self-defense.) Why is the West largely silent about this? For one thing, much of it is anti-American and anti-Israel, and its measures thwart those countries. For another, Westerners are afraid of assassination by Muslims. The French reporter for Le Figaro, Redeker, who described the Islamic threat against the Free World received credible death threats with maps to his house; he had to go into hiding but police released the man behind those threats; and his publisher apologized on Al-Jazeera. Opponents of Islamism systematically are murdered in Europe (and in Lebanon, and opponents of Putin are systematically murdered in Russia). In addition, leftist academics boycott professors who warn against the menace, and blame them for the radicalization of Muslims. The British media was afraid to publish the Danish cartoons and does not inform the public about the menace. Thus there is little freedom of thought in Western Europe. "European Islamists protest victimization at the hands of the native Europeans while threatening to kill them, and native Europeans apologize for upsetting the Muslim radicals and loudly criticize the US and Israel for not" acquiescing to their demands. "European Islamists protest victimization at the hands of the native Europeans while threatening to kill them, and native Europeans apologize for upsetting the Muslim radicals and loudly criticize the US and Israel for not" giving up. The British government hired Muslim Brotherhood members as advisors on counter-terrorism. That is lunacy! (IMRA, 11/20 from Caroline Glick). As I've said before, Islam is winning the world war. To be denied freedom of thought in our own democracies is outrageous. We must break out of our cowardice and lunacy, break with political correctness, and oust the Muslims so they cannot intimidate, subvert, and rebel. CLUSTER BOMBS Israel legally used cluster bombs against military targets, after warning civilians to evacuate from targeted areas. Unfortunately, Israel used in Lebanon cluster bombs made by the US, whereas those made by Israel have a .2-1% rate of duds (11/20). The implication, without the US rate being given, is that more US bombs go astray, thereby injuring more civilians. The US should buy Israeli cluster bombs. IRAN SURROUNDING ISRAEL Iran has donated $120 million to Hamas. It is getting Hizbullah moving to dominate Lebanon for it. Meanwhile, it develops nuclear weapons and Syria is negotiating with the US to pressure Israel to abandon the Golan (Arutz-7, 11/20). But PM Olmert thinks he won the Lebanon war. U.S. STILL MAKING MISTAKES IN IRAQ Nobody respects Iraqi sovereignty but the US. As a result, the US obeyed Iraqi orders not to smash the al-Sadr militia that keeps up the civil war. It was a mistake (Mark Steyn, NY Sun, 11/20, Op.-Ed.). TAILWIND PUSHING THE POLLARD CASE "No one in the history of the US has ever gotten a life sentence for spying for an ally -- only Jonathan Pollard. This is a sentence reserved for those who spy for enemies of the US. But as the examples above demonstrate, by and large even (most of) those who have spied for enemies of the US have received far lighter sentences than Pollard." "There has been no vitriol poured out on these spies, nor has there been any stigmatization of the countries they served...Every consideration was extended to spare the offending spies and their sponsor nations any undue embarrassment. When each of these traitors was released, there was little media coverage and not a peep of protest from any government official or news commentator." (Spying is expected.) "Not so in the case of Jonathan Pollard. Twenty-two years into a life sentence, Jonathan Pollard continues to be publicly pilloried and excoriated at every possible opportunity by the American intelligence community and their willing henchmen in the media. Why is the vitriol poured out on the Jewish spy so intense and ceaseless? What possible reason can there be to continue to heap new, unsubstantiated charges on Israel's spy?" "It is obvious that the invective and false charges against Pollard have more to do with Israel, the country he served, than with Pollard himself." "What is more, the hatred directed against Pollard personally is simply too big to be credible. The latest charges against Pollard -- that he spied for up to 10 countries, was an arms dealer, and a drug user, and a hundred and one other things are absurd! Even superman could not have served so many countries, pulled off dazzling weapons deals, and done it all when he was stoned, and mentally incapacitated. How gullible does the US intelligence community think the public is? How foolish is the media that repeats these lies without question!" "More to the point, if any of these accusations were true, why was Pollard never formally accused, indicted and tried for these crimes? No one even asks." Neither US Jewry nor the Prime Minister of Israel defend Pollard from these excesses, so there is no limit to them (IMRA, 11/21). The charges are as wild as antisemites' accusations against Jews. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
IT'S A WAR, NOT A BUFFET
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 8, 2006. |
|
This was written by Jonah Goldberg and it was published in National Review Online. |
|
In Washington, sometimes it's preferable to be wrong in a group than to be right alone. Nothing demonstrates the triumph of this truism better than the release Wednesday of the final Iraq Study Group report. The commission's chairman, James A. Baker III, could not have been more obvious if he had used hand puppets to illustrate what he thought was most important about this supposedly momentous occasion: the fact that all the report's authors actually agree with its contents. Their product, Baker gushed, is "the only recommended approach that will enjoy, in our opinion, complete bipartisan support, at least from the 10 people that you see up here." Whoop-de-do. No one in the media was sufficiently motivated to ask the emperors why they had no clothes on, or to raise the simple question, "Who cares?" Instead, viewers at home (all three broadcast networks broke in to cover the "news" live) watched as one commission member after another grew misty-eyed over their own statesmanship. Former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta waxed lyrical about how this document represented "one last chance at unifying this country on this war." Heads sagely nodded at the relentless self-adulation of commissioners who put their "partisan differences" behind them in the spirit of unanimity, unity, bipartisanship, comity, handholding and all around mutual respect and love. (It's no wonder one of their key recommendations is to form an international Iraq "support group." Who can resist the image of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whining about how his father never loved him, only to be interrupted by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia complaining that the Zionists ate all the good doughnuts?) At the end of the day, the report reflects the man who put the deal together. Baker is a deal maker, a power broker, a difference splitter. And that's the real spirit of the Baker-Hamilton commission. Some people want more troops in Iraq, so it calls for some more troops at first -- so as to better train the Iraqis. And then, because other people want far fewer troops, it calls for a timetable for far fewer troops by 2008. Because no foreign policy commission could ever be complete without blaming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for something, the group throws a bone to that crowd as well. And because Baker thinks everything is a negotiation, he sees nothing wrong with chatting up everyone -- including terrorist militias and our enemies in Iran and Syria. The commissioners are latter-day Laodiceans, whom the Book of Revelation describes as "neither cold nor hot ... [but] lukewarm." As a result, most of the report hits stratospheric heights of banality. For example, the commission put aside partisan differences to reach the startling conclusion that "Syria can establish hotlines to exchange information with the Iraqis." If it requires consensus to deliver such Solomonic wisdom, then I say "feh" on consensus. The group also recommends that "Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation." Phew. Thank goodness Vernon Jordan signed on to that one. If only nine out of ten had agreed, some people might have concluded that maybe Iran shouldn't do that stuff. In short, Baker did not seek to find a solution for Iraq at all. His mission was to stuff a grab bag with enough mundane blather that nine graybeards plus Sandra Day O'Connor could assent without really risking anything. Indeed, former Justice O'Connor was a perfect choice given her preternatural gift for reaching decisions with no discernible principle to them other than the need to please everybody a little. Yogi Berra once said, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." That, it seems, was the commission's approach. According to the New York Times, the findings are "a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March." And because "everyone felt good about where we ended up," according to one member of the commission quoted in the Times, they must have gotten it right. Right? Unfortunately, that's not right. Nowhere does the commission ever seriously consider how to win the war in Iraq. Why? Because winning is no longer a possible consensus position. And pulling out isn't a consensus position either. So rather than a real strategy about Iraq, we get Laodicean tripe about how the Iraq Study Group is our last best hope to unite Americans. I'm sorry, but that wasn't its mandate. Some have labeled the commission's plan of handing off Iraq to the Iraqis a replay of Nixon's Vietnamization. But the similarities go beyond that. In fact, the commission is making the same core mistake that was made in the Vietnam era: treating a war like a political problem to be haggled, spun and bartered. It may not seem like it because Baker & Co. claim so often to be transcending politics in the name of unity. But in fact, their political values trump everything, including the war. |
|
UNDERSTANDING JAMES BAKER
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, December 8, 2006. |
|
This was written by Dr. Richard Booker and it appeared in World Net
Daily
and is archived at
|
|
Despite a recent media report touting the experience and skills James Baker III offers as co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, a look at his record and an anti-Semitic British official with whom he identifies suggest the former secretary of state's involvement in U.S. foreign policy could spell disaster for the state of Israel. The Dec. 3 Houston Chronicle carried a front-page article extolling Baker for his public service to America and skill as a tough negotiator. The article continued on page 10, where it filled the entire page. The primary point of the article was to express hope that Baker, by drawing on his considerable experience and skills, could find a solution to America's problems in Iraq as co-chair of the ISG. The 10-member Iraq Study Group this week presented its recommendations to President Bush for American policy and strategy regarding our war in Iraq. The panel is co-chaired by former 9-11 commission member Lee Hamilton. The group consists of five Democrats and five Republicans, including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and former CIA Director Robert Gates. Gates resigned his commission recently when he was nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. The Chronicle article mentioned that, while attending Princeton University, Baker wrote a senior thesis about the clash in the 1930s between two powerful members of Great Britain's Parliament -- Aneurin Bevan, an idealist, and Ernest Bevin, a realist. The article mentioned that Baker argued in favor of the pragmatist Bevin. In his new book, "Work Hard, Study and Keep out of Politics," Baker comments, "Those who know me will not be surprised that I favored the approach of the realist." For those who may not recognize the name, Ernest Bevin was the British foreign minister in the British Labor Party led by Clement Attlee. At this time, Britain was at the height of its power as one of the greatest empires in history. The empire spanned nearly a third of the world's land. Truly "the sun never set on the Union Jack." Previous British government administrations were devout Christian Zionists. They believed the Almighty had allowed Britain such great power for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of a Jewish homeland in fulfillment of the ancient Jewish prayer, "Next year in Jerusalem." Prime Minister Lloyd George, Foreign Secretary James Balfour, Gen. Edmund Allenby and others believed that the biblical statements concerning the Jewish homeland were the essential factor in any decisions regarding the Jewish people and Palestine. Unfortunately, the Labor Party did not share these views. They counted the number of Arabs and Arab oil and reversed the policies of the previous administration. They were not only against the Jewish people having their own country, they did everything they could to negate the Balfour Declaration and actively assisted the Arabs in their efforts to destroy the Jews of pre-Israel Palestine. As the foreign minister at this time, Ernest Bevin was the leading proponent of the new British pro-Arab, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist policies. He adamantly opposed the desperate efforts of European Jewish Holocaust survivors to immigrate to Palestine. He insisted that they be denied entrance to Palestine and be returned to their Displaced Persons camps in Europe. His policy directly resulted in the tragedy of the ship Exodus being turned away and the further suffering of the refugee passengers. On Jan. 15, 1948, the day the British signed a treaty with Iraq, Bevin reached a secret agreement with the Iraqi leaders whereby the British agreed to speed up the supply of weapons and ammunition for 50,000 "Palestinian policemen." Of course, these "policemen" were Palestinian Arab fighters the British armed to defeat the "Zionist entity" before it could become a reality. He also agreed that Iraqi forces would enter every area evacuated by British troops in Palestine so that a Jewish state would not be formed. He encouraged Transjordan to invade Palestine, which it would do under the command of British officers. Bevin was influenced by a British politician named Harold Beely, an Arabized, anti-Semite who opposed the Balfour Declaration. While I am sure Mr. Bevin believed he was acting in the best interest of Britain, his policies represented one of the greatest betrayals by a government in modern history. Furthermore, they were a primary cause for the continuing conflict in the Middle East that has troubled America ever since. When Britain turned its back on the Jews, the Almighty turned His back on Britain. While Israel became a state, Britain lost its empire. It has lost its Judeo-Christian culture. It is dying spiritually. Its civilization and way of life is rapidly being replaced by Islam. How long will it be before the Crescent Moon flies alongside the Union Jack at Buckingham Palace? In the article cited, Baker says he tries to pray every day. That's encouraging. May he find divine wisdom for America to facilitate freedom and democracy in Iraq so that our brave men and women serving there can return home safely. Along with his many accomplishments and positions in government, Baker is the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group, a major international financial organization with extensive interests in the Middle East, including the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing the Saudi government in the 9-11 victims lawsuit against Saudi Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Baker's past service to our country. Hopefully, he can avoid any conflict of national, business and personal interest as co-chair of the Iraq Study Group. But I cannot help but notice the parallels between the current policies of the U.S. State Department, Baker's well-known anti-Semitic, anti-Israel pro-Arab policies and those of Mr. Bevin. For the sake of our great nation, may America and James Baker not follow in the footsteps of Britain. 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. |
|
WHAT REAL WAR LOOKS LIKE
Posted by Elan Journo, December 7, 2006. |
|
The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, "engage" the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we've already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington's campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense. What does such a war look like? America's security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives--and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression--by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead. Those who say this is a "new kind of conflict" against a "faceless enemy" are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls "terrorism" is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism. It seeks to subjugate the West under a totalitarian Islamic regime by means of terrorism, negotiation, war--anything that will win its jihad. The movement's inspiration, its first triumph, its standard-bearer, is the theocracy of Iran. Iran's regime has, for decades, used terrorist proxies to attack America. It openly seeks nuclear weapons and zealously sponsors and harbors jihadists. Without Iran's support, legions of holy warriors would be untrained, unarmed, unmotivated, impotent. Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran's ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran's totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile. We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless--it is a tragically meek pretense at war. Consider what Washington has done. The Islamist regime in Iran remains untouched, fomenting terrorism. (And now our leaders hope to "engage" Iran diplomatically.) We went to battle not with theocratic Iran, but with the secular dictatorship of Iraq. And the campaign there was not aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein's regime posed to us. "Shock and awe" bombing never materialized. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets such as power plants and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers--a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission. U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers," putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington's self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.) Bush did all this to bring Iraqis the vote. Any objective assessment of the Middle East would have told one who would win elections, given the widespread popular support for Islamic totalitarianism. Iraqis swept to power a pro-Islamist leadership intimately tied to Iran. The most influential figure in Iraqi politics is now Moktadr al-Sadr, an Islamist warlord lusting after theocratic rule and American blood. When asked whether he would accept just such an outcome from the elections, Bush said that of course he would, because "democracy is democracy." No war that ushers Islamists into political office has U.S. self-defense as its goal. This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever--even as it has drained Americans' will to fight. Washington's feeble campaign demonstrates the ruinous effects of refusing to assert our self-interest and defend our freedom. It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers--and let them go to war. Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (www.AynRand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org. |
|
THE WASHINGTON TIMES UNDERSTANDS THE IDIOCY OF EHUD OLMERT
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, December 7, 2006. |
|
How is it that the Washington Times understands the idiocy of Ehud Olmert better than the Israeli electorate and now, the Bush Administration, and, of course, the re-incarnated "Baker Boys?" This is from the Washington Times Weekly Edition November 20, 2006. |
|
President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who met at the White House on Nov. 13, have both been hurt by the inability to win decisive victories on the battlefield against the forces of Islamofascism -- Mr. Bush in Iraq and Mr. Olmert against terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon -- lands that Israel has unilaterally withdrawn from in efforts to achieve peace with its Arab neighbors. Mr. Olmert's situation is unlikely to improve anytime soon, especially if Washington keeps pressing Israel to forge ahead with another ill-considered attempt to prop up the terrorist-enabling Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. The results of earlier failed efforts to work with Mr. Abbas are on vivid display right now in Gaza -- where Israel withdrew its civilians and soldiers well over a year ago in the hope that the PA president would fight terrorism and manage a transition to an independent Palestinian state. But Mr. Abbas refused to fight terror, and the thuggishness and corruption that has long characterized his Fatah organization led to the victory of Hamas at the polls in January; Mr. Abbas is president of the PA, while Hamas (which unlike Fatah, refuses even the pretense of making peace with Israel) runs the PA administration in Gaza. Under Hamas-Fatah misrule, the situation has continued to deteriorate. The Egyptian government, which was supposed to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza after the Israel Defense Forces withdrew, has failed to do its job. Terrorist gangs, some affiliated with Mr. Abbas's Fatah organization, others with Hamas, have turned Gaza into an updated version of Afghanistan under the Taliban. They chased away the European Union observers who were supposed to police the Gaza/Egypt border under an agreement brokered one year ago by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. With the Israeli military presence gone, Hamas, Fatah and myriad other terrorist organizations routinely smuggle arms across the border from Egypt into Gaza. Today, a who's who of terrorists, including Hamas/Fatah gangsters and militias like Palestinian Islamic Jihad funded by Iran and Syria, roam the streets of Gaza, stockpiling arms and staging shootouts with one another. They burrow into refugee camps and densely populated areas like Beit Hanoun, from where they fire missiles and rockets into neighboring Israeli towns like Ashkelon and Sderot -- making it impossible for Israeli civilians to live normal lives. Make no mistake about it: The terrorists using Palestinian civilians as human shields bear the ultimate responsibility for last week's tragedy at Beit Hanoun, when Israeli artillery shells aimed at terrorists killed 19 Palestinian civilians. We commend the Bush administration for its decision Nov. 11 to veto a badly flawed U.N. Security Council Resolution that equated defensive Israeli military operations with the firing of rockets at Israeli civilians. John Bolton termed "biased against Israel": (I don't know who said that! -jsk) also omitted mention of the fact that Hamas' military wing (one of the primary groups responsible for fomenting the violence in the first place) on Nov. 9, called on Muslims around the world to attack American targets in retaliation for the Palestinian deaths. But aside from the willingness to use the veto power in the Security Council, the Bush administration's approach to what's left of the "peace process" is a mess. Increasingly the Bush administration seems focused on pressuring Mr. Olmert into propping up Mr. Abbas, who does not merit such support. Last month the State Department leaned on Jerusalem to agree to an expansion of Force-17, an Abbas-controlled militia, from 3,500 to 5,000 men, in the hope that they would maintain quiet in areas like Beit Hanoun, adjacent to Israel, and would prevent smuggling from Egypt as well. Under this plan, the United States would help arm and train Force-17 (training has reportedly begun near the West Bank town of Jericho). Unfortunately, the concept faces a few real-world problems: F0r one thing, the idea of the United States training Palestinian security forces to "fight" terrorism is hardly new. During the Clinton administration a similar effort was made under the auspices of CIA chief George Tenet to train Palestinian security forces. But when Yasser Arafat went to war with Israel on September 29, 2000, the Palestinians used their U.S.- supplied training in marksmanship and other areas to attack Israel. In May, Mr. Abbas appointed Cot. Mahmoud Damra, formerly a top aide to Yasser Arafat, to head Force-17. The appointment came despite the fact that Col. Damra was a fugitive wanted by Mr. Olmert's government for running a West Bank terror cell that had killed and wounded scores of Israelis. He was arrested by Israel in September. Last month -- as the U.S. government put forward a plan to train more Force-17 members -- a Force-17 officer named Abu Yousuf (presumably not a member of the group's "moderate" faction) told Worldnetdaily.com that members of Mr. Abbas's security detail are "praying to Allah" that more American soldiers return from Iraq in body bags. Mr. Yousuf's remarks are substantively no different from the raw terrorist incitement that routinely occurs on official PA television, which is under Mr. Abbas's control. Yet Mr. Olmert two weeks ago tried to dazzle Mr. Abbas with the possibility of more concessions, stating, "Abbas will be surprised how far we are prepared to go. I can offer him a lot?' With this quality of strategic thinking, it should not come as a surprise that Mr. Olmert is in political trouble: A poll released on Nov. 10 showed that the hawkish Likud Party -- soundly beaten by Mr. Olmert at the polls in March -- would win 29 seats in the Knesset to just 16 for Mr. Olmert's Kadima Party. Washington does Mr. Olmert no favors by pressing him for more dubious giveaways to Mr. Abbas. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
TO STABILIZE MIDDLE EAST WE WILL HAVE TO REIN IN IRAN
Posted by Howard Kohr, December 7, 2006. |
|
Some have suggested that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to stabilizing Iraq and other regional conflicts. While achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians is an important goal, such an achievement would have no major impact on solving the other conflicts plaguing the region. An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would not end the sectarian fighting between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq, stop Syria's efforts to dominate Lebanon, thwart Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony nor end the threat of Islamic terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the solution for resolving other intractable conflicts in the region. * In Iraq, Shias and Sunnis are fighting each other for internal historical reasons and would not end their centuries-old fighting if the Israel-Palestinian conflict were solved tomorrow. Iran remains at the core of instability in the Middle East. * The Iranian regime continues to play a central role in promoting Islamic extremism throughout the Middle East, encouraging sectarian conflict in Iraq, providing critical financial and diplomatic support to the terrorist groups Hizballah and Hamas and provoking civil strife in Lebanon. It is in the moderate Arab states' own interests to help block the spread of Islamic radicalism irrespective of the status of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. * The moderate Sunni Arab states fear a Shia extremist crescent fomented by Iran through Iraq into Lebanon and beyond. Jordan's King Abdullah said in 2004 that Iran's sponsorship of terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon "will be very destabilizing for the Gulf countries and for the whole region."Basic Facts Summary * Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the solution for resolving other intractable conflicts in the region. Howard Kohr is AIPAC Executive Director. The website address is www.aipac.org |
|
BAKER'S RECOMMENDATION: REWARD TERRORISM
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, December 7, 2006. |
|
For previous OpEds and newsletters please visit http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il. May we follow the legacy of Jacob the Patriarch, who features in this week's portion of the Torah: Be proud of your Geographic and Spiritual heritage in a wholesome manner (SHALEM in Hebrew means "complete" or "wholesome", it is one of the names of Jerusalem, and it is an abbreviation of the Hebrew words for Name, Language and Clothing). Noga, my first grandchild (daughter) joins grandma Ora and me in wishing you Shabbat Shalom, I called this "America Be Wary, Baker-The-Deal-Maker is Back," and it appeared today in Ynet. |
|
Jim Baker's abysmal track record in diplomacy -- in contrast to his impressive business and political track record -- suggests that the implementation of his "Iraq Study Group" recommendations would benefit anti-US rogue regimes and harm pro-US moderate elements. In 1990, the Texan Deal Maker lured Assad into the anti-Saddam Coalition, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. He overlooked Assad's leadership role in international terrorism, showered the Butcher of Hama with international legitimacy, alluded to potential US assistance to Syria, and gave Assad a free hand in Lebanon. In response to Baker's "Pragmatism", Assad refrained from assisting the US war on Saddam, but completed Syrian occupation of Lebanon, massacred thousands of Lebanese and violently replaced an anti-Syrian Christian Administration with a pro-Syrian puppet Administration in Beirut. The ripple effects of Baker's "Pragmatism" still reverberate in crumbling Lebanon. During the 1980s and until the 1990 Kuwait's invasion by Saddam, Baker referred to the latter as a "constructive leader," worthy of US cooperation: "The enemy of my enemy (Iran) is my friend (Iraq)." Consequently, Baker downplayed Saddam's well-documented horrific belligerency against Iran (1980 invasion) and against Iraq's own Shiites and Kurds, extended to him $5BN in loan guarantees and EXIM Bank credits, authorized the release of sensitive dual-use technologies to Baghdad, encouraged intelligence-sharing with Iraq, and signaled to Saddam -- in April 1990 -- that a potential invasion to Kuwait would be considered, by the USA, "an inter-Arab issue." Energized by Baker's "Green Light", Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, threatening to sweep Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Jordan. Taking advantage of Baker's "Realism", Saddam brutally suppressed a 1991 Shiite uprising (which was let down by the US Administration), and rebuilt its capabilities, which were devastated during the 1991 war. The "Realist" did not realize that -- in the unpredictable, violent Mideast -- "the enemy of my enemy (Iran) could be my enemy (Iraq)." The aftershocks of Baker's non-realization are still pounding the region. During the late 1980s and until the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Baker was preoccupied with the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He considered Arafat (before the 1993 Oslo Accord!) an essential partner to a peace process. Hence, he turned a blind eye toward Arafat's record of (mostly inter-Arab) treachery and terrorism, pandered to the PLO, attempted to break the back of Israel's Prime Minister Shamir, denied Shamir $10BN loan guarantees (not cash!) for the absorption of Soviet Jewry, convinced President Bush to threaten to veto (or avoid implementation of) any pro-Israeli legislation proposed on Capitol Hill, pressured Israel to freeze Jewish settlements and to roll back to the 1949 Lines, and accused Israel in obstructing the prospects of peace. Responding to Baker's policy of appeasement, the PLO supplied Saddam with vital intelligence which facilitated the invasion of Kuwait. PLO units in Iraq participated in the invasion and plunder of Kuwait, and the PLO/PA has remained -- until today -- loyal to Saddam, Ben-Laden and other anti-US rogue regimes. In 2006, Jim Baker perceives Iran (especially) and Syria -- two leading terrorist states -- to be a potential asset in moderating the Iraqi Street. In order to realize the Iran/Syria potential, he is willing to enhance their maneuverability. The implementation of Baker's recommendations would accelerate Iran's nuclearization process, which would transform Saudi Arabia and the Gulf State into Iranian hostages, would relief Assad off a growing international pressure and isolation, would threaten the survival of the regimes in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, and would force Israel into a unilateral military action, in order to avert the existential Iranian nuclear threat. Baker's failures have been the result of a series of refuted assumptions: That rogue regimes prefer a tempting deal over their own ideology, that the Palestinian issue is the crux of Mideast violence and anti-US terrorism, that one can achieve peaceful-coexistence with determined rogue regimes, that the Arab-Israeli conflict evolve around Israel's size rather than Israel's existence, and that the US could pay with an "Israeli Currency" (of sweeping concessions) for improved ties with the Arab and Muslim world. As evidenced by Baker's track record, wrong assumptions produce wrong policy conclusions, which add fuel to the fire of terrorism, undermining vital US interests and eroding the national security of pro-US regimes in the Mideast. Baker's determination to achieve deal-at-any-price has caused him to sacrifice long-term vital concerns on the altar of short-term tenuous illusions. However, Jim Baker is determined to learn from history by repeating -- rather than avoiding -- past critical strategic errors. Will US and Israel adopt Baker's "Pragmatism", "Realism", Even-Handedness and Moral Equivalence, or will the leader of the Free World and its sole soul ally in the Mideast stick to a long-term conviction-driven vision, paved by moral and strategic clarity, making a clear distinction between enemies and allies? Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il |
|
AHMADINEJAD'S LETTER TO AMERICA -- ARROGANCE OR DELUSION?
Posted by Sharon Hughes, December 7, 2006. |
|
The presumption of the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, to write a letter to the American people defies logic, but is it arrogance, delusion or religious fanaticism that drives the man? Thank you for publishing my column this week. |
|
I've been chewing on whether to write about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to us 'Noble Americans,' and have decided I can't just let it pass. It's amazing that the dictator could presume the American people would listen to him after all the anti-American rhetoric and calls for 'death to America,' but then we've already had examples of his thinking and manner, as demonstrated in his interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, and his speech at the UN last September, so we shouldn't be surprised. But, let me raise just a few questions about what he wrote: 1. First of all, who is Ahmadinejad, the self-appointed 'John the Baptist', talking about in the opening of his letter to Americans leading into the Christmas season? Not Jesus. "O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers." 2. Did he really think that the American people would agree with him against our government, no matter where we stand on the war in Iraq? "Noble Americans, Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration ... Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities; Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you." 3. Is he serious when he says that Iran and America share the same values, after he's called for 'wiping Israel off the map', and cheered with Iranians chanting 'death to America'? "Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection. We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings. We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty. Noble Americans, Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world." Excuse me? How about Israel? "You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it." 4. Is it arrogance or delusion for him to think that the American people wouldn't recognize that he is simply parroting the liberal media and politicians? "You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of "the war on terror," civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. "But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message." 5. No, but he wants to teach the Democrats who won the majority in the House and Senate last month: "I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US: The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations. Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history. If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America." And to preach to us! "We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an: 'But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him.' (28:67-68) I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success." Well, enough of that. Let me just end with this: Being teachable is a good trait, but wisdom dictates knowing about those who are trying to 'teach' us, whether they be dictators using propaganda, or professors and politicians and activists in our own country who echo the same mentality openly or disguised as political correctness. You can read the entire transcript of Ahmadinejad's letter to the American people here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/ Contact Sharon Hughes at cwsharon@comcast.net |
|
URGENT: NEED LETTERS TO CONGRESS ON IRAQ STUDY GROUP
Posted by Carol Greenwald, December 7, 2006. | |
|
I understand from a friend that the Lehrer News Hour hosted a Senator-guest who announced, the Senate will be asked to vote on a resolution endorsing the Iraq Study Group Report. I read the report today, and it is very alarming indeed. The report is available here:
No doubt the U.S. strategy in Iraq needs to change; we are losing, and American troops dying needlessly. But the report blames Israel for much of the mess in the Middle East, including Iraq, and calls for negotiations with Iran, Syria--and for the establishment of a Palestinian "unity" government, i.e. acceptance and recognition of Hamas. My letter to my Senators is below. Please compose your own to your senators, listed here:
Contact Carol Greenwald at greenwald1@verizon.net |
|
WHAT ROLE FOR THE UNO? WHO WON IN LEBANON; WHERE DO THE STATISTICS COME FROM? ISRAELIS WANT SELF-DEFENSE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 7, 2006. |
|
WHAT ROLE FOR THE UNO? Imagine if the UNO organs involved in international security decided to ignore Israel for a year. How little come out of that UNO that evades decisive action on almost all the other issues? Many people favor the UNO because of its humanitarian aid. Since the UNO is corrupt and overly bureaucratic, private and unilateral government aid could accomplish more. Every organ of the UNO is biased, but the ones involving security not only fail to provide it, they condone or protect evil menaces to security. We should cut off at least its security function until mankind has matured or turned it over to some organization genuinely interested in promoting international security. The difficulty not only is that most of the member states of the UNO and associated NGOs are vicious or corrupt or engage in log rolling in each others' behalf The difficulty also is that the evil states silence would-be critics by offering trade prospects. Not many countries withhold trade from as many dictatorships as the much-criticized US. NON-SEQUITUR AGAINST THE P.A. An illogical and vague argument against the Arabs is, "You see, Israel did evacuate from Gaza, and the Arabs immediately used that area for attacking Israel." The P.A struggle is not just for Gaza. Israel didn't evacuate from most of Judea-Samaria. Therefore, even if the Arab grievance against Israel were only territorial, one could expect them to fight on. Actually, the conflict with Israel mainly is religious. To be safe, the Jews would have to evacuate from all of Israel and resettle themselves in Antarctica, if Antarctica suddenly came under full-scale global warming, were habitable, and beyond Iran's reach. The notion that evacuation from any place would reduce terrorism failed to take into account Muslim doctrine, as expressed in the PLO Charter. That doctrine is to attack Israel from any evacuated area. Therefore, Israelis evacuated from Gaza not because of likely Arab reactions but because of Israeli notions of appeasement and guilt. Arabs perceive conciliatory measures as weakness to be followed up with more pressure. If the Arabs were civilized, they would have recognized Israeli good will and adhered to the peace accords instead of renewing war. But Muslims thrill at the prospect of conquering. PEACEKEEPERS: PROBLEM-AVOIDANCE In the US, legislatures pass the buck to executives, and executives relay it to the judiciary or to committees. Israel passed the buck to the US, to judge Arab compliance with Oslo. The Arabs never complied, but the US never judged them. Israel also passed the buck to Egypt and foreign observers to monitor the Gaza border. Enough arms come through the border, now, to allow the P.A. to make war. The UNO avoids problems by sending in "peacekeepers" without authorization to take necessary measures. ABBAS SEEKS PEACE? The moderate-extremist dichotomy largely is media myth. Among active Muslims, the Islamic so-called extremist generally demands war until the enemy surrenders. The so-called moderate promises peace for piecemeal concessions that strengthen jihad and weaken the enemy, so that war becomes easier. They share the same ideology of jihad, but are more practical and therefore more dangerous. Bolstering the myth is that many Muslims are not activist. However, they easily become so. The myth is used by the appeasement-minded to pretend there is some value in concessions by Israel. One news item or analysis after another asserts that Abbas seeks peace. On what do they base that assertion? On his saying so? In that case, they don't know him, don't know what he says, and don't understand Arab culture. Like his mentor, Arafat, Abbas says one thing to us, to gain our support, and another thing to his own people. He tells us he opposes terrorism, but he honors slain terrorists. His plan for peace includes the various Arab demands that would get Israel destroyed, such as bringing in millions of descendants of Arab refugees. What has he done for peace? Nothing. He helped get the IDF out of Gaza, as a result of which, his people were able to launch another war. He refused to use his forces to repress terrorism. He controls the P.A. media, which continues the same vicious propaganda that drums up war fever. Why do the media and the politicians keep asserting that Abbas seeks peace? Ignorance? Some. I think they want an excuse to pretend that war is not the only option and an excuse to demand concessions from Israel for the Arabs. If Israel were normal, it would demand concessions from the Arabs for committing aggression and jeopardizing Israeli national security. At least, Israel should counteract the notion that concessions should flow from Israel to the Arabs and not the reverse. HOW TO DECIDE WHO WON THE WAR IN LEBANON Both sides claim to have won the war in Lebanon. Which did? Judge by this. Hizbullah was left in a position to demand a veto power in government, demand that the elected government resign as "illegal," and threaten to stage mass-demonstrations to overthrow it. Syria keeps assassinating Hizbullah's opponents. TARGETED ASSASSINATION Israel keeps bombing cars carrying terrorist commanders and operatives. Sometimes the explosion injures bystanders. If Israel had the same policy towards attacking cars as it does towards attacking houses used for fabricating or storing explosives, it first would warn the occupants of the car to get out. Silly, isn't it! Why let people who lend their houses for terrorism get out? HAMAS ETHNICALLY CLEANSING ISRAEL Hamas advised the 20,000 residents of Siderot, Israel, to evacuate their town or face unceasing rocket bombardment. This strategic escalation for a town that already suffered so many rocket strikes that its children either are skipping school or suffering anxiety attacks, is "retaliation" for Israeli incursions into Gaza. Many adults already have left town. The shops are mostly deserted. Israelis suggest that the government re-take most of Gaza and: (1) Not let the Arabs freely move rockets into position; and (2) Block the arms smuggling routes (IMRA, 11/22). Where is the UNO condemnation of Hamas and proposed action against it? The suggestions merely restore the status quo ante. They do not solve the problem. The solution is to annex undeveloped, adjoining territory, so the terrorists can't move freely around in it, to stop cooperating with the P.A., so that more Arabs leave it, and then to annex more unpopulated areas and areas of Jewish development. The Arabs are waging total war. The strategic escalation is a dire menace. It is total terrorism. Israel, however, furnishes utilities to the P.A. and, from time-to-time, excise taxes. Perhaps Israel should stop its cooperation, and wage some total war, too. What those Arabs would deserve is to persuade Russia that they are Chechens. WHERE DO THE STATISTICS COME FROM? The head of British intelligence made rarely makes public statements, but he warned his country that he is monitoring at least 30 "known" Islamic plots against the country, besides a recent arrest and earlier plots made or foiled. In reaction, 38 Islamic organizations and six members of Parliament blamed terrorism not on jihad but on British and American foreign policy. (Terrorists blow up people who don't make policy.) It shouldn't be thought that all Muslims engage in jihad. "The vast majority -- in Britain and certainly here (the US) -- are decent, law-abiding citizens, and they deserve our sympathy and respect." (Harold Evans, NY Sun, 11/16, Op.-Ed..) Where does he get that statistic and those compliments? Surveys have shown that most imams in the US and in other countries are imported radicals. The well-known Muslim organizations all defend jihadists and raise money for that cause. Masses of Muslims donate for that cause. Their sub-culture disseminates hate-filled ideas. Surveys show that most US Muslims thought that the US got what it deserved on 9/11. Including my fine young neighbor, murdered just because he lives here? That's alien, un-American thinking! Jihadists recruit young Muslims, whose religious principles of intolerance and violence prepare them for it. On what is based that well-meaning but dubious sentiment that most Muslims are decent? ISRAELIS FIGHTING MAD, NOT WAR WEARY Americans will accept casualties if the military goals seem feasible. The Israeli government thinks that its people are tired of war and can't bear casualties. Despite the losses in Lebanon, IDF recruitment is as high as ever. More youths asked to serve in the brigade most involved in Lebanon. The people supported the goals of the war and wanted the government to fight harder but the government subverted its goals. The leaders are reluctant to incur casualties. It withheld troops when the opposition was tough, thereby forfeiting victory. When the Arabs see Israel reluctant to commit troops to difficult battles, they become encouraged to launch more battles. This brings about the very casualties that Israeli leaders shun. The government is not fulfilling its basic purpose, which is to defend the Jewish people (IMRA, 11/19 from Efraim Inbar). NO IDF PLAN TO END ROCKET ATTACKS Israel's Internal Security Minister said that the government did not ask the army for a plan to stifle or reduce rocket attacks from Gaza. Therefore, the Army never presented such a plan. This does not mean the Army couldn't find a way (IMRA, 11/19). Why didn't the government ask the Army? Why didn't the Army offer such a plan even without having to be asked? Is this a failure of imagination or fear of having to displease the US by fighting hard? This is sophistry, for most of the brass recommended tougher measures for years, but PM Sharon told them to "shut up." OLMERT'S SELF-CONTRADICTORY DEFENSE POLICY An Israeli has been paying for residents of bombarded Siderot to take refuge in hotels in areas that rockets don't yet reach. PM Olmert denounces the charity as encouraging flight. Israelis don't run away, he asserts. Actually, they do. Olmert's policy is to run away from Gaza and he hopes to run away from Judea-Samaria. The folks in Siderot would not be attacked by rockets from Gaza, if Olmert hadn't removed the Army and the civilians from Gaza. Olmert also had Israeli troops withdraw from Lebanon before finishing off Hizbullah. This means they will be attacked from Lebanon, again (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/20). What does he expect the people of Siderot to do, wait for him to let them be killed? AMBASSADOR BOLTON The NY Sun showed that the US Ambassador to the UNO, Bolton, staunchly defends the US and Israel, there. In calling the UNO biased, however, he said that this bias is "unhelpful to the cause of the Palestinian people." (11/20,Ed.) What cause? Their cause is jihad, their motive is intolerance, their means is violence. 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. |
|
THE RAPE OF EUROPE
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 7, 2006. |
|
Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Europe is turning Muslim! Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities. The new Arian race will look like Osama Bin Laden! The TURTH: Today's Europeans never learned to fight for their freedom; they are only good at enjoying it! Today's Americans never learned to fight for their freedom; they are only good at enjoying it! The SHAME: the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization so... young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. They need to move to Australia or New Zealand, which is the only option if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable. The Germans and Dutch are making the move alread! SECULARISM: If faith collapses, civilization goes with it! The WARNING: Islam means "submission" and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it. West Europeans have to choose between submission -- Islam -- death. They have chosen submission -- just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead! People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight... Watch out the free world, USA and Israel! This article is called "The Rape of Europe" and it is by Paul
Belien. It is.from the October 25, 2006. Brussels Journal |
|
The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: "We are watching the world of yesterday." Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable." Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities. Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death." In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness." "I am not a warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." As Tom Bethell wrote in this month's American Spectator: "Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working." But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist. "If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means "submission" and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it. Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit. This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission -- just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
PRIORITIES OF A JEWISH EDUCATOR--THE 'GREEN LINE' VERSUS THE "MANDATE FOR PALESTINE"
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 7, 2006. |
|
Israel Education Minister Professor Yuli Tamir has taken another chunk of Israel's history out of its reality context, thus weakening Israelis youth mind and souls. While the Muslim youth will grow up to know Israel belongs to them and to them ONLY, Israeli youth will grow up to know Israel, as they know it today, does not belong to them -- no real reason to fight for it. So let me tell you, Israel: The 1967 Six-Days War brought back some land, but not all, that legally BELONGS to Israel. It is not the Arabs this, past 1967, lands belongs to and should be "returned," rather it belongs to Israel and Israelis. It is Israel and Israelis who should shout loud, from morning to night that they want the right of return to the historical League of Nations [Today's United Nations] document, that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000 square mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day. What a shame! Stop giving the country away rather begin claiming it BACK, as it is YOUR! This article is called "Priorities of a Jewish Educator: The 'Green Line' versus the Mandate for Palestine'", December 6, 2006. It was written by Eli E. Hertz and appeared on www.mythsandfacts.org. |
|
Education Minister Professor Yuli Tamir, worrying that Israeli
children are missing an important piece of history, decided to add the
'pre-1967 borders'
Judge, Stephen M. Schwebel, the former President of the International Court of Justice writing in What Weight to Conquest stated that the agreements did not mean to "establish definitive boundaries between them [Israel and Arab states]." Lord Caradon, the United Kingdom ambassador to the UN at the time, and a key author of Security Council Resolution 242, said in an interview several years later that "the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers." This agreement was breached and invalidated by Jordan's assault on Israel, during the 1967 Six-Day War. Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice and Director of the Research Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, wrote in 1968, just one year after the 1967 Six-Day War, about Jordan aggression toward Israel, an action that resulted in Israel unifying the whole of Jerusalem, and controlling the entire West Bank: "On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem." "Mandate for
Palestine." What the Israeli Education Minister seems to miss or
avoid, is a far more important "map."
This historical League of Nations [Today's United Nations] document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000 square mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day. In his report to the League of Nations, Winston Churchill underscored how "international guarantee[s]" for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved: "The [Balfour] Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, 'not to be susceptible of change'; and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine of four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed." It certainly 'beats' the 'pre-1967 borders.'
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com
|
|
CUT DOWN YOUR OWN OLIVE TREES, BLAME IT ON ISRAEL, COLLECT $$ FROM ISRAEL
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 7, 2006. |
|
Some of you may recall previous incidents of international outrage, and the demonizing of Israel by "Peace and Justice" groups and international NGOs because Israel was cutting down Arab Olive trees in the West Bank -- just another example, according to the hate-Israel crowd, of Israel's cruelty toward Palestinians and Israel's endlss relentless low-key subtle war against these poor hopeless helpless hapless people....usually interpreted as Israel's subtle way of getting them all to leave so Israel could claim their land. Even then, some analysts pointed out that the way many olive trees were cut seems very much like the way olive trees are pruned. So no damage was done to the trees, but rather, the farmers pruned their trees, then brought in the photographers and journalists and NGO do-gooders and Israeli left-wing peace-and-justice demonstrators....and then the farmers introduced them all to the horrors of Israel's purposefully damaging their precious crop. And most of the world believed them. So the hopeless hapless helpless were doing a pretty good job of snookering the press and most of the world, and demonizing Israel. Many times, Israel explained that the IDF ordered the destruction of olive groves that were used by terrorists as hiding places for qassam and katryusha and sniper fire in to Israeli houses; and that removing the trees made it impossible for the terrorists to target israelis. But, even then, most of the world seemed to feel that Palestinian olive trees were more important than Israeli lives. And now, a new wrinkle. In the past, Israel has paid compensation to farmers whose olive groves have been damaged or destroyed, more or less accepting the farmer's assertions as basis for claiim -- a fact that no one bothered to mention over all the years that this issue was a hot item for the hate-Israel crowd (I did not know it, until now....no one on the Israeli side bothered to mention it as well). So, if the farmer figures out that the compensation is worth more to him than the trees themselves, just cut the trees down, blame it on the hateful harmful "settlers", and get compensation from Israel; and, at the same time, score a big PR victory by once again raising the spectre of the demonic Israel randomly destroying Palestinian livelihood. But now it turns out that the Israeli police force knows that the palestinians were cutting down the trees on purpose, the courts will examine more carefully the claiims of tree owners. One of the ways that the police may have known that the tree-cutters were lying when they said that the tree owners wanted the trees for firewood: olive wood is very bad firewood. It is soft and burns unevenly and creates an odor. Dried camel and sheep dung is much more effective, and once it is thoroughly dried, it burns odorlessly for hours and hours. Maybe one of the ways that we could reduce our dependence on Arab oil would be to develop the technology to dessicate sheep dung and use it for home heating. That might take a bit of gettting used to, but could cut our petroleum use at least somewhat. At least now we can rest assured that the Israeli courts will check more closely in to the claims of Israeli wanton and random destruction of Palestinan livelyhood...to make sure that the Palestinians are not doing it themselves becuase they like the cash more than they like the olive grove. This article is called "Inspectors catch Palestinians cutting
olive trees." It was written by Tal Yamin-Walbowitz and it appeared 22
November 2006 on the Maariv website (Maariv NRG) |
|
Cutting trees and blaming the settlers? Inspectors caught Palestinian youths in the act as they were cutting olive trees, claiming they did it at the request of the owner of the grove. The police suspect that he did it for compensation. Now additional Palestinian complaints will be investigated Are the settlers hurting the Palestinians or are the Palestinians hurting themselves? Frequently Palestinians farmers complain that settlers cut their trees and hurt them and their livelihoods. At times even IDF soldiers and police had to protect the Palestinians farmers in the territories during the olive harvest season. But the police suspect now that in some cases the Palestinians themselves are those cutting the trees and then blamed the settlers and demanded compensation from the Civil Authority. Foresters of the JNF patrolling the Shaar Efraim area today noticed to their surprise a number of Palestinians cutting olive trees in violation of the law as they were damaging scores of olive trees. The foresters hurried to call the police who arrived and held four of them for questioning. The four were transferred to the police station in Kedumim and in their interrogation they said that the owner of the property invited them to cut the trees for firewood. A police spokesman for the Judea-Samaria District, Superintendent Pintzi Mor, told Maariv NRG that the owner of the area would be called in for questioning. Sources in the police said that over the years the police have experienced a phenomenon of the filing of complaints to the Civil Authority regarding the destruction of olive trees, along with a claim for financial compensation. In the last year alone the Palestinians in the area of Judea and Samaria filed claims for 350 thousand shekels for the destruction of olive trees. The police now intend to check the complaints in detail. A senior source in the police told Maariv NRG that "most of the complaints for damage to olive trees were filed in recent years at the end of the harvest season or towards the end, something that increase the suspicion that this is a cooked deal." 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 |
|
CAIR'S PRO-HAMAS PRESS
Posted by Joe Kaufman, December 7, 2006. |
|
This appeared yesterday in Front Page Magazine
|
|
On November 30th, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) did something that would have made the group's Syrian-harbored "grandfather" proud. It posted to its website and sent out to its e-mail list an overtly pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic article, written by a vehemently anti-Israel author. In the dozen-plus years of its existence, for CAIR little has changed. The man most responsible for CAIR 's founding is none other than the number two leader of Hamas today, Mousa Abu Marzook. He has been located in Damascus, Syria, since shortly after the United States deported him to Jordan back in 1997. Each and every week, one can read quotes attributed to him -- speaking in the name of Hamas -- in the news media. As recently as November 14th, the Associated Press quoted him as saying that international demands for Hamas to recognize Israel were "Illegal and illegitimate." Before his deportation, Marzook made his mark on American society by creating, within it, a vast Hamas infrastructure. It included a Hamas command center called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), a Hamas financing arm called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and a Hamas propaganda wing called the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). It is through this last group that CAIR was born. CAIR was founded by three leaders of the IAP, in June of 1994. Two months prior to this, one of the founders publicly stated his support for Hamas. He is the Executive Director of CAIR today, Nihad Awad. He stated, "After I researched the situation inside and outside Palestine, I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO... I know that this movement as an Islamic movement has not been objectively reported in the United States..." Awad's statement was just a precursor for what was to come, as CAIR has, time and time again, demonstrated an extreme hatred towards Israel and a fondness for those that wish to destroy it. Recent events provide evidence for this:
And now, less than one week ago, CAIR has elected to post to its website and ship to its e-mail list a pro-Hamas article with anti-Jewish overtones. The piece, 'The kangaroo court taking place in Chicago,' was written by Ray Hanania, a man known for his anti-Israel attitudes, previously referring to Ariel Sharon as being "Nazi-like" and saying that Israel is " provoking the violence" against itself. In the article -- a commentary lamenting America's treatment of Hamas operative Mohammed Salah -- Hanania finds no fault with Salah's affection for Hamas, an organization that uses suicide bombings as a means to murder innocent civilians. He states, "Salah is not guilty of terrorism. Whether he supported Hamas or not is a non-issue. Many Palestinians support Hamas in part because Hamas is a creation of Israel's refusal to make genuine peace." As well, Hanania, in the article, shrugs away as insignificant Salah's and co-defendant Abdelhaleem Ashqar's hatred towards Jews. He states, "So far, after 10 weeks of trial, all that the U.S. Government can say about Mohammed Salah and co-defendant Abdelhaleem Ashqar is that they opposed the Oslo Peace Accords and that they didn't believe that their Muslim children should mingle in peace with Jews." Of course, regardless of Ray Hanania's sentiments towards Hamas and Jews, with respect to the indictments, he is hiding from the facts -- Mohammed Salah has been charged by the United States government with recruiting and training Hamas members and with transferring money to Hamas. In addition, Salah served five years in an Israeli jail for his Hamas related activities. This last part Hanania actually acknowledges, though he seems to believe that the fact Israel eventually released him clears Salah of any wrongdoing, which obviously is not the case. The true wrongdoing in this matter is that an author has chosen to defend an operative from Hamas, and an organization that peddles itself off as a "civil rights group" has chosen to propagate that defense -- an anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas editorial. In doing so, CAIR has shown that it cannot move past what has plagued the group since it began. The American legacy of Mousa Abu Marzook remains strong, and nothing CAIR says or does -- no phony Fatwa Against Terrorism or any of its other publicity stunts -- is going to change that reality. Joe Kaufman is head of Americans Against Hate. Contact him at joe@joe4rep.com The orginal article contains live links to additional material. |
|
IRAQIZATION IS RIGHT, BUT SURRENDERING TO FASCIST REGIMES IS WRONG
Posted by Phareswire, December 6, 2006. |
|
Mideast Newswire.
In his first analysis of the the Iraq Study Group recommendations, Mideast expert Walid Phares told three media outlets in the US, Europe, and the Middle East, that "the Iraq Study Group's recommendations resemble a salad bowl. The document contains some rational suggestions that should have been adopted by the Bush Administration years ago, and also some suicidal ideas that were tested decades ago and failed miserably." Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC and author of Foreign Affairs best seller Future Jihad, was interviewed by Al Muharer al Arabi, Radio Free Iraq, and the Jack Ricardi radio show in the US. "These are only the first reactions to a comprehensive document; there will be a thorough analysis of the report from both American and Middle Eastern perspectives." Phares told Al Muharer al Arabi that the global recommendation "to engage Iran and Syria's regimes positively and constructively means that they were mistreated before. My first question to the authors of the report is this: how was the United States mistreating these regimes in the past? Was asking Ahmedinejad to stop making a nuclear bomb and asking Assad of Syria to withdraw from Lebanon following a UN resolution signs of bad treatment? Were these demands wrong in their essence? Do they give Iran and Syria the right to feel victimized? If one perceives US action in this way, then all what Washington has to do is to release pressure on the Mullah to build their weapons and ask Assad to send his Army back to Lebanon" Phares added, "the public in America and the people in the region are not as naive as they were before 9/11. They will ask the hard questions when the time comes. The so-called engagement recommendation is a relic from the past and sounds like a suicidal idea. For surrendering to fascist regimes -- regimes that are rejected by their own people -- is utterly wrong." However on the Iraq restructuring suggestions, Phares told Radio Iraq and other radio shows that "the idea of the Iraqization process is a right one and has always received a consensus among Iraqis and Americans. General Abizaid and many others have voiced these suggestions in the past in the US and in Iraq." But Phares concluded by asking "how can we press for empowering the Iraqis on the ground on the one hand while surrendering their fate to Iran and Syria through diplomatic means on the other? That sounds like a recipe for chaos to me." In a previous interview with Radio Free Iraq few days before the
release of the report, Dr Phares said: "many ideas and suggestions are
on the table, but one matter should be clear: there shouldn't be a
return of dictatorship to Iraq and a return of Syrian occupation in
Lebanon. On the other hand, inserting US forces within Iraqi forces
should have been the initial plan. Listen to the interview in Arabic
at Radio Free Iraq
The poster can be contacted at phareswire@aol.com |
|
LET'S TALK...
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, December 6, 2006. |
|
Lots has been said by both this author and others about that much-anticipated report from the Baker-Hamilton Commission regarding America's next moves in Iraq. So I'm not planning on just repeating more of the same... I hope. Driving to work today, I happened to hear former Senator Alan Simpson--one of Baker's current Iraq teammates--being interviewed on one of Al Jazeera's American soul mates, National Public Radio. Repeating what we've known through leaks weeks ago, he once again stressed the Iraq Study Group's emphasis on chatting with Iran and Syria, Iraq's neighbors, to attempt to seek their assistance. Now, I'm a reasonable sort of guy...really. Hey--what's wrong with talking, after all? Well, here's the problem... Syria and Iran are not reasonable chatting partners. That is, unless one believes that some thirty million stateless Kurds and the Jew of the Nations must once again consent to be sacrificial lambs to Arab interests (and those who become rich tied to them). And the other problem involves who will do the chatting with them. Will it be the Baker types and the State Department--who all have a history of shafting Jews and Kurds repeatedly, demanding a 22nd state for Arabs while knowing full well of its murderous intentions--regardless of who is at the helm--towards Israel...and using and abusing Kurds to further American interests, yet denying them the exact same rights freely offered to jihadist Arabs who have suppressed and massacred hundreds of thousands of them over the past century? Big problem... Even so, let's consider a chat. Let's first take on our conversation with Iran. Here's a few things the Baker Crew are likely to leave out--not that they don't know them, just that they won't really enter into their equation. Sort of like Condi's "assurances" that Hizbullah would be disarmed after the recent war in Lebanon. Some empty words may be uttered, but unless there's a huge outcry against what's now being brewed, that's about the extent of it. Hizbullah, by the way, is now poised for a takeover of Lebanon. For starters, while Iran calls for Israel's destruction and the creation of another Arab state in Palestine (Jordan created out of some 80% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate), why doesn't it first allow the creation of another Arab state in Arabistan--Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan province which Arabs have been the majority in and ruled for centuries, up until the early 20th century? Even the Iranians frequently called it Arabistan. While I don't really think America will endorse this, it wouldn't hurt to throw hypocrisy into their holier-than-thou faces. And since Iran is so worried about the plight of Arabs outside of Iran, why does it continue to suppress and/or massacre thousands of Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, Jews, Azeris, and others within its own borders? As far as the mullahs go, whom do they think they're kidding? Anyone with functioning neurons knows they're gloating over the prospect of setting up the Islamic Republic of Iraq right next door. They're already deeply enmeshed in attempting to bring this about, supporting the main Iraqi Shi'a militias as they do Hizbullah in its attempt to accomplish likewise in Lebanon. And what a nice postscript to the bloody war fought with Saddam's Iraq (largely over Arabistan/Khuzestan) in the '80s! So, just what does Baker think he can offer to convince them to stop what they see as now inevitable? From a military perspective, I could think of a few things to bring up to try to convince them--especially since they're determined to become a nuclear power. But that comes with risks too. And who, pray tell, is the chief arms supplier, trainer, and benefactor of Hizbullah, Hamas, and other groups on the front lines of carrying out the mullahs' aim of the extermination of Israel? Turning to the Syrians, we know quite well what they want. And Baker already promised them this decades ago while Secretary of State to George the First. Having largely instigated the June '67 War which lost them the Heights--from which they blasted Jews below for over a decade--they now expect a complete return of the Golan. Understand that such a deal would yield Israel the same "peace" it got after a complete withdrawal from Gaza and from Lebanon...and with thousands of Syrian tanks, missiles, and such ready to launch or roll down hill into Israel proper. Recall, as well, that Israel indeed offered--more than once--almost a complete return of the Heights for true peace. The latest offer's exception covered a tiny area Israel needed to insure the protection of its water sources. Besides Israel, Syria is determined--with Iran's help--to have its way with Lebanon as well--a nation whose independence it has never truly recognized. Is there really any need to rehash further Syrian machinations on this matter? Or Syrian-Iranian collaboration on all of these issues? Additionally, with the eventual disintegration of Iraq (in many ways, the Yugoslavia of the Middle East) expected, Syria may also be eyeballing the oil wealth of the Kurdish north ...as Turkey most certainly is as well. So, coming back to where we started, what shall we chat about with these two nations so diametrically opposed to all that most Americans really value and stand for? And note, I said most Americans. If we let those, like Baker, who make millions by befriending such murderous despots, to set the course for our foreign policy by delivering our friends up to them on silver platters, not only will this backfire on us, but we will have lost any semblance of morality still left in that foreign policy. While there's no doubt that American plans and strategy for Iraq need a fix (and I've long written about this myself), shafting Jews and Kurds, first of all, won't bring this about and, second of all, will bring nothing but shame to us in the long run. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php This article is archived at
|
|
LOBOTOMY URGENTLY REQUIRED
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 6, 2006. |
|
My dear friend Margy sent me this letter and insightful article. It is true! In 1980 Jimmy Carter declared his opposition to a "Palestinian" state. Spineless then as he is today! Margy's letter: Dear Friends, |
|
"Jimmy Carter: 'I oppose a Palestinian State'"
"... I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own
judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East,
including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the
Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States
interests."
What has changed in the last 25 years? Not Israel's 1948 independence. Not the 1967 war. Not the cynical, ignominous treatment of Arab refugees by the Arab world. So why, 25 years later, is Israel's right to exist a matter of debate, while Palestine's right to exist is presumed by everyone from the United Nations to Jimmy Carter to George Bush to Ehud Olmert? Why, when the Palestinian leaderships -- PA and Hamas -- the first imposed and the second popularly elected, demonstrate that their chief characteristics are, respectively, corrupt thuggery and bloody holy war, why then is endless-concession-making, negotiating, retreating, disengaging, humanitarian-aid-giving, appeasing Israel viewed as the "destabilizing factor?" Did a massive land-grab by Israel precede Carter's new book? On the contrary: a massive land-surrender preceded the book. And, in fact, when it retreats, morally, intellectually, politically, physically, Israel does become the destabilizing factor -- or at least surrenders its role as the stabilizer of the world's most volatile region. What has changed is Israel's own resolve. Why should anyone else fight to support a nation whose political elite takes every opportunity and advantage we give it and squanders it? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which sacrifices its soldiers rather than vanquishes its enemy? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which has ceased believing in itself? Which cravenly begs forgiveness on the rare occasions it actually defends its citizens? Why should anyone fight for a Jewish homeland which seems bent on denying its Jewishness? Why should anyone care about a state which retreats from its victories? Which sheds its democratic veneer to brutalize and displace its most patriotic and committed citizens, its idealists, its pioneers? Why should anyone care for an Israel that is willing, even eager, in its quest for a "secular revolution" to declare that the Jewish heritage is an albatross, that Judea and Samaria are a burden, and that Jerusalem is negotiable? That the State of Israel is, in fact, seeking to disengage from the Holy Land? The turning point, perhaps the catalyst, was Oslo; the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak plan to (in Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross' terminology) dispense with the "mythologies" in order to negotiate. How very modern and enlightened and liberal and civilized. And how very destructive and foolish and deadly. The ideas, the principles, the vision, the morals, the truths which they disdain as mythologies were and are the very heart of Israel's national aspiration. It was the vision that kept Jews alive through millenia of diaspora and dispersion, crusade, expulsion, forced conversion, blood libel and pogrom, and, finally, Holocaust And the heart may be romanticized as the seat of emotion, but only the hopelessly deluded excises it and thinks the body will survive. Only the deluded excises the heart. Or the suicidal. What has changed, in consequence, is the resolve of Israel's enemies as well. And, because they are not burdened by the selfish inanity of modern liberalism, they have not lost their willingness to suffer and to sacrifice. The suicides they are committing are anything but deluded; their terror is a winning strategy. Rather than eliciting disgust and fury, rather than being condemned as unutterably barbaric, the use of civilians as targets, children as bombs and grandmothers as bunkers has even brought them the sympathies of the deluded West. Not only in the corridors of the UN or the salons of Europe -- but even in those enlightened liberal precincts in Israel where the stubborn, unruly Jewish "mythologies" have long since been relegated, surrendered, sublimated to an oh-so-superior modern Israeli multicultural consciousness. It often has been said that the Jews are the canary in the coalmine. Pay close attention, for what is playing out in Israel today is the future of the West. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
JIHADISTS PLAN FOR THE WORLD VS THE SIN OF "MODERATES" IN ISLAM
Posted by The Reality Show, December 6, 2006. |
|
This weekend, Mr. Anderson Cooper (anderson.cooper@cnn.com) on his http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/ wrapped up the Pope's visit to Turkey: "When faiths collide". Reza Aslan, whose new book is No God but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam. The book is a call to reform, and a proposal to end the religious battle between East and West. Aslan was born in Iran and lives in the United States. He was a visiting assistant professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Iowa; he has written for The Nation, Slate and The New York Times. Anderson finished it off with the subject of the "clash of civilization" and about radical Muslims committing terrorism in the name of Islam. He then asked the question what we in the west want to know: "What is it that Jihadists want"? Iranian born Reza Aslan answered with the following outrageous answer: "Every religion has fundamentalists, Jihadist are (only) a reaction to something... and you know their issues..." It is exactly these "moderates" what the problem is all about. Rest assured that the terrorists listening/seeing these lines smile even more and just have more motivation to only continue their global crimes against humanity. Not only did this icon of "moderates" apologize and basically EXCUSE the jihadists criminals, but he simply spinned it around and avoided the obvious answer to such an obvious question, which is of course: Jihadists plan of Islamization, "The CALIPHATE", Islamizing by force from Spain to Indonesia. A great plan, a great vision is no "reaction", Mr. Aslan. The truth will set you free -- literally, FREEDOM! The website address for The Reality Show is http://lightonthings.blogspot.com |
|
A WARNING FROM "THE LAND OF WISHES"
Posted by Eugene Narrett, December 6, 2006. |
|
America is getting a new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates who has just sent several signals to Iran, Israel and other nations closely involved with Iran's war of terror (threats of annihilation) which is directed mainly against Israel, for now. Mr. Gates agrees with Senators that Iran is pursuing atomic weapons capabilities, that its leaders are lying about this development, and that no one can, certainly not he, USA head of Military can provide assurance that Israel will not be nuked by Iran. He also noted that Iran is proceeding "as a deterrent against nuclear powers surrounding it, Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel to the West and America in the Persian Gulf." In a moment we will consider why these comments are so interesting. Gates is a close associate of George H. W. Bush and fob (friend of Bush) James Baker, head of the "Iraqi Study Group" (the Baker Group) that calls for more "negotiations" with Syria and Iran in order to resolve their problems with us. Joel Himmelfarb, in a piece published by the American Spectator and the Wall Street Journal details the decades -- long attempts of America to dialog with Iran and Syria, a self-destructive process in which peace and honesty recede. With his testimony to a complacent Senate, Mr. Gates sent several important signals: 1) like any politician or highly placed CIA officer, he will respond to obtuse questions in an obtuse way (Iran is pursuing and lying about its nukes); 2) that the American government will not protect Israel against an Iranian nuclear attack; and, 3) that Israel is a nuclear power that threatens Iran and that merits being compared to Russia or Pakistan. Mr. Gates is a friend neither of the American nor the Israeli people nor of their embattled sovereign nations. Anyone who follows the news even cursorily knows that Israel's nuclear capability is an official secret. Mr. Gates helped shred what remains of that strategic deniability. He made statements that were more damaging: he equated Israel (and America) and their nuclear capabilities with those of Pakistan and Russia. Given the radically (from the root) different nature of these two pairs of nations this is an extremely dishonest and damaging implied equation of a kind you might expect from a communist or jihadist official or the head of a "non-aligned" nation. From an American Secretary of Defense it is alarming. It also is dishonest because it is Iran that blatantly and consistently threatens Israel with annihilation; so do other terror groups like Hamas, Iran's Hizballah, Syria, assorted Islamic media and clergy, and the EU in its quaint Eurabian way. Before considering a noteworthy Iranian media-item regarding Jews, we should note that by refusing to provide assurance that America would defend anyone, specifically Israel, from Iranian nuclear attack Mr. Gates performed a version of Ambassador April Glaspie's indirect invitation to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait; (the State Department in 1956 passed a similar message regarding Hungary to Russia via Yugoslavia). So, if Iran attacks Israel, America will watch and then respond, -- a point we have often made. April Glaspie was an Ambassador during the incumbency of President G. H. W. Bush. So much from the land of dreams... A fascinating episode in the Iranian Science Fiction television series, "The Land of Wishes" offers perspective on these developments in an episode called, "The Medal" [it's a Star of David] which may be viewed at memri.org #1329. The plot is as simple as black and white and the message is clever, clear and genocidal in its slander and strategic intentions. The heroine is Fahimeh, a lovely Persian maiden of about fourteen years, clothed in a gray body and head robe and accompanied by a 'here again, gone again' animated spirit, Kashki: baggy pants, boots, sword, cool hat and cute, encouraging messages. Fahimeh has been summoned by a "Mega-Evil Jewish Queen" who rules from the Black House (a massive Temple with a gigantic stone courtyard). You can tell the queen is Jewish because she wears an enormous Shield of David on her breast. Another Magen David surmounts the Temple's front door. (Maybe it's a pun on "White House"). The evil Queen isn't quite human: she's powered by nuclear-generated electricity that enters her head via lots of gadgets manned by two technicians and drawn down, apparently, from a Star Ship like the Enterprise, somewhere in the ether. She has herself teleported from the lab to the Temple doorway, welcomes Fahimeh to "the Free City" and invites her to be her friend like all the other zombie-like gray-robed figures standing in ranks and files in the courtyard. "Together we can build a new world" the Queen says. But the Persian maid knows it's a Zionist plot. This is brilliant propaganda, brilliant in its role-reversals regarding target and aggressor and in regard to causes of behavior. If Muslims behave like robots ("you have taken away their ability to think," Fahimeh tells the Queen, rebuffing her offer of friendship) it is hardly Israel's unilateral surrenders in the "peace process" that takes away that ability, except maybe from the Israeli and western left. Jihadists see what's going on; doesn't take much thinking to see what's good and bad in "the land of wishes." Perhaps Iran has its own texts and media that deprive people of the ability to think, to act like anything other than robots. But this is science fiction with a moral... The Queen uses her techno-juice to materialize a virtual warrior (who resembles a younger Benjamin Netanyahu) to compel Fahimeh's 'friendship.' But Kashki (and the appearances of her lost parents) hearten the maiden to imagine into being her own warrior. Just when the evil white one seems winning, Kashki exclaims, "They can't control the fuel reactor of time! They don't have the code word!" The code is S-U-N, get it? The Jews are creatures of darkness. And who can control the fuel reactor of time, of the Apocalypse? The Mahdi, maybe... Sure enough, the sad and victimized maiden draws on her own internal inspiration and steadily the techno-supplied powers of the evil Queen are exhausted, driving her to tears and literally to crack-up. The Jew-created warrior is crushed into a pool of blood that then burns with a glaring gold fire, and the Queen returns to her lab throne and disintegrates. The technicians then get zapped trying to save "the Medal," the Star of David which disappears into a pool of blood and then a flash and smoke like from a small nuclear bomb. Get it? The Star Ship blows up. And the heroine accomplished all this from "a defensive posture." Who can blame her? Robert Gates helped explain Iran's development of nuclear weapons to defend itself from its enemies north, south, east and west. What we really need is more negotiations, don't you think, -- like the ones that pushed the Israelis out of Lebanon and led to the death of two hundred and fifty Marines; like the ones for the American hostages in Teheran; like all the UN-brokered talk about Iran's recent nuclear build-up; like Oslo, the demolition of Gush Katif, etc. The land of dreams plus that of wishes equals nightmares for everyone. As Kashki said, "don't be afraid! Create your own fighter! There's not much time till the reactor explodes!" He's right. Israelis and others should consider themselves on notice but their government, like the new Cabinet and Congress in America assisted by the ISG is controlled by hypnotists who have taken away the ability to think and save ourselves with a stitch in time. Contact Professor Eugene Narrett by email at goodteach7@aol.com |
|
LONGTIME AIDE TELLS FOX NEWS WHY HE CUT TIES TO CARTER
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 8, 2006. | |
| This was written by Melissa Drosjack and it appeared today on Fox News. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235303,00.html). | |
|
WASHINGTON -- Former President Jimmy Carter faced new criticism Friday over his controversial book on Palestinian lands when a former Middle East diplomat accused him of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him. The new charge came as Carter attempted to counter charges from a former top aide that the book manipulates facts to distort history. Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter's book. "I think there should be a correction and an attribution," Ross said. "These were maps that never existed, I created them." After Ross saw the maps in Carter's book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction. When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied: "it sure looks that way." Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," was released last week. "A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title 'indecent.' Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive," Carter wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece published in Friday's edition. Carter disputed alleged "lies" and "distortions" against content in his book. "With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries," he wrote. Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, resigned Tuesday as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University, stating in his resignation letter that "President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments." "The purpose of the book should be to try to bring people together, to try and reconcile them. He published in the LA Times because his book tour is going in that direction," Stein said. "I'm a historian, I believe in the integrity of my profession, I believe that things should be written accurately, even if you disagree with them." Carter is scheduled to sign books at Vroman's in Pasadena, Calif., on Friday. "I wouldn't have chosen the words I chose on my resignation letter if I hadn't read the book really closely and hadn't been reasonable familiar for a lifetime with the details associated with the conflict," Stein said. "I just want to be sure that when people write history, people don't do it for purpose of special pleading," Stein told FOXNews.com on Thursday. "They write it the way it was. They don't try to shape a person's opinion and slide them down a path in order to come to an inevitable conclusion." Stein leaves the center after serving as its first executive director and founder of its Middle East program. Carter issued a statement in response to Stein's letter noting that Stein hasn't been directly involved with the center in more than 12 years and did not address specific allegations by Stein. "If Ken has read my latest book he knows that, as the book's title makes clear, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status," according to a statement by Carter released by Deanna Congileo, Carter's spokeswoman. Stein hasn't talked directly with Carter, but has been contacted through third parties. "Ken is one of the finest teachers I have ever known, and has been of great help during the early years of our center, as an advisor to me on Middle East affairs, and as a personal friend. I thank him for this, and wish him well," Carter said. Stein alleged an inaccuracy on page 131 in the book of a 1990 White House meeting where Carter cites that Washington was mostly preoccupied with the Iraq/Kuwait conflict. Stein said that was in 1980, not 1990. "He makes it appear that the reasons people didn't pay attention to what he was saying was because of the invasion," Stein said. "How was that possible? I was there." "Carter can disagree with me. I don't think if you're president of the United States you have a specific privilege to overstate," he added. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights group based in Los Angeles, has received more than 16,000 signatures to an online petition to "act now against President Carter's one-sided bias against Israel." Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the center, who read the book, said people in the Jewish community are outraged at Carter's book. "I think the point of the book is to be hostile to Israel," Hier said. "I think he deliberately did it." Hier said the book sides with the Palestinian cause and blames Israel for troubles in the Middle East. "The reason he wrote this book is because he has become a spokesman for the Palestinian cause," Hier said. "Having read the book, I can tell you these are not the words of a person who is objective, who is trying to see a way out of this. He has come down 100 percent on the Palestinian side." As for more specifics on questions to the book, Stein hinted at offering more details on factual errors and challenges to Carter's book in his letter. "In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins," according to his letter. The following is the text of a letter sent Dec. 7 by Dr. Kenneth W. Stein to FOXNews.com:
"It's not just the content in the book, it's that he uses the book to create additional distortions," Stein said. |
|
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON THE SECOND ISRAEL-LEBANON WAR
Posted by Isaac Judah, December 6, 2006. |
|
Amnesty International released a report barely a few weeks after the recent Israel-Lebanon war ended in mid-August. Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, working outside of the parameters of the State of Lebanon, initiated the war with the murder and kidnapping of IDF soldiers. Hamas terrorists in Gaza had similarly initiated a war by kidnapping an IDF soldier a few weeks before Hezbollah's actions against The State of Israel. Amnesty International (AI)accused Israel of committing war crimes during their recent campaign against Hezbollah, saying it broke international law by deliberately causing massive destruction to the country's infrastructure. AI does not mention what specific law Israel violated. In AI's words "Many of the violations examined in this report are war crimes that give rise to individual criminal responsibility. They include directly attacking civilian objects and carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks. People against whom there is prima facie evidence of responsibility for the commission of these crimes are subject to criminal accountability anywhere in the world." This is a stunning case of hypocrisy on the part of AI for two reasons: 1) When similar tactics were used by NATO forces in Serbia, where over 10,000 civilians were killed by NATO bombing, Amnesty International was rather mute in it's reporting. The Fourth Geneva Convention Article 28 and Article 29 of Part III, Section 1 clearly states that where a terrorist entity does not wear a uniform, hides amongst the civilan population intentionally so that the civilian population can be a living camouflage, all persons living in these areas are under the protection of the terrorist entity. That terrorist entity or State is responsible for what happens to the civilian population who are living in their midst. Those fighting the war are not considered protected persons. Civilians are protected persons. Part III, Section 1, Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." The State of Israel is at war with Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah and Hamas are at war with The State of Israel.Instead of separating themselves from the general population and wearing uniforms as required by international law, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists use civiliansi.e. the 'protected person' mentioned in III:1:28 as human shields. Read III:1:28 again. There were plenty of protected persons around the home of the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah. He wanted it that way so that they could serve as living camouglage and, because he did that, he is responsible for what happens to them. The next sentence, Article 29, of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads: "The party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred." And because Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists chose to live in a civilian environment, the 'protected persons' are deemed to be in their hands and therefore, they are responsible for the treatment accorded to them. The State of Israel is not responsible for the treatment accorded to them. The State of Israel took a lot of pains to warn the civilian population 48 hours or more in advance, using leaflets in Arabic, by radio and by TV broadcasts to remove themselves from those areas before they were attacked. This was a humanitarian gesture. Civilans in these areas had a chance to leave, as did the terrorists. Amnesty International has taken an irresponsible and pejorative position in its report condemning The State of Israel. AI took much longer in condemning the actions of Hezbollah, a terrorist entity, for firing thousands of Katyusha rockets into civilian areas in Israel. It is time, in the name of world peace, that groups such as Amnesty International be disbanded. Their words and actions only help to demonize Israel whilst 'turning the other cheek'when it comes to terrorist entities. Contact Isaac Judah at isaacjudah@yahoo.com |
|
ISRAEL UNABLE TO RELY ON U.S. TO THWART IRANIAN NUKES
Posted by Ezra HaLevi, December 6, 2006. |
|
Gates will replace Donald Rumsfeld. Asked at his U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee nomination hearing whether he believed that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability, he answered: "Yes, sir, I do." He also answered in the affirmative that he believes Iran's leadership to be lying. Gates said that there were more powerful forces in Iran than just its president and they are determined to achieve nuclear weapons, "as a deterrent against nuclear countries surrounding them -- Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel in the west and the United States in the Persian Gulf." He said he is not certain that Iran would attack the Jewish state, since "the risks for them (Iran) are enormously high." He added, though, "I don't think anybody can provide that assurance [to Israel that an attack won't occur." Gates summed up his position saying he would not advise a U.S. attack on Iran except as an "absolute last resort" if critical U.S. interests are threatened. Ahmadinejad Warns Europe Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened European nations Tuesday that Iran would consider any decision to join sanctions against Iran due to its nuclear project an act of hostility. The statement came as representatives from the United Nations Security Council's permanent member nations met in Paris to discuss steps to be taken against Iran. "I'm telling you in plain language that from now on, if you try, whether in your propaganda or at international organizations, to take steps against the rights of the Iranian nation, the Iranian nation will consider it an act of hostility," Ahmadinejad said, addressing European nations during a speech in northern Iran. "Our path to reach the nuclear summit is in the final phase, and no more than one more step is needed," he added. "Iran possesses the nuclear fuel cycle completely and by God's will it will undertake necessary measures to produce nuclear fuel for all of its nuclear power stations." Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency Tuesday that Iran is intent on materializing all its nuclear Research and Development projects by the end of the Islamic year, which falls out on March 19. Iran's Other Project Iran's Foreign Ministry is making preparations for a two-day conference that will take place next week and "examine the evidence" of there having been a Holocaust. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi said the December 10-11 conference will be attended by 67 foreign researchers from 30 countries. The conference was the initiative of Ahmadinejad, who has called the genocide perpetrated by the Nazi regime during World War II "exaggerated" and a "myth." Mohammadi said that the conference would be a truly scientific event to determine whether the Holocaust took place. "If Iran is indeed convinced that the Holocaust took place, the next question will be how many Jews were murdered and why the Palestinians need to suffer because of an event that took place in Europe 60 years ago," he added. Israel and Iran Meeting -- About Old Debts Israeli and Iranian representatives have been meeting in secret in Switzerland, according to Army Radio. The meetings are with regard to an Israeli debt to Iran for oil purchased during the years prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution there. A smaller amount was owed to Israeli construction companies for projects undertaken in Iran. The two countries were diplomatically friendly from the 50s to the 70s, under the pro-West Shah of Iran. Ezra Halevi writes for Arutz Sheva (www.Israelnnn.com) |
|
AN AMERICAN IS AMONG TERROR PLOTTERS ARRESTED IN EGYPT
Posted by Michael Travis, December 6, 2006. |
|
At the very least, they were encouraging people to go to Iraq and fight Americans. That Is TREASON. This is from the Jawa Report |
|
An American was among 15 foreign nationals arrested last week in Egypt believed to be part of a larger terror network. The cell is supected of plotting terror attacks on Middle East targets, although there is some contraversy over whether they were planning attacks or just encouraging them. The foreign nationals were in Egypt in order to study the religion of peace, Islam. The American has not yet been identified. The group also encouraged Muslims to go to Iraq for jihad against the United States. An American encouraging violence against American troops? Treason. Looks like we have another Johnny Walker Lindh, who went to Pakistan to study Islam before joining the Taliban, or Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who left his home in Virginia to study Islam in Saudi Arabia before joining a group of al Qaeda sympathizers and plotting to assassinate President George Bush. It should be noted that the most prestigious (and oldest) Islamic university in the world, al-Azhar, is in Egypt. News reports indicate that at least some of the students were studying at al-Azhar. The President of al-Azhar is routinely described as a 'moderate' in the press, yet this so-called moderate believes that the prohibition against killing innocent women and children does not include Israelis. Chicago Sun Times Along with the American, police arrested two Belgians, nine French and several others from Egypt and other Arab countries including Tunisia and Syria, the statement said. The ministry did not provide names or say how many Egyptians and Arabs were arrested. Hat tip to Laura Mansfield for the e-mail. Oh, and just a little reminder about al-Azhar.
Students outside of Al-Azhar Mosque, the most prestigious Sunni seat of learning in the world, are heard shouting 'Osama bin Laden, explode Copenhagen' in protest over a Danish newspaper publishing images of Mohammed. UPDATE: Eugene Volokh e-mailed wondering if we knew anything else about this guy. The answer, as far as I can tell, is no. But wouldn't it be nice if the AP invested a little time in the story and found a few things out? I'd settle for knowing the guy's name at this point. Hell, I'd even settle for a stringer being sent out. Also noticing this: Gateway Pundit, Dan Riehl, Pirate's Cove, Political Pit Bull, Internet Haganah, Mary Kate at Townhall, Clarity and Resolve, Blogs of War, Macker, Bluto, Charles "The Blogfather" Johnson & others, I'm sure, but since my stupid trackbacks don't work, who knows? LATEST at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu
An American detained in Egypt on suspicion of involvement with a jihad cell which encouraged Muslims to go to Iraq to kill Americans has been identified. His name is Grey Warren, and he's from Ohio. However, his name was read in Arabic, so the spelling is uncertain. It's possible that his name is "Gray Warren" or "Warren Grey" (mistaking first and last name?). If you know anythingg about this man, please e-mail me at the contact information above. The State Department expects he will be released and deported to the U.S. No word on whether he will face charges here. Fox 45: The Egyptian security official identifies the American as Grey
Warren from Ohio, and says he came to Egypt earlier this year to study
at an Islamic university.
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com
|
|
THE ROCKET BLITZ
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 6, 2006. |
|
This article appeared today in the Jewish Press.
|
|
A fascinating question of history is what might have happened had Neville Chamberlain not resigned in May 1940 but continued on as British prime minister, with Winston Churchill never taking command. What would have happened during the blitz as bombs and rockets exploded all over London, killing and maiming men, women and children? After careful consideration, the following is a virtual history of the London blitz without Churchill: As the rockets begin to land and explode around London, Chamberlain announces that he recognizes the German Reich and the right of Germany to set up its own state in areas released from Czech and Polish occupation. Britain appeals to Hitler to arrest those enemies of peace who are launching rockets at London. Chamberlain appeals to the political leaders of the Reich to denounce the rocket terror and begin negotiations to end the attacks. Hitler insists he is trying his best to stop the violence but is having trouble controlled the radicals who have taken over the German parliament. The British foreign minister agrees. To help calm the situation, the British government agrees to send food and medicine to Germany. The RAF targets and assassinates some Luftwaffe pilots and base personnel, but several German civilians are killed; Britain is denounced for this by the international community and by the British Labor Party. Hitler speaks at a large rally in Nuremberg and exhorts the masses to remember the martyred German pilots who were killed while dropping bombs on London, and to strive to continue their mission. Chamberlain praises Hitler's speech for exhibiting moderation and restraint. He begins sending small arms to the Germans to help control the anti-peace German underground opposition groups. During a lull in the bombings, Chamberlain makes a speech in which he says he is more concerned about the invasion of Britain by Hollywood movies than he is by buzz bombs (to be echoed decades later in an Oslo-era speech by Shimon Peres in which Peres would say he is far more worried about the infiltration into Israel of cable television than the infiltration of terrorists). When more bombs explode, the calls increase inside Britain to strike back at Germany. The British Union for German Human rights denounces this as racism and bigotry. Chamberlain points out that massive retaliation would be the very worst option possible. Britain must endeavor to make peace with its German peace partners, not feed the fires of hatred. This is the only way to achieve a New Middle Europe, he insists. And besides, if Hitler is not supported and strengthened, an even more radical and violent leader will emerge in Germany. As more rockets fall, Chamberlain points out that the dead are simply martyrs for peace and Britain must carry on with its peace process, since there is no alternative. A pro-German member of the British parliament travels to Berlin and calls for Britain's annihilation. Chamberlain allows Oswald Mosley's fascist party to run in the election. Mosley's people exercise hegemony over the British universities and the media. After more rockets explode, Chamberlain loses his temper and decides to take action at last. He assigns extra police to guard the Underground stations in London. He orders British critics of his peace process to be arrested for criminal incitement against the government, accusing the critics of undermining peace efforts and endangering security. Chamberlain meets with British antiwar poets and writers and they issue an appeal to the British public to remain firm in the face of adversity and continue to strive for peace. Stiff British upper lip and all that. Chamberlain again appeals to President Hitler, as the legitimate leader of the Teutonic peoples, to arrest those responsible for the rocket aggressions. But he reminds British citizens that the unbearable alternative to negotiations with the Reich would be to send British soldiers back into the territories of Central Europe. Teams of pro-German professors from British universities tour the world demanding a boycott of all commerce and trade with Britain. More rockets land. Chamberlain proposes speeding up the peace process and disarming the Royal Navy as a show of good will. The representatives of Vichy France come for a state visit, congratulating Chamberlain and the British and German peoples for their devotion to peace in the face of provocation. Some more rockets land. Chamberlain proposes, as a retaliatory measure, arresting some pro-German spies inside Britain, but British civil rights lawyers appeal to the Court of Appeals and the ruling is overturned. The government considers proposals to turn Stonehenge over to the Germans as a goodwill gesture, since it is a holy shrine for all pagans. Even more rockets land. The British Peace Now movement notes that there would be no violence at all if the British would just disarm altogether and stop making Hitler feel insecure. Besides, they say, the British should not be occupying Scotland and Wales at all, lands in which they don't belong. Chamberlain opens secret negotiations with Germany to transfer London's East End, Greenwich and Docklands areas to German sovereignty. Many more rockets land. That's it, yells Chamberlain. The proverbial camel's back is broken. It is time to fight German terror with all means at our disposal. This is the Moral Equivalent Of War, he yells -- MEOW, for short. There is no alternative. We must, he declares, initiate talks with Germany at once so that we can conduct unilateral withdrawal as quickly as possible from Devon and the Midlands. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at stevenplaut@yahoo.com |
|
ISRAELI-AMERICAN TEENAGER, SHIMSHON CYTRYN, CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER IN MELEE
Posted by Mrs. Elli Rodan, December 6, 2006. |
|
"Supporters said the indictment of Cytryn was part of a vendetta against his father. In 1995, Cytryn's father, Shmuel, was arrested and held without trial for eight months. The elder Cytryn, an activist of the banned Kach movement, was detained after he released hospital records that challenged the official version of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin....'Shimshon is high on the list of the Shabak [Israel Security Agency]', Shmuel Cytryn said. 'The Cytryn family is targeted because of its activities on the extreme right. We represent something that to them is the enemy'...Mujaida [whom The State of Israel alleges that Shimshon Cytryn attempted to murder] never filed a complaint against or identified Cytryn as his attacker. Despite a police search, the prosecution failed to retrieve the stone that allegedly struck Mujaida in the head nor did the prosecution supply medical evidence detailing Mujaida's injuries or hospitalization. After the melee, Israel's state-owned media accused Cytryn of seeking to 'lynch' Mujaida. But Mujaida told Israel Radio in early July that the injury on his forehead was caused by being struck by the rifle butt of an Israeli soldier. 'One soldier took me to a separate place -- not any settler -- and hit me with the rifle butt in my stomach and in my head', Mujaida said. 'He put me against the wall and let children hit me'...Despite the lack of prosecution witnesses, the three-judge panel appears ready to convict Cytryn. At one point, the judges sought to adjourn the trial until February, 2007, while Cytryn remains in jail. 'How long has he served?' presiding Judge Ruth Avidah asked Judge Chana Slutky. 'Three months', Slutky replied. 'This time will be deducted [from the sentence]', Avidah said'". [Editor's note: Click here for pictures showing a photographer staging Mujaida's supposed injury. The blog-ed is called "Photographic Evidence That "Lynching" Was Staged By Media" and it appeared July 4, 2005.]Contact Mrs Rodan at editor@israeljustice.com |
|
"NEW" PLAN FAILED BEFORE; SAUDI NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT; FALSE ISRAELI ETHICS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 6, 2006. |
|
HOW TO STOP GAZA TERRORISM The IDF wants to re-take Gaza and search for weapons and terrorists house-to-house, regain control over the border, and perhaps flood the arms-smuggling tunnels. PM Olmert insists they restrict themselves to the same means that reduces but doesn't prevent terrorist acts or terrorists from building up their armaments so that they can wage war against Israel soon (IMRA, 11/16). Having given peace a chance, Min. Lieberman suggests liquidating the terrorist leadership, voiding Oslo, and abandoning the Road Map. He would rely on Jordan as interlocutor. He did not discuss the imprudence of relying upon that Palestinian Arab state, that might be taken over by Islamists (IMRA, 11/18). ARABS FOR ISRAEL Some people claim to be Muslim Arabs who support Israel, its right to Jerusalem, and the diversity that it brings to the Mideast. They respect other religions, freedom of religion within a religion, peace instead of war, democracy for the western Palestinian Arabs, media objectivity instead of incitement. They set up a website (IMRA, 11/18). Well put. I hope this group is genuine. Would it urge the Arabs to quite Yesha & Israel? ISRAELI MINISTER PROPOSES Min. Ezra proposed a "new" tactic, that Israel not respond to P.A. rocket fire for 10 days. He claimed that everything else had been tried, so why not that. He did not say what had been tried. He did not advise Israelis what to do during the 10-day free hunting season he would offer the Arabs (IMRA, 11/18). Since many recommendations by the IDF and by the right-wingers have not been tried, Min. Ezra obviously is incorrect in asserting that all other means have been tried. Unilateral ceasefires like his have been tried before, and failed. Why suppose it might accomplish something this time? What that might be, he did not say. When Israel does such things, the Arabs take unfair advantage. Besides, the Arabs see such policies of weakness as stemming from weakness, and fight harder. They don't understand mercy or peace-making. They are more fanatical than ever, and are preparing for heavier war. Min. Ezra would wait for the war to strike, rather than destroy the P.A. war machine before it can do much damage. Is that wise? NATO IN AFGHANISTAN NATO now has 40,000 troops there. It is not enough. The Taliban can finance its expansion from sales to Western drug addicts, who spend more than NATO does on that country. NATO has no plan. Some of the NATO allies limit what their troops will do. That makes it difficult for commanders to fully utilize the troops (IMRA, 11/18). ISRAEL CHANGES TACTICS? The Sunday Times of London reported that PM Olmert has approved liquidation of Hamas' leadership (IMRA, 11/18). Why not execute most terrorist prisoners? ISRAEL SUSPENDS BOMBING Attempting to be humane, Israel warned the inhabitants of a house to evacuate before it would be bomb for having been used for weapons storage. The owner was a terrorist commander who used the brief warning time to round up hundreds of neighbors to surround his house. The IDF suspended the bombing (IMRA, 11/18). Those hundreds of neighbors, in effect, joined the P.A. war effort. Israel should have bombed them. Of course, the world is not ready for that, justified as it would be. It is ready only for unjustified terrorism against Israelis. The policy of pre-notification, which lets terrorists remove their weapons from storage and preserve themselves, never was sensible. It now is untenable. SECURITY FENCE OF SOME EFFECT Islamic Jihad specializes in suicide bombings. Its leader admits that the partially completed Israeli security fence prevents his group from committing much terrorism (IMRA, 11/18). After all his organization's effort in preparing for suicide bombings, that fence must be frustrating. Poor man. It hands terrorist leadership over to groups using rockets. How inconsiderate of Israel! No wonder anti-Zionists oppose that fence! THE ANSWER IN IRAQ? The central government of Iraq not only shields murderous militias from US action, it squanders billions of dollars. Barry Rubin suggests that US troops, who know the region, be assigned to provide accountable funds for local projects to be run locally, so as to build democracy from the ground up (MEF News, 11/17). His description of the US troops, earnestly helping local people, makes me proud. UNO TO INVESTIGATE ISRAEL, AGAIN The UN Human Rights Council was revised five months ago. It has dealt with no other countries but Israel, about which it already held three emergency sessions. An Israeli artillery shell went astray, so the Human Rights Council called the third emergency session. The UNO probably will run two investigations of Israel, one to be chaired by ex-Pres. Carter by popular Council demand (because he is known to be anti-Zionist and pro-dictator). A draft Council resolution proposes international protection for civilians. An Israeli envoy observed that the UNO deals with Israeli retaliation, but ignores the cause, Islamic terrorism (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 11/16, p. 8). Islamic terrorism is the big threat to civilians, including the Arabs whom it uses as human shields. ARABS FEEL THREATENED BY IRAN Kuwait is discussing making the Gulf Cooperation Council (only Arab states are members) capable of defending its members from an Iranian attempt to seize their oil fields (IMRA, 11/19). Last attempt at seizing Kuwait and Saudi oil fields was by an Arab state, Iraq. IS WESTERN SOCIETY FREE? The London Guardian sponsored a festival in which a five-member panel discussed for an audience of journalists possible limits to free speech. A Muslim panelist admitted that if anyone offended his religion, he would hit him. A Jew replied that his people had learned, as a minority under Christianity and Islam, how to take offense non-violently. He gave examples of offenses in the ruling group's scriptures. First, an antisemitic passage in the Christian Testament. Nobody there was bothered by the example. Then he cited Koranic denigration of Jews as monkeys and pigs. The panelists objected vehemently to that. One, a journalist, covered the microphone and said she was not going to sit there and listen to criticism of Muslims. The audience cheered her. Nobody objected to her interference with free speech, which speech was about Islamic bigotry (Harold Evans, NY Sun, 11/16). She avoids reality. What a double standard: Muslims may hit, but Jews may not explain their religious motivation for violence against non-Muslims. That's freedom? SYRIAN DEMAND The US is asking Syrian help in dealing with Iraq. Syria is demanding, in return, US help in getting the Golan from Israel (IMRA, 11/19). This is fishy. Syria is part of the Iranian axis working to defeat both the US and Israel. Asking it for help doesn't make sense. It should be smashed. That would make sense. But the US no longer has the courage to use force or the sense to use it wisely. If the US helps Syria get the Golan, it would be a victory for jihad, the same jihad that targets the US. That victory, not poverty, would recruit more terrorists against the US. But it also would accomplish a goal of the anti-Zionist State Dept., unjust as that is. Syria would pretend to desist from helping the insurgency in Iraq or would give temporary help, only until it got the Golan. Then it would stop complying. SAUDI NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT S. Arabia reports having conducted research into civilian use of nuclear energy. It denies wanting nuclear weapons (IMRA, 11/19). Oh no, not S. Arabia, desert of science research, hater of Israel, and worrier about Iranian nuclear development. A NEW BEILIN PLAN Still working behind the scenes, Yossi Beilin is developing a new appeasement plan he claims would bring peace. He suggests that international forces collect P.A. arms, as part of an arrangement ending with P.A. statehood. He cited Lebanon as an example. The interviewer did not advise Beilin that international forces ignored Hizbullah fortification alongside them. His example refutes his case (IMRA, 11/19). Neither did the interviewer ask Beilin why anyone should take advice from him, considering the colossal failure of his Oslo plan. International forces either are not determined to succeed or are determined to side against Israel. One wonders when the media and the public, not to mention public figures, will stop suggesting international forces as a solution rather than as a problem. IMRA often asks questions that TV interviewers should but don't ask. ISRAEL DELUDES ITSELF The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel told an audience that an international coalition is forming against Iranian development of nuclear weapons. The Ministers chose to believe the coalition's statement that it opposes such development. Actually, the coalition doesn't wish to do much. Its proposed sanctions would not deter Iran. The US has lost the political will to take appropriate action. Blair and Baker are recommending or about to recommend abandoning Israel. Perhaps they think this will get the Muslims to leave them alone. Iran suggested that (but lied). Israeli leaders have lost their nerve, too. They are ready to withdraw from Judea-Samaria to help the peace process (IMRA, 11/18 from Caroline Glick). Haven't they noticed? It's a war process. How can Israel survive the war, when led by such deluded and unrealistic people? FALSE ISRAELI ETHICS A rabbi commented about the IDF rescinding an order to bomb the house of a terrorist whom it had warned to evacuate but who got civilians to form a human shield around the house. He said those civilians were not innocent, anymore. Among the Arabs, what are called civilians assist the military. The result is not ethical but unethical. The result is to protect Arab terrorists and to fail to protect Israeli civilians. Israel should not have warned the terrorist to evacuate (Arutz-7, 11/19). The Muslims counted on the Jewish decency they deny and they lack. This is a very unfair, antisemitic world. Israel must develop more moral (Jewishly moral), economic, military, and public relations strength. It must protect itself. 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. |
|
WAKE UP, FELLOW-AMERICANS!
Posted by Ruth Matar, December 6, 2006. |
|
Dear Friends, I have a worrisome sensation in my gut, a bad feeling of deja vu. In plain English that means "been there, done that." On March 12, 1938, Hitler pressured his native Austria into unification with Germany. I was a nine-year-old Jewish child living with my family in Wr. Neustadt, when the Nazis took over Austria. My feelings today, as an elderly woman, are the same as when I was a nine-year-old child -feelings of helplessness and of impending doom. Hitler had been in power in adjoining Germany since 1933. Most people soon realized Hitler's hatred of the Jews, especially after reading his book MEIN KAMPF. However, very few people realized the extent of his psychopathic hatred of the Jews. On the day when Hitler took control of Austria, I overheard my parents' whispered conversationnot meant for the ears of a nine-year-old"This is the end of everything, we must get out of here at all cost, or it will be the end of us." Through a series of actual miracles we escaped the fate of six million other Jews. My parents managed to find places for my brother, my sister and myself on a Kinder Transport to Sweden. After we arrived safely in Sweden, my parents escaped "illegally" over the Italian border. Miraculously, we were all united in the United States three years after the war ended. As a seventeen-year-old, I was proud to become a citizen of the United States. Because of my childhood experiences, I have had an almost irrational feeling of owing a debt because my parents and siblings were saved. The rest of my family were exterminated. By profession I am a designer and craftsman of Judaica and jewelry in Israel. One might ask why did I abandon this work which I love? Very simple! I felt I had to do this in order to protect the future of all Jewish children. That is why the name of our organization is Women for Israel's Tomorrow. Part of my present fulltime work as Co-Leader of Women in Green stems from my determination not to let our children experience what the Jews went through at the time of Hitler and the Nazis. Are President Ahmadinejad of Iran and his Jihadists less dangerous than Hitler and his Nazi followers? I think they are even more dangerous! As passionate as the Germans were in their hatred of Jews, it is a step further in fanaticism to be willing to blow oneself up in order to kill Jews! President Ahmadinejad has even said that he is willing to lose half of his own country in order to wipe Israel off the map. In this connection, please do not forget that Israel is considered by the Arabs to be only the "Little Satan". The final plan is to destroy the "Great Satan", America. Be honest with yourselves, fellow Americans! Aren't you getting a mite uncomfortable, or even alarmed, about the subtle encroachment of Islam throughout the United States? Something that has alarmed me personally is the controversy surrounding America's first Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota. This controversy was, no doubt, generated by Keith Ellison himself. Was his widely publicized statement that he intended to be sworn in as a Congressman with his hand on the Koran just a publicity stunt? As a lawyer and a law-maker, he must have known that NO ONE takes the oath of office in Congress with their hand on ANY religious book! Another matter of concern about Ellison. Ellison was at the conference of the North American Imams' Federation, which the Imams were in Minneapolis to attend. Six Muslim Imams were kicked off the US Airways flight in Minneapolis because they acted suspiciously. After this airport incident, Ellison called for a meeting with executives of US Airways and the Metropolitan Airport Commission to discuss the Imams' unjust removal. He threatened to bring other legislators and other community members to the meeting. For more details, I am including in its entirety Joseph Farah's article "Imams and Apple Pie" which appeared in www.WorldNetDaily.com December 2, 2006. |
|
Can you believe the six imams kicked off the US Airways flight in Minneapolis are threatening to sue? Can you believe they're walking around free rather than being held and investigated for "probing" on behalf of terrorists? Can you believe most of the media coverage of this incident focuses on possible civil rights violations and inappropriate religious "profiling"? Let's review the facts of the case: Several passengers on the flight complained to the crew about excessively loud "praying" by the Muslim "holy men." They complained that they were moving around the plane. An air marshal characterized their behavior as a "[political correctness] probe." Even before they boarded the flight, passengers and the flight crew reported the imams prayed loudly, then, once boarding began playing musical chairs -- switching from their assigned seats in a configuration used by terrorists in previous incidents. Two even moved to the front of first class, while two others moved toward the middle of the plane and the last two moved toward the back -- effectively giving them control of exits. They asked for seat-belt extensions, which could conceivably be used as weapons, and then threw them under their seats rather than use them. Both before boarding and after, they made a spectacle of themselves chanting about "Allah and the United States." What would you do if you were on that flight? What would you do if you were part of the crew? What would you do if you were the air marshal? Apparently, what you would be expected to do by second-guessers not actually on the flight would be to smile and think pleasant thoughts about multiculturalism and pluralism. We're supposed to believe that this wasn't planned? We're supposed to believe these guys didn't know what they were doing? We're supposed to believe that this wasn't a deliberate effort to test the boundaries of tolerance? These imams are now on a national publicity tour trying to persuade us that they are as American as apple pie -- that they did nothing wrong or even suspicious. Don't buy it. And if these imams are permitted to win a lawsuit against US Airways, say goodbye to airline security in America. Five years after Sept. 11, 2001, political correctness appears to be a more powerful force in our country than the safety and security of American citizens. It's really quite unbelievable. It's quite clear that these six imams have an agenda beyond acceptance of their religion by Americans. Most Americans don't pre-judge Muslims as terrorists. But when they act like terrorists, when they don't act like good Americans, when they clearly test our tolerance, when they "probe" our defenses, then Americans have the right and duty to treat them with the utmost suspicion. What do you think would happen to you if you acted this way on a flight? It seems like these activists don't really want to be treated equally, they want to be treated in a special way -- with more deference, with more understanding. I don't like traveling any more in this country. I don't like it because of the extra security that is in place -- much of it by necessity -- because of what happened Sept. 11. I minimize my travels because of the inconvenience and hassle. But we're at war. And the hassles are a small price to pay to ensure we save American lives and emerge from this war victorious some day. Americans must not succumb to the temptation to be "politically correct" by overlooking suspicious behavior. That would be a grave -- if not fatal -- tactical error in this war. 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 |
|
US DEFENSE SECRETARY-DESIGNATE GATES PUTS WRITING ON THE WALL FOR ISRAEL
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, December 5, 2006. |
|
Do the Israelis need another "roadmap" to realize their only option? Redacted from an article by Yitzhak Bighorn, in today's YnetNews.com. |
|
WASHINGTON -- US Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates provided Tuesday a gloomy prediction regarding the future of the Middle East. During his testimony at his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing to replace Donald H. Rumsfeld, Gates was asked about Iran's nuclear program and President Ahamdinejad's threats to wipe Israel off the map. Gates replied that the Iranian president's threats were serious, but that there were greater forces in Iran than Ahmadinejad who are interested in nuclear ability as a power of deterrence against nuclear countries surrounding them -- Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel in the west and the United States in the Persian Gulf. The senators asked Gates whether he could guarantee that if Iran possesses nuclear weapons it would not put its threats against Israel into action. Gates answered that he did not believe anyone could guarantee such a thing. During the hearing, however, Gates stated that he would not recommend to the president to attack Iran, but only as an "absolute last resort" and if crucial American interests (not Israeli -- jsk) were being threatened. He estimated that an American military operation against Iran could lead to chemical and biological terror attacks. "I think that we have seen, in Iraq, that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable," he said, adding that the consequences of a military confrontation with Iran could be dramatic. He added that while Iran cannot directly attack the Americans, it had the ability to close the Persian Gulf for oil exports, to launch a terror campaign in the Middle East and Europe and even in the US. It's realistic, he said. An American attack in Iran, Gates said, would not help the US in Iraq but would rather damage its interests there. (As James Baker III's imprimatur, "F--- the Jews," is displayed all over the new "diplomacy" -- Jsk) The Iranians, he said, could supply terror groups with weapons for mass destruction, mainly chemical and biological. He added that Tehran also had the ability to operate Hezbollah and undermine the situation in Lebanon. As for Syria, Gates said a US attack on that country would unleash a wave of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. It would have "dramatic consequences for us in Middle East," Gates said. "It would give rise to greater anti Americanism than we have seen to date. It would immediately complicate our relations with every country in the region." Gates was chosen by US President George W. Bush to replace Donald Rumsfeld following the latter's resignation, and many in the US hope that he will be the person to bring American soldiers back from Iraq. He admitted that in the current situation, the US was not winning the war in Iraq, but made it clear that it was not fleeing Iraq and would withdraw in an organized manner after the Iraqi government and its security forces are able to control the situation and defend themselves. The developments in Iraq in the next two years will influence the future of the entire Middle East, he said, adding that a strategy must be developed which will not leave Iraq in chaos and will give the region hope. If Iraq is not stabilized in a year or two, the entire Middle East will be on fire, he said. He also estimated that even if there is a significant withdrawal of forces from Iraq in the future, American forces will remain in the country for many years to provide support for the Iraqi army. Comment from Joseph Silver, December 6, 2006 This new diplomacy via Baker/Gates bodes ill not just for Israel but for the US as well. It acknowledges and respects the resolve of the Muslims to the detriment of Israel. It recalls the diplomacy of Pres. Warren Harding after WWI(and after Woodrow Wilson's efforts to engage the world). It is a discredited diplomacy that simply says the US will pursue its "interests", i.e. business interests, and ignore justice, human rights and the fight for freedom over evil. However, a necessary side-effect is that Israel will have to free itself from US restraint if it is to survive. It can no longer seek green-lights from the US for its actions and policies --- it may have to pursue the fight for freedom over evil on its own. That is, pursue a division of Iraq into 3 states by promoting a free Kurdistan, pursue an attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities and promote a revolutionary secular democracy in Iran, promote the ascendancy of a Christian Lebanon, encourage the immigration into Israel of loyal Christian groups to increase its population, e.g. Mexicans and others, consolidate the historic lands of the Jewish people- including Golan, Judea, Samaria, Gaza District (not volatile Gaza City) south Lebanon to the Litani River. To survive in the new world-game, Israel must act like the true world power it is -- an economic force on the NASDAQ, a nuclear power, a submarine power, an air power, a military power, a technological power, etc. It is time for Israel to exert its manifest historic destiny with sheer power in order to stare down, intimidate and crush the Muslim bullies. As it takes the lead, the West will fall in line behind a bold Israel-- the light onto the nations. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
WISHFUL BUT LOGICAL THINKING
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, December 5, 2006. |
|
Let us assume for a brief moment that both Iran and Syria would simply disappear. As the epicenters for Global Terrorism close down, what would Muslim terrorists world-wide do for support, training, safe houses, funds, and weapons? Granted, they could unleash whatever is in their power locally, in whatever country allowed them to bed down. But, they would have unleashed that damage at some time on orders from Tehran and Damascus. As they say: "Better Now Than Later!" So, who is at risk from a nuclear capable Iran? Certainly every country in the Middle East -- including the oil fields -- including Israel. You do understand that a nuclear explosion over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia would lift enough sand particulates (now irradiated) to close those fields forever. The fires started would rage, unchecked, for years -- because men could not go in to put out the fires at the well-heads. I mention this because I feel reasonably certain that few nations would give a damn if Tel Aviv became ground zero for one large nuclear blast courtesy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but, the Saudi fields are another story, so let's be patient with Iran. (Right!) Iran, unlike North Korea, is driven by religious motives which not only accept a devastating nuclear response, actually look forward to martyrdom in the nuclear holocaust that destroys the Jewish State and the Jewish people. They would receive all the benefits and privileges bestowed upon them in Islamic Warrior's Heaven. There, what the Mullahs deny to them on earth would be granted in the shape of "72 virgins and rivers of honey" promised to those who die while killing "infidels" (non-Muslims) -- especially Jews. In brief, there are no negotiations possible -- except those which will give them the delayed time to complete their bomb(s). OPTIONS TO SOLUTIONS 1. Wait until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Ayatollahs have gathered in one auditorium for a religious festival or in memoriam for some successful attack on those they call "infidels" (any non-Muslims). Then, obliterate all with conventional or tactical nuclear weapons. 2. Immediately send in missiles, designed to produce EMP (Electro-Magnetic-Pulse). This surge of energy will fry every circuit, micro-processor from your watch to your computer, cars to airplanes through anything that is not shielded. 3. Immediately following that, using a mix of conventional and nuclear-tipped missiles to strike every known nuclear facility built in Iran. For those buried very deep and encased in concrete have repeated follow-on strikes at ground zero to dig (explode) its way down to the facility. Rapid strikes will also send harmonic vibrations (like vibrating earthquakes) destroying tunnels and bunkers with shock. 4. Destroy the infrastructure of power plants so it will take years for Iran to start up its civilization again. Take out its airfields, shipping (large and small) to include mining the harbors. Going back to #1. Inform all the Iranian Generals that they will be kept on in their lucrative and prestigious jobs -- providing there is no record of their having been involved in building or launching nuclear missiles. 6. The Political Echelon that has demonstrated that it does not seek to rule the world should be notified that they will receive all support necessary for civilian needs if they cooperate. There will be no need for American or Allied "boots-on-the-ground". All attacks will be done through missiles. While I personally would not give prior notice to the Russians to get their nuclear technicians out of Iran, others may think it wise to give them 24 hour notice. However, a strike on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs should come as a complete surprise -- with no notice -- allowing them to scatter and escape underground. WHAT ABOUT SYRIA? Syria has remained a trouble maker and a terrorist base for at least 12 different Muslim Terrorist organizations for over 50 years. Destroying their infrastructure, military capability would take them out of the terror out-reach business for quite awhile. Should they, however, use their large arsenal of chemical-tipped missiles, then like Iran, they should be obliterated with nuclear and conventional weapons. In this day and age of area-wide weapons, rogue nations cannot be allowed to thrive and build toward a capability where they can literally destroy whole cities at a single blow. There are no reliable assurances that negotiations can deliver. Nations like Iran and Syria have proven time and again that they are willing to lie, sign treaties with no intentions of keeping them. These are wildly rogue nations who can no longer claim to be in the humanitarian family of man. They are too dangerous for their neighbors or other nations globally to trust or tolerate. If civilization is to move forward in one whole piece or be destroyed, these rogue nations must be eliminated or, at the very least, reduced to a primitive status where they can no longer do any harm. This must be done now -- before they are both nuclear capable. Hopefully, President Bush will ignore the Baker connection to Syria and Iran which has thrived underground in Washington for years. Their interest is limited to cash flow and has little interest in containing rogue nations like Iran and Syria. Their advise is biased, self-serving and not to be trusted! 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 winstonmedia@comcast.net |
|
"PEACE NOW" FALLS APART
Posted by Daryl Temkin, December 5, 2006. |
|
The organization, Peace Now, which is sarcastically renamed, "Piece Now", has been devoted and beholden to the wishful concept of "land for peace". They have a firm belief that if Israel would only give away every parcel of land that has a possible Arab claim, the Arabs would become so satisfied that they would stop sending missiles and suicide bombers to destroy Israeli citizens and property. Peace Now is committed to the idea that Arabs only want Israeli land up to the 1949 borders and have no concern about all the pre-1948 towns and villages where some 700,000 Arabs once resided. Giving land for peace means Israel gives a tangible item, namely land, and the Arabs give an intangible promise or even a signed piece of paper which asserts the deterrence of their citizens from killing Jews and participating in further terrorist acts. At the drop of a hat, the "promise" can be broken by one or many terrorists, an intifada revolt, or even a military attack. And if a breach should happen, once Israel has given away the land, the only way to recover the land, which to Israel spells "security", is by a major war. That type of war would include an untold number of deaths as well as an avalanche of worldwide anti-Israel condemnation. Even though there is no balance of security in the Land for Peace equation, and Israel is only left holding the short end of the stick, this equation became so popular among law makers and intellectuals that even the average person began to chant the mantra "Land for Peace". In 1956, after conquering the sizable land mass, the Sinai Dessert Peninsula, Israel gave that land back to Egypt. In return, Israel received a "peace" which somewhat lasted until June of 1967 when once again Israel was required, for its future security, to retake the Sinai Peninsula. Five years later, Egypt's 1973 surprise attack to destroy Israel was not successful in part because the Sinai land mass protected Israel's citizens from an immediate invasion. Then in 1978, the famous Begin-Sadat handshake representing Israel's quest for peace resulted in Israel's again giving Egypt the Sinai Peninsula. Today, without this protective buffer, the world sees Egypt smuggling a steady stream of weapons to Gaza and now there are over 5,000 Egyptian troops stationed on Israel's southern border. Due to their receipt of America's multi-billion dollar generous foreign aid, Egypt has upgraded its military to such an extent that it has been recognized as one of the best if not the strongest Arab armies. The Egyptian army still is focused on a victorious attack upon Israel and has been able to use Gaza, the recent "land for peace" dream, as their weapons stockpile. Furthermore, the recently established 5,000 Egyptian soldiers stationed on the Gaza border has been justified to the world as being there to prevent Egyptian weapon smuggling and tunneling into Gaza. Strange that truck size weapons are still able to be driven right into Gaza! One would think that this is a comedy for the mindless. Israel offering the Sinai Peninsula for peace and more recently Gaza for peace has been one of the great overriding mistakes in Israel's diplomatic history. Its land return or land for peace diplomacy has always meant an empowerment to its enemies' ultimate goal, and has never and will likely never mean a peace agreement to be respected and upheld. But many Israelis with their Western outlook have lived by a belief that people will do what they say and sign. Only later, the opposite is discovered to show that the peace deals and ceasefires are typically not worth the paper they are written on. This is because, the West remains steadfast in its refusal to understand that the Arab/Islamic issue is not "land for peace" or even a desire to build an additional Arab state. Due to the refusal to understand the fundamental Arab/Islamic quest, Israeli and world politicians, along with academics continually return to the failed past results of dismal road maps and peace plans, expecting that this time, the results will be different. For some reason, it still is a surprise when the outcome is the same. The only outcome to the repetitive experiment is that more precious Israeli lives are sacrificed for no meaningful yet alone legitimate reason. So it is that Peace Now and the other similar styled organizations refuse to give up their passion for Israel's responsibility to return to the 1949 or even 1948 borders. History and facts on the ground are of little consequence because Peace Now has a fervent "religious" belief that Israel is responsible for all Arab Palestinian hatred and angst. In their opinion, Israel is this immoral and horrific occupier of "Palestinian" land. This is used as a justification of the Arab Palestinian need to blow up buses, restaurants, stores, cafes and discothèques, as well as to shoot thousands of indiscriminately targeted missiles specifically meant to land in Israeli populated neighborhoods. Peace Now is gravely challenged by the fact that it was in 1964 when the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, was established -- years before there were any "occupied" territories. It's a very big problem for Peace Now to explain the intensions of the PLO/Fatah in 1964 as they crowned Egyptian born Yassir Arafat as the model "Palestinian". To make more effective rhetoric, Arafat's birthplace was changed to Ramallah. After all, what difference does it make where a "national liberator" and the "Father of the Palestinians" is actually born? Peace Now is further diminished as they try to claim that the Palestinians recognized the State of Israel as a result of the Oslo Agreement which was somewhat short lived. It's a problem for Peace Now's vision that the PLO charter which repeatedly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel has never been revised from its 42 year old original. Peace Now is somewhat cornered into saying that in 1964, if the PLO really wanted their own state, they would have attacked Jordan which controlled the West Bank, and they would be interested in attacking Egypt which controlled the Gaza Strip. Due to this absurdity, and the reality that the PLO was only looking to attack and destroy Israel, this topic is stringently avoided. Israel's 1967 glorious victory became Peace Now's day of darkness. For Peace Now, Israel had become an immoral occupier, and it was their task to right the wrongs of the victorious Israeli Defense Force. The August 2005 Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a remarkable event for Peace Now's glory. Finally, in their mind, Israel was taking the right moral action and peace would begin to fill the world. The actual results of that thinking were "slightly" different unless one considers sixteen months of almost daily rocket firings a definition of peace and honest recognition. Again, results are not important; it's the moral vision that counts, so after the devastating aftermath of the Gaza withdrawal, Peace Now needed the speedy Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. The glitch of over 1,000 deadly rockets being launched upon Israel from the "non occupied" Gaza made no difference to Peace Now because "Jewish" morality was being served and protected. But then came glitch number two: Hezbollah shooting some 4,000 rockets and missiles into Israel's northern cities including Haifa, Safed, Naharia, and even threatening Tel Aviv. The disgrace and abhorrence of the Hezbollah aggression forced the Israeli government to table its West Bank withdrawal plan. Israelis were now more aware that if they want to remain alive, there was little sense in giving the militarized Hamas control of the West Bank highlands overlooking Tel Aviv and its surrounding population centers. Peace loving Israelis began to realize that the Arab leaders who have been telling the world that they intend to destroy Israel actually plan to fulfill their stated dreams. Disturbed by this sway in the Israeli public opinion away from West Bank withdrawal, Peace Now needed a way to get the issue back on the table. Last week, Peace Now issued a "secret source" report claiming that up to 40% of the Jewish towns and cities built in the West Bank are illegally built upon private Palestinian owned land. Past president, Jimmy Carter picked this up and publicized the claim on multiple nationwide television interviews. It's somewhat interesting that it took 35-40 years for such a "secret report" to be revealed, just at the time when immediate West Bank withdrawal has been determined to be out of the question. Peace Now, claiming to be concerned about Israel losing its moral backbone which to them cannot exist if there are Jews living in the West Bank, has ventured far out on a very flimsy limb with this disclosure. Within hours, a shower of alarming questions fell upon the Peace Now report shredding its claims with a lengthy list of factual errors. It reveals that the "secret report" lacks credible sources, skips legal land definitions, doesn't produce land deeds from the Ottoman Empire, British Empire or from Jordanian rule, and, in addition, the report indicates that Jewish purchased land with valid existing land deeds, still is counted as Arab lands. Like Holocaust denial, this land denial serves one main purpose, to try to show that 270,000 -- 450,000 Jews have no right to their homes and their land which leads to the bottom line Arab claim that Israel's 5.8 million Jews also have no existential legitimacy. Furthermore, it plays into the anti-Israel propaganda claiming that the Jews stole the land. (This is exactly what biblical scholars know as being the opening concern of Rashi's commentary). If the suspect Peace Now claim was credible, the immediate Peace Now moral correction would be a total Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 borders. Peace Now presents no security concerns or security plans for Israel's protection from its sworn and highly militarized enemies. Peace Now fails miserably by not even expressing a concern for placing the entire Jewish nation at mortal risk. Peace Now's only concern appears to be extricating themselves from a self imposed moral disease which bloodies their hands and soul as well as it destroys their moral fiber. One can say that the pieces of Peace Now are now falling apart at the seams. Publishing and publicizing what appears to be a fabricated and anonymously written report will not improve the moral fiber of a country but will only call into question all future attempts for Peace Now to achieve integrity. As the story unfolds, it appears that Peace Now has been caught in an outright deception in their continued attempt to create a national hysteria, nation embarrassment and indignation, as well as national shame. Furthermore, Peace Now, discovered to be mainly financed by anti-Israel European governments, actively works to give the terrorist enemies of Israel legitimate reasons to inflame and fuel their anti-Israel anger. They enjoy feeding reports of any new Israeli land developments to the proper Palestinian factions all of which control Gazan missile launching sites. Being professional "tattletales", Peace Now feels that they are proudly acting as "moral" agents who just happen to also publish fabricated and highly deceptive reports. How many Israelis are now dead, wounded or maimed for life because of Peace Now's moral agenda? It is often apparent that Peace Now cares less about dead Israelis and more about promoting their pseudo-morality even if its outcome risks destroying the Jewish State. Peace Now followers live with their own "ardent" religious belief that it is better to be a dead Jew than to live with any type of a moral angst. In the case of Israeli West Bank towns, there will be a thorough published report with revealed sources documenting legal land deeds which will likely leave one with no valid "grounds" for moral angst. We would all like "peace" to come "now". But, we want a peace to be a peace that contains wholeness and not a peace that threatens to leave the world in pieces. Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews throughout the world. He can be reached at: DT@Israel-Institute.com. |
|
A DROUGHT OF LEADERSHIP
Posted by Batya Medad, December 5, 2006. |
|
What do we get from the United States? What is this aid? And what are the conditions? A high percentage are loans, and of the "aid" most must be spent in the United States. Roughly 26 percent of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. From FY1988 to FY 1990, Israel was allowed to use $400 million in Israel. From FY1991 to FY1998, the amount was increased to $475 million. As U.S. military aid to Israel increased, according to the agreement to cut economic aid, the amount set aside for defense purchases in Israel has increased (but the percentage has remained roughly the same). In FY2004, the figure was $568 million. The remaining 74 percent of FMF was spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program. This strengthens the Unites States economy, weakens Israel's military industries and gives the US the tools to control Israel. When Israel buys from American defense industries and improves on the weapon, America profits, not Israel. Israel is totally restricted in marketing any product with American components. The United States has vetoed deals which would have been good for Israel. In a sign of lingering bilateral tension over Israeli defense trade controls, the U.S. government has imposed a media blackout on an event Israeli planners had hoped would showcase fruits of a yearlong, interministerial effort to revamp the nation's export licensing system. This makes Israel even more dependent on America. The United States understands that its policies should promote the United States. Israel must learn the lesson that Israel must do what's best for Israel, and that is to become totally independent. That includes financial independence! We must take responsibility for ourselves. We have the potential. We just aren't using it. At present, even after the wettest October on record, November was one of the driest. The rain comes from G-d, in response to our behavior, so it's clear that, as a Nation, we are sinning. The Ministry of Education is ordering the new textbooks to wipe out our 1967 victory over Arab aggression and reimpose the old "green line." Israel was once a country that ordered its army to risk everything to bring every soldier home, alive or dead. This has changed. The Prime Minister told a group of 11th graders at the Amal High School in Nahariya on Monday that he decided during the second Lebanon War this summer to agree to a ceasefire to avoid risking the lives of more soldiers. Olmert's tired, no? So let's grant his wish and send him out to pasture!
Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com |
|
MUTUALLY ASSURED ... AND IMMEDIATE
Posted by Zalmi, December 5, 2006. |
|
The message being sent by Israeli leaders to the West these days goes something like this: If you fail to stop Iran, understand that its threat to Israel now will surely be followed by similar intentions towards the rest of the free world. This is like saying: if I catch Ebola today, you will get it tomorrow. The other guy says: Okay, I have time. Firstly you haven't caught it yet. But if you do, I will have at least a day to get as far away from you as I can. It's the wrong message. Now that Bush has decided to abandon the Iraqis to mass slaughter and to allow Iran to go nuclear without the threat of any military intervention, Israel's message needs changing. Contact Zalmi at www.Zalmi.net |
|
ISRAELI-ARABS DEMAND NATIONAL RECOGNITION
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 5, 2006. |
|
Now they have the courage to lift heads inland too! It will never stop until either all Israelis are dead or all Arabs are dead. This is how Hezbollah built its niche in Christian Lebanon...the Palestinians victimhood and their suffering is the only thing that exists, all blamed on Israel. A while longer and they will ship all Israelis to detention camps in Cyprus. Now more than ever Avigdor's Liberman proposal that every Arab living in Israel must pledge the allegiance to Israel and its flag is a must, and if not leave the country! The Chutzpah they have! This article was written by Hillel Fendel. It appeared in today's Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com). Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Israel National News. |
|
The Israeli-Arab sector insists on recognition as a "national minority," including the right to return to places they quit 58 years ago, changes to the flag and anthem, immigration quotas, and more. w The Israeli-Arab Mossawa organization, billed as the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel, released a position paper report to this effect on Friday. Mossawa explains that in addition to equal rights to which every citizen is entitled by virtue of his citizenship, the Arab minority also demands "group-differentiated rights." The organization lists ten such rights that it insists Israel must grant. Among them are the following, as listed and explained by Mossawa:
Israeli-Arabs claim that hundreds of destroyed villages, in various parts of the country, as theirs. Many of the villages were hostile locations serving the Arab enemy during the War of Independence, and the land on which some of them stood has since become Jewish-populated, such as in Ashkelon and Be'er Sheva. The Meggido Prison, for instance, is built atop what was once Al-Lajun, and the north Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Aviv stands on what was once called Sheikh Munis. Though the return to these villages is unrealistic, it is felt that persisting in raising this demand can only help the nationalist Arab cause in Israel. One of the participants at the official presentation of the paper, Dr. Raef Zreik, said that it does not go far enough. He said that the Israeli-Arabs can officially recognize the right of the Jews to a state only as part of an "overall peace agreement with the Palestinian people." In the news this week are vandalism and destruction wrought upon a Talmud Torah (Jewish religious school) by Arabs in the city of Acco, an initiative to increase Arab rights in the city of Ramle, and an attempted murder of a Jewish cow-farmer by Arabs in the Jezreel Valley, not far from Afula. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ISRAELI-ARABS SHOOT COW-FARMER FOR HIS LAND
Posted by Hillel Fendel, December 5, 2006. |
|
This appeared in today's Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com). |
|
The desire to graze his cows in pre-1967 Israel, not far from several Arab villages, almost cost Amir Engel his life -- at the hands of Arabs who wanted him out. The story was reported on Arutz-7's INN Hebrew-language internet television channel, where a short video clip of the story can be viewed. In 1991, Amir Engel, a resident of one of the farming communities in the Jezreel Valley, leased and registered land nearby for the purpose of grazing his cows. Well aware that he was the only Jewish cow-farmer in an area populated by seven Arab villages, Engel refused to give in. "We were constantly harassed by Arabs," he said, "with violence, threats, damage to our property, and more. No one could control them." A year and a half ago, the damage was particularly grave. "They came with tractors, tore down posts, and uprooted the whole fence," Engel said. "We found ourselves in a real war." The Arabs threatened that if he did not leave, they would kill him. Two months ago, they tried. Engel recounts what happened on October 6 of this year: "I arrived in old Ein Dor [between Afula and Kfar Tavor] and made my usual patrol around the cows with my jeep. I heard someone call my name, so I turned around with the jeep. I saw standing in front of the jeep two Arabs, who said that they had lost a red horse that was seen on my property. I told them not to worry, to give me their phone numbers, and if I saw a red horse, I would let them know." "But while I was talking to them, I felt someone try to open the door. He stuck his hand in, turned the ignition off and took the keys out. Then I realized that I was in a battle. He pulled out a large stick and tried to smash it into my face; I grabbed it, but then I felt something happening to my right. I looked and saw the other Arab pull out a gun. He said nothing, just shot me -- in my leg and hand. But I bent down, he couldn't shoot any more and they ran away." Engel was seriously hurt, but escaped with his life. He today limps around on crutches, while his wife and sons continue to graze the cattle. "I remember that it occurred on the eve of Sukkot," his wife Rochelle says, "and it was the first year that I did not sit in a Sukkah -- because I spent the holiday in the hospital with Amir... But this is not our personal problem. It's a problem of lands throughout the State of Israel. Someone had better open his eyes, because it's a serious issue. These guys [Arabs] think that with violence, they will get our land." Amir himself says, "The conflict between Jews and Arabs did not end in 1948. It's always here -- sometimes it's more moderate and sometimes it explodes. The Arabs have not given up their goal of wiping out their defeat of 1948 and of wiping Israel off the map. Ever since Oslo [the Oslo Accords of 1993], they see us as a weak foe, one that is willing to give up everything for two days of quiet -- and since then, their brazenness and desire to take the land has grown tremendously." Asked how she and her family deal with this threat on their own, Rochelle later told Arutz-7, "We're only partially alone. Our neighbors try to help us with some of the damages that were caused -- I'm talking about many kilometers of torn-down and cut fences and the like -- and fields that the Arabs burn every summer... "But as far as the police go, I can't deny that regarding this murder attempt, they are finally investigating seriously. They caught some suspects from the village of Tamra nearby, and it looks like they are in the right direction. For years, I would submit complaints to the police here, and I got to know the clerk pretty well; I would always tell her that no one is taking this seriously, and it will end up in a bad way. Today she told me how right I was..." The Engels can be emailed at "benik@en-harod.org". Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Israel National News. |
|
EFFECT OF ISRAELI THREATS; JEWISH CONSPIRACY WENT TOO FAR; WHAT'S GOING ON IN LEBANON
Posted by Richard H. Shulman. |
|
KEEPING US ON OUR TOES The Discovery Channel aired a program about contemporary Iran. I saw only parts of it. The interviewer accepted a lot of Iranian propaganda and illogic without explaining what is wrong with it. That ill serves the US, whose people are not familiar with the subject. Unguided, they would not know the facts and arguments to refute the Iranians. Like the Arabs, the Iranians argue by means of analogies that mislead because they are half-truths. For example, one suggested that since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran. (Iran denies that it is building them, but likes to have it both ways.) The analogy misses the points that Iran had signed agreements not to develop nuclear power and Iran threatens to devastate enemies. Pakistan did neither, and surprised us. Pakistan also is supposed to be an ally of the US against terrorism, which Iran fosters. On the other hand, Pakistan also aids terrorism. Another analogy is that what Iran is doing to the US repays it for what it did to Iran. The US overthrew the Shah's elected predecessor, but Iran is seeking to take over the world and repress it. Those are not equivalents. In that earlier era, the US kept Iran from turning Communist (11/19, 9 p.m.), so what we did to them was spare them purges. The TV program alerted us to our own double standards and ethnocentrism. EFFECT OF ISRAELI THREATS Arab provocations are diabolical -- bombing civilians with nails to tear more flesh -- and Israel's means for retaliation, its actual pursuit of terrorists is mild -- striving more to minimize civilian casualties than to inflict military ones. With words, however, Israeli officials are lambasting the Muslim Arabs. The officials threaten to exact a heavy price, massive retaliation, "in a time of our choosing," and many variations on that theme. Whom is this rhetoric meant to impress, and whom does it impress? Judge this knowing that the rhetoric is not followed by commensurate action. It isn't. Dozens of threats are issued before Israel acts. There is little connection between Arab aggression and Israel threat, and Israeli counter-attack. The effect it has on the Arabs is to impress upon them how seldom Israel's threats are fulfilled. They discount the threats, and become emboldened. I think the rhetoric is aimed at Israeli voters, but surely it has been issued too often to be taken seriously. Israeli towns that keep getting bombarded want results, not threats. An intelligent Israeli should denounce the threats as a boast meant to placate public opinion without providing the security that the public wants. As for foreign public opinion, which is misinformed about the issues, and has been told that Israel aims at civilians, the effect probably is to reinforce the impression that Israel is cruel to the Arabs. It is a significant commentary on the unfairness of the media, the incompetence of Israeli public relations, and the world's media-nurtured anti-Zionism that does not realize how cruel are the Muslim Arabs. The Israeli bombast is counter-productive. JEWISH CONSPIRACY WENT TOO FAR Internet writer Salah Jafar alerted us to the fact that Arafat and his wife secretly were Jewish. Now he tells us! I have hotter information, about the President of Iran. He is Jewish, too. He implies that the nuclear development he is pursuing contrary to signed agreements is for peaceful means but that with those peaceful means he would annihilate Israel. Based on that threat, the Iranians let him proceed. But when the bombs get built, he would launch them against Pakistan, Egypt, and Syria, intending to make Israel perpetually safe. I learned this at one of the secret Zionist coordination meetings about ruling the world. As one of the conspirators, I usually keep such news confidential. I reveal it this time, because such a large nuclear strike would set off a nuclear winter and destroy Israel as well as much of the rest of the world. It is not controllable. My fellow Jews' lust for blood overcame their senses. I leave it up to you Muslims to "take care" of that hothead in Iran. $12 BILLION FENCE FOR S. ARABIA The lengthy, proposed fence would bar terrorists and other smuggling (IMRA, 11/15). S. Arabia has resolved all territorial differences with its neighbors (IMRA, 11/15). The problem with that fence is the same as the one with Israel's. It may or may not keep terrorists out, but both countries have Muslim Arabs within. But the new fence could help to keep Iranian infiltrators out. World peace would be advanced if more countries resolved territorial claims. The Arab-Israel conflict is not a territorial dispute but an Islamic drive for hegemony. WHAT IS GOING ON IN LEBANON? The IDF spotted Hizbullah men back at the border. They wear civilian clothes and live there. The IDF observes them conducting surveillance of Israeli forces. UNIFIL denies this. It claims that the real problem is IDF overflights, which demonstrate weakness by UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army. This, in turn, motivates recruitment for Hizbullah. Israel explains its overflights as necessary to monitor arms smuggling from Syria to Lebanon, so long as UNIFIL does not guard that border. Likewise, UNIFIL claims that Israeli troops still occupy the Lebanese side of a border-straddling town that Hizbullah used to infiltrate into Israel (IMRA, 11/15). Why would Israel make this up, when it shows that Israel did not win the war? UNIFIL advances the old argument that resistance to jihad strengthens it. Must one forfeit self-defense against fanatics, lest it bestir the fanatics? Ridiculous! Neither does it matter what reputation for weakness the Lebanese Army gets, since it is an ally of Hizbullah. The notion that it would check Hizbullah is a pretense. On the other hand, demonstrating the weakness of UNIFIL does embolden Hizbullah. But UNIFIL also is a phony check on Hizbullah. I think that Israel should puncture the illusions about that. It should mock UNIFIL's intentions by pointing out its failure to guard the border with Syria and to occupy the Lebanese side of the border town. Until UNIFIL takes up proper positions with intent to fulfill its purpose, it should accept Israeli help, not pretend to neutrality between the aggressors, whom it favors, and Israel. Israel would be wise to disillusion the world, lest more phony solutions be proposed that harm Israel. The world should learn that the UNO is useless about security. It is an excuse for not tackling grave issues. REALISM FROM RICE PM Blair suggested that resolving the conflict between Israel and the P.A. would help stabilize Iraq. Sec. Rice denied that. She also observed there is no indication that Iran would contribute to stability and that Syria is associating with extremists. Therefore, there is no point to negotiating with them (IMRA, 11/15). Blair is just using an excuse to appease the Arabs. The Arab world, not just the P.A., opposes Jewish statehood. ILLEGAL ARAB SETTLEMENTS Arabs are building illegal outposts and settlements outside Israel's security fence in Judea-Samaria. They are anticipating that land becoming annexed to Israel and themselves gaining the security of Israeli citizenship. Some MKs object to leaving swaths of vacant land alongside Jewish towns, that Arabs will come and build on, presenting a security problem to those towns (IMRA, 11/15). Legal residency by enemy citizens is problem enough. Illegal settlement by enemy aliens should be treated as seriously as invasion, and eradicated. IRAN & SYRIA ENHANCE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS The two countries are planning to make their military forcers "inter-operable." (IMRA, 11/15). The Iranian Revolutionary Guards claims that Iran can disrupt US satellite systems, in war. It also claims that it has cluster bombs that could explode over a US aircraft carrier and destroy it. It is pleased that enemies have observed its missile launchings and realize its power. It asserts that this power is only defensive (IMRA, 11/16 from MEMRI). What does the US government say? This is the kind of coordination, here aimed more at the US, that Israel was thankful the Arabs didn't have. The US government is remiss in letting this happen, considering that Iranians are fighting against US troops and arming and training other enemy soldiers to fight GIs. That offensive action contradicts the claim by the Revolutionary Guards that Iran has no aggressive intent. Not aggressive? It keeps the Iraq insurgency going. ANSWER TO THOSE WHO TELL ISRAEL TO NEGOTIATE WITH P.A. Let the P.A. first fulfill its commitments in the peace agreements already signed with Israel! (IMRA, 11/16). ANOTHER REASON NOT TO CEDE TERRITORY A regional power might wish to divert its people with a war. It would find a pretext. Therefore, if Israel, under the illusion that it can buy peace with territory, cedes some, it would be weaker if a regional power attacks it. Withdrawals would make aggression more tempting. Furthermore, if Israel let the P.A. become sovereign, not only would all restraints in armament come off the P.A., but when it fosters raids on Israel, and Israel has to "violate| P.A. sovereignty in order to retaliate, P.A. allies would take that "violation" more seriously than at present, when the P.A. merely is an autonomous area (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 11/16). DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDEA-SAMARIA & EVACUATED GAZA Israel stations troops and an intelligence network in Judea-Samaria. Small forces can rush around and capture terrorists. Israel has less intelligence in Gaza. It takes much larger forces and longer to capture terrorists in Gaza. PM Olmert seemed unaware of that, when he expressed satisfaction with IDF raids in Gaza (IMRA, 11/17). 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. |
|
LAND OF OUR FATHERS
Posted by Michael Travis, December 4, 2006. |
|
This is by Sarah Honig and it appeared November 2, 2006 in the
Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1162378312940&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). |
|
If the Jewish people ever - Heaven forfend - lose their state, it would only be because they forgot that it was the Jewish state. It's no longer bon ton even among diehard members of the National Camp to stress the historic tie between Jews and the land in which they re-proclaimed their independence - the land in which that original independence first emerged. For any normal nation, that tie would be an ever-resounding theme. For us it's hackneyed and benighted. I once witnessed Romanian and Hungarian journalists facing off passionately on which of their respective ancestors initially appeared on which stretch of Transylvania. The assumption was that the earlier migrant deserves the title deed. Arabs spuriously stake precisely these claims, though even a dabbler in history knows they are latecomers. We, in extreme post-modernist conceit, put ourselves above such argumentation. Indeed trendy post-Zionists often buy into skewed Arab perceptions with undisguised relish. Nevertheless, they bristle with intolerance and abuse if fellow Jews dare mention we have dibs here, that our national character was forged here (as distinguished from all others - from any temporary sojourners and/or conquerors of this land) and that in modern times we made barren Eretz Yisrael the attractive national domicile it had become. Talking about Jewish rights is uncool, which perhaps is why most of us prefer pragmatic security-oriented parlance. Yet worthy and cogent though the latter may be, exclusive reliance on it implies that we only seek means to further entrench ourselves in usurped property. In contrast, Hamas chieftain Ismail Haniyeh recently vowed "never to relinquish the land of our fathers." His brazen sham should have sent us shouting to high heaven. Haniyeh's words were geared to taunt us and rub our noses in our own ideological decline. Ardent "land-of-our-fathers" terminology fuelled Zionist zeal, and was the bedrock of Jewish aspirations for two millennia, but nowadays "New Historians" disapprove of unenlightened emotional attachments by Jews. Hence while aggrieved "native" Haniyeh fights to regain the "legacy of his forebears," we carp about border arrangements. We seem like mediocre bureaucrats clutching as much as we can of our ill-gotten gains. The ironic tragedy of course is that this is our homeland. Since Golda Meir there hasn't been an Israeli leader with the intestinal fortitude to remind the world that "Palestine isn't any nation, but a Roman name specifically invented to humiliate defeated Jews." There's just as much substance to that degrading appellation as there is to the moniker the Romans coined for Jerusalem: Aelia Capitolina. Golda was the last one to stress that "the Arabs only learned the name from the British in 1918 and couldn't even pronounce it correctly at that, distorting it into Falastin." Every itinerant foreign Arab laborer drawn to this country by the Zionist endeavor up to 1946 was entitled to indigenous Palestinian refugee status by 1948, even if he resided here for less than two years! HAD OUR instincts not been dulled by post-modernist relativism and self-destructive revised narratives, our collective blood should have boiled at the suggestion that our government gave an obsequious green light for the Jordanian construction of a fifth minaret on the Temple Mount. Isn't it ignominious enough that Jews are barred from their Holiest of Holies? Under our aegis, the Mount's Solomon's Stables area was turned into yet another mosque. This illegal construction was accompanied by wanton and rampant devastation of unparalleled antiquities. The remains of our most sacred site were dumped as so much refuse down the slope. Israeli archeologists now sift through the debris in a desperate effort to salvage something from ruin wrought under supposed Jewish sovereignty. Is there no limit to dishonor? Perhaps not. Perhaps we deserve Dr. Hassan Khader's repeatedly rebroadcast lecture on official Palestinian TV asserting that "Jews have no historic connection" to the Western Wall or the Temple Mount, that the Wall is a Muslim shrine named after Muhammad's horse (al-Burak), that Jews treacherously contrived a spurious association to the Wall only as recently as Ottoman times. Khader additionally praised the "revolutions" launched by his compatriots to "defend" the Wall and Mount from "Jewish predations," including the infamous 1929 riots in which numerous Jews were butchered countrywide, and in the framework of which the bloody Hebron Massacre was perpetrated. People without pride have no memory and fail to realize that the glorification of past slaughter constitutes incitement to the next. By failing to uphold the justice of our case, we forfeit our future security - everywhere. On Rosh Hashana police beat up and detained a youth for blowing a shofar at the Wall, because Arab neighbors complained. Shades of the British Mandate. On Simhat Torah the hesder yeshiva in Acre was besieged by hostile Arabs and the traditional procession could not go forth. The yeshiva head was knocked to the ground, punched in the face and kicked as he lay on the pavement. Other Jewish worshipers were wounded. The police failed to arrest knife-wielding Israeli Arabs. The aim in Acre is unabashed - to rid at least parts of town of any Jewish presence. It's little better in Jaffa, where throughout Ramadan gangs of local Arab youths attacked synagogues, stoned them and beat Jews who dared venture out. Succot booths were burned and firecrackers tossed into synagogues during Simhat Torah. Our struggle for survival in this land doesn't merely hinge on border demarcation technicalities or on territorial concessions. Pernicious lack of conviction parading as pseudo-sophistication undercuts our hold in every nook, on either side of the Green Line within what we shy from affirming as the land of our fathers. |
|
COMING WAR
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston |
|
Almost every military analyst is forecasting war in the Middle East -- either in spring, summer or possibly earlier -- given the deteriorating situation in Lebanon. Add to that Long Range Russian Katyushas paid for by Iran, being funneled in nightly convoys from Syria into Lebanon. Similarly, the same Katyushas are being smuggled into Gaza from the Egyptian-controlled Sinai with zero effort by the Egyptians to stop the smuggling. Condoleezza Rice has ordered Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to restrain response to incoming fire from Hamas or Hezb'Allah and he has obediently complied. In Israel two exceptional incompetents, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz are pushing to retain their jobs, no matter what it costs Israel or how many of Israel's men, women or children their incompetence kills. We have seen both their actions and in-action during Hezb'Allah attacks, with more than 4,000 Katyusha Missiles from Lebanon. Olmert and Peretz acted like those silly ducks one shoots at in a carnival where when hit, they spin around and go the other way. Clearly, these two, along with the Kadimites, must be replaced along with Chief of the General Staff Dan Halutz. They have all long since crossed the line of being merely a clear-and-present danger. Forget the fact that they are sufficiently selfish as they struggle to retain their positions, even though they have repeatedly failed miserably in performance. The outstanding fact is that they have no experience, let alone competence to make decisions in time of war. Their decisions always start with "What does it mean to me politically?" Their next decision is: "What will the Americans say?" All the while they know that their instructions will be to restrain the Army and take the attacks silently. Only when there are too many dead Israelis in both the civilian and the military will they reluctantly allow the army to respond. The fate of the nation presently relies upon two of the most incompetent leaders this nation has ever known. It does not matter that later, after the next war, there will be trials and hopefully hangings for gross negligence and incompetence because hundreds of thousands will be already be dead, wounded, with too many maimed for life. We need a clone of Arik Sharon from a time when he was in his mid-40s, not yet demented and still the quintessential warrior. There may be such mavericks in the military but, since the politicians have politicized the military and intelligence services, only PC (Politically Correct) officers rise in the ranks. This is a government given to acts that could lead to self-destruction and national suicide, dragging the nation down with the government's incompetence. Clearly, it is time to gather up these incompetents and put them on a tramp steamer to float about the Mediterranean as the Ship of Fools. Let them party to their hearts' content but never let them dock again in Israel. In the meantime, Olmert and Peretz are arguing constantly, insuring that, even the most minimal preparations for war readiness are not accomplished. The "Ship of Fools" has not even sailed yet. In closing, one can be reminded of the description in Josephus' book entitled: "War of the Jews". The Jews of 70 C.E. were so consumed with fighting each other, they paid little attention to the surrounding Roman Army closing in. When the Romans breached the Jews' defenses, they cut the throats of the Jewish defenders who were too busy fighting each other. Sounds Familiar? Yes? 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 winstonmedia@comcast.net |
|
THE MEDIACRACY
Posted by Jake Levi, December 5, 2006. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg. |
|
If the success of democracy depends on a well-informed public, then democracy today is an abysmal failure, thanks largely to the "mediacracy." The mediacracy consists of those who dominate the media, namely, Libertarians, Internationalists, Egalitarians, and (moral) Relativists. I shall refer to them by ther acronym, LIERs. A favorite pastime of the LIERs is Israel-bashing. Media bias against Israel assumes obscene proportions whenever Israel retaliates against Arab terrorists -- be it Fatah in Jenin, Hamas in Gaza, or Hezbollah in Lebanon. Some commentators attribute the media's anti-Israel bias to reporters threatened or bribed by Arab terrorists. Probably true in some cases, but Arab threats and bribes do not account for all the venom LIERs spew against Israel. Others commentators attribute the mediacracy's bias to anti-Semitism. There is truth in this contention, but it is superficially understood. I'll come back to it later. Still others ascribe the anti-Israel bias to the LIERs underdog mentality. Israel is perceived and portrayed as the Goliath in its conflict with those poor, little people, the "Palestinians," who are compelled to use their own children as human bombs in this uneven conflict. Add to this bias of the mediacracy its fatuity about civilian casualties. Excuse my naiveté, but why is the life of a civilian worth more than the life of a soldier? What is a soldier -- especially in Israel -- but a civilian in uniform? Does he not have loved ones, parents, perhaps children -- a family that would be shattered by his loss? On the other hand, is it right to call Arab terrorists that wantonly murder Jewish children "soldiers"? Is it right to call Arab terrorists soldiers when they use women as human shields? I ask these questions because I think it's wrong to apply the Geneva Convention to Arab terrorists. When we think seriously about these terrorists, when we behold their cruelty, their inhumanity, their contempt for human life -- it's not only absurd to endow these savages with the rights of the Geneva convention; it makes that convention a mockery of human dignity. Why can't the LIERs see this? Another blind spot of these LIERs: Can Arab terrorists fight without the aid of civilians? Who provides their food, their clothing, their supplies, if not civilians? And is it not the case that Arab civilians provide safe havens for Arab terrorists? Are these civilians "innocent"? Are they not complicit in acts of murder? Why can't the mediacrats see this? Now ponder the demeaning statement that Israel has a right to defend itself. Whoever questioned a nation's right to defend itself? Whoever questioned the right -- nay, the duty -- of a government to protect its own people? Yet the media's savage attacks on Israel when it retaliates against Arab terrorists suggest that Israel does not have a right to defend itself! How are we to account for such perversity? Back in the 1920s, Julian Benda, a most insightful Frenchman, warned of the pacifist mentality that was emasculating France, a mentality that would lead to the Second World War. In The Treason of the Intellectuals, Benda anticipated what I call the LIERs -- the Libertarians, Internationalists, Egalitarians, and Relativists that dominate the media. He noted that for these people, justice becomes suspect when backed by force. To be sure, might does not make right. But to denigrate right when it is invested with might is to aid and abet the wicked. This is the crime the mediacracy is perpetrating in its slanderous attacks against Israel. What is really animating these LIERs? Because of its Libertarianism, the mediacracy opposes all restraints on freedom of _expression. As a case in point, The New York Times editorialized against the closing down of the PLO office in New York as a violation of freedom of speech, even though the PLO is a terrorist organization that has murdered American diplomats and is committed to Israel's destruction. The inherent bias of the mediacracy against any restraint on freedom of expression makes it hostile to government authority, indeed, to authority per se. This is one reason why the mediacracy sides with Arab rioters in Israel -- and with a vengeance. Why with a vengeance? Israel, perceived as a Jewish state, symbolizes nationalism. This offends the Internationalism of the mediacracy. The mediacracy also scorns the Jewish notion of the "Chosen People." This, together with the ethical principles of the Ten Commandments, offends the Egalitarianism and moral Relativism of the LIERs. Israel therefore represents the absolute antithesis of what the LIERs represent. This is why it has been savaged by the mediacracy. Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
MARWAN, YIGAL, AND AKIVA
Posted by David Wilder, December 4, 2006. |
|
Absurdity levels are difficult to measure. Today Defense Minister Peretz gave orders forbidding apprehension of terrorists in Judea and Samaria without the expressed permission of the commander of forces in Judea and Samaria. In other words, if a wanted killer is seen standing on a street corner in downtown Jenin, an official request has to be issued before he can be arrested. In addition, should Israeli forces view terrorists in Gaza preparing to shoot a Kasam missile at Sderot or elsewhere in southern Israel, the terrorists may not be stopped. They must be allowed to finish what they started, i.e, attempting to kill Israeli civilians in the state of Israel. And finally, Olmert, speaking in the Knesset committee for defense and security promised that Israel will 'pay whatever price is necessary in order to release the POWs be held in Gaza and Lebanon.' What are the implications of the above three paragraphs? 1. Israel is opening coffee shop chains throughout Judea and Samaria, providing wanted terrorists a place to rest while the request to arrest them is processed. However, this is just the beginning. Just how far does Israeli theatre of the absurd reach? A few days ago, our friend Akiva Lebovitch received a military order, signed by General Yair Naveh, commander of the Central region, ordering him to report to .... Ma'aleh Adumim. [See: http://www.hebron.org.il/hebrew/article.php?id=308] Akiva, married less than three months ago, [http://www.hebron.org.il/hebrew/gallery.php?id=191] lives with his new bride in the Yitzhar Community in the Shomron. There he studies in the local Yeshiva, while his wife travels daily to the city of Ariel, where she attends the College or Judea and Samaria. Akiva, twenty two years old, grew up in Hebron. His parents and younger siblings live in the Avraham Avinu neighborhood. Late Friday afternoon, on July 26, 2002, one of Akiva's older brothers, Elazar, was driving his friend Neria ben Yitzhak and his new bride Sarah to Hebron, to celebrate the first Shabbat following their wedding. Terrorists opened fire on their car, killing Elazar. Only minutes earlier the same terrorists shot and killed three members of the Dikstein family from Psagot. Last week security forces delivered a military order to Akiva which forbids him from being anywhere in Judea and Samaria for the next three months. He may not live in his new home in Yitzhar, nor may he visit his parents in Hebron. He can't even take a trip to Tel Aviv. The military order commands him to reside in Ma'ale Adumim, just south of Jerusalem. For the next three months. Why? According to the command: "after having studied the security material which has piled up against Akiva Lebovitch, I am of the opinion that it is necessary for definite security reasons that he be placed under special surveillance." Just what is the 'security material which has piled up' against Akiva? Ahh, that's a state secret, material compiled by the 'Jewish department of the Shabak,' the Israeli security force, an organization which more resembles Stalin's secret police than a Jewish intelligence agency in Israel, 2006. Where in Ma'ale Adumim must Akiva reside? Is the army providing him with an apartment, or a hotel room? Are they providing free transportation to his wife everyday to Ariel? (The order was addressed only to him, not to her.) What about his monthly stipend/salary from the Yeshiva? Of course, the answers to the above questions are clearly understood: Sleep in the street, eat air for three months, and forget about your wife. She's not dangerous; you are. The restricting orders shocked the entire Lebovitch family. Akiva's father, Yossi, told me that the last time Akiva had any contact with the law was over three years ago, after participating in a Hebron demonstration. Since then, nothing. "They have no reason at all to restrict my son's movements. He hasn't done anything and was just married. Why should they make his life so difficult for him now, at this special time in his life. It was hard enough following the murder of his brother Elazar. But we've tried to mend our lives, putting them back together again, not an easy feat. Akiva and Moria (his wife) are so happy together. What did they do to deserve this?" "If the security forces have information which incriminates my son, let them arrest him, present evidence, and give him a chance to defend himself. If they don't have any evidence against him, why should he be punished, for not only something he didn't do, but for what he is not even able to know about? His alleged crime is so horrendous that it is a secret, even from him!?" Akiva isn't the first young man placed under 'military house arrest' for unknown and undefined crimes against humanity. Over the past few months 20 others preceded him, also receiving such military orders, expelling them from any presence in Judea and Samaria. Of course, protests against such deviations of justice are also illegal. Last Saturday night, Hebron resident Noam Federman, as he left his car in the vicinity of the residence of General Naveh, was immediately arrested, together with two young children and held until four in the morning. Another of the apprehended was Rabbi Shmuel Yaniv, a well-known Torah scholar, who was disgraced by the police. So let it be known by one and all: It is forbidden to arrest Arab terrorists without permission, or to stop them from attacking Israelis, even when the missile is in the launcher. However, harsh restriction orders against Israeli citizens who have absolutely no idea what they've done wrong is perfectly OK. Maybe we can get Marwan to add Akiva's name to the list too, after him and Yigal? Anyone desiring to express an opinion directly to General Yair Naveh may fax him at: 08-8680240 or phone him at:02-5305738 or 02-5305294 David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, December 4, 2006. |
|
Every time that a Leftist would argue with me about the Oslo Accords and would run out of explanations, he would pull out the triumphant wild card: "Do you want to tell me that Rabin -- Chief of Staff of the Six Day War -- doesn't know what you just told me? He must know things that you do not know." But I suddenly realized that the people up there don't know anything of import that I do not know. The way that they control us and demand that we obey them is based on our belief that they have information that we do not possess. Then I understood that the essential information is available to everyone. In other words, the security blanket of being an "anonymous citizen" suddenly crumbled away. What you see is the exact reality -- and our situation is pre-Holocaust. Ze'ev Jabotinsky urged the Jews of Europe to run away from the coming abyss. Our situation, in some ways, is worse than theirs. We have a state and nowhere to run away to, and will not even be eligible for refugee status. But I can suggest a different solution. First, though, a few facts: America: America won't win the war in Iraq because it refuses to admit that the enemy is Islam. Clearly, America has no intention of embarking on additional military adventures in the Middle East. Nor can we depend on Europe, with its large Moslem population. Israel stands alone against Iran. Israel: After Gush Katif, the IDF can no longer defend the State of Israel. The soldiers who did not refuse to obey the expulsion orders produced a moral collapse that has eliminated the IDF. When the IDF encountered the first enemy that was not settlers, it was roundly defeated by a band of Lebanese fighters. The IDF ' s miserable performance in Lebanon and later in Gaza leaves no doubt as to its lack of ability to deal with the Iranian threat. Iran: Some commentators have attempted to claim that a nuclear Iran is not so terrible. The proof? The nuclear Soviet Union wasn't so terrible. But the Politburo was not wedded to a religion which promised paradise in the next life. These pundits say that Achmadinejad will not sacrifice himself and his country just to destroy Israel. The Gush Dan region -- most of Israel for all practical purposes -- can be neutralized with just one nuclear warhead. An Israeli submarine or bomber might retaliate, but does anyone really think that Achmadinejad will not be willing to sacrifice a few Iranian cities to attain his plainly stated goals of destroying Israel and having Islam conquer the world with him as its Messianic leader? These are the facts. The deceptive and clumsy band of misfits running the country today has no other significant information. In other words, the responsibility is now yours. The only sector of the public with ethical codes and a feeling of responsibility for the fate of the nation -- the only sector of the public that can produce appropriate leadership -- is the sector that has been labeled as the enemy; the Orange public. It's time to turn to them. To learn more about Moshe Feiglin and Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Manhigut Yehudit is the largest faction inside the Likud Party in Israel. It strives to turn Israel from The State of the Jews into The Jewish State. Contact: Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell) Moshe Feiglin is the president of Manhigut Yehudit and a candidate for Chairman of the Likud party. He led the Zo Artzeinu non-violent civil disobedience struggle against the Oslo Accords. Moshe graduated from Or Etzion yeshiva, served as a captain in an IDF combat unit, and is the author of the books Where There Are No Men and War of Dreams. Moshe and his family live in Karnei Shomron, Israel. |
|
THE ROSETT REPORT: ON BOLTON'S RESIGNATION
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 5, 2006. |
|
Here is the truth about Jon Bolton's resignation... the U.N is an organization that does not take its job seriously thus, it does not deserve the presence of an ambassador of Bolton's stature. More so, the USA does not deserve to have a person like Bolton representing her in the U.N. We should rather have an ambassador who embarrasses and humiliates us further when dealing with the U.N. majority oppressive nations members. In his short tenure Bolton stood alone against the U.N. daily tidal wave of evil, corruption and bias. How long can a person hold the wall so it does not fall on him? Bolton gave up and resigned from his ambassadorial position in the U.N. just before the wall fell and crushed him. I am sure that if he writes a book we will all want to barf! What a cry shame on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and ALL of U.S. for letting Bolton go! The USA MUST stop funding the U.N; better yet get out of the U.N.! Remember Rome? It burned! The USA is 2006 Rome! We are just about to go on fire. I think the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should call an urgent meeting and reinstate Bolton! This is "The Rosett Report: The upside of Bolton's Departure" by
Claudia Rosett and it appeared yesterday on PajamasMedia.com |
|
Cold comfort indeed, but the upside of John Bolton resigning as ambassador to the UN is that the UN does not deserve to be dignified by ambassadors of the stature of John Bolton. His presence there endowed the place with a seriousness it has not earned. Bolton has been valiant in his efforts to clean up UN corruption and malfeasance, and follow UN procedure in dealing with such threats as a nuclear North Korea, a Hezbollah bid to take over Lebanon, and the nuclearization of Hezbollah's terror-masters in Iran. But it has been like watching one man trying to move a tsunami of mud. I'm reminded here of an episode from the historical novels of Robert Graves about the life of the Roman Emperor, Claudius, who tried to reform the empire. Toward the end, as Graves interprets it, Claudius concludes that despite his best efforts, Rome cannot be redeemed. Is too far gone in autocratic decay. Claudius figures that before things have any chance of getting better, they must get even worse. So, he lets the throne pass to Nero. Rome burns. The immediate obstacle to Bolton's confirmation was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But the larger problem is that the UN is a place where straight-shooters, especially anyone who unabashedly stands up for the interests of the Free World -- especially the interests of America -- will be undermined and pilloried. The big question now is whether President Bush will understand the lesson of sending Bolton to Turtle Bay, and recognize the folly of trying to work in good faith through the UN. Founded with the aim of promoting peace, the UN is a collective, which predictably enough has morphed into a machine for promoting and expanding itself -- captive of special interests ranging from the left-wing of American politics, to the corrupt bureaucrats within its own ranks, to the dictators of places such as China and the Middle East. Something to consider: The U.S. pays some $420 million per year in dues to the UN, but then lavishes close to another $5 billion in "voluntary" contributions on UN operations -- some of them profoundly anti-American in leadership and intent. If Bush can't have his chosen ambassador on hand to keep an eye on such stuff, why keep the optional billions flowing? Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ENOUGH WITH APOLOGIES
Posted by Steven Shamrak, December 4, 2006. |
|
Senior Israeli intelligence officials admitted to the London Sunday Times that Hezbollah is now stronger than it was before the Israel- Hezbollah war this past summer. "Since the cease-fire, additional rockets, weapons and military equipment have reached Hezbollah," "We assume they now have about 20,000 rockets of all ranges -- a bit more than they had before July 12." The Lebanese government recently acknowledged that weapons continue to make their way from Syria into Lebanon despite UN Resolution 1701. Yair Shamir, son of former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir said that while he takes "no joy seeing young innocent children being killed," the [Arab] Palestinians need to understand that "if they know of terrorists who are prepared to fire rockets at Israel from their houses or in their yards or in close proximity to their houses, they should run for their lives and not remain there. Enough with the apologies." "When Palestinians shoot rockets at us it's normal and when we retaliate it's a tragedy." Call Psychiatrists to the Knesset! Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wants to extend the partial ceasefire with Gaza terrorist groups to Judea and Samaria. Arab terrorists have fired 14 Kassam rockets at Israel since the start of the 'truce'. Israel has not responded to the attacks. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni decided to instruct the IDF not to take action to stop terrorists identified as about to launch rockets towards Israel or hit them immediately afterward either. Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. For the last 3 years, he has been publishing internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict -- independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com |
|
ANOTHER REALISTIC LOOK AT THE "RELIGION OF PEACE"
Posted by Reify, December 4, 2006. |
|
Know thy enemies..... a point made in this article about the Hamas bosses controlling the inmates in our jails....why don't our authorities have the common sense to separate, and isolate them? This is called "Film on failed suicide bombers counters Palestinian documentary," and is by Tom Tugend. It appeared today in JTA. |
|
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 27 (JTA) -- Hassan is deeply frustrated because he was caught by Israeli police before he could blow himself up, killing Israeli civilians. "If I had been killed, my mother would call it a blessing," the 16-year-old says. "My family and 70 relatives would have gone to paradise and that would be a great honor for me." Hassan is one of more than a dozen Palestinian suicide bombers captured before they could carry out their missions and interviewed in "Suicide Killers," a documentary by French Jewish filmmaker Pierre Rehov. The movie's subtitle, "Paradise is Hell," is a deliberate counter-allusion to last year's Oscar-nominated Palestinian feature "Paradise Now" -- which critics said aimed to humanize its two suicide bomber stars. The prison interviews with the would-be bombers, both men and women, will leave most viewers shaken, not because of the ferocity of the terrorists but because of their calmness and the certitude of their convictions. No regrets or second thoughts are apparent, except for the failure of their missions. The women in particular display a truly frightening serenity. Rehov, the film's producer and director, has made six previous documentaries on Israeli-Palestinian relations and societies. He's the product of a multicultural upbringing. Born in Algeria into an old Jewish family, Rehov said in a phone interview that he grew up among Arabs and Muslims and continues to feel comfortable among them. That background, and his French citizenship, made it easier to conduct the interviews once the Hamas prison bosses, who in effect control the inmates of the Israeli prison, gave their permission. Rehov's main purpose, and the most interesting aspect of the film, is to explore the terrorists' minds and motivations. Israeli occupation, revenge for Palestinian deaths, frustration at checkpoints and poverty may all contribute to convincing young men and women to strap on explosive belts, but the real reasons for the bombers' hatred lie much deeper, Rehov contends. He assigns two psychological factors to the formation of the terrorist mind-set, both inherent in Islamic religion and tradition: a high degree of sexual frustration, and a deep sense of humiliation and wounded pride. Rehov's conclusions seem to be borne out to a considerable extent by the prisoners' own words and the commentaries of Arab, Israeli and other experts interspersed in the film. The would-be terrorists rarely speak of nationalistic grievances but constantly emphasize their religious mandate. "Our goal is to kill all enemies of Islam," one young woman says. "Those who die for Allah are not dead but live in paradise," a young man proclaims. Such beliefs easily reinforce hatred of Jews. "Jews have never obeyed God and are not part of mankind," another prisoner adds. One former terrorist recruiter says volunteers signify their wish to become "martyrs" by declaring that they wish to "marry Allah." A sense of shame is another major motivating factor for aspiring terrorists, according to Rehov. "It's bad enough that the infidel West is superior in technology and wealth, but to have been defeated by Jews, whom Muslims have held in contempt for centuries, is the utmost humiliation," he said. Rehov treads on more controversial ground when he lists sexual frustration as perhaps the key component of the terrorist mind. "Young Muslim men are raised in a highly restrictive atmosphere, riddled with sexual guilt and taboos," he said. "They grow up without a natural relationship to women, whom they hold in deep contempt." The fantasy of rewarding martyrs with 72 virgins in paradise is part of that, as is the sense that the Israeli lifestyle, with its half-clad women, is corrupting Islamic purity, Rehov said. He observed similar sexual attitudes among serial killers in other countries, one reason he titled his film "Suicide Killers." The filmmaker dismissed another Western belief -- that if Islamic moderates are encouraged, they'll eventually rein in the extremists. "All Muslims, even in countries like Egypt and Tunisia, believe that Islam will prevail worldwide in the end because that's the word of God," he said. "Moderates believe that this will happen sometime in the future. The extremists think that it will happen in their lifetimes and they want to be part of the victory. It's just a difference in the timing, not in the ultimate outcome." "Suicide Killers" has screened at film festivals in Europe, America and the Far East. Rehov expects that the film will open in commercial theaters early next year. See also The mind of a suicide bomber A politically incorrect film explores the
bomb bearers' many motivations By Jonathan Curiel, SF Chronicle, 10/25/06
Contact Reify at reify@netvision.net.il |
|
JOHN BOLTON'S RESIGNATION: ANOTHER SIGN OF THE FREE WORLD'S MOUNTING FAILURE
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 4, 2006. |
|
The clear thinkers among us have lost yet another round. We are now in the eleventh round of a twelve round bout. We are losing the fight, and time for a comeback, unfortunately, is fast running out. President Bush had designated John Bolton the temporary U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. With no chance of congressional nomination to continue in his post, Mr. Bolton was left with few options but to resign, which he did on December 4, 2006. The President was disappointed to have had to accept Bolton's resignation. While President Bush may also have had few political options other than to accept Bolton's resignation, he may also be growing very wary of constantly swimming against the tide to fight a righteous battle. The opposition, of course, comes from the fanatics sworn to our demise. Considerable opposition, however, is also found within our allegedly fair-minded society, but we have steadily lost direction and continually undermine our liberties in a flawed attempt to appease our mortal enemies. These radicals cannot be appeased but readily use our kindness against us. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick served the United States well as ambassadors at the U.N and Bolton was an individual of the same ilk. He went against the grain by fighting for what was right and fair in organization -- the United Nations -- that is notoriously amoral and obsessively self-serving. As much as I may disagree with President Bush's policy shifts, I do agree with his adamant desire to have John Bolton serve as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. In his short-lived stint at the U.N., Bolton tirelessly defended our nation's values. He advocated sustainable peace and security, which are essential elements of freedom. Mr. Bolton was also a great friend of Israel and Jews by proxy. Ambassador John Bolton represented his fellow Americans with dignity and honor. His service was a testament to the experience, wisdom, and strength of character that had been wrongly criticized. What follows are some of Bolton's acts of support for Israel: * The U.N. General Assembly approved six extended pro-Palestinian resolutions. Bolton recognized that these resolutions would not promote peace or contribute anything meaningful to the cause of Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, the resolutions would damage the perception of the U.N. as being fair in its handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Each of the six biased and ineffectual resolutions were approved by a vast majority of U.N. member nations. Only the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau opposed all six resolutions. Sadly, all pro-Palestinian resolutions enjoy automatic majority approvals at the U.N. General Assembly or in its Human Rights Council, and this has been the case for past four decades. With Bolton gone, Israel may be doomed to suffer even more unfair treatment at the U.N. Bad habits never die easily. Mr. Bolton's departure will not undo the habit any quicker. We, fair-minded people, all lose in the process. At least with Bolton as our ambassador, we had a vocal proponent for fairness at the U.N. He was pivotal in making people aware of the typically biased dealings of the U.N. We may not get an ambassador with his forcefulness for a good, long time. We should blame the members of Congress who have denied Bolton the opportunity to continue his good work, but we are also to blame for electing these timid politicians who were wary of Bolton's forceful defense of U.S. interests. And we wonder why our free society is going downhill at an alarming pace. Now, we will worry less about what Bolton did to displease other nations and will fear more for what the incoming ambassador will do to appease other nations at our expense. The unwillingness of the Senate to assign Bolton to the U.N. reminds me of the saying, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything." We must remember that the truth may not always win, but it is always right. The United Nations is no longer what it was created to be. It is a corrupt organization that does too little to deter human atrocities around the world, as it is supposed to. I wish for the existing U.N. to be dismantled and rebuilt in a way that would allow it to act as the voice of "the united democratic nations of the world." Nations would be compelled to pass a stringent test in order to participate, and any nation that forsook democracy and freedom during its tenure at the U.N. would be expelled. This is but a wish. For the foreseeable future, we will all have to suffer the corruption, bias, and apathy that emanates from the U.N. Moreover, our next ambassador will be nicer than John Bolton was to the many repressive regimes of the world that are represented at the U.N. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ROOT CAUSES OF ANTI-US ISLAMIC TERRORISM (2nd In A Series)
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, December 4, 2006. |
|
In early 1990 -- while I served at Israel's Embassy in DC -- then Secretary of State Jim Baker brutally pressured Prime Minister Shamir, contending that sweeping Israeli concessions would moderate the Mideast, and would sooth anti-US sentiments in the Arab/Muslim world. Until the August 1990 Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker -- supported by Lee Hamilton then Chairman of the House Middle East Subcommittee -- was preoccupied with the Arab-Israeli conflict, appeasing Saddam Hussein and other Arab leaders, pressuring Israel to embrace the PLO and freeze Jewish settlements. Notwithstanding Baker's pandering to rogue regimes -- and bolstered by it -- Saddam invaded Kuwait, threatening to sweep Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf area. Saddam's invasion was facilitated by PLO collaborators in Kuwait, and spearheaded by PLO units stationed in Iraq. Enclosed you'll find the 199th issue of Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom. It is a 2nd part in a series which examines Jim Baker's intriguing assumption that the less-than-a-century-old Palestinian issue is the core cause of the 13-century-old Islamic terrorism and Mideast violence. The 1st part (#197) demolishes the allegation that the Palestinian issue is, ostensibly, a (let alone The) root cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism. Enjoy it, and may we heed the lesson of Jacob the Patriarch, who featured in last week's portion of the Torah: Just like Jacob's Ladder, so should we aspire for high-level goals, but always have our feet planted in ground-level realism. |
|
1. JIM BAKER'S TRACK RECORD. Until the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, then Secretary of State Jim Baker placated Saddam Hussein by a transfer of sensitive technologies, by $5BN loan guarantees, by intelligence-sharing, by referring to a potential invasion of Kuwait as "an inter-Arab issue", and by attempting to break the back of Israel's Prime Minister Shamir. Thus, Baker energized rogue regimes and fueled turmoil in the Gulf and beyond, second only to the turmoil triggered by Jimmy Carter's pandering to Khomeini. In 2006, Baker -- just like Carter -- is determined to learn from history by repeating -- rather than by avoiding -- past critical errors. 2. ISLAMIC TERRORISM HAS BEEN A GLOBAL PHENOMENON, unrelated to the Palestinian issue, to Israel's policy, to Jewish settlements or to Israel's existence. It has plagued India, Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Australia, Nigeria, Sudan, Algeria, Mauritania, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Scandinavia, Holland, France, England, Russia, the USA, etc. 3. ISLAMIC TERRORISM MISPERCEIVED. Tony Blair briefed the "Baker Iraq Study Group" (Nov. 2006): Progress on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and the establishment of a Palestinian State, is essential for any solution in Iraq and for moderating Arabs and Moslems. Blair's miscomprehension of the core causes of Islamic terrorism has been exposed by the Head of England's M15, Eliza Manningham-Buller (Nov. 2006): Since July 2005, 200 Islamic terrorist cells and 1,600 Moslem terrorists have been identified, and 5 major homicide plots have been foiled, in England. Also, would-be British Moslem homicide-bombers were arrested before blowing up airplanes flying across the Atlantic (Aug. 2006). 4. VICTIMS OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM have been mostly Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and also Jews. 5. EXEMPT FROM ISLAMIC TERRORISM are Iran, Syria, Saddam's Iraq, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Muslim Sudan. 6. MOST MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS, but most terror organizations and most terrorists are Muslims. Most Muslim terrorists benefit from -- and advance the interests of -- host Muslim regimes. More than non-Moslem terrorist organizations, Moslem terrorist organizations are state-supported. 7. ISLAMIC TERRORISM HAS BEEN A MIDEAST FIXTURE since the seventh century, afflicting the region, each Arab country and the entire globe (to be elaborated in 3rd part of the series). 8. ACCORDING TO BAKER's COST-EFFECTIVE INGENUITY, rather than flex a muscle against Iran and other rogue regimes, instead of challenging the Palestinian Authority of Terror, the US should suspend disbelief, shrink the Jewish State to the defenseless 1949 Lines and establish a Palestinian State. Such a contriving approach would, supposedly, moderate the Middle East and mollify the unprecedented wave of anti-US Islamic terrorism. Does Baker really believe that a connection exists between the Palestinian issue and the aforementioned Islamic terrorism? Does he actually assume that the less-than-a-century-old Palestinian issue is the core cause of the 13-century-old Islamic terrorism and Mideast violence? Iffff there were such a connection, then it would behoove the US to focus on minimizing Mideast violence and Islamic terrorism, which would facilitate the resolution of the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il |
|
HEY, LET'S GIVE AWAY THE CANDY STORE
Posted by Arlene Peck, December 4, 2006. |
|
A couple of years ago, I wrote a column called: "Give them the Death they Revere." It made a pretty big splash among the crowd that realizes that we're in a world-wide war and that Israel has nothing to do with the mess we're in. Now, I'm truly at a loss as to what to write. Some of my publishers will not print my columns because I have written some unkind words about George Bush. I also have to contend with those who resent my harsh reaction to the complete and utter lack of leadership that passes for government in Israel. Furthermore, I predict that the chronically anti-Semitic, Los Angeles Times will once again come to "love Israel" and the decisions of its self-destructive government. And as for Olmert's latest plan to open zoo cages and release tigers and other predators, I confess, I am at a loss for an explanation. Or, was that prisons and let the terrorists out to kill again? What is wrong with the Israelis? What have we become? I know one thing: despite all, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Sharon taught his protege, Olmert, well: The country is your personal candy store. Want a little love from the media? Then pick some settlements to give to your neighbors. Want to put a big smile on Condi Rice's face... pick out a few zillion dollars of 'charity' to give to the poor deprived Palestinians who can't quite bring themselves to accept the right of the Jewish state to survive. I am sure the money might come in handy, as their bank deposits have greatly diminished since monetary aid was stopped because of their support for terrorism. But, wink when millions are smuggled across the border. That will give them the funds needed to buy more arms and ammunition. Oh, and for a finale, how about topping all this off with a big cherry. Let's open the jails and trade about 1400 terrorists who are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to kill us, for one Israeli soldier...Corporal Shalit. But, hey, a good will gesture is a good will gesture. Maybe someone ought to show them two movies that I recently saw, "Obsession" and "For the Sake of Allah," in which terrorists describe how they plan to do the next "Jihad bombing." How lovely that during a ceremony at the tomb of David Ben-Gurion, Olmert said, "I hold out my hand in peace to our Palestinian neighbors in the hope that it won't be returned empty." Maybe Olmert forgot that the Palesinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Actually, he'll be lucky to get a finger back, much less his hand. He sure as hell couldn't do it at the Tomb of Joseph because those same Palestinian neighbors just about destroyed that holy site during one of their mindless rampages. What happens to Israel's leaders once they take power? They talk tough while campaigning but the minute they put the crown of "Minister" on their heads. the rhetoric is all about appeasement. Yet, who gives them the power? Thousands can come out protesting a gay parade. but to salvage what is left of the country, the citizens of Israel have no voice? Wasn't it just last spring that I heard Olmert declare, in his political campaign, that none of the Palestinian leaders were capable of making a deal with Israel? What happened? Did Bush or Condi exert a little pressure... or offer some inducements? Or did Olmert, as the Times stated, "breathe a new purpose into his coalition government which has been divided and increasingly unpopular since the country's summer war. etc. etc..." Actually, I get it. The man is simply looking out for his own interests. He has no conscience. Whatever it takes to maintain his popularity and wealth, what the hell. give the country away. Yet, what is wrong with the people of Israel. Tired, beaten down, war weary, defeated, angry? Well, better they should become angry. It is time to acquire a little perspective for what the future holds for them while they are inching toward the brink. And, at the risk of being a tad politically incorrect, it is not 'hate speech' if I suggest that while Olmert and friends are giving away the country for more 'promises for peace,' the rockets are still raining down on Israeli cities. What could or should Olmert be doing? It might be time to drop a few leaflets stating that any future attacks will be met, not with opening the jails, but going into Gaza and taking back 10% of land that was given to them for the last promise of peace. Then, if another bombing, kidnapping etc. were to happen.then another 10% of Gaza would be removed from their control. and permanently annexed to Israel. That's my proposal. Oh, and while we're still dreaming, let's not forget the topic of transfer. If I had my druthers... Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
BORDER SECURITY, TERRORISM AND YOU
Posted by Editors, Family Security Matters, December 4, 2006. |
|
The original article at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=460575 contains live links to additional material. |
|
Illegal immigration just may bethe way that the next horrific attack on American soil in enabled. The mainstream media, and advocates of illegal aliens, tend to report only on illegal aliens who have done what most legal immigrants do; work hard and succeed. What they rarely report on are any of the negative aspects of illegal immigration. This article will detail some of the dark side, facts of which you are most likely unaware, but that profoundly affect our national security. This article is key to your understanding just how vulnerable we are. Let's start with a broad summary on how illegal immigration affects you personally. Here are just some of the negative effects of illegal immigration:
In other words, all of us should be vehemently opposed to illegal immigration. See Day Without Illegal Immigration for even more information on the terrible impact to Americans. Now, let's examine some of the darker side of illegal immigration in greater detail, and look at the Number One issue: terrorism. TERRORISM When it comes to the impact of illegal immigration, terrorism is at the top of the list, due to its potential to harm directly the greatest number of Americans. Keep in mind that three of the 9/11 terrorists were in the country illegally and two had previous violations. 9/11 was a precursor. The next incident will be far greater. A recent Homeland Security report, A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border, reports that in 2005 at least 850 people from countries of "special interest" were apprehended crossing the southern border. How many more successfully crossed is unknown. How many actual terrorists who have crossed is unknown. We do know, however, that they are here -- see Al-Qaida Operative Nabbed Near Mexican Border. As noted in a June 2006 article, Broken, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, on a Homeland Security publication, "The report reveals that 45,008 aliens from countries on the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terror or from countries that protected terrorist organizations and their members, were released into the general public between 2001 and 2005, even though immigration officers couldn't confirm their identity." As noted in US-Mexican border as a terror risk, "It's not clear how many terrorists or people having connections to terror groups, may have entered the US as OTMs. But FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a House Appropriations Committee hearing March 9, 2006, said he was aware that individuals from countries with known Al Qaeda ties had entered the US under false identities." (Note: OTM = Other Than Mexican.) As noted in an October 6, 2006 article in the UK Times On-Line, Seizures of radioactive materials fuel 'dirty bomb' fears: "Smugglers have been caught trying to traffic dangerous radioactive material more than 300 times since 2002, statistics from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show. Most of the incidents are understood to have occurred in Europe. The disclosures come as al-Qaeda is known to be intensifying its efforts to obtain a radioactive device. Last year, Western security services, including MI5 and MI6, thwarted 16 attempts to smuggle plutonium or uranium. On two occasions small quantities of highly enriched uranium were reported missing. All were feared to have been destined for terror groups." For a possibly related incident recently in the US see Airport Arrest Turns Up Nuclear Info. In any case, it is only a matter of time. Did you happen to see the November 2006 reports Al-Qaeda planning for nuclear attack or Al-Qaeda Chief Vows to Blow Up White House, on your local news channel? How about Al Qaeda Claims to Have 12,000 Fighters in Iraq or Al-Qaeda gloats over demise of Rumsfeld? When the mainstream media starts parroting the liberal policy of pulling out of Iraq and appeasement with Iran, you might want to note Iran's Call for the Destruction of Israel, where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Iran is where Al Queda gets a lot of its funding and many of the "freedom fighters" willing to kill themselves fighting the "great and small Satan" -- the US and Israel. The goal is the elimination of Israel first, then the elimination of the USA. As noted in a report by The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Strategic Study on Bioterrorism, some analysts consider bioterrorism to be a greater or more viable threat than nuclear terrorism. Couple that with the recent report World's most deadly bugs... in the hands of terrorists, which notes: "Al-Qaeda is determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack....The official warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network was trawling the world for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."New technology that would give terrorists the power to create deadly bacteria and viruses from scratch is only years away from completion and threatens to make existing controls on biological weapons obsolete, experts warned yesterday.... Also take note of North Korea trying to weaponize bird flu which noted: "The pariah state of North Korea is trying to weaponize the bird flu virus, making it the ideal threat for al-Qaida, the British intelligence agency MI6 has learned. The Bush administration has given briefings classified "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information" to members of Congress and the Senate on the threat. In aerosol form it would be undetectable at all border crossings and virologists at Porton Down -- Britain's research center responsible for developing antidotes against biological attacks -- fear that a genetically engineered version of the virus would be far more lethal than any current threat from the virus. World ranking experts have said that it would be "the greatest threat al-Qaida could unleash." It is worth noting that Bird Flu is currently killing about 60% of those who catch it. If the very real potential of illegal alien terrorists is not important to you then we would suggest you see the movies United 93, Obsession, True Lies, and The Peacemaker, and then read Osama's exploits south of border -AlQaida in league with Mexican radicals in plot to penetrate U.S., says MI6 report and No place to run. Then consider some of the more serious alternatives of open borders in a post 9/11 world. As Congressman Lamar Smith noted, Border Security Is National Security. Contact Family Security Matters at www.familysecuritymatters.org |
|
WHY ISRAEL DOESN'T STOP P.A. ROCKETS; CONSPIRACY AGAINST WITLESS WEST; MUSLIM VS. WESTERN VIEW
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 4, 2006. |
|
IRAN TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY When former PM Netanyahu likened the President of Iran to the Fuhrer of the Third Reich, I brushed off the analogy as exaggerated. Westerners tend to treat alarms as mere politics. That is the mistake they made with the German Nazis. They are making the same mistake with Islamism, as if one could negotiate genuine peace with it and as if its leaders become responsible towards their people upon accession to power. Power is what fanatics use to promote their vicious ideology. I also had the Western cultural bias oblivious to how such a country may be formidable. Netanyahu is right, however. Iran has a population almost as large as Nazi Germany's, but has more supporters internationally and powerful protectors in the Security Council. It is far wealthier, just as industrialized militarily, and with a fanatical ideology of bigotry and imperialism that is more prevalent, though its people don't like the regime. Iran devotes a higher proportion of its wealth to its evil cause. Germany expanded along its borders in ways that people noticed, after a while. Iran's imperialism is more stealthy -- training and supplying foreign troops and subverting other countries. Now, as then, appeasement-minded people see no problem that can't be talked out. They undermine self-preservation. Iran has planned well ahead and provisioned forces and sent in troops who fight against the US and Israel. The US does not act as if it notices that Iran is thus already at war with the US, in its own way. In defense against jihad, the rest of the world needs to develop a counter-plan. Instead, it is frustrating US attempts to impose mere sanctions on Iran. It also frustrated Israel's attempt to destroy Iran's Hizbullah and Hamas proxies. Within Western civilization, there is little genuine action against subversion by Islam except for the police, who act after the subversion has erupted in more conventional political criminality. Political correctness, a misguided notion of tolerance, protects Islamic subversion. Europe is dissolving itself. The US has switched from confrontation to the deluded hope of negotiating a solution with Islamists who use negotiations to gain advantage in their quest for conquest. I think that Islam is winning the world war. NO WONDER ISRAEL CAN'T STOP P.A. ROCKETS! The IDF has been blowing up buildings in the P.A. used to manufacture or store munitions. These buildings usually are residences. The owners probably get a fee for the buildings' military use. Israel first warns the residents of each building to evacuate, before it bombs the buildings. By the time the bombs fall, the terrorists are out of the buildings and probably have taken their machinery and products with them. They set up shop in other buildings. The bombings don't accomplish much. If Israel hopes to hamper and deter production, it should not give warning. Then it would catch the machinery, goods, terrorists, and their hosts. International law does not protect alleged civilians in such cases. To spare them, Israel takes more casualties among its own people, who are totally innocent. STILL ASSASSINATING POLLARD'S CHARACTER In time to head off his possible release, the Jerusalem Post quoted an FBI agent's hearsay, innuendo, and half-truths that Jonathan Pollard had given US intelligence to Pakistan and Australia. (But Pakistan is an enemy of Israel.) The FBI knows the lack of substance to those claims. That is why prosecutors did not raise them in court. They did not charge Pollard with harming or with intending to harm the US. Neither did they charge him with treason or endangering US agents. Nor did the FBI claim he did, when it briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee! Pollard was given an excessive sentence on the basis of a secret memo that may or may not be fair -- Pollard never had the opportunity to see and refute it. That is contrary to American justice. Afterwards, the former Sec. of Defense, who had given the secret memo to the judge, admitted that the claims against Pollard were exaggerated and in pursuit of a different agenda. (Pollard's critics ignore that. Inconvenient for them?) What the government doesn't admit irks it is that Pollard was "passing on satellite pictures and reports that showed U.S.-built missile and chemical factories in Iraq. American foreign-policy architects are as embarrassed today as when they were angered then that their support of Saddam Hussein had been disclosed to Israel." (IMRA, 11/16.) They certainly would not want that story publicized in the US, for it helped cause the Iraq war and increased US casualties in that war! That did betray the US. They weren't punished for doing it, but Pollard was punished disproportionately for revealing it to Israel, though that saved Israelis. THE LESSON OF LEBANON DOESN'T SINK IN Hillel Halkin writes regularly for Commentary and the NY Sun, among other venues. In the 11/14 Sun Op.-Ed, he praised former PM Barak for having "pulled off the feat of getting Israel out of Lebanon, even if he failed at everything else." Barak ordered a precipitous flight that: (1) Abandoned weapons; (2) Destroyed an allied Free Lebanese Army and its guarding of the border; (3) Encouraged Hamas to return to the fray; and (4) Let Hizbullah come up to the border, fire on Israel, and start the recent wars. Some "feat!" It takes a long time for the folly of appeasement to sink in, in some quarters. Mr. Halkin continues to espouse eventual further withdrawal in the face of a relentless, merciless, fanatical foe. The same kind of withdrawal already enabled Hamas and Fatah to bring in much and heavier armament, with which they are bombarding Israeli cities. What does he think this accomplishes? THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE WITLESS WEST Arms for Somalia were embargoed. Some countries arm the warlords, whom the US prefers, and others arm the Islamists, who are winning. Hundreds of foreign Islamists went to Lebanon to fight against Israel and for further training. Many Islamists from various places went to Somalia to help depose the warlords. Iran is trying to trade its help for Somali uranium (IMRA, 11/14). Ironically, it was the warlords who killed US peacekeepers, years ago. They are a poor side to take. If the West is to survive, it should take strong action against the radical takeover of such countries, lest the Islamists control a solid bloc against it. The US also should sever the head of the Islamist conspiracy, Iran. HITTING THEM WHERE IT HURTS US As a less dangerous and less involved way of combating Islamism, Yousef Ibrahim suggests that the US bomb Iran's and Syria's oil facilities (NY Sun,. 11/13, p.8). Such destruction could damage the US as much as the enemy. Crude oil and especially refined oil cost us a lot and finance jihad against us, because of their scarcity on the world market. Reducing their supply would raise the price. We would have to be careful to avoid punishing the world rather than just the culprits. THE MUSLIM VIEW & THE WESTERN VIEW The Muslim world increasingly believes that the West's goal is to wipe out Islam (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.52 from David Pryce-Jones, National Review, 9/11). There is no truth to that perception. To the contrary, the Muslims are trying to conquer the West. They believe what their propagandists tell them, not what the facts are. They have no basis in reality for what they think. They not only have different views from us, they think differently from us. Therefore, it hardly matters what we do or plan. We have not found a way to communicate with them. Being a collective society, they suppose we are, too. There no longer is a solid "West." Europe is conflicted and paralyzed. Much of it has made an alliance with Arab society, is anti-American, and appeases Islam domestically and abroad. The US has become conflicted, too. Pres. Bush started to wipe out Islamism, not Islam. It was a vital goal. He failed, however, to work hard enough to make that goal clear, attainable, and attractive. As a result, he is yielding to political counter-pressure. AS MRS. POLLARD PUTS IT Jonathan Pollard is serving an excessive sentence unfairly imposed. Why does the US intelligence establishment continue to campaign against his release? His wife explains his case clearly and interestingly. Previously, she had explained that if he were free to inform the public about the establishment's anti-Zionism and other policies that harmed our country, the public would find it counter-productive if not subversive. In a recent exposition, she pointed out that anti-Zionist elements in government use him as an example in an assertion that Israel and Jews cannot be trusted. The US Navy has exposed spies from enemy states, but produced a training film about treason using Pollard as the example, though he did not commit treason. They smeared Israel. They lie about his being scheduled for release, but want to keep him in prison so he stays in the public mind as a symbol of Israel's guilt. They continue to spread the same lies about Pollard, because he doesn't get a chance to challenge them in court, Israel doesn't defend him, and the media doesn't question leaks. The media did not question: (1) The timing of the campaign -- shortly before PM Olmert visited Pres. Bush and might have gotten him released; (2) Why he wasn't charged with most of the crimes the campaign accuses him of; or (3) For the evidence of their accusations (IMRA, 11/15). 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. |
|
IS BRITAIN LOST? MELANIE PHILLIPS AND LONDONISTAN
Posted by Joseph Puder, December 4, 2006. |
|
September 11, 2001 exposed America's vulnerability to Jihadists Muslim terrorism. Yet, in spite of the terrible tragedy that America suffered, we were somehow fortunate according to Middle East scholar and MSNBC commentator Dr. Walid Phares. Phares pointed out in his book "Future Jihad" that the Al Qaeda terrorists in addition to Hamas, and Hezbollah "slipper cells" were well entrenched in America, but acted "prematurely." He asserted that, had they acted 5-6 years later, the catastrophe might have been much greater. The "slipper cells" are unfortunately still there, in spite of the efforts by Homeland Security, and our intelligence services. America, Israel, and the West are still in danger but do not fully realize it. The Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI) has effectively educated scores and scores of mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy, as well as large church audiences in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and California. on the nature of Jihadist Islam, and Middle East realities. Your support will enable ITAI to reach out to churches and communities throughout the region and beyond, with our charismatic and effective "dream team" of mostly mainline Protestant scholars and clergy. Send a tax-deductible contribution to ITAI (Check can be sent to ITAI, 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1832, Philadelphia, PA 19109). We don't want what is happening in England to happen here in America. Read my article below. |
|
According to British journalist Melanie Phillips, author of the recently published Londonistan, "Britain stands at the precipice." Both Britain and Europe, she claims, are facing a civilizational test and are in danger of losing. Speaking last Wednesday as the guest of the Middle East Forum/Bob Guzzardi Lecture series Philips explained that London has become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment, and financing of Islamist terror and extremism, thus mockingly dubbed Londonistan. Britain, she pointed out is experiencing the collapse of self-confidence and national identity resulting in paralysis by multiculturalism and appeasement. In her book she pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed. Phillips described the British condition in recent articles published on her website and in various British dailies. Titles such as Feminized Britain portray the state of denial the British are in. Phillips suggested that the current climate threatens to "undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defense of the free world." She quoted Nathan Sharansky's remarks about her book: "Londonistan is a last minute warning for Britain and for much of the free world." Sharansky observed moreover that "In dictatorships you need courage to fight evil; in the free world you need courage to see evil." Londonistan exposes the truth of how Islamic clerics infect young British Muslims with hate and incite them towards violence. Young British Muslims are told that Islam is under attack by the West, they are told that Americans are butchering Muslims in Iraq, and Jews are doing the same in Palestine and, they are told that the Israeli Mossad and the American CIA perpetrated 9/11. Muslims are the largest minority faith community in Britain, comprising 3 percent of the population, approximately 2 million strong. In London the Muslim population is about 9%; more than 700,000 people. Phillips maintains that most Muslims in Britain are moderates. However, there are nearly 1600 potential suicide bombers who are primed and ready to go according to the latest British intelligence reports. The British public has been strangulated by their culture of political correctness. Islamic terrorists have deftly exploited British weakness in defending its culture and institutions and any criticism of Islam is automatically viewed as Islamophobia. A recent controversy over a Muslim women teacher wearing the veil in class (she taught English and her students could not hear her because of the veil), raised by former Foreign Minister Jack Straw detonated a fierce debate in Britain. Ironically, it became a shallow exchange because the British feminists, fearing accusations of Islamophobia, were silent on the subject and, the general public was equally intimidated. The Hijab (veil in Arabic, meaning cover) is not merely an expression of modesty but a political statement as well and, meant to intimidate other women. Most Britons do not understand the severity of their situation. In the face of the July 7, 2005 terrorist attack on the London Underground (rail system) by British Muslim suicide bombers, which killed 57 people and wounded hundreds, the Brits pretty much, blamed themselves. Many excused the Muslim terrorists with such expression as "It was because of our involvement in Iraq." The Brits, as Philips points out, simply do not realize that they are in a war with an enemy that seeks to destroy them and impose an Islamic way of life governed by Sharia law (the latest polls indicate that 40%-60% of British Muslims want Sharia laws to govern Britain), thereby destroying their democratic institutions and their nullifying their individual freedoms. The Islamic war on the West did not begin on 9/11; it started in 1979 with Khomeini's Islamic revolution in Iran. Khomeini then and Ahmadinejad today, declared their intention to subjugate the West. The Saudis, fearful of Shiite dominance in the region and concerned with Khomeini's impact on Muslims worldwide and the possible destabilization of their kingdom, ignited a race with Shiite Iran that fueled Jihadist Islam. The Saudis spent billions spreading their intolerant and anti-Western brand of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism. They funded the anti-Western and anti-Semitic madrassas in Europe and the Indian sub-continent thereby radicalizing British mosques and Imams, and paving the way for the creation of home-grown British suicide bombers. At the same time, while Muslim radicalism was taking shape, a massive wave of immigration from Islamic lands hit Western Europe. And unlike previous immigrants from Asia, Eastern Europe, or the Caribbean, according to Phillips, "Muslim immigrants did not seek to integrate -- they sought instead to colonize the host countries." Phillips charged that the British government has not "combated the ideas that are driving Islamic terror," and that the British government defined a Muslim "moderate" as "someone who does not promote violence against Britons." The British government, therefore, regarded Sheikh Yusuf Karadawi, who promoted suicide bombings in Israel as a duty of all Muslims, as a "moderate." "We do not understand in Britain that we are fighting a religious war. Instead, we're appeasing it," Phillips said. Why doesn't Britain get it? According to Phillips, "The Brits lost their national identity and values." Moreover, Britain lost control over its borders, and belief in itself as a proud nation. "Britain," Phillips said, has become supra-national, believing in the U.N. and the E.U..." Brits view particularism as exclusive and discriminatory, and thus celebrate the minority Muslim culture. It is a form of self-hatred that infected most of the West, who discarded Christianity and who view with favor Islamic "orderliness." In today's Britain, every minority member is a "victim" except the Jews. Brits reason that because Muslims are "victims" it is "our" fault. This sentiment according to Phillips is an outgrowth of the "cultural dominance of the British Left." There is no talk-radio or think tanks in Britain to challenge the prevailing views and as a result, America and Israel are demonized. Asked to comment on Mark Steyn's book America Alone, which argues that Europe as we knew it is lost by virtue of disappearing demographically and through cultural suicide, Phillips replied "I disagree, I will not give up without a fight to bring Britain to its senses." Contact Joseph Puder at jpuder2001@yahoo.com |
|
PRESIDENT BUSH, DON'T BLESS IRAN
Posted by Michael Evans, December 4, 2006. |
|
It is impossible to think that the U.S. is about to bless Iran and Syria with a place at the negotiating table to determine the future of Iraq. What effrontery that either nation would demand or expect such a position. You can be sure these terrorist states will curse Israel and demand more Bible land to appease Arab rage. According to Tom Casey of the State Department, "We want Iraq to have good relationships with its neighboring countries. They're a sovereign state, and it's up to them as to how they pursue it." It is difficult for me to imagine that the country supplying 85 percent of the IEDs used to kill American troops in Iraq now wants to participate in a summit to stop the violence in Iraq. Or, for that matter, that Syria, a swinging door for terrorists wishing to enter Iraq, is pushing for a place at the bargaining table. Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, has been invited to Iran this weekend for talks with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad. Apparently Talabani plans to attend in order to "discuss the security situation and the repercussions for stability of the region." To add insult to the injuries and deaths in Iraq that can be laid directly at the feet of Iran and Syria, the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, is set to recommend that Iran and Syria be included. Baker is not the only one urging the U.S. to openly negotiate with not one but two terrorist-funding, terrorist-harboring states. Senator Barack Obama is also urging the U.S. to include Syria and Iran in an attempt to halt the sectarian violence in Iraq. Click here to sign the petition to President Bush. Ask him not to reward Iran by allowing them to enter into the peace talks regarding the future or Iraq. Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who is considering a presidential run, said today in a Chicago speech that the U.S. ought to talk with Syria and Iran to try to restore stability to Iraq, as had Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates. This is outrageous. Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." Ahmadinejad has intimated that he has 52,000 suicide bombers ready to attack the U.S. Now both Ahmadinejad and al-Assad have been invited to tea. Every family in Israel that has lost a loved one in a terror attack knows that the funds to arm the terrorists came from Iran through Syria. The liberal, secular media has fed the American public a constant stream of lies, lies, lies. To invite Syria and Iran to the peace talks is like inviting the Nazi Party to peace talks even as smoke and ashes pour from the ovens in Auschwitz. This is another in a series of appeasement plans that, in the past, have invited 20,000 attempted suicide bombings in Israel by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning godfather of terrorism, Yasser Arafat. If American plays the appeasement game, you can be sure terrorists will be coming to a theater near you. Weakness draws vultures to a dying carcass. Click here to sign the petition to President Bush today, and then forward this email to everyone on your list. Together, we can make a difference. I was with standing with a group of Marines in Lebanon when the barracks were blown up by Iranian proxies in October 1983. I gave Bibles and prayed with many of the Marines the night before the bombing, when so many died. I was in Somalia when a Blackhawk helicopter was shot down by al-Qaeda operatives, and so many died. In both instances, the U.S. did nothing. I challenged Yasser Arafat during his speech in Geneva at the 43rd General Assembly in a room filled with terrorists. I said, "Denounce terrorism." That same day, I received death threats from many of the terrorists in the room. I challenged James Baker at the Madrid Peace Conference. The U.S. froze $10 billion in loan guarantees, even after telling Israel that it would be rewarded if it did not retaliate when attacked with SCUDS during the first Persian Gulf War. That was their reward...along with being forced to the bargaining table in Madrid to carve up the Bible land in an attempt to appease Arab rage. This is the same James Baker heading the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Their presidential plan on Iraq is to be released in a few weeks. This is the same James Baker who used an unacceptable expletive when refereeing to the Jews because, as he said, "...they didn't vote for us." He will advise President Bush to do the same...demand more Bible land in appeasement for Arab rage. We must move quickly. The Bible says, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curses thee." Israel is being cursed; it is in harm's way. Iran is being blessed. This insanity must stop. We need one million people worldwide to sign the petition to let President Bush know that he needs to stand firmly on his principles, and not cave in to the liberal left. Please sign the petition to President Bush today! We must not delay; time is of the essence. We need 100,000 signatures. Please don't just delete this. It will only take you a minute to pass this along to 10 friends! Please ask them to not delete it, but to do the same and ask the 10 they send to keep it going...and not delete it. Keep this going around the world. Your ambassador to Jerusalem,
Michael Evans is the author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," and founder of Jerusalem Prayer Team, America's largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of Jerusalem. Contact them at www.JerusalemPrayerTeam.org This article apeared in the Jerusalem Post November 29, 2006. |
|
BEILIN AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT
Posted by Zalmi, December 4, 2006. |
|
I used to despise Yossi Beilin. Now I just feel rather sorry for him. It's not just for the guilt he carries for the thousands of casualties of Oslo. The man is now preaching that -- if only we make peace with Assad and Abbas and give them the territory they want -- the Arab world will become our loving trading partners and this will nullify Iranian aims to liquidate the state of Israel. He genuinely believes this Truly, madly deeply. Poor man. I think the Hebrew word is: mizken. Reminds me of what we used to learn in school. About the speed of light and the speed of sound. That light travels faster than sound. Which is why people like Beilin can look intelligent. Until you hear what they have to say. Contact Zalmi at zalmi@zalmi.net or go to his website: www.zalmi.net |
|
CARTER'S "CART BEFORE THE HORSE"
Posted by Daryl Temkin, December 4, 2006. |
|
Jimmy Carter, who lives with a shameful reputation of being one of the lowest evaluated presidents in United States history, continues to strive to leave a "noble" impression on the world. His personal claim is that he is the only president of the United States who succeeded in the establishment of a lasting and "perfectly upheld" peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. This claim perhaps has merit if one forgets that Egypt has now emerged as one of the great threats to Israel. Egypt is the leading manufacturer of anti-Semitism. Egypt is the home of the extremist Moslem Brotherhood. The Egyptian military has been conducting extensive military training which is reported as a preparation for attacking Israel. The Egyptian military has been modernized, strengthened, and expanded and is rated as a leading army of the Middle East. In addition, although struggling to publicly deny their actions, Egypt has been supplying and supporting the intense arming of the Gaza Strip. Over the past years, Mr. Carter has taken a special interest in the Middle East. He has been trying to place himself in a significant leadership and decision making role which he feels will be pivotal in some matter of fact. A year ago, he went to the Middle East to "supervise" the Gazan election which produced a landslide Hamas victory. Following the elections, Mr. Carter stated how pleased he was with the Palestinian voting choice, even though they voted for the party that most of the Western world designates as an official terrorist organization. After victory, the Hamas leaders continued to emphasize that they would never recognize Israel's existence, would never negotiate with Israel, would not disarm, and would not discontinue their demand for the destruction of Israel. In spite of this classic Hamas political posture, Mr. Carter also stated in response to the Hamas victory that most Palestinians are willing to recognize Israel and want a two state solution. Carter somehow believes that at the same time a landslide majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas (which foremost represents the destruction of Israel) the majority of Palestinians also want Israel to exist. Mathematics precludes these simultaneous and contradictory majority positions. But according to Carter, neither mathematics nor reality are required for promoting his "feel good" political agenda. Many people would ask why Mr. Carter would stake his already minimized reputation on an untenable claim. Might it be that the Carter claim was only an attempt to achieve his own political goal to get Hamas taken off the international terrorist list and be recognized as a legitimate ruling power? Carter's approach was to use his presidential authority and fame to downplay and debase Israel while uplifting, glorifying, sanitizing, and attempting to reinvent and repackage Hamas. The climax of Carter's negative feelings towards Israel leads him to comfortably misrepresent Israel with criticisms of gross injustice, extreme inhumane behavior, and a horrific abuse of human rights. Mr. Carter resurfaced this week when he launched his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". How telling that he chose this as his title. It represented just one more opportunity for him to continue to work on the erosion of public support for Israel. In the anti-Israel propaganda war, the words "apartheid" and "occupation" have become the most effective and "emotionally charged buzz words" for defaming and dismissing Israel -- its justice system, society, and existential legitimacy. If one stops to analyze the media's interviews of anti-Israel spokespeople, the findings would show that virtually every question posed is answered with sentences including the words, "occupation" and "apartheid". Any quality public relations agency would emphasize that the repeated use of emotionally powerful words such as "apartheid" and "occupation" is a most effective technique for reshaping public opinion and political policy. Truth has little or no bearing on propaganda-based public opinion campaigns -- only emotional impact is sought. The word "apartheid", referring to the horrible South African abuse of its Black citizens, is a word of disgust, degradation, disgrace, repugnance, and vile extreme human vulgarity. Juxtaposing the abhorred apartheid political agenda adjacent to Israel is a "brilliant" public relations strategy. It effectively blurs all semblance of truth and focuses contempt upon the victim. This is analogous to a talented magician who effectively misleads the eyes of the audience in order to successfully produce a believed illusion. Comparing Israeli society to the despicable South African apartheid is an academic fraud and a total belittlement of the abhorrent abuse suffered by Black South Africans. Haters of Israel have worked diligently to force their lie into a believable format. In their attempt to prove that Israel is an apartheid, they repeatedly claim "checkpoint" abuse, security fence obstructions, endless charges of Israeli soldiers raping Arab women, claims that Arabs can't drive on certain roads, and the wild claim of proof that Arabs live in an apartheid state is the fact that they are not required to serve in the Israeli army -- just what every Arab man and woman fantasizes. In order to avoid having Israelis drive through Arab towns where barrages of shootings and deadly rock throwing attacks at Israeli drivers had all too commonly occurred, a handful of roads have been built to purposely bypass Arab settlements and vulnerable points of attack. Building a new road at great expense for the purpose of keeping Jews alive is now claimed to be an apartheid act of the Israeli government. Arabs can use these roads as long as they are not aiming to murder Jews. The point must be clear that the new roads were only built to appease and respond to Arab warnings that Israelis will not be safe driving near certain Arab villages or outposts. It is clear to Israelis that they must know the various vulnerable roads that they can't drive on without risking death or injury to themselves and their passengers. If Israelis need to enter various Arab towns, they better drive in a car with Arab license plates. What kind of apartheid is that? The apartheid screamers know exactly what would happen if there were no check points, no safety roads for Jews to access their communities, no security fence to stop random shootings and suicide bombers, and they also know that Arab men and women are not about to become loyal Israeli soldiers. But, frequently repeated claims, lectures, and media interviews about these issues have all worked well for the propaganda cause -- after all, they even convinced a past American president. Mr. Carter is pretty much in the same camp as the UN's Human Rights Commission which has only passed anti-Israel resolutions and has totally ignored the Sudan's Darfur genocidal killings as well as the Islamic countries allowing honor killings of suspected women, mothers and sisters, female genital castration, capricious murders, and body part amputations and decapitations as criminal punishment. Adding to Mr. Carter's support team, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a respected South African apartheid survivor, and the "perfect" vocal sounding board claiming Israel is an apartheid, is being sent to the Gaza Strip to investigate the Israeli admitted accidental missile which killed a number of Gazans. Tutu will be positioned to attract media attention in order to further "prove" Israel's alleged apartheid status. Mr. Carter, in his attempt to regain a spark of worldwide attention, has done the proverbial "putting the cart before the horse". His blanket condemnation of Israel's right to protect its citizens and his permissive and supportive attitude for the massive abuses in the Arab world are part of his up-side- down, cart before the horse, myopic scenario promulgated to influence and shape public opinion. Mr. Jimmy Carter's shrewd propagandist condemnations of Israel are aimed to weaken the Jewish State and even enable the dissolution of Israel. He condemns Israel, the one place in the Arab world in which Arabs enjoy a much higher level of human rights, women's rights, and sexual identity protection. His name calling is a vile abuse of the truth and it is a further abuse of those who lived through and survived the real apartheid government in South Africa. Jimmy Carter simply joins the bandwagon of those who condemn the one who is good in order to collect favors and hoped-for personal popularity. In hopes of raising his less than glowing reputation, unfortunately, Mr. Carter finds comfort in the sacrifice and distortion of the facts. In the long run, this will not raise his tattered popularity but will only serve to affirm his dismal presidential rating. Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is director of the Israel Education Institute (www.Israel-Institute.com) which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews throughout the world. Contact him by email at daryltemkinphd@gmail.com |
|
MUNICH AT RIGA: NATO'S FAILURE PORTENDS A WIDER WAR AGAINST ISLAMOFASCIST JIHAD
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 3, 2006. |
|
we have just witnessed Munich -- 2006...at Riga.
With their willingness to absorb casualties; ...while the west wrings its hands, not just in grief over every soldier lost, (grief is the only moral sentiment, and indeed, some of us feel that grief often as acutely for the terrorists as well as for our soldiers), but in pseudo-moral recimination of our own society and its need to defend itself, as though we can win the hearts and minds of our enemies by speaking softly and holding a large gift; and... with their patience to absorb a defeat and regroup for the next push to victory; ...while the west must deal with the pressures from a variety of sources to get the troops out as quickly as possible, to cut and run, or at least to trim and trot, and... with their resources available from allies who offer them steadfast assistance even as these same nations proffer to us their faux-allegiance; ...while the west faces the constant flux of erstwhile allies who put short-term gratification (bring home the troops and get good poll results; oppose the invasion of Iraq and stay on the Oil-for-Food gravy train, inter alia), and... with their ideological commitment to not just the justice, but to really the righteousness of their cause; ...while we in the west vacilate between, on one hand, self-castigation for putative (and in some cases really fictitious) crimes that we or our ancestors committed and, on the other, self-doubt enhanced by the endless rhetorical accusations of "Islamophobia" from supposedly moderate Musilms; and because of that vacilation we are hamstrung in both the defensive and offensive deployment of our forces, and... with their long-range view of an ultiimate victory, declared and defined and decided in advance by God, a view which justifies the sacrifices and casualties and strenuous pursuit of relentless terrorism in the name of God; ...while we fail miserably at merely justifying even our own restrained self-defense against an enemy that seeks our destruction ... with their demigod status, in the eyes of some significant percentage of the world's 1,300,000,000 Muslims, as heros in the fight to make the world's only true religion supreme over all the world, they have a seemingly unlimited source of recruits and money (much of that money coming from our own erstwhile allies in the Muslim/Arab world); ...while we agonize over whether or not to tax our society to pay the costs of defending ourselves against those who seek to destroy our society, and you, personally, go hat-in-hand to our so-called Arab allies only to be scolded and rebuked because our civilization has not expressed its willingness to become 'dhimmi'. with all of this on their side, and none of this on our side... ...the Islamofascist terrorist Jihadists will win. THEY WILL WIN AND WE WILL LOSE! They are triumphalists (they believe that God guarantees their ultimate triumph over the entire world -- after all, did not the first Caliph's tiny and untrained forces defeat the mighty Sassanian and Byzantine empires? Did not the knights of Islam defeat the Moguls of India? Did not the warriors of God overrun every mighty nation and army from Spain to Persia in just 90 years?); ...while we are realists, pragmatists, looking for short term reasonable ways out of a bad situation at the lowest possible cost. They are supermacists (they believe that God has guaranteed them their victory because their religion is the only true religion in the entire world and for all time, and as such is superior to all other religions; and that their religion must be made the only, or at least the supreme, religion in the entire world and for all time; and by espousing that religion with such vigor and enthusiasm, they fulfill God's will; and by doing so are supreme over all others, which is why it is just and righteous for them to slaughter millions of others who are not with them in their struggle to fulfill God's will); ...while we are cultural relativists who cannot muster even enough enthusiasm to take pride in and defend the amazing contributions to the world that our civilization has made over the past half-millennium. They are imperialists (the entire 1,374 years of Muslim history has been one long litany of conquest of other lands, imposition of political and religious rule for economic exploitation, and the eradication of the conquered peoples religions and culture and language, all carried out in the name of their religion and to fulfill what they think is God's will. But this is nothing less than pure imperialist conquest in terms of the results of their actions on other nations that offered them no harm and threatened them in no way -- Islamofascism is the epitome of the world's most aggressive and most successful Imperialism); ...while we still shuffle embarrassedly and wince at the accusation that our culture is imperialist because indeed it was, 100-200 years ago...as though it were Americans who led imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, and as though we have not repented enough, nor done enough to facilitate the rehabilitation and the emergence of their own nations' independence and progress...and as though the scores of other nations in Asia and South America and Africa who suffered the imposition of Europe's imperialism 100 or more years ago did not become thriving, progressive, advanced countries who are friends and allies with the West now. They are tyrannical (their version of Islam is clear: the Caliph rules at the behest of God alone, and brooks no rival in man-made governance...this is tyranny, religious tyranny, at its very worst) and as tyrannts they impose their will on the conquered without thought to justice or humanitarian concerns: -- after all, they would not be victorious were it not the will of Allah that they do what they are doing; ...while we quibble and argue and descend into fruitless debate about 'true islam' and the morality of profiling (no question about its efficacy) while letting our opposing vectors of democratic forces castrate our efforts to locate and track and incarcerate and interrogate the terrorists who are trying to kill us. They are totalitarian (their version of Islam is clear in that it must control, rigidly, totally, every aspect of human life), and ruling in totalitarian fashion over their own and conquered societies, they can excuse the worst violations of human rights against their own people and their enemies [that's us] as part of the means that is justified by their religious God-given Islamic ends; ...while we trip over ourselves in our haste to be sure to protect the human rights of the terrorists we capture, so that they can return to their terror ranks hale and hearty and ready to kill more of us. They are Islamic. All that they do, the worst of their crimes against humanity, is done in the name of Allah; for the sake of Allah; to fulfill Allah's will; and to advance humanity toward the day when the entire world will be forced, at the point of their sword, to worship Allah alone. Theirs may not be the "true Islam"...but it is Islam none the less, and it inspires uncountable hordes of Muslims world-wide to join them in their war; and these supporters seem quite sure that theirs is the 'true Islam'. Moreover, the terrorists themselves are quite sure that theirs is indeed the "true Islam", and that the moderate "radiant face of Islam" that some Muslim leaders put forward...well, that's for consumption by the west, or the puerile effeminate viscerated Islam of those Muslims contaminated by Western culture. They are terrorists. The FBI's definition of terrorism, targetting and attacking specifically civilian populations for political gains, fits them perfectly. They call themselves 'mujihadeen' (those who wage Jihad), but their war is not against our armies in order to right some wrong, or regain some piece of the border that has been encroached...their war is to destroy us and our civilization and our culture and religion and languages; and ultiimately render us either dead or Muslim or dhimmi. And in that war they intentionally target civilians precisely in order to weaken our ability to function as a society, and to advance their religio-political agenda at our expense. They are Jihadists. The greater Jihad, per the "true Islam", is the jihad that one fights against one's own evil inclinations. Noble. Inspiring. A beautiful concept -- borrowed directly from Jewish and Christian predecessor sources, but still noble and inspiring. But they are waging the lesser Jihad...the same Jihad that Mohammed began in 628, and which has never stopped over the past 1,374 years. As Osama has often said: first and foremost his battle is agianst global non-belief [that's us non-Muslims, world-wide]. They are Jihadist, Imperialist, Supremacist, Triumphalist, Tyrannical, Totalitarian, Islamist terrorists...and they will win this war if we do not greet their assaults against us and our allies with the same vigor as, or more than, what they display toward us. Ultimately, Mr. President, you must decide where you want the casualties. Indeed, we as a society must decide that as well. With a full-fledged all-out war effort, much as was done by 'the greatest generation' in world war 2, we can stop the spread of Jihadist Imperialist Supremacist Triumphalist Tyrannical Totalitarian Islamist terrorism before it engulfs Afghanistan and Iraq and then Pakistan and Bangladesh and then the rest of the Middle East and then Europe and then...and then the casualties are the terrorists, and their supporters and cheerleaders and suppliers and apologists and, tragically, some of the civilians behind whom the terrorists so cravenly hide. With the postures of people and leaders who are self-doubting, half-hearted, doing-it-on-a-thin-dime, asking-what-right-do-we-have-to-think-that-our-culture-is-worth-defending, and pretending as did Chaimberlain in 1938 that if we appease the crocodile maybe it won't eat us at all...then, Mr. President, the casualties will be on our side, our people, in our cities, on our shores, and ultimately, our own civilization. Where do you want the casualties? We know where bin-Ladin and az-Zawahiri and Zarqawi and Akhmedi-Nejad want them. This article is called "NATO's failure portends a wider war" and was written by Ahmed Rashid. It appeared today in the International Herald Tribune. |
|
The abysmal failure of NATO countries at the Riga summit meeting this week to commit more troops to Afghanistan will further encourage a countrywide Taliban offensive, and portends much greater interference by neighboring states -- all staking their claims as they see the West giving up the ghost on Afghanistan. In the future annals of the spread of Islamic extremism and Al Qaeda, the NATO meeting this week will almost certainly be considered a watershed. Germany, Spain, Italy and France, which refused to allow their troops in Afghanistan to go south to fight the Taliban, and other member states who refused to commit fresh troops or equipment, may well be held responsible for allowing Afghanistan to slip back into the hands of the Taliban and their Qaeda allies. Such desperately depressing considerations arise from the fragile state of the Afghan government, the massive surge in Taliban attacks this year, the collapse of civil authority in wide swathes of the country and the rise in opium production, which is funding not just the Taliban, but a plethora of Afghan, Kashmiri, Central Asian, Chinese and Chechen Islamic extremist groups based on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Last summer the Taliban planned to capture Kandahar -- the second-largest Afghan city -- and set up an alternative government. They were only just thwarted by the sacrifices of NATO British, Canadian, Dutch and American troops and their Afghan allies, who fought pitched battles with battalion-size Taliban units -- battles the likes of which the West had not experienced since the Korean War. Tribal leaders in Peshawar and along the border now say that the Taliban are recruiting thousands of fighters in Pakistan and Afghanistan for a full-scale, multipronged offensive in the spring, which will open so many fronts in southern Afghanistan that present NATO forces will be unable to cope. This time the target is Kabul and the government of President Hamid Karzai. The Taliban will fully understand and exploit NATO's failure to respond to these threats. NATO's inaction will also cause massive demoralization among the Afghan people and encourage warlords and drug traffickers to prepare for the coming anarchy. Most significantly, NATO's decision will pave the way for further interference by neighboring states, which helped fuel the civil war in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s. Pakistan's military regime, which provides clandestine support to the Taliban and has refused to accept NATO and U.S. plans to arrest the Taliban leaders on its soil, has long calculated that in time the West will walk away from Afghanistan. Pakistani officials are already convinced that the Taliban are winning and are trying to convince NATO and the United States to strike piecemeal deals with the Taliban in the south and east, which eventually could develop into a Pakistani- brokered Taliban coalition government in Kabul. Such a plan would never be tolerated, however, by the swath of other neighbors who in the 1990s supported the former Northern Alliance in their war against the Taliban. To beat back Pakistan and the Taliban, Russia, Iran, India and the Central Asian states may step up their support for Karzai's government, but they will almost certainly look for alternatives, such as rearming and mobilizing their former allies -- the warlords of the north. As in the 1990s, such a scenario could develop into an ethnic civil war between the Pashtun Taliban in the south and the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras of the north. At Riga, NATO demonstrated that it does not have the will to stop such a civil war, which could lead to the partition of Afghanistan along north- south lines. Many fear that despite the wishful thinking of the Pakistani military, a civil war in Afghanistan will have devastating effects on the integrity of the Pakistani state. The regime of President Pervez Musharraf already faces a full-blown separatist insurgency in Baluchistan Province. And a wave of Talibanization is sweeping Pakistan's Pashtun belt, which the military is not attempting to stop, but rather conceding to, through so-called peace deals that leave the Taliban-Qaeda groups in place. Pakistan's Pashtun tribal areas have already proved to be the training ground for the July 2005 terrorist attacks in London and the thwarted Heathrow Airport plot this year. The situation in Afghanistan is not just dire, it is desperate. The struggle against Islamic extremism will be lost not in Iraq, Iran or even the Palestine territories, but in Afghanistan. It is here that Al Qaeda wants to regroup and rearm itself to continue its global jihad and it is here that NATO countries are failing the world. 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 |
|
THE PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS THAT KIDNAPPED SHALIT MAY BE PLANNING HOLIDAY SEASON ATTACKS
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 3, 2006. |
|
As a result of the passivity displayed by Israel, Egypt, the United States and European powers in the face of expanding Palestinian terror resources in the Gaza Strip boosted by al Qaeda's penetration, the chickens -- al Qaeda terrorists -- may be coming to roost! No one listens and everyone involved is testing the angel of death... Olmert's government will bring about death to Israel. The apathy of the Israeli to topple this despicable government and make 180 degrees change in directions can only bring about the SAD saying: you brought it all upon yourself. Wake up Israel! Please read this report and you tell me where does Jimmy Boy Carter and 'Condi' Rice see the light of peace with these maniacal murderers? Have I missed something? |
|
DEBKAFile Exclusive: The Palestinian terrorist band heading for attacks on Israeli holidaymakers in Sinai is the same group, which kidnapped Gilead Shalit on June 25 It is a joint Hamas-Jihad Islami- Popular Resistance Committees team plus members of the Islamic Army (aka al Qaeda-Palestine), the same makeup as the group, which snatched and is still holding the Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit. Israeli tourists are urgently advised to evacuate Sinai's coastal resorts, as Egyptian forces continue to scour them for the wanted Palestinian terrorists. DEBKAFile's counter-terror sources also disclose that the mastermind behind this terror venture is Zakariah Durmush, chief of the Islamic Army militia based in Gaza City, who also trained the team. What the commanders of the Egyptian unit in Sinai and Israeli security forces dread most is that the small Palestinian band will link up with the large al Qaeda force of 70 men, which infiltrated Sinai on July 31 and has not yet struck. When Egyptian intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman visited Jerusalem last week, he suggested that al Qaeda may be holding its fire until the winter holiday season, which begins with the eight-day Jewish Channukah starting on Dec. 16, followed eight days later by Christmas, when many thousands of foreign and Israeli tourists usually crowd Sinai's beaches and hotels. Aside from uncovering a few weapons and explosives caches, the Egyptian official reported to Israeli security chiefs that his men had not managed to collar any members of the large al Qaeda unit hiding up in Sinai. Israeli security patrols are also on the watch for them to steal across the long Egyptian-Negev frontier and attack the Israeli Red Sea resort of Eilat. DEBKAFile's sources disclose that members of the Multinational Force deployed in the northern al Jura base and Sharm el Sheikh -- especially the two US battalions -- are also on alert for possible attack by the Palestinian or al Qaeda marauders. DEBKAFile's terror experts note that the chickens may be coming to roost as a result of the passivity displayed by Israel, Egypt, the United States and European powers in the face of expanding Palestinian terror resources in the Gaza Strip boosted by al Qaeda's penetration. Very little is being done to stem the massive smuggling of weapons and fighters from Egypt to Gaza through an expanding warren of tunnels; nothing has been done to seal the Philadelphi border route against this traffic, or to snap the tightening interaction for joint projects between the armed Palestinian factions of Gaza and al Qaeda cells in Sinai. Because Israeli authorities persist in shrugging off the al Qaeda presence in Gaza and its complicity in the Shalit abduction, the Islamic Army's Durmush has been able to get away scot-free with more hits and now the threat of mayhem. On August 14, his men captured two Fox News journalists, the American Steve Centanni, 60, and New Zealander, Olaf Wiig, 36, releasing them after two weeks only after they publicly converted to Islam. On September 15, the senior Palestinian intelligence officer Col. Jad Tayeh was trapped and murdered in a cunningly-laid ambush on his way back to Gaza from an undercover mission in Egypt. Col. Taya was the senior liaison man between Palestinian and Egyptian intelligence services. Neither has tracked the leak, which betrayed the murdered man's secret route to Durmush. They are bound to suspect at least one mole has been planted by al Qaeda. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ISRAEL ARABS MAKE DEMANDS
Posted by Israel Zwick, December 3, 2006. |
|
The biggest enemy of the State of Israel is not Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas. It is the group of secular left-wing Israelis who have no attachment to the history and culture of the Jewish people in our ancient homeland. They keep writing about the "poor, oppressed Palestinians who are suffering from the harsh Israeli occupation." They claim that if the Palestinian Arabs had their own independent micro-state carved out of Israel then they would have no reason to continue their "resistance" and there would be peace and tranquility for both Arabs and Jews. Some of these secular Jewish writers even favor the concept of establishing one united state for Arabs and Jews where there would be equal rights for all based on demography and democracy. That is more of a threat to the Jewish State than Iran's nuclear weapons. It would mean the end of the blue and white flag, the end of Hatikvah as the national anthem, the end of streets with Jewish names, the end of Jewish national holidays, and most important, the end of religious freedom for Jews in the Middle East. The Jews now living in Israel would meet the same fate as the Jews who have lived in Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Most have had to leave, and the few remaining there are in fear for their lives. Israeli Jews would have to seek safe haven in isolated communities in Montana or Wyoming. Perhaps they would return to Germany or Poland, which are now eager to reestablish Jewish communities. I don't claim to understand Ehud Olmert's strategy and I am deeply troubled by the recent ominous developments in Israel. I'm assuming that Olmert is following the strategy of Ehud Barak in July, 2000 when he offered Arafat 95% of what he wanted but Arafat still refused to end the conflict or relinquish the "right of return." Perhaps, Olmert needs to show the opposition that Israel is willing to make major sacrifices to achieve a real peace but the Arabs will accept nothing less than the dissolution of the Jewish State and expulsion of Jews from their historical homeland. If my assumption is wrong and, then the Jewish people are in for some very difficult times, and we can only pray that "Hashem oz l'amo yiten, Hashem y'vorech es amo basholom." Kol tuv The article below was written by Yoav Stern and appeared today in Haaretz. It is called :Israeli Arabs seek right to return to villages abandoned in 1948." Israel Zwick
|
|
According to a position paper written by Mossawa -- the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel and presented in a conference in Nazareth on Friday, Israeli Arabs want the right to return to villages abandoned in 1948, educational autonomy and changes to the Israeli flag and national anthem. The paper, written in close coordination with the Israel Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, was presented as part of the week-long Second Annual Days of Mossawa Festival and Nazareth Film Festival, which ended Saturday. "Our goal is to achieve a historic compromise with the Jewish community in Israel," Mossawa Center director Jafar Farah told the conference. "The move by refugees of 1948 to their villages will not change the demographic balance or endanger the Jews. Unlike the refugees in Arab states, we are [already] here," Farah said. "The internal refugees [residents forced to leave their villages in 1948 who moved to other Arab communities within Israel] represent about one-fourth of the Arab population in Israel today." Farah said the paper was spurred by a sense among many Israeli Arabs that they must have their say at a time when many Israeli organizations are working to frame a national constitution. "We found ourselves in an absurd situation, in which Jews are deciding what is good for the Arabs because the Arab elites are not involved in the discussions. Now the decision makers will have to take our opinion into account," Farah said. The 10-point position paper emphasizes the need to grant communal rights to the Arab public, including the increased use of the Arabic language; equality and fairness in immigration policy; the correct allotment of national resources; and fair representation. With regard to national symbols, the paper says: "The state's symbols, its flag and its national anthem are emotionally charged, public resources ... the state must give appropriate expression to the presence of Arab citizens in Israel and its historical relationship to the place." Among the many jurists participating in the conference was Supreme Court Justice Salim Jubran, who said the existing Basic Right on Citizenship law must be amended to complete the constitutional protection of minority groups. He repeated his opposition to the Citizenship Law, which restricts the rights of Israeli Arabs to marry Palestinians. Another participant, Dr. Raef Zreik, said the position paper does not refer to the Israeli Arabs' position regarding the Jewish majority in the country. He said the Israeli Arabs can officially recognize the right of the Jewish public to a state only as part of an overall peace agreement with the Palestinian people. i> |
|
BEEN BETRAYED BEFORE
Posted by Women in Green, December 3, 2006. |
|
This was written by Sarah Honig and it appeared December 1, 2006 in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
The time-tried truism that the more things change the more they stay the same is gallingly vindicated with unpitying recurrence. There's no let-up. Just last week we were treated to yet another dog-and-pony show, courtesy of Israel's ignoble species of ultra-leftist self-loathing Jews and The New York Times, whose history is replete with the most pathological of Jewish self-hate syndromes. Last week Peace Now produced one more great snitching extravaganza, which failed to surprise. Neither did the Times's obliging resonation thereof. Peace Now rushed to squeal to the entire waiting world that most of Israel's settlements in Judea and Samaria, including whole Jerusalem metropolitan area neighborhoods, were constructed on "usurped Arab private property." Never mind that most of the info is brazenly fraudulent (in part relying on the fact that Arabs continue to claim lands they sold to Jews for exorbitant prices). Never mind that the world, Jew-baiting and hostile to the Jewish state's self-preservation, awaits such calumny with insatiable carnivorous craving. Never mind that the history of how Shimon Peres and his Labor government, for instance, approved the construction of Ariel in 1977 is hardly as pressing as current life-and-death ordeals of survival besetting Israel. Nothing whatever new here. Peace Now's ideological forebears were every bit as callous to the plight of existentially vulnerable Jews, even on the eve of their bleakest hours, as the Holocaust loomed and darkened our horizons. And just at that time, and even during the subsequent most monstrously deliberate and systematic bloodletting the world has known, the assimilationist Jewish owners of the Times engaged in an unconscionable cover-up and/or diminishment of the slaughter and of the identity of its victims. So what if the Times saw fit to play up Peace Now's allegations and devote no less than an entire broadsheet to them? It again outrageously distorted the criteria of newsworthiness -- with the particular relish it reserves for knocking the Jewish national cause. What was, unfortunately, remains what is. Thus the alacrity to sell out and inform on one's co-nationals has always typified this country's Left -- from the Communists egging on the Mufti's genocidal pro-Nazi henchmen between 1936-39, to the (hunting) saison against Revisionist underground fighters (in the IZL and Lehi), who were turned over to Mandatory authorities for long prison terms or even executions. But the lesser-known and perhaps most distressing episode in the Left's shameful annals was its campaign against "illegal" immigrants just prior to WWII, when the ground already burned under European Jewry's feet. The Left-dominated Jewish Agency was charged by the British with distributing the paltry number of "certificates" (immigration permits), which it allocated with unabashed bias, essentially barring "undesirables," i.e. political rivals. Those determined not to be impeded by discrimination had to resort to various "illegal" options to reach these shores, including the exploitation of bogus student and tourist visas, as well as fictitious marriages to fortunate certificate holders. All above "illegals" became prey in what would become known as the "hunt." British police conducted raids and the Left avidly collaborated with spot checks on buses, cafes, lodgings and workplaces. While sparing no hyperbole to denounce the "illegals" for supposedly jeopardizing the entire Zionist endeavor, left-wingers edged towards identification with inimical Arab perceptions. It's a psychological process not far removed from that of their progeny and torchbearers today, who increasingly subscribe to the enemy's point of view. They besmirch their own country, omitting to mention that we aren't the greedy French in Africa, presumptuous Brits in India or even expansionist Americans in Texas. Our so-called "territories" are literally home both in terms of geographical proximity and historical pertinence. Failure to acknowledge this is tantamount to accepting Arab portrayals of Jews as foreign interlopers, which more sensitive local leftist souls have already done and with whom the Times habitually concurs. It'd take a thick volume to scrutinize the Times's sordid underreporting and minimizing of the Holocaust. Journalist and academician Laurel Leff produced just such an exemplary volume last year, Buried by the Times, an engrossing examination of a great newspaper's abject moral failure, given its unparalleled opinion-molder prominence. "The Times's coverage," Leff concludes her extraordinarily exhaustive analysis, "mattered because other bystanders...took cues from the Times." Yet in the end "the Times helped drown out the last cry from the abyss." During all of WWII it saw fit to publish only two lead editorials on Jewish issues. One, on January 22, 1942, was an acerbic attack on demands for all-Jewish military units under British auspices (which were eventually created as the Jewish Brigade). While the extermination of Jews continued unabated, the Times's indignation was spent on preventing the formation of "a Zionist army." In February 1942 the rickety illegal immigrant ship Struma sank after the British refused to let its refugees enter Eretz Yisrael. All but one of its 768 passengers perished. The Times gave it four bland paragraphs on an inside page. The New York Post and Mirror and The Washington Post judged the horror deserved editorial condemnation. Contrast that with the Times's earlier front-page treatment for the capsizing of another "illegal" vessel, the Patria, whose tragedy was caused by a miscalculated Hagana effort to disable the ship's engines so the British couldn't move it from Haifa port. The Times's scale of values was unmistakable -- a story that embarrassed the Zionists won pride of place; the one that highlighted Jewish misfortune and embarrassed Zionism's foes was downplayed. It's still oppressively so nowadays. The Times's collusion with Peace Now is nothing unexpected. Been there. Seen that. Been betrayed before. Been disgusted to the gills. 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 |
|
HIZBALLAH'S OFFENSIVE IN LEBANON: DAY TWO
Posted by Walid Phares, December 3, 2006. |
| [Editor's Note: "Day one" is below |
|
In its second day, HizbAllah's offensive in Lebanon against the democratically elected Government has maintained pressures on various levels. Following are the main axis of activities: HizbAllah's deployment By mid week end, several thousands of HizbAllah's members, cadres and officers have settled inside downtown Beirut, surrounding the Prime Minister's office. The militia erected dozens of tents in a military fashion, with 30 fighters in each tent. Sources from the Lebanese Army described the "deployment" of the tents as a bivouac-maneuvering of about three brigades, "clearly following the Iranian military code," said the sources. By late Saturday evening early Sunday morning, the Lebanese Army was able to move a number of these tents to the sides opening a path to the Government building. However, security sources noted that HizbAllah's units are positioning themselves in several circles around the center of Beirut. There are no weapons apparent but according to observers, the "demonstrators" can be armed in less than three hours and "become" the equivalent of half a "division" in the downtown area and close to a division inside Sunni Beirut. Sunni resistance begins In the early hours of Saturday through the first hours of Sunday, several incidents took place between HizbAllah's cells moving into several neighborhoods in mostly Sunni West Beirut, and between local Sunni youth. In most of these urban clashes, with clubs and stones, HizbAllah's members withdrew to their quarters in downtown and the southern suburbs. Observers believe these incidents were a sort of testing on behalf of HizbAllah's military command to assess the level of "popular resistance" against its stretching inside Muslim Beirut. It is to note that Sunni areas have been displaying more opposition to Nasrallah's militia in more than one area. More noticeably in the Eastern Bekaa where entire villages such as Kamed al Lawz and surrounding areas have erupted in small demonstrations against the pro-Iranian coalition. Also in Tripoli, and despite the presence of some solid pro-Syrian Sunni influence, anti-HizbAllah manifestations are taking place. Shiite moderates appear Interestingly, more moderate Shiite voices are emerging against Nasrallah's power and in support of the Lebanese Government and its supporters. In addition to the prominent Shiite Mufti of Tyre Ali al Amine, the spiritual leader of the Shiites in Jabal Amel, core of south Lebanon's community, a newly formed "Free Shiite Coalition" led by the intrepid Sheikh Mohammed al Haj Hassan is calling on the Shiites to rejects the "orders by Ahmedinijad to wreck havoc in Lebanon." In a strong speech aired worldwide on internet Saturday night, Sheikh called on the international community to assist the Lebanese people against the terror threat, HizbAllah. This is the boldest call by a Shiia cleric against Iran's influence in Lebanon. Sunni spiritual leaders have already voiced their opposition to the "Syro-Iranian aggression" against the Government. Lebanon's national Mufti Mohammed Rashid Qabbani extended his support to the Cedars Revolution backed Seniora Government yesterday and insisted on praying inside the Prime Minister's office while HizbAllah was encircling the government building. On his part the Mufti of Mount Lebanon, Mohamed Ali al Juzu attacked Hassan Nasrallah accusing him of taking orders from Iran and targeting the independence of Lebanon. Next HizbAllah's moves The latest information released by the Lebanese security sources and published in the Arab press on Sunday morning, and detailed by the Kuwaiti daily as Siyassa says HizbAllah was planning on shutting down Beirut airport, possibly its port and large segments of the basic public services such as electricity and water. A memo sent by Nasrallah to his supporters inside the security and police forces asked them to withdraw and join the ranks of the "movement against the Government." Media tilting noted On the media level, the campaign unleashed by HizbAllah widened on al Manar TV and was supported by Syria's press and audiovisual as well as Iran's. Al Jazeera is backing the crumbling of the Lebanese Government by "projecting" that the cabinet will fall, despite indicators that the popular majority in Lebanon backs it. But the most interesting development is the gradual editorial twist in most of the news agencies distributing information around the world indirectly towards HizbAllah. In fact, the choice of words in the reports issued by Reuters, AP and UPI indicates that they are increasingly portraying the HizbAllah's campaign as "an opposition movement against a Government refusing to accept its demands." These mother ships of international media, that feeds thousands of newspapers and audiovisual networks around the world, have for example pushed the number of the demonstrators as "close to 800,000 persons," or as they put it "one quarter of Lebanon's population." While in reality, researchers in Lebanon, measuring the space these demonstrations took place in, cannot absorb more than 250,000 persons. A quarter of a million people is a large number but compared to the 1.5 million people gathered by the Cedars Revolution indicates clearly to social demographers, that HizbAllah, with the support of Syria, Iran, the radical Palestinians, cannot muster a popular support greater than one sixth of the majority. But many sectors in the international media are tilting towards producing pro-HizbAllah's trends. A reporter for Time wrote that "what he saw was a reverse of the Cedars Revolution," using words uttered by the organizers of the pro-Iranian move. "It is not so difficult to understand," said a human rights activist in Beirut, "HizbAllah has done a great job in influencing many correspondents on the ground. With Iranian logistics, its operatives can provide all what a journalist can dream of. Unfortunately also," said the NGO observer, "many HizbAllah media cadres have found their way into being recruited by some media. You wouldn't believe where these infiltrations have reached," he said. Bloggers in Beirut have begun to monitor the HizbAllah's penetration of international media as the reporting has been drifting towards promoting the pro-Iranian militia. Lebanese facing alone As the third day of the offensive begins, HizbAllah and its allied are bracing for bolder moves to take over the Lebanese Government. Out of Egypt, President Mubarak warned from more dramatic steps HizbAllah would take, leading to a blood shed. In New York, US ambassador Bolton warned from a Terror war against Lebanon. And in Beirut, the unarmed civil society of the country fears the worse: Being left with a democratically elected cabinet they are proud of, they feel they are facing, alone, the world's most dangerous Terror forces: the combined power of Ahmedinijad, Assad and Nasrallah Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of Future Jihad. He was one of the architects of UNSCR 1559. This article has appeared on the Counter Terrorism Blog, FDD Blog, and Lebanonwire.com. |
|
SURVIVAL
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 3, 2006. |
|
Survival tops Israel's policy agenda, maintaining a stable flow of oil tops energy addicted industrial nations' policy agendas, providing a stable flow of oil while maximizing profits tops autocratic Islamic pusher regimes' policy agendas, most insidiously destroying Israel while destabilizing the flow of oil to 'infidel' industrial nations tops fanatical Muslim terrorist organizations' policy agendas. World dynamics evolve from these priorities. One might suspect fundamentalist filthy rich Islamic movers and shakers, residing in palatial estates, awash in revenue from the petro-milk of their underground cash cow (cash camel in Middle East vernacular), would want to insure that jihadist ambitions do not interrupt fossil fuel flows, nor would they want to lose Israel as the all-purpose scapegoat, a convenient diversion for exploited populations, wallowing in hovels, that otherwise would direct their wrath at them. Might all this mean that wild-eyed terrorists should be a lonely bunch? Think again! Presuming all turbaned hardball players in the Middle East think like Machiavellian ruthless yet civil businessmen ignores the mindset of Imam possessed Shiite lunatics that currently rule oil rich erstwhile Persia, ever willing to finance Hamas and Hizbullah proxies, ever willing to spin centrifuges creating fissile material to one day satisfy a Dr. Strangelove obsession. Furthermore, the Sunni Shiite thirteen-century religious dispute morphed to civil war, now being played out with daily kidnappings, beheadings, and exploding martyring maniacs in oil rich Iraq does not exactly reflect the same bottom line that wealthy civil Arab capitalists worship. Let us not ignore the ongoing genocide perpetrated against Muslim Black Africans by Arab jangaweed militants at the behest of a sadistic racist Islamic oil rich Sudanese regime, more than willing to butcher hapless innocents, more than willing to finance terrorists, knowing petro-currencies will continue to flow without interruption. We must also note that presumed 'war on terror' ally of America 'House of Saud', talks the civil talk, but walks to a different beat, underwriting homicide/suicide human bomb factories a/k/a madrassas primarily in Pakistan but in other venues as well, even in Alexandria for one, and I don't mean Egypt. Yes indeed, I do mean Alexandria Virginia, a relative stone's throw away from 'buddy' Uncle Sam's Washington D.C. White House. Do Israel's staunch defender 'with us or against us' G.W. Bush and Belt Way cronies know about this, or might we suggest that on our dysfunctional planet, sometimes you've gotta look the other way. In fact, Western nation's have gotta keep shelling out petrodollars to those Muslim kings and mullahs, which are in turn shelled out to underground terrorist organizations who use them to buy say those same mortar shells that every now and then fall on Israel's beleaguered terrain. When logical behavior deserts even one's closest of friends, let alone one's most dangerous adversaries, it is time to craft strategies consistent with that illogic. As mentioned, survival tops Israel's policy agenda. The tiny Jewish State's most effective tool is its keen wit. That cerebral characteristic could be exported to one fat fatuous Sunni nation, ever concerned about Shiite dominance in a Middle East minefield soon to be detonated, cerebrally hobbled by its own raw material dependence, presumably allied to the world's one true military superpower and Israel's closest pal. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, U.S.V.P Dick Cheney and possibly P.M. Ehud Olmert's recent confidant, could very well use the services of the Mossad, and could be amenable to one grand clandestine alliance of convenience with Jewish Israel. Surely, the enemy of his Persian enemy could become his vital 'friend' on this 'One Flew Over The Over The Cuckoo's Nest' orb. Perhaps the King would even be willing to trash all those Jewish blood libel books flowing through his kingdom more fluidly than fossil fuel. Survivor Israel must further seize the day, size up the battlefield, sell itself to other leaders of today's less perilous of those two evil ever feuding 'Hatfield and McCoy' Koran toting tribes, in effect sticking it to 'wipe Israel off the map' AhMADinejad Inc., his Syrian minions with eyes on the 'Golan Heights' prize, proxy filth Hamas and Hizbullah, and all those other 'howling at the moon' Shiite and kindred spirit allies longing for a Nazi-like neo-Ottoman fanatical female enslaving Islamic fiefdom. Other more moderate anti-Shiite Sunni nations such as Jordan and Egypt could more easily break falafel with Israel in a not so overt coalition aggressively crafting military strategies to counter an Iranian, Syrian axis including its terrorist proxies. Lebanon must not fall victim to this axis, indeed could be the next major brushfire morphing to an Islamic inferno of fanaticism with extending tentacles. The last thing Israel needs is an even more revitalized Hizbullah, further ignoring emasculated Westernized troops, salivating to once more attack the Jewish State's imperiled northern border. The sooner anti-Shiite forces realize the war for Middle East and some day European domination has already begun, the better will be their chances of thwarting that awful scenario. This does not mean a fanatical Sunni agenda is not cause for concern, surely al-Quaida and kindred spirit jihadists yearn for their own neo-Ottoman empire, no less fascist thus inherently evil than one dominated by Shiites. In fact, any style Islamic fanaticism must be contained and one day fully uprooted for the sake of an embattled civil enlightened tolerant mankind. Yet, now turning the forces of one evil against the other evil, abetted on the periphery by Israel and clandestine coalition forces, is a prescient logical step considering facts on the ground. Sometimes, one must use nasty chemotherapeutic methods to destroy a perilous metastasizing cancer. In a Machiavellian world, even a manipulated al-Quaida type chemotherapy has its uses, when properly managed by an Israeli-led team of hazmat specialists, well trained in disposing of dangerous materials when no longer useful. This is serious business not for the faint of heart! Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
THE "BLACK SHEPHERD"
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, December 3, 2006. |
|
The shepherds' role from time immemorial was to protect his flock against wolves and other predators. But, a series of Israeli Prime Ministers have joined the predators. Instead of guarding, they seem to guide them into the flock so they can savage the now unprotected. These are the "Black Shepherds" who always have excuses as to why they never lifted their staff to beat the wolves away to save their innocent, helpless charges. After enough of their flock was dead, torn apart by the predators they have unlimited excuses why they have failed but, yet remain in the job as Shepherd and alleged Protector. Presently, we observe Prime Minister Ehud Olmert without consultation from his Cabinet, the Army or the Knesset play the role of the "Black Shepherd" as if he personally owned all of Israel, all Israelis, the entire government, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), et al. Out of his head, out of his mouth he pronounces a cease-fire as a gesture to the visiting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice coming from Jordan on an unplanned trip. Again the "Black Shepherd" issues a further "diktat" that he and he alone without consultation, will give up large tracts of Judea and Samaria (called 'the west bank') as if he truly owned the Land of Israel to do with whatever comes into his mind. The "Black Shepherd" commented on the continuing firing of Kassam Rockets to the effect that it was too bad but perhaps they will eventually discontinue. The "Black Shepherd" babbled inanities while the leaders of Hezb'Allah and Hamas pledged to take all of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Shepherds who take care of their flock often have guard dogs who are experienced in recognizing the wolves who have infiltrated the flock to attack them. Not so the for the "Black Shepherd" Olmert. He has tied up the IDF so they will not awaken the "Black Shepherd" to the dangers. But, the IDF has repeatedly alerted Olmert who deliberately ignored their warnings and issued orders to withdraw. This is a repeat of the surrender of Gush Katif/Gaza and North Samaria when Ariel Sharon and Olmert were repeatedly warned that Gaza, already loaded with Arab Muslim Palestinian terrorists from every faction, would expand exponentially, making Gaza a fully operational fire base to organize and attack inside of Israel as well as plan, train and outfit terrorists for a world-wide Global Terror Base. All that was predicted by Military Intelligence and the General Staff has happened. But, the "Black Shepherd" remains in office with his collaborators when they all should have been on trial for their lives having abandoned the flock to known predators and put their innocents charges at risk in harm's way. Leaving Gaza is now known as a well-planned subterfuge to save the Sharon family from numerous pending court actions -- now the "Black Shepherd" also faced with numerous court actions, is using the same trick to keep the minds of the people pre-occuppied with surrendering Judea, Samaria, the Golan, East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley as well as separating Gush Katif from Gaza turning it into a vast Global Terror Operational Base. It has often been said that Olmert and his Kadimites represent the lowest, most incompetent government Israel has ever had yet, they remain in power to continue their damage. Olmert, while a wholly incompetent and corrupt "Black Shepherd" of the Jewish nation's affairs, was clever enough to recruit MK Avigdor Lieberman with his 11 seats to save him. Lieberman also betrayed his party and the nation by saving Olmert and his Kadima Party. Lieberman makes useless proclamations of how he will save Israel from the Left and Olmert's plans to abandon the Land but, no one pays any attention. The question is: Was Lieberman suckered or was he bribed to save the "Black Shepherd"? Everything the "Black Shepherd" Olmert has done, both before and after he took office, has eased the way for the wolves to move in closer to pick off the flock. Here we saw Olmert fail, with deliberation, to protect the people when Hezb'Allah fired thousands of Katyusha missiles into Northern Israel now on its way to becoming a "No-Man's-Land". For six years the Israeli government under then PM Arik Sharon and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz followed by Luftmenchen Chief of Staff Dan Halutz allowed Hezb'Allah to dig deep bunkers, tunnels, hideouts and weapons' depots among the civilians in South Lebanon. Sharon should have worked with the Army to deal with this danger but he and Olmert had personal politics to occupy their minds, not the people. Betraying the responsibilities of their office has become a common practice for Israeli Prime Ministers. They only worry about warming their seats and not about the nation or their people -- their flocks. Since Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres discovered they could issue orders to change the status of the nation without consulting anyone, the practice has grown. So now, we have the "Black Shepherd" in deference to President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Rice, saying he will release over a thousand terrorists as demanded by Lebanon's Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezb'Allah in trade for Gilad Shalit, the hostage taken from Gaza. Of course, there will be a Shalit 2 -- then 3, then 4 -- then 20 and more. Each will require a massive release of known convicted killers. These killers, having been penned up together will have exchanged information and techniques of the best killing methods and will be much superior at killing Jews. They will go back into their original terrorist cells perhaps even elevated to commanding positions in Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Fatah's Al Aksa Brigades. Of course, they could join the Palestinian Jordan Badar Brigade which the "Black Shepherd" is allowing into Gaza to join Abu Mazen's Army. In the meantime, we see James Baker III, Rice, Tony Blair joining Iran and Syria -- howling for the great "Peace" that never started, does not exist and will never exist. The "Black Shepherd" is wholly committed to the wolves and their plans to re-partition Israel before a full saturation missile attack from all directions. The "Black Shepherd" will deny collusion, no doubt, to save a what could be a death sentence from a duly constituted Peoples' Court. Retribution, however, will not compensate for the thousands, perhaps millions of the flock who will have paid for the "Black Shepherd's" perfidy. The Kadimites and the Left will try to scatter and hide in their spider holes, denying they played any role in the invasion to follow. What's left of the government of Israel will receive heartfelt condolences from the Bush-Baker crowd and the Europeans led by Blair and Jacques Chirac, who will tell all how sorry they are. The Left Liberal Jews of America will start a drive to collect money for the survivors, denying they played any role in urging the re-partition of Israel and their support of the "Black Shepherd". Elie Weisel once said: "Where was G-d?" as the world collaborated in massacring the Jews of Europe? There is no answer I can give you except to say, Israel was born in fire and pain, love and determination to survive by the remnant that was left after 6 million were killed. That is no answer either. Presently, Israel's enemies are closing in on her in stages. They will rely on the "Black Shepherd" to attend a "World Conference" which would be a deliberate assembly of a Kangaroo Court with a hanging judge. The "Black Shepherd" unless otherwise deposed will eagerly attend in the name of Israel as the reigning dictator. Everything is being arranged for the funeral service. The eulogy, the selection of the pall bearers, the grave-side ceremony where world leaders will display crocodile tears at the demise of Israel. Its enablers among the Jews will have tried to scatter to other nations but, as in WW2 no one will let them in. The "Black Shepherd" and his acolytes will be put on trial by the Arab Muslims for crimes against the Muslim people. The "Black Shepherd" along with the others, will sit in a plastic enclosure, pleading that he really tried to help them. It will be of no use. The sentence will meet the standard of justice practiced by the Saudis, the Taliban, namely, beheading or some limb chopping. All of this, of course, is contingent on the "Black Shepherd" his collaborators and the foreign nations succeeding in weakening Israel. Should the "Black Shepherd" be deposed along with his Kadimites, Amalekites and all those under cover as enemies of the nation, perhaps Israel can survive. We do need a leader of quality who cannot be frightened by the threats of the missiles and rockets, the Bush-Baker Commission, the Genocidal Europeans, et al. 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 winstonmedia@comcast.net |
|
SIMCHA
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 2, 2006. |
|
The Jewish Community of Hebron is small but it is tough and it draws strength from its devotion to Torah. It is harassed by the Hebron Arabs, who are shockingly aided and abetted by Israeli police -- whose task it is to force the Jews out of Hebron. The Government feels it will reduce tension with the Arabs to throw the Jews out of the sacred city, Hebron, where the first Jew, Abraham, and his wife Sarah are buried, and where King David established his first capitol as King over Israel. David Wilder gives us some of the flavor of Hebron's spirit and why people flock to it at holy-day times and why it must never be given away. |
|
Well, I guess life is somewhat back to normal, whatever that is. The holidays concluded a week ago, and that's given me time to take a deep breath and start to recover. Maybe that's not the correct phrase to use; recovery sounds like recuperating from something like surgery or other, not-so-positive events. In this case recuperation is not from anything negative. To the contrary: nothing could have been more positive. But still, recuperation was called for. That's what happens after Hebron was privileged to host over 100,000 people during the week of Succot. That's right: over one hundred thousand people. And somewhere between 50-60,000 plowed their way into the city on Monday of Chol HaMoed, the second intermediary day of the week-long festival. After a week like that, one must sit back, take a deep breath, and begin to figure out how to channel all the energy generated by such a week. I'm now starting to get back onto my feet. Succot is always a happy holiday. Spending seven days in 'booths' -- wood, or cloth-walled shacks, with many people eating all their meals and sleeping outside every night, is an invigorating experience. It is also humbling. One of the major concepts of Succot is pure faith. Strip a person of his security blanket, the protected rooms of his house or apartment, and the protection of a leak-proof roof over his head, and command him to reside for a week with palm-leaves or some other type of branch acting as a ceiling, and four flimsy walls around him, is a very good reminder of what we really are, And anyone who thinks otherwise can take a short journey in time back to the Tsunami, or 9/11. Our real protection clearly comes from above. The succot holiday is a good, annual reminder.
Visitors from Norway
Actually throngs started flocking to Hebron not during Succot, but about a month and a half earlier, at the beginning of the Hebrew month of Elul, the last month on the Jewish calendar. According to reliable statistics, some 50,000 people arrived in Hebron from the beginning of Elul until Succot. So, altogether, in the space of just under two months, about 150,000 people visited Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and the Jewish community of Hebron. That's a lot of people. During the holiday week there were tours available in multiple languages. Walking down the street I bumped into groups speaking Russian, French, Spanish, Hebrew and English. Various vendors filled the park across from the Ma'ara, selling everything from wine to postcards. Hebron children lined the streets, offering food and cold drinks to the visitors. Other Hebron residents presented their wares, including art, jewelry and ceramics, all hand-made. It was a site to see. The BIG day during the week was Monday. At nine in the morning a special "Carlebach" prayer service started in front of Ma'arat HaMachpela. Hundreds, men and women, squeezed into the central Succah just outside the Ma'ara. Accompanied by flutist Moshe Musa Berlin and his orchestra, Chizki Sofer playing the guitar and Hebron's own Simcha Hochbaum, the service continued for three hours to the tunes of R' Shlomo Carlebach zt"l, finishing just before twelve noon. The singing, dancing and worshiping were as uplifting as such a service can possibly be. But that was just the beginning. By early afternoon there was a long line of people snaking their way into the Tomb of the Patriarchs. That line didn't let up for hours. Inside, the building was packed. Just after one o'clock the famed Hebron music festival began, and the crowd started gathering. Very quickly the audience covered much of the courtyard and reached the street. Every half hour or so the performers changed, and as the afternoon progressed, the spirits continued to rise. I was standing near the stage. At about four o'clock the word came in. MBD's walking down the Erez path -- will arrive in a minute. For those of you who don't know who MBD is... Eleven years ago I wrote an article -- on Oct. 15, 1995, called Mordechai the Tzaddik. It dealt with the world's number one Hassidic singer, who had just visited Hebron: Mordechai ben David. I stick to my opinion of over a decade ago. He is still the best. And he is still a Tzaddik -- a righteous person. Not everyone is willing to come to Hebron. True, a hundred thousand in one week isn't bad. But, that leaves at least a few million that didn't make it. And unfortunately, too many of them have never been here. Yet there are those who can't stay away. MBD is one of those. The first time I remember MBD in Hebron was exactly 13 years ago. Hebron resident, Baruch ben Ya'akov was stabbed by an Arab terrorist on an October Friday morning (and not badly hurt, thank G-d.) The next night, after Shabbat was over, we heard rumors of a spontaneous concert to take place in Hebron outside Ma'arat HaMachpela. I came down from Kiryat Arba and found MBD, together with a few of his friends, such stars as Baruch Green and Avi Piamenta, (and others who I don't remember) setting up a makeshift stage, with a very simple audio system. They came in to put on a show, as a result of the previous day's attack on Baruch. No headlines, nowhere near tens of thousands of people, no money. Just a group of the best of the best, performing for a small group of people who'd heard that the show was going to go on. Raising the spirits of Hebron's Jewish community. Over the years Mordechai ben David has continued to come into Hebron, usually for the Succot music festival, outside the Ma'ara. A few years ago, when our Arab neighbors were shooting at us from the hills, MBD would come in with a couple of buses of people and put on the same kind of makeshift show across from Beit Hadassah. With a local high school organist providing accompaniment, MBD sang his heart out for a couple of hours, with all Hebron participating, singing and dancing. When the shooting stopped and the festival moved back to Ma'arat HaMachpela, he continued his performances, not to a couple of hundred people, rather to tens of thousands. A shtreimel (fur hat worn by religious Jews of certain Hassidic sects) perched on his head, his long 'peot' (side-locks) swinging with his walk, MBD's most distinctive feature was the huge infectious smile glowing from his face. His whole charter gleamed with simcha -- happiness. A few of us hugged him and exchanged a few words of greeting. And then, in an operation characteristic of Israeli intelligence, we managed to get him and his accompanying guests into Ma'arat HaMachpela for afternoon prayers. That was not an easy task keeping in mind that about 50,000 people were waiting for him to appear. Had they known where he was, well, calling it a mob scene would be a severe understatement. Upon conclusion of the prayers in the packed Isaac Hall we again moved MBD out, this time using an entrance into Ma'arat HaMachpela that has been closed for the past 12 years or so. Finally, at about 5:00 the show went on, and what a show it was. If earlier I used the word 'generate' to describe the energy of Succot in Hebron, here I would change that term to 'radiate.' The tremendous spiritual lift that MBD provided with almost an hour and a half of hassidic Jewish music was indescribable. The fact that tens of thousands were present, swaying and singing together with the him is proof enough. I later asked him if he felt Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'akov dancing next to him. He shrugged it off. I, on the other hand, have no doubt that they were there too. It would have been impossible to sleep through such show. I later wrote him that the energy radiated by his show will keep me going for a long time. And that's the truth. The show finally ended and Mordechai and his friends took a tour of Hebron with Noam Arnon before heading back to Jerusalem. I still stand by my thoughts of 11 years ago. MBD really is the best, and he really is a tzaddik. The rest of Succot was full of people. Every day Ma'arat HaMachpela was full. It was probably the largest Succot holiday we have ever had in Hebron. So, after it's all over, what does it mean? It means that many many people, from all over, support Hebron's Jewish community. And of course, not all our supporters were in Israel, or in Hebron at the time. The 100,000 that were here are just a fraction of the support Hebron has, in Israel and around the world. And that support is not just for Hebron. All these people back Jewish settlement throughout Eretz Yisrael, be it here, or in Beit El or Shilo, and it goes without saying that they all oppose expulsion of Jews from their homes, as was done last summer, and as the present administration is planning on again trying to do in the near future. However, their long-term goals will never be implemented. The setbacks we have faced are temporary. During Succot I was interviewed by a CNN crew who asked me about this subject and I told them, "G-d didn't' bring us back to Israel after a 2,000 year exile to throw us out again. This is our home. We are back, and we are going to stay." How? Quite simply, we have a secret weapon. Despite everything, it will never cease to exist. It is called simcha -- happiness, true, unadulterated joy, such as we were privileged to witness here in Hebron during the Succot holiday. If you missed it this year, make sure to be here next year. It is an experience you will never forget. Guaranteed. With blessings from Hebron.
David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You
can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10,
Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write
to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230,
hebronfund@aol.com
|
|
THE MYTH OF THE MODERATE MUSLIM
Posted by Stan Goodenough, December 2, 2006. |
|
This article is archived at
www.stangoodenough.com/2006/11/28/the-myth-of-the-moderate-muslim/ One day, hopefully in the not too far-off future (for the longer the drop the harder the fall,) icy reality is going to hit the politically correct slap-bang in the face, shocking them with the realization that they were wrong all along, and that there really is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim after all. I am assuming, of course, that they don't already know this; that they are not just refusing to acknowledge it because they are afraid to be seen as politically incorrect. To any who are thus deceiving themselves even as they try to deceive others, let me say this: Come out of the closet and into the world where reality is what is real, and evil is just that. Believe me; it's refreshing, if sobering, out here. And with the blinders off and the numbness pierced through, you can grapple with the things that detrimentally affect you and those you love. If enough of you came out it could help save our civilization -- maybe even our lives. Fact, plain and simple: There are no moderate Muslims. As is the case with all religionists, there are good Muslims and bad Muslims; strong Muslims and weak Muslims; committed Muslims and compromising Muslims; nominal Muslims, and devout Muslims. The second grouping in each set comprises those sold out for their faith and their god; prepared to do all they believe he demands of them. How do we define a good Muslim? Easily. We use the same measure we'd use in assessing whether a Christian is a good Christian or a mediocre one, or whether a Jew is a faithful Jew, or a faithless one. We assess the follower in the light of the founder. (Please note, this does not necessarily have anything to do with whether he is a good person or not, only whether he/she is a good Jew/Christian/Muslim etc. Yes, I know this could lead to a discussion about what Jesus says in Matthew 7:18. But may I suggest leaving that for a later date?) In order, then, to determine just how good a Christian a Christian is, so to speak, we look at the Founder of Christianity, and at how He taught His followers to live. We can then see how closely the follower is following. Our answers are in the Bible, the comprehensive record of the life of the Messiah. Its pages describe what a person needs to do in order to live for, follow and please the LORD. The Greek word for Messiah is Christ. So a Christ-ian is someone who professes to be, and behaves like, a follower of the Christ. How did He live and how did He instruct His disciples to live? From His birth in a lowly stable, through His adulthood absorbed with ministering to and caring for others, to His criminal's death on a Roman stake, Jesus' life was one unbroken expression of love for mankind. He gave everything that He was, laying down His life for others -- the good, the bad and the rotten -- expecting and taking nothing in return. There have always been a relatively few Christians who have strived to emulate that Life. While it is a humanly unattainable goal, the good Christian will try to reach it. This will be his heart's desire: to be a close follower of the Christ. Bad Christians litter the landscape of the last 2000 years. A great many men and women who have claimed to be Christ's disciples have behaved completely contrary to the way that He taught. Most notorious are the Crusaders and those who supported them; the Roman Catholic Inquisitors and those who supported them; the Russian-Orthodox Cossacks and those who supported them; the Lutheran Nazis and those who supported them; the American Christian Ku Klux Clan and those who support them; these and many other Christian groups, some of the most respected "Church Fathers" and "ordinary" individuals as well. One attribute was/is common to them all: Antisemitism; their hatred of the Jews. Let's look briefly at what makes a good Jew. The Jewish nation traces its roots into the mists of history, back to Abraham, Isaac and Israel, and to the latter's sons, fathers of the 12 Tribes. All Jews today have either been born from that bloodline or have converted to embrace Judaism. But none of the Patriarchs founded that nation. Israel was founded by God. It was God Who gave them their designation; He set them apart from all other peoples on earth, giving them His laws which, "if a man does, he shall live by them." A good Jew is one who strives to live up to his calling by keeping God's law. None have perfected this, but all good Jews will try. That will be their hearts' desire: to live in the way that God set out in order to please Him. Once again there are plenty of examples of bad Jews. The biblical record does not gloss over them; to the contrary, their sinfulness is exposed for every generation to see. Until today, bad Jews abound -- all those who reject God's law and the calling He has placed upon them as a nation. We have many in Israel and there are many among those still in exile "out there." They want to be like the unbelieving gentile world: Jews without God, able to live whatever lives they choose while still claiming their ancestral heritage. But God has warned them that those who transgress His law "shall be cut off from his [own] people." That is to say, unless they turn back to Him they will no longer be Jews in His eyes. So we have good Christians and bad Christians, good Jews and bad Jews. What separates the good from the bad is their faithfulness to live in the calling to which they were called. Which brings us to Muslims, concerning whom we must ask the same questions: How did the founder of their faith live his life, and how did he instruct his followers to live theirs? Islam began with Mohammed, who claimed to have received a heavenly revelation which stimulated him to found the new religion. Historians record that he was an epileptic who received much of his "inspiration" in the middle of fits that had him writhing and foaming at the mouth. He also drew on the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Mohammed's often incoherent babblings were scribbled down on scraps of paper, and it was only after his death that these 'writings " were compiled into the Koran -- the so-called Muslim "bible." (Of course the comparison is without justification. The Judeo-Christian Bible was written over a period of 1500 years by more than 50 authors who were clearly inspired by the Spirit of the God of Israel. The Koran is the disjointed, often contradictory, work of a single man.) Mohammed achieved a number of extraordinary things:
Apart from being a mass-murdering terrorist of the worst kind, Mohammed was also a sexual deviant. He had numerous wives, among them a seven-year-old girl as well as the wife of one his sons. He "gave" his warriors the "right" to keep as sex slaves the widows of the men they killed in war. He taught that Muslims who died in the act of killing unbelievers (Christians and Jews) would be transported straight to heaven where 72 virgins were waiting to give them all the pleasures they desired, while the "martyr's" family members would also be spared "judgment day" and go straight to paradise when they died. Inspired by the violence and depravity of Mohammed, Islam spread like wildfire. Today more than a billion-and-a-half people claim to follow the "prophet" of Allah. A good Muslim, then, is one who follows as closely as possible the example and the teachings of Mohammed. This practice is known in Arabic as "sunnat" and means emulating Mohammed's behavior in all its aspects. A good Muslim is one who serves Allah and believes that the entire world must be made to serve him too. A good Muslim is one who is ready to force Islam on infidels at the point of a sword, the barrel of a gun, with a bomb-belt on a bus or by flying an airliner into the World Trade Center. A good Muslim will actively wage jihad (holy war) against the infidels, killing as many as he can if they refuse to bow to Allah. A good Muslim will be a terrorist, a cold-blooded killer. And we have not even begun to talk about the way a good Muslim sees and treats women. So who are these "moderate" Muslims we keep hearing about, that are being contrasted with the "radical" or "extremist" Muslims -- as CNN is even doing as I write this in a special production on Islam (Your World Today, November 28, 2006). And what is this "religion of peace" Islam is increasingly being described as, even in the White House? It's all lies, all obfuscation, deception, mirrors and smoke. Hardly anyone -- and certainly not a single world leader today, not even those whose nations are already being dragged towards the dungeon that is Islam -- is prepared to tell the truth. To drive off the fog and help you keep a clear mind, I suggest that whenever you hear a Muslim described as "moderate" remind yourself that he/she is a bad Muslim and, consequently, less of a threat to you. When you hear the term "radical Muslim" or "Muslim extremists" replace that adjective with the word "good," and be warned that he/she poses a very grave threat indeed. Islam is a religion of hatred, violence, terrorism and war. All good Muslims, all devout Muslims practice this religion. And as they succeed and make dramatic headway in their global jihad, more and more bad Muslims are acknowledging their backsliding and vowing to become good ones too. Islam is a mushrooming threat, an oncoming tsunami determined to drown and decimate what is left of Judeo-Christian civilization. And it is gathering strength, safe and unchecked, behind the myth of the moderate Muslim. Stan Goodenough is editor of Jerusalem Newswire |
|
SOCIAL PROBLEMS WITH ISLAM
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 2, 2006. |
|
I don't usually send out articles about individual Arabs or Moslems, or isolated examples of Islamic social or political excesses. But the three incidents below seem so egregrious, and yet are the products of what their interlocutors argue is normative public Muslim behavior, that I feel it is elucidating to read them. 1.) The basic thrust of the defense for el-Turki is that what el-Turki did to his maid was just the norm in el-Turki's country: Saudi Arabia. And the Saudi press urges us to believe that the poor man is being persecuted because he is a Moslem who is merely doing the things that Moslems do when in their own Islamic countries. So, perhaps without meaning to, he and the Saudi press have told the world that rape, torture, theft, and enslavement are legitimate ways that Muslim men in Saudi Arabia treat their domestic servants. They are also clear that the death sentence is to be carried out by partisan forces (no judge, no jury, no defense, no process, no rule of law, no government intervention) with the utmost brutality (disembowel the living victim, then tie each of his limbs to a motorcycle and drive all four motorcycles off in four different directions so that the man's arms and legs are pulled from his body) such that other potential sinners against Islam may take note and be properly warned. I have no doubt that such behavior is not "true Islam". But the issue of what is "true Islam" is quite irrelevant to the enslaved and raped maid, to the rape victims in Pakistan whose quest for legal recourse is decried by hard line Muslims, and to the victim of the 4-motorcycle-lynch and his family in Afghanistan. All of the victims of these three incidents suffered their fates because their assailants believed that "true Islam" demanded, or at least allowed, such barbaric behavior...and these assailants defend their deeds in terms of Islamic religious ideology, Shari'a, and Muslim social norms. And note that Taliban popularity is growning in Afghanistan, rape is a capital crime in which punishment is meted out to the female victim in many Musim countries, and foreign domestic workers are indeed treated like slaves in Saudi Arabia. And this is all very much to the liking of the Taliban, the 'hard line Islamists', and the Saudis...because, according to them, this is what Islam requires. Meanwhile, Muslim apologists tell us that these brutal excesses are not "true Islam" but rather are perversions of Islam, betrayals of Islam, misunderstandings of Islam, a hijacking of Islam. So why are the apologists talking to us? They should be talking to the Taliban and the Saudis. There is a problem with Islam. |
|
(1.) "Saudi Arabia: False Imprisonment, Rape Are 'Basic Muslim
Behaviors'"
On June 30 For four years, he kept the 24-year old maid as a virtual slave in
his home, confiscated her passport, and subjected to her to sexual
assaults which culminated in her rape in late 2004. His attorney, John
Richilano, had argued in court that there had been misunderstood
cultural differences, which he described as "cynical Islamophobia".
His wife, Sarah Khonaizan, who had obviously colluded with the
maltreatment of the maid, who cooked and looked after their five
children, was deported. The maid now lives in Aurora.
Al-Turki's followers and family caused havoc in the courtroom when
the verdict was announced. He was sentenced on August 31
Additionally, he was given a further eight years' jail for theft,
where he withheld the maid's wages. Even while being sentenced,
Al-Turki, who had lived in the US for 14 years, still protested that
he was "framed" by the prosecutors' Islamophobia.
"The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking
traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution,"
Al-Turki said to the judge. If you have read our special report
The Saudi press has described the case as one of Islamophobic oppression, with the US judiciary expressing their bias against Muslims. Many Saudis are convinced that Al-Turki would never have been convicted in Saudi Arabia. The experiences of Flora del Mindanao, who was even accused of theft by the imam who imprisoned and raped her, would suggest that this is true.
A US government report Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to work unless they have permission from a male relative, states Human Rights Watch In April 2005, a Saudi employer burned his Indonesian maid Suniati Binti Nibaran Sujari, who barely survived. When in March last year another Indonesian maid accused her employers of torture, she was placed in a hospital, a prison, and a women's rehabilitation center before being handed over to the Indonesian embassy.
Indian maids travelling to Saudi Arabia must first be registered In April 600,000 Indonesian women are kept as "maids" in the kingdom. In 2004, it was reported On Saturday in the Rocky Mountain News Struthers had gone to reassure the Saudi authorities that Homaidan Al-Turki had been treated fairly. He met with King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan, as well as with Saudi journalists.
Deputy Attorney General Jason Dunn said on Friday: "There was a lot of public attention in Saudi Arabia on this case." He explained that Struthers had told the Saudis how the US judicial system works and that "in Colorado, crimes of this sort are dealt with severely. He wasn't apologizing for it, but he wanted them to understand why the result of the case was what it was."
It beggars belief that anyone should have to explain to the Saudis that imprisoning and raping a maid is illegal, and judged to be a serious crime in the United States. The necessity of such a visit only shows how barbaric, sexist and Medieval the Saudi kingdom really is.
(2.) "Pakistani Islamists protest as new rape law signed,"
ISLAMABAD, Dec 1 (Reuters) -- Religious party activists held small protests on Friday in several cities around Pakistan as President Pervez Musharraf signed into law a bill curtailing the scope of Islamic laws on rape.
Islamist opposition lawmakers have threatened to resign from parliament over the issue, but protests held after the National Assembly passed the Women's Protection Bill earlier this month have failed to generate much public support.
The passage of the bill was seen as a test of Musharraf's commitment to his vision of "enlightened moderation", and a major battle in a long struggle between progressives and religious conservatives to set the course for this mainly Muslim nation.
"The bill was sent to the president by the prime minister yesterday, which he signed and returned today," Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani told Reuters.
Hundreds of supporters of the Islamist parties chanted anti-Musharraf slogans at a demonstration in Rawalpindi, the city next door to Islamabad, and demanded that the government scrap the bill, and there were smaller rallies in other cities after Friday prayers.
The act takes the crime of rape out of the sphere of the religious laws, known as the Hudood Ordinances, and puts it under the penal code.
Under the Hudood Ordinances, which were introduced by a military ruler in 1979, a rape victim had to produce four male witnesses to prove the crime, or face the possibility of prosecution for adultery.
The change does away with that requirement and will allow convictions to be made on the basis of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
An Islamist opposition leader said it would turn conservative Pakistan into a "free sex zone".
Liberal groups and human rights activities have hailed the amendment, although they want a complete abolition of the Hudood Ordinances.
(3.) "Disembowelled and murdered for teaching girls"
GHAZNI -- The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely.
But his life was over.
He was partly disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes. The remains were put on display as a warning to others against defying Taleban orders to stop educating girls.
Halim is one of four teachers killed in rapid succession by the Islamists at Ghazni, a strategic point on the routes from Kabul to the south and east which has become the scene of fierce clashes between the Taleban and United States and Afghan forces.
The day we arrived an Afghan policeman and eight insurgents died during an ambush in an outlying village. Rockets were found, primed to be fired into Ghazni city during a visit by the American ambassador a few days previously. But, as in the rest of Afghanistan, it is the civilians who are bearing the brunt of this murderous conflict.
At the village of Qara Bagh, Halim's family is distraught and terrified. His cousin, Ahmed Gul, shook his head. "They killed him like an animal. No, no. We do not kill animals like that. They took away a father and a husband, they had no pity. We are all very worried. Please go now, you see those men standing over there? They are watching. It is dangerous for you, and for us."
Fatima Mustaq, the director of education at Ghazni, has had repeated death threats, the notorious 'night letters'. Her gender, as well as her refusal to send girls home from school, has made her a hate figure for Islamist zealots. "I think they killed him that way to frighten us, otherwise why make a man suffer so much? Mohammed Halim and his family were good friends of ours and we are very, very upset by what has happened. He came to me when the threats first began and asked what he should do. I told him to move somewhere safe. I think he was trying to arrange that when they came and took him."
The threats against Mushtaq also extend to her husband Sayyid Abdul and their eight children. "When the first letters arrived, I tried to hide them from my husband. But then he found the next few. He said we must stand together. We talked, and we decided that we must tell the children, so that they can be prepared. But it is not a good way for them to grow up."
During the Taleban's rule she and her sister ran secret schools for girls at their home. "They found out and raided us. We managed to persuade them that we were only teaching the Koran. But they spied and found out we were teaching algebra. So they came and beat us. Can you imagine, beating someone for teaching algebra."
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 |
|
SAUDI GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED EXECUTIONER DEMONSTRATES HIS WEAPONS AND METHODS
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, December 2, 2006. |
|
This appeared on MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). Contact them by email at memri@memri.org or go to the website: http://www.memri.org. To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit: http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD137406 |
|
The following are excerpts from an interview with the Saudi government-appointed executioner for Mecca, Abdallah Al-Bishi. The interview aired on the Lebanese LBC TV on November 4, 2006. See the clip at http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1322. "The People Who Supervise This Field [in Saudi Arabia] Summoned Me, Saying I Had a Mission" Reporter: "This is the most renowned executioner in Saudi Arabia, Abdallah Bin Sa'id Al-Bishi, who carries out the executions. His sword delineates the border between seriousness and play. There is no negotiating with him once the heads have ripened. When it's harvesting time, he is the most suited for the job." Abdallah Al-Bishi: "I started to work in this field after the death of my father about a week or 10 days after his death, in 1412 [1991-92]. I was surprised that the people who supervise this field summoned me, saying I had a mission. Allah be praised. Of course, I did not have swords or anything back then, but I used the swords of my father, may he rest in peace, and carried out the execution. My first mission was to execute three people." Reporter: "Abu Bader's swords have cut off a hundred heads and more. His eldest son, Badr, is training in the same profession. He inherited this profession from his father, Sa'id Al-Bishi. He remembers how, when still a small boy, he accompanied him to the beheading of a criminal in Mecca. That sight, Abu Badr says, was the turning point in his life." Abdallah Al-Bishi: "I was at school, and an execution was set for my father in Mecca. It was to take place in front of the King Abd Al-'Aziz Gate. Before all that happened at the Al-Haram Mosque, the executions were held there. We showed up. I was a little boy. The first thing that came to my mind when people talked about executions was the digestive system. I wanted to see it. At that time, we had an exam at school on the digestive system, and we had to explain about the digestive system and whatever... So I came along, and the moment my father executed the man, I ran to see the digestive system, but all I could see was the man's head flying, and where the neck used to be, there was a kind of well. It went down. That's it. I couldn't take it anymore. I woke up in the car on the way home. At night, I tried to go to sleep, but couldn't. I had nightmares, but only once. Then I got used to it, Allah be praised. " Reporter: "He carries the memory of many events, which naturally could have an effect on people, but one sees that he relates to some of them with humor. "He denies that the executioner is cruel. He considers himself one of the most compassionate people, and all the stories about him come from rumors." "This is The Sword I Used on My First Day at Work" Abdallah Al-Bishi [showing a sword]: "Let's start with 'the Sultan.' I began with this Sultan. This is the sword I used on my first day at work. This is an old sword. This is a 'Jowhar' sword. All my swords are 'Jowhar.' 'Jowhar' are the strongest swords used for beheadings. It is not affected by the number of people beheaded with it. It is made of strong iron, not the kind that breaks or anything. [Shows another sword] "This sword is also a Jowhar. Every sword, of course, is different in its own way, and is suited for its task. We have a sword this 'Qaridha,' to be precise which is used for vertical strokes. This stroke is, of course, different from the horizontal one. The horizontal stroke goes like this [demonstrating]. These are different strokes." Dr. Turki Al-Atyan, Saudi Interior Ministry psychologist: "The rulings of the shari'a executions or other punishments decreed by Allah are carried out by the sword, not by hanging or by gunfire. In the past, gunfire was used, and the victim's guardian was allowed to do the shooting, but out of the fear that possible injustice, Saudi Arabia decided that executions would be carried out by the sword." First TV host: "Like we said at the beginning of the show, the executioner Abdallah Al-Bishi will be joining us shortly. He is delayed because he is busy carrying out an execution. He is coming to the show straight from work, and will be joining us soon. "There are several executioners in Saudi Arabia, but there are no accurate figures. According to the figures we obtained in our research, there are six executioners in Saudi Arabia, but there may be a few others. There are no accurate figures." Second TV host: "They operate in different regions. Sometimes Abdallah Al-Bishi is asked to travel to another region, to carry out an execution. We will talk to him about that, and about the young executioners he has trained." I Also Cut Off Thieves' Hands And "A Hand and a Leg on Alternate Sides, as is Written in The Koran" First TV host: "Do you cut off hands, or do you just do beheadings?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "Yes, yes. I carry out the punishment of cutting off thieves' hands, as well as the cutting off of a hand and a leg on alternate sides, as is written in the Koran." Second TV host: "Abdallah, when you carry out the punishment of cutting off limbs, do you anesthetize the condemned person, or is it done without anesthesia, like beheadings?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "With regard to the cutting off of a hand, or of both a hand and a leg, it is done with local anesthesia only." Second TV host: "But the person who is being beheaded is definitely not anesthetized, right?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "No, he is not anesthetized at all." First TV host: "Abu Badr, do you remember the first time you carried out an execution? Do you remember that day?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "I remember it to this day. I was surprised when the officials in charge asked me to carry out one of Allah's punishments. When I came, I was told it would be an execution, and I said: 'No problem.' I took the sword that used to belong to my father, may he rest in peace... " First TV host: "How old were you then?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "At that point I was... I was a man." First TV host: "You are a man at any age, there's no doubt about that, but how old were you?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "I don't remember exactly 32 or 35 years old. I began in 1412." First TV host: "How was the experience, especially since it was your first time? How did you feel?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "Every person is a bit worried when he starts a new job, and is afraid he will fail." "I Have Beheaded Many People, Who Were My Friends, but whoever commits an Offense brings it on himself"; "If The Heart is Compassionate, The Hand Fails" Second TV host: "Abdallah, what was your most difficult beheading? Have you ever beheaded someone you knew?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "Yes, I have beheaded many people who were my friends, but whoever commits an offense brings it on himself." First TV host: "A viewer from Riyadh called to ask whether you execute both men and women. Do you execute women, and do you feel anything different when you execute a woman or a man?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "An execution is an execution. The difference is that sometimes, when you execute a man, he cannot control his nerves, and sit or stand straight, so that the job can be done." First TV host: "As for women, do you feel more compassion than for men? We know you are merely carrying out [the sentence], but what do you feel?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "If I felt compassion for the person I was executing, he would suffer. If the heart is compassionate, the hand fails. First TV host: "When you behead more than three or four people at once, does it affect you? My second question is: Do you need a break between executions? Does it affect you or not?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "Allah be praised, there is nothing to it. Three, four, five, or six there is nothing to it. It's entirely normal. An execution is an execution, and as long as the person stands straight... As long as the person stands straight, it makes our job much easier." Second TV host: "Abdallah, we've heard that one day, you were executing several people, and the sword broke. Is that true? Tell us that story, please." Abdallah Al-Bishi: "It was the handle that came off, not the blade." First TV host: "Are you training your eldest son Badr or one of his brothers to do the same job in the future, especially since you inherited this profession from your father?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "Allah be praised, Badr is about to be appointed to the position in Riyadh." Abdallah Al-Bishi: "Like I already said, there is no difficulty in carrying out this mission. The only thing that concerns me is that the condemned person finish what he has to do as quickly as possible." First TV host: "Abu Badr, what time do you get up? Do you eat a special breakfast? All these details are very important to us." Abdallah Al-Bishi: "I cannot elaborate on the work itself. On the personal level, I am very normal. I get up in the morning, pray the Al-Fajr prayer. My breakfast is prepared, and I eat it. Allah be praised. I wait for the police car to pick me up, and I go to work. It's all very normal. I finish the job, and go home. It's all very normal." Second TV host: "Abdallah, sometimes at executions, the condemned asks to be pardoned by the victim's family, right?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "To be pardoned?" Second TV host: "Do you go and talk to the victim's family?" Abdallah Al-Bishi: "Yes, yes. I intervene in the reconciliation efforts. There are many good people on the scene, who intervene through the authorities or the police. May Allah reward them all. But the first to mediate is me, the executioner on the scene." Mordechai Ben-Menachem can be contacted by email at quality@computer.org |
|
"IMAMS ON A PLANE" CLAIM FIRST VICTIM
Posted by Michael Travis, December 2, 2006. |
|
This was posted by Psion today |
|
Last week Clearchannel radio KFYI Phoenix interviewed Iman Omar (Spokesman for the 6 Imans on a plane, defender of Osama bin Laden)of the East Valley Mosque. After Omar was given the opportunity to spew his propaganda regarding American and Islam, KFYI producer Kate O'Neill brought in Islamic expert Mohammed Saeed to set the record straight. Saeed refuted every detail of the Imam's version of Islam and opined that The Jordanian clerics were out to embarrass the American people by claiming to be "Victims" of racial profiling. The KFYI phones lit up as Arizonans called in the show to voice their views on the matter. "Get out of our country" was the prevalent view expressed by the outraged citizenry. The controversy over the interview continued all week as KFYI programs were inundated with phone calls from angry citizens. KFYI should have been extremely pleased with the response. Unfortunately the testosterone-challenged management at the station responded to the success of the interview by having a program director on hand during producer Kate O'Neil's shows ... ready to the pull the plug instantly if O'Neill dared to court further controversy by confronting the issue of the Jihad in America. On Friday December 1st, the KFYI management fired outspoken Kate O'Neill. I have obtained a recent communication between O'Neill and Sean Hannity ... perhaps the letter below was what broke the KFYI camel's back. From: O'NEILL, KATE, Sent: Wed 11/29/2006 5:37 PM To: Sean Hannity Subject: info and audio from KFYI, PHX w/ Moslem imams on the plane Sean -- I produce/co-host 7-10 pm weeknight show on KFYI -- was hired by our mutual friend, Laurie Cantillo. Having reported for NBC News, Tel Aviv, for three years I know something about the jihad. You are right to focus tightly on this incident. I've got great audio from several on-air confrontations w/two of the imams during the last week. One called in to object to my call to book all holiday travel on US Air. Our audience has gone crazy over this issue. Haven't seen passions this high over anything other but illegal immigration. These guys contradict themselves at every turn. They're bad news- Kate Clearchannel has now been sold to a nameless "group of investors". Let's hope that the investors are not Saudi. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
UN RIGHTS COUNCIL FAILS TO ACT ON WORLD'S WORST ABUSES
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 2, 2006. |
|
Until we do something about it, the UN [no]Human Rights Council -- previously known as Human Rights Commission -- will continue abusing and damaging our world to the beyond repair extent. It is NEVER "old" news, until it is finally corrected. We should STOP being used to this kind of behavior taking place, because if we do, then there is NO such a thing as Human Rights Watch, which then must also include Israel. The world CANNOT have this kind of duplicity. When it comes to ALL other Human Rights validations, too many to count happening today, there is a total silence and no action. BUT when Israel, as much as makes an unintentional mistake (Beit Hanoun) and people are killed or she simply has to defend itself the entire, collective Human Rights Organizations jump on her ready to slaughter her and the world keeps on being silent with a smirk on its faces. This reckless duplicity only reveals how prejudice and bias the UN Human Rights Council/Commission and all others calling themselves Human Rights Organizations are. It is time Israel simply calls on it. When these bias and anti-Israel pick on her again, Israel should rebuttal it with a loud counter blame of ALL other human violations these crappy and despicable organizations do not take on or fight. We should no longer accept any UN condemnation and decision. As I said, 9/11 was an attack on the wrong building...it should have been the UN building. This criminal organization should bee dismantle as of this writing. The worrisome is that the U.N. is left to act indignantly and its effect on the ignorant -- it hates Israel/Jews -- world is irreparable. Nurit |
|
PRESS RELEASE -- December 1, 2006 UN Human Rights Council Fails to Act on World's Worst Abuses FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Media Relations
Geneva, December 1, 2006 -- UN Watch expressed deep disappointment that the UN Human Rights Council has concluded its segment on violations without acting on the world's worst abuses. In a speech delivered today to the Council, the Geneva-based human rights organization urged action against repression of freedom in China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and 15 other countries or territories. [See full text of statement below.] Israel was condemned twice and was the subject of numerous reports and debates at the session. In its six months of existence, the Council has now passed six resolutions against Israel. The European Union and Canada expressed outrage when their resolution seeking to hold the Sudanese government accountable on Darfur was rejected by the Council, and they have now initiated a special emergency session on the crisis, to be held on December 11 or 12. "Regrettably the non-democracies, led by the Islamic Group, have an automatic majority at the Council, and they consistently block action against any state but Israel," said UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer. "It's the foxes guarding the chickens." Neuer also faulted the Council's democracies for failing to speak out more forcefully for Council action on violations worldwide. The Council's Third Session technically continues for another week, but that week will address the creation of general mechanisms for the newly formed body. _____________ Today's UN Watch Statement: Thank you, Mr. President. UN Watch welcomes the special session on Darfur, and urges the Council to consider the human rights situations in the other 16 countries and 3 disputed territories that are listed by the leading NGO Freedom House as being the world's worst. These include: * Violations of freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and association in Belarus; We hope that at least some of these very grave situations will be among the Council's next priorities. Thank you. www.unwatch.org UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information (DPI). Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
Posted by Max Yas, December 2, 2006. |
|
In the Canadian Parliamentary system, private members are allotted time to briefly present their concerns and petitions. On the 28th of November, Member of Parliament Ms. Johanne Deschamps, presented her concerns on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. (Please note: Canada has two official languages, English and French. Ms. Deschamps delivered her message in French -- the following is a translation.) |
|
Ms. Johanne Deschamps: "Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which marks the adoption by the United Nations of the 1947 resolution providing for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state within Palestine. It is an excellent opportunity to remind ourselves that the Bloc Québecois is very concerned that this government is increasingly moving away from its traditional role as a mediator, a peace broker and a defender of international law in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." *** My letter to Ms. Deschamps, dated 29th November, 2006 Dear Ms. Deschamps, I read a transcript of your speech to the Parliament yesterday, 29th Nov., 2006. Why limit our solidarity to the Palestinians only? There are at least two billion suffering people in Tibet, Uganda, Congo, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, as well as the untouchables of India, the Christians in many Muslim countries, etc, etc. The Palestinians are fewer in number and better off than most of those listed above. Should we not dedicate a special Solidarity Day for each of these groups, or perhaps have a Solidarity Movement for all Suffering Humanity? Canada has a proud record on peacekeeping, but honesty demands that the aggressor not be equated with the victim. Canada also has a great record as a united nation from sea to sea to sea, and a tradition of two founding nations living together in peace and harmony.* Sincerely,
* Editorial Note: Ms. Deschamps is a member for a party whose agenda is to create a sovereign state in the largely francophone province of Quebec.) *** Analysis on pro-Palestinian propaganda. Pro-Palestinian propaganda can be recognized by several features: often it a total falsification, as in the story of the Janin massacre, which a UN investigation determined never happened, or the equally false story that 4,000 Jewish employees at the Twin Towers were warned to stay home on 9/11, 2001. At other times it's a quote out of context or an incomplete fact. It is a fact that the UN voted in 1947 in favour of a resolution providing for the creation of a Jewish and an Arab State in what was left of the British Mandate in Palestine after 78% of the land was given by Britain in the 1920's for the creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, where the large majority of the inhabitants were (and still are) Palestinian Arabs. It is also true that the Palestinian question remains unresolved. What Ms. Deschamps does not say is that the Palestinian Jews accepted the resolution, but the Palestinian Arabs did not, and instead, the armies of five Arab States invaded Israel on the day in 1948 when, in keeping with the UN resolution, Israel declared its Statehood. The concept of a Palestinian Nation did not exist until Arafat's anti-Israel movement, the P.L.O., was organized in the early 1960's. It is also true that the newly elected Canadian Government changed its vote on Palestinian resolutions from sometimes abstaining or voting against Israel to sometimes abstaining or voting pro-Israel. Our current Canadian Government is more concerned with following the dictates of what is right, not what is expedient. Canada is no less impartial now than it was while supporting the Palestinians, yet Ms. Deschamps and her colleagues had no problems when Canada was obviously supporting the Palestinian side. I invite Ms. Deschamps to comment and will be happy to forward her reply. Shalom from Max. Footnote: By Noted Correspondent Anne Bayefski, 29th November, 2006. On November 17, 2006, the UN General Assembly "reconvened" its "Tenth" Emergency Session to condemn Israel. The Tenth Session began in 1997 and has now been reconvened 14 times. No other emergency session of the General Assembly has occurred on any other subject in these ten years -- not even on Darfur, Sudan with 2.5 million people displaced and over 400,000 dead. And once again, the General Assembly adopted another resolution condemning Israel without mentioning Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, or Syria, which are openly acting to bring about Israel's annihilation. Contact Max Yas at maxyas@shaw.ca |
|
IS ISRAEL TO BE REMEMBERED AS THE MODERN DAY INCARNATION OF 1938 CZECHOSLOVAKIA?
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 1, 2006. |
|
In his UJC-GA speech, Benjamin Netanyahu's voice resonated with the audience. His poignant words conveyed an imminent threat and the sense of extreme urgency needed to cope with it. Bibi was right. It is 1938 again. The same apathy and passivity exists today. The same anti-Semitism grows. The Nazi Germany of that age has been replaced by Iran, a country on the verge of acquiring nuclear capability that it will likely use to destroy Israel in mere moments. In 1938, the world was fortunate to have a tireless Winston Churchill, a man consumed with fear and worry. He cared about the threats to his world, and he focused upon them. Today, the world lacks anyone like Churchill. What we have instead are uninitiated politicians who constantly wobble and fumble. A radical, nuclear Iran is worse than Nazi Germany, but most everyone again chooses to ignore the vision of death and destruction! Iran is on the verge of realizing its nuclear ambitions. This cannot be and must not be ignored. In ignoring Iran, the entire world -- civilized, uncivilized, or otherwise -- will have to contend with the hostile demands of a deluded, radical fascist regime. As in 1938, we live in a world abound with evidence of moral turpitude. Today's western democracies, including the United States, repeatedly demonstrate that they will accept human atrocity so long as it does not affect them directly. Worse than that, when these nations are themselves assailed, their governments prefer to appease their assailants! The similarities between 1938 and today are beyond alarming. Neville Chamberlain meeting with Hitler is like the United States conferring with Iran and Syria. In 1938, Czechoslovakia was sacrificed and sold out by Europe. Today, Europe and Russia appear to have too few objections to Iran's development of nuclear capability, thus endangering world safety and Israel's existence. Most western democracies have not or choose not to comprehend the true threat that Iran poses. Let me just say that this threat is far greater than the loss of our democratic freedoms. Believing that safety will be assured by tossing little Israel, like old Czechoslovakia, to the wolves is a fatal delusion. The fanatical rulers of Iran will begin with Israel, but their insatiable hunger will not be satisfied, so they will pursue the rest of the world afterwards. With the approval of the Munich Agreement, Hitler was afforded a yearlong "hudna," after which the Second World War began. If Iran is left to its own devices for one more year, the likelihood that a Third World War will follow shortly thereafter is great. Sadly, the entire Arab and Muslim world is chock full of demented and barbaric people. Diabolic madmen, who are only slightly more insane than the maniacs they control, oppress all their countries. But Iran's Ahamedigenocide, oops, Ahamedinejad takes the cake. Iran and Syria are like the Germany and Italy of old, but a nuclear Iran would make for the most formidable enemy the world has ever seen. Ignoring Iran's relentless effort to de-legitimize Israel's existence dwarfs the effect of choosing to sacrifice Czechoslovakia. Yet, Iran's threat to annihilate Israel has gone unnoticed by the United Nations and most of its member nations. Churchill opposed the signing of the Munich Agreement knowing that it would mark the beginning of a horrific reckoning to come. If James Baker III proposes a "Regional Peace Conference" with Iran and Syria, it will mark a bitter reckoning but with one difference. Only Iran has learned from history. Unlike Germany, Iran will not launch a war before it has a nuclear weapon. When Iran does act in aggression, it will be determined which modern day country fills the role that Czechoslovakia once did. When the cards are played, the victim may be Israel, Lebanon, Iraq...perhaps all three. The west lacks the will to fight the battle to protect its interests. Westerners have been softened physically and psychologically by their prosperity. The only thing that prickles us is political incorrectness, but political correctness is tantamount to appeasement, which will not satisfy our enemies. We are too afraid to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our cherished way of life. The non-fascist behaved in a similar fashion prior to World War II, and they came out on top, despite massive casualties. But they did not have to contend with the specter of a worldwide nuclear war. Surviving such a catastrophe, let alone preserving the world we know, will be considerably more difficult. Our world survived the Second World War; will our world survive a nuclear Third World War? I very much doubt that history will be there to attest to it. Nurit Greenger can be contacted by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
HIZBALLAH OFFENSIVE IN LEBANON: DAY ONE
Posted by Walid Phares, December 1, 2006. |
|
After serious warnings delivered by HezbAllah secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah since early November, the generalized offensive to bring down the Cedars Revolution-backed Government has begun. As of the early hours of Friday December 1, 2006, thousands of HizbAllah members and pro-Syrian militants took the streets of Beirut, hurdling from all Lebanese areas. The demonstrators started a series of sit-ins around the offices of Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and in other surrounding neighborhoods and public places to "suffocate the cabinet into resignation or collapse" as Lebanese sources said. Following are bullet points to be updated as events will develop: HizbAllah's "army" HizbAllah has mobilized all its membership as well as all persons on payrolls of the organization and in the various bureaucracies controlled by the pro-Iranian militia. In addition, the entire pro-Syrian movements in the country such as the Baath, National-Socialist Syrian Party, and politicians such as Michel Aoun, Omar Karame, Sleiman Frangieh and others. Added to this list, pro-Syrian and Jihadi elements from the Palestinian camps in Lebanon. And since the Lebanese-Syrian borders haven't been sealed by a multinational force, loads of buses carrying members of the Syrian Baath, have been crossing the international frontier to join the anti-Government rally. The total number of the participants would be calculated as equivalent to the pro-Syrian March 8, 2005 demonstrated led by HizbAllah then plus an undetermined number of Palestinian and Syrian elements. And since General Aoun shifted from the Cedars Revolution to an open alliance with HizbAllah few months ago, a number of his hard-core followers are expected to join the crowd. HizbAllah's objectives The political objectives of the "offensive" is to paralyze the Fuad Seniora Government from performing the following tasks: One, is to block the passing of the international tribunal (in the Hariri assassination) law in the Lebanese Parliament in the next two weeks. The Syrian-Iaranian strategy is to block the meetings of the Lebanese cabinet and the Lebanese legislative assembly for as long as needed to crumble this bill. Two, is to force the Seniora cabinet to resign or to accept the inclusion of pro-Syrian ministers so that any decision to disarm HizbAllah would be killed inside the Government. Three, is to crumble the UNSCR 1559 and the relations between Lebanon and the United Nations in general and the US and France in particular. In short a return of the Syrian-Iranian domination in Lebanon. Media tactics The media campaign by HizbAllah and its allies worldwide focuses on portraying the "battle" as one between an "opposition" and a "Government," while in reality it is between an Iranian-backed militia receiving 300 million $ annually and has about 20,000 missile on the one hand and a democratically elected Government by a democratically elected Parliament in which HizbAllah and its allies are a minority. And to break up he international unity behind the Cedars Revolution, the "axis" is directing its operatives and supporters worldwide to state that the demonstrations are "anti-American," and when possible anti-Bush. While in reality the US legislation known as "Syrian accountability act" was launched by Democrats in 2003, and that the UNSCR 1559 was initiated by France and that the international investigation missions were headed by a German then a Belgian judges, nevertheless the "architects" of the Syro-Iranian "offensive" in Lebanon want the international media to use the words "anti-American" protests instead of pro-Syrian or pro-Iranian moves. Indeed the war of words will determine how the events will be framed in the next few days and weeks. For many in the international media elite haven't yet "digested" the fact that the Cedars Revolution has risen without an American support in money or military aid. And that the Lebanese democracy movement is genuinely indigenous, with left wing and right wing united against a "foreign occupier," the Syrians, and an Iranian-supported Terror organization, HizbAllah. But this "oil" the influenced network of "pens" inside many news distribution rooms is attempting desperately to force the slogan "anti-American" demonstration as a way to break the international unity behind Lebanese democracy and dubbing the Cedars Revolution as "American" while portraying HizbAllah as a regular "opposition" group. The "ground" objectives ... The longer aim of these movements however is to perform a penetration by HizbAllah and other pro-Syrian forces inside the areas under the control of the Lebanese government. According to inside sources, between five to ten thousand HizbAllah fighters have been mobilized to "organize the security of the demonstrators." This means that the equivalent of one pro-Iranian division will be entering Beirut from the southern suburb and deploying in downtown and in areas adjacent to the strategic Damascus road. In addition elements from the radical SSNP (the Greater Syria National-Socialist movement), who are believed to have been behind a number of political assassinations, as well as hundreds of Syrian special forces camouflaged as supporters of HizbAllah are already inside the city. According to security in Lebanon, all roads leading into Beirut with the exception of the north will be under the control of these "forces." The regular Lebanese Army has received orders by its commander to deploy between the "demonstrators" and the official buildings. While the "core" of the Army follows the institution significant numbers of troops and many officers are either HizbAllah members or follow its instructions. Hence, according to Lebanese Army officers (names not to be disclosed) "when and if the time will come, no one will really know how many will join the Iranian-Syrian axis against the Government." For now, the HizbAllah offensive has begun: The infantry has moved in unarmed, yet... Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist strategies against the West His website is: www.walidphares.com |
|
I SMELL MADRID ALL OVER AGAIN
Posted by Michael Evans, December 1, 2006. |
|
President George W. Bush is scheduled to attend Jordan's summit on Iraq along with Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. His host, King Abdullah, seems to have already articulated Arab demands, warning that the Middle East is facing a crisis with Palestine territories, Lebanon, and Iraq at the brink of civil war. "We could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands," Abdullah said on ABC's "This Week" program Sunday. "I keep saying Palestine is the core. It is linked to the extent of what's going on in Iraq." Abdullah said, restating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is his top priority because the "emotional impact" of the problem "can be translated to the insecurity and frustrations throughout the Middle East and the Arab world." Moderate Abdullah revealed the core problem, an ideological war in which an Arab world hates Israel and really believes that Jews are the root of all problems. But even more revealing is that Israel is the Little Satan in their eyes, and America, the crusaders, is the Great Satan. It appears the turkey carving is going to be extended beyond Thanksgiving. Once again, Israel will be forced to pay the appeasement bill for Arab rage with more land. Don't distort the reality of the global jihadist, because everyone knows that a Zionist crusader conspiracy is behind all Arab problems, anyway. In October 1991, Israel was dragged kicking and screaming to the Middle East peace conference in Madrid. It was their reward for not retaliating as Saddam's 39 Scuds rained down upon the Bible land during the first Persian Gulf War; and, the US froze the $10-billion loan guarantee, which was money to help absorb Russian Jewish refuges. Having covered the summit and being the first journalist to address Secretary of State James Baker, I smell Madrid all over again. Do I not recall a similar summit in Jordan after the last Persian Gulf War to launch the road map for peace? Iraq is indeed a mess, but then why should anyone be surprised? Iraq was established as the central 9-11 front on the war on terror. (Oh I forgot; it's not a world-war against Islamic fascists.) Terrorism must be fought in Iraq without chaos. (I did it again; terrorists are militia and insurgents, words that were coined by Daniel Webster to define America revolutionary fighters like George Washington, Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.) We don't want to offend Muslims by admitting that Muslims are killing us. When I said on 9-11 that it was Islamic al-Qaida terrorist in the planes, the network station said, "You cannot say that." So I said, "Okay, maybe it is Pygmies, Eskimos, and Tahitians." JIMMY CARTER paid $7.9 billion to get the hostages back, but not until Iran was certain they had achieved their political objective...444 days of humiliation, and then, releasing the hostages the day of the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. If they were willing to gamble the farm on a California cowboy, you can be sure they will do their best to give us a two-year ride on the back of the protracted terror tiger in Iraq, at least until Hillary takes the oath of office. Let's not forget it's all about stalling for time until they can make the grand announcement, "We have the Bomb." Syria and Iran have been the jihadist traffic controllers in and out of Iraq, so you can be sure they will have seats of honor at the appeasement party. To give the terrorist cartel an invitation to the VIP summit to help with stability and democracy in Iraq is the theater of the absurd. Why should anyone be shocked at chaos? The US gave Syria one billion dollars for showing support at the first Persian Gulf War. You can be sure the prize will be much higher to slow down the tide of body bags in Iraq. Israel was never allowed to fight a war against terror with the P.A. Every time they tried, the US ran to the rescue of the billionaire Noble Peace Prize winner and godfather of World Terror, Yasser Arafat. Texas "T" ruled the day, not moral clarity. It all began when Israel was forced out of Lebanon by US liberals. What's wrong with killing terrorists in Iraq, no matter if they were wearing a police or a military uniform? Do you think the families of 9-11 gave their loved ones so Iraq can have a democracy? Why not get over it and fight the war like the greatest generation did with Iraq as the central front? The US needs to get the innocent Iraqi refuges out of the country. That would be a great reason to have a summit. And, why not establish a base in Israel and recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? That would end the "drive the Jews into the sea ideology" once and for all. I asked Secretary Baker to do that in Madrid; his response was, "You will not engage me in fruitless dialogue." Iran and its death cults are on a fast track to wipe the Little Satan (Israel) off the map with an atomic bomb. Robert Gates, President Bush's nominee for Secretary of Defense, wants to talk with Iran and Syria. Why not let the 22,000-plus American families who have a wounded son or daughter talk with Iran, especially since 85 percent of all IEDs in Iraq are from Iran, according to former IDF Chief of Staff General Moshe Ya'alon? Why not let the American families of the dead Marines killed in Lebanon in 1983, or the thousands of families who have a wounded or dead loved one in Israel? Why not talk to Syria since Syria has armed Hizbullah, Hamas and the PLO for decades, and is presently turning Lebanon into the killing fields? Did America really think we could go to Babylon and not get bitten? It's a shame that George Bush's 80-year-old childhood Sunday school teacher could not have advised him. She could have read him Revelations 18:2, "Babylon the great is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird..." Now the issue is: Will we fight a world war on terror in Iraq or fight in our back- yard? You can be sure if we run, they will be coming to a theater near you. Michael Evans is the author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," and founder of Jerusalem Prayer Team, America's largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of Jerusalem. Contact them at www.JerusalemPrayerTeam.org This article apeared in the Jerusalem Post November 29, 2006. |
|
THE TRUTH ABOUT "PALESTINE"
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, December 1, 2006. |
|
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently gave a speech in which she said something to the effect that there would be no greater cause than the birth of Palestine. Horsefeathers... While my own limited Arabic, Turkish, and so forth from my own doctoral studies' days has grown all too rusty over the decades, Condi better stick to her Russian expertise for sure. And relying on the Arabists who too often run the show at Foggy Bottom doesn't change this for the better either. Together, on this topic at least, they all behave as if they are deaf, dumb, and blind to what is happening on the real Planet Earth. The sad reality is that they do know better...yet don't hesitate to stick it to the Jews anyway. Recall that Condi's crew fought President Truman over the very rebirth of Israel in the first place. But as Truman himself also said, "the buck stops here." So President Bush must agree with what's going on. Now think about Dr. Rice's statement long and hard... Nothing could be more deserving or noble than the Arabs gaining their 22nd state, and second one in "Palestine" (Jordan having already emerged in 1922 on some 80% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate)? Really? How about this for starters? If the Arabs hadn't constantly demanded that only they be granted political rights in the region with the break up of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I (which controlled much of the area for about five centuries)--at the expense of scores of millions of native non-Arabs, including one-half of Israel's Jews who were refugees from what Arabs claim as "purely Arab patrimony"-- they could have had that additional state they demand over a half century ago...and many other times ever since. They rejected the '47 partition which would have given them roughly one half of the 20% of the territory left after Arabs had already been granted the lion's share with the creation of what would later be renamed Jordan. And they repeatedly rejected similar plans...including one under a liberal Democratic President Clinton's watch at Camp David and Taba not long ago which would have given them some 95% of the disputed territories and a $ 33 billion virtual slush fund to sweeten the pot. Ambassador Dennis Ross, another liberal Democrat, was on the spot and put to the lie current Arab excuses for why they rejected this. The sad fact is that the reason that Condi's "most noble cause" has not yet materialized is that the Arabs still demand that their additional state be born to take the place of--not live peacefully side-by-side with--the sole, miniscule, resurrected State of the Jews. The West's darling, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, ran on a platform for Israel's destruction--but by "more acceptable" means (though he's been quite willing to allow hundreds of rockets to rain down on Israel proper from Gaza--land now totally under Palestinian Arab control after Israel's withdrawal over a year ago--and then complains when the Jews finally are forced to move in to try to stop these attacks themselves). Abbas still insists that he's going to deluge Israel proper with millions of alleged Arab jihadi refugees (when I'm elected Pope). And he represents the "noble" (read as more dishonest) half of the Arab good cop/bad cop team Israel faces. At least Hamas doesn't hide its true, genocidal intentions. Where is the nobility in a cause which sees justice only for itself? I believe Condi also claimed to have seen polls proving that most Arabs just wanted a state prepared to live in peace with its Jewish neighbor. Horsefeathers again. I've seen many of the polls. And they all say the same thing. Most Arabs openly state that if Israel was to withdraw from every inch of disputed territory, they would still support continuous terrorism against the Jew of the Nations anyway. Of course, in Arab minds, all of Israel is disputed territory. So, why doesn't Condi & Co. acknowledge this? I asked the question...unfortunately knowing the answer. Please don't tell me that she and her Arabist buddies at State--and Dubya too, for that matter-- don't have access to Abbas's own websites, maps, insignias, textbooks,publications, etc. and so forth which show their proposed state taking the place of Israel--not coexisting with it. So, Dr. Rice...do you want a truly noble cause to endorse? How about a Roadmap for Kurdistan? Unlike the Roadmap your attempting to force down the Jews' throats, the Kurds aren't out to deny anyone else their rights. And they were promised a state after World War I but got shafted largely by the collusion of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. Instead of partiton in the Mandate of Mesopotamia (as occurred in the Mandate of Palestine, first with the creation of today's Jordan and later offers to the Arabs as well), a purely Arab-controlled Iraq was born. And Kurds pre-dated the Arab conquest of that area by millennia. While Arabs blow each other apart and will do so even more upon America's exit from Iraq (and I supported the overthrow of Adolph--er Saddam--Hussein), the one region where American values, stability, and such now exist is in the Kurdish north. You know, those folks, like the Jews, who also asked for a slice of justice in the age of nationalism and who have been butchered, gassed, subjugated, Arabized, and so forth to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, just by the Arabs alone over the past century...with similar goings on at the hands of Turks and Iranians as well, in response. So, Dr. Rice, why is the cause of the birth of the Arabs' 22nd state, dedicated to the destruction of the Jew of the Nations (regardless of who is at the helm), "most noble" but the cause of thirty million truly stateless, used and abused (including by our own State Department) Kurds not even worth your mention? Pardon me... You did mention them, and when you did a while back at an earlier conference, you rudely shot down the question and demanded that the Kurds live amongst those have continuously murdered, subjugated, and forcibly Arabized them. Why almost two dozen states for Arabs and none for Kurds? And please don't bring up the Turks regarding this (and I'm a stong supporter of good, but realistic, ties with Ankara). Let's put things into the broader perspective... Israel has a population of roughly 6 million people, of whom about 20% are Arab. Among the latter are some very hostile elements, some even serving in Israel's Knesset. Israel's territory is about 20,770 sq Km. Turkey has a population of about 68 million people, of whom about 20% are Kurds. Turkey's territory is about 780,580 sq Km. About 38 Israels would fit into Turkey. Despite Israel's miniscule size, Condi & Co. have no problem demanding that Israel allow the creation of another Arab state, dedicated to its destruction (that "noble cause"), right in its own very backyard. Ignored are the open proclamations by even the so-called Arab "moderates" that any so-called "peace initiatives" are but hudnas (temporary ceasefires) and "Trojan Horses," steps along the way in the Arabs' post-'67 destruction in phases strategy for Israel. Now, how will the fifth of miniscule Israel's population that is Arab react to this adjacent potential development? Yet Condi and even Israel's alleged "best friend, Dubya, seem not to be worried about any murderous and destablizing effects when Jews are involved. Those same folks who declare that Israel must grossly endanger itself so that yet another Arab state might be born (after all, over six million square miles of territory, mostly conquered and forcibly Arabized from native non-Arab peoples, is apparently not enough) insist that Kurds must remain forever stateless because of some potential problems their freedom might cause to a Turkey nearly forty times Israel's size in territory and over eleven times its size in population...and with the same 80% to 20% mix of potential "headaches." The reality is that the Kurds are not stupid and would not encourage Turkey's or America's wrath after gaining independence. American bases would be welcome in Mesopotamian Kurdistan and could help to soothe both parties regarding these matters. Again, with Arabs blowing each other apart to the south, and Shi'a big brother Iran waiting in the wings for the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iraq, an American-supported Free Kurdistan becomes ever more attractive. An arrangement can also be worked out to share Kurdistan's oil wealth in the historically Kurdish Mosul and Kirkuk areas as well--including with the Turks, who lost out on the Mosul Question in 1925. Let's turn the clock back to the first half of the 20th century to see how one great Jewish leader explained what the stakes here are really all about in his Evidence Submitted To The Palestine Royal Commission in London in 1937. Still recovering from the murderous pogroms and massive Jewish refugee problem which accompanied them just a bit earlier, it had by now become evident that even worse was yet to come. Let's listen to how this Zionist leader dealt with all of this: Three generations of Jewish thinkers...have come to the conclusion that the cause of our suffering is the very fact of the Diaspora, the bedrock fact that we are everywhere a minority...The phenomenon called Zionism may include all kinds of dreams...but all of this longing for wonderful toys of velvet and silver is nothing compared with that tangible momentum of irresistible distress and need by which we are propelled and borne... The presenter of this evidence was Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, the patron saint of Israel's modern Likud Party. And, as can be seen above, unlike too many other Zionist thinkers, he was a realist regarding what could and what could not be expected in the Jews' relationships with Arabs. As Jabotinsky correctly forecasted, Arabs made out quite well after the break up of the Turks' centuries'-old Empire at the end of World War I. To date, they have almost two dozen states. And, again, most of those had been conquered and forcibly Arabized from millions of Berbers, Copts, Kurds, Jews, Assyrians, native Semitic but non-Arab Lebanese, black Africans, and other non-Arab peoples. Appetite, indeed, Mr. Jabotinsky...and at everyone else's expense. One more time... Arabs declared the region to be purely Arab patrimony, frequently outlawed others' languages and cultures, and killed anyone who stood in their way...millions to date, and still going on at this very moment--and not only in Darfur and the Sudan. No, Dr. Rice...there's nothing noble in such a self-centered, murderous cause. As in Jabotinsky's day, now, and before, this conflict has never been about Jews wanting to deny Arabs their just rights. On the contrary, it's always been about Arabs not allowing any one else--be they Kurds, Jews, Berbers, black African Sudanese, or others--even a tiny sliver of those very same rights they so fervently demand for themselves. There's nothing noble about this. It is at the very least ruthless, genocidal, racist, imperialistic, and so forth... Despite the passage of time, Jabotinsky's basic truths do not change. The Arab-Jewish (or Arab-Kurdish, Arab-Berber, Arab-black African Sudanese, and so forth) conflict is still all about Jabotinsky's appetite versus starvation...a conquering, subjugating appetite on the part of the Arabs to deny any one else besides themselves their own share of justice in the region. So, Dr. Rice, despite your Department's pipedreams or deliberate undermining of Israel (with the apparent blessing of your leader--whom I voted for--and not that the Democrats would be any better and would probably, in fact, be worse), the basic truths of this struggle do not change. The Arab-Jewish conflict is still all about appetite versus starvation. And there is nothing noble in forcing the most persecuted nation and people this planet has ever seen into taking steps towards suicide so that Arabs can have their 22nd state. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php This appeared in Front Page Magazine.com
|
|
COMPELLING APPEAL-DISMANTLE THE PRESENT ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 1, 2006. |
|
A friend wrote: Hey Nurit |
|
To: Israel and Jews everywhere
Ladies and Gentlemen: With each day that passes, I can scarcely think of anything other than how the inhumane, often-lawless Islamo-fascists want to kill us all. Their own people are not even safe from them. I worry about how Muslims have forever changed our way of life and how we continually allow them to take over our domain. As an American, I worry a great deal about my fellow Americans on a daily basis. I worry about our national lethargy, whereby we allow organizations, such as the ACLU and CAIR, to manipulate our constitution, to use our noble principles and ethics against us, and to intimidate us to near paralysis. I worry that the Muslims living among us are penetrating, manipulating, and plundering our political process beyond repair for ill intentions. As a Jew, I fear each day that all Jews are close approaching a repeat of 1938 when the world went insane with anti-Semitism and when Hitler "perfected" anti-Semitism by killing six millions Jews. Every day, I reflect upon the worrisome condition of Israel, whose primarily Jewish citizens have had to fight wars with the Muslim Arabs. Israel has never been able to overcome the animosity of its neighbors to solve the problem. Israel, moreover, lacks the vision, resolve, fortitude, and robust leadership needed to address the problem in any way, shape, or form. I fear that Israel may crumble under the bureaucracy and politicking that is suffocating the nation to death. I feel compelled to make reasonable suggestions that many people believe, are afraid to say, but should nevertheless be heeded. Nowadays, President Bush is supposedly taking care of only America's business by leaving Israel to take care of its own business, and so Israel should. For this reason, Israel must replace Prime Minister Olmert with a leader who cares only for the people and not for political gain or wrangling. If Israel's current government and administration must be dissolved to do so, then so be it. A vote of no confidence is now necessary and dismantling the present government is imperative. Israel must declare a war not ceasefire on Hamas and clean up every last terrorist organization that infests Gaza, Samaria, and Judea. There is no such thing as unilateral withdrawal or unilateral ceasefire. Rather, the only unilateral action is to fortify all of the settlements in Samaria and Judea and all of Israel. At present, peace negotiations are nonexistent. When the Palestinians are ready to negotiate peace not concessions and Israeli appeasement, they must stop their violent ways and knock on Israel's door. Israel is a sovereign state and must begin to act as such. No one will eliminate Israel's sovereignty but Israel itself. Israel, I call upon you to protect your people, your soil, and your interests for once and for always! Do not behave like the weak, capitulating Czechoslovakia of 1938; it is unbecoming of you. It is time for Israel to ascend to new heights. The fear of winning a war and the fear of agitating the world must end. Israel will only earn respect by being resolute and making its voice heard, as it used to in years past. I, like many others, wait for the Israel of old to resurface. I urge Israel not to give Condoleezza Rice another opportunity to meddle with Israel's national security. For this reason, she should not be welcome in Israel. Throughout history, Jews have been too rarely protected by others. All Israelis must now unite to enact a strategy that will save their country, and only Israelis can do that not any other international agency, organization, or government. Israel's covenant with God is to be the light unto the nations, so please, for once and for all, take this responsibility seriously. Show the strength and courage that is your mandate and go from strength to strength. Amen! Nurit Greenger Nurit Greenger can be contacted by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
BUSH VINDICATED, NOT A "LIAR"; MIND SETS; UPHOLDING WESTERN VALUES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 1, 2006. |
|
MILITARY NECESSITY VS. HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND-GUESSING B'tselem, an ostensible "human rights" organization, accuses Israeli troops of executing two wounded terrorists as they lay helpless in a house in which they took refuge, in Gaza. The organization said it based its report on an eyewitness. The troops had pursued the terrorists to the house. The soldiers ordered everybody out of the house, as Army policy is to avoid combat. The residents emerged. Asked if anybody else were inside, the owner said no. The commander advised him that if anybody else were, the troops would assume that they were hostile gunmen, and would open fire rather than, in close quarters, let the enemy fire first, in order to ascertain enemy intent. The owner did not retract his statement. The troops dashed in. They found and shot to death the two terrorists. The owner called it an execution, because the troops did not immediately open fire, as if they did not find the two a threat. The IDF explains that when the troops observed figures in the poor light, under blankets, they didn't know whether they were armed, or not, so, as per protocol, they opened fire. IMRA remarks, B'tselem would prefer to "Give terrorists hiding in house a fighting chance to kill soldiers." (IMRA, 11/14.) B'tselem generally is blindly pro-Arab. The "eyewitness" was not a witness. He was outside the house. He also is likely to be biased. Most of his people favor terrorism against Israel. If the IDF version is accurate, he lied about whether the house had been evacuated fully, exposing the troops to ambush. I agree with IMRA's remark. In combat, soldiers have a right to take precautions to protect themselves. The Israeli troops did enough in getting the residents out and in trying to avoid having to shoot it out with the enemy. B'tselem does not take into account the history of Muslim Arab treachery of enemy troops pretending to surrender, to be unarmed, to be wounded, to be ambulance drivers, to be civilians, and hiding behind civilians. It gives no credit to Israel, unusual in trying to minimize enemy casualties as well as its own. It puts hypothetical cases of enemy rights before actual cases of Israeli lives. Does B'tselem think Israelis have no rights? Carrying human rights to an extreme helps aggressors endanger innocent people. IRAQ WAS PURSUING NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT Captured Iraqi documents made public reveal that Saddam had pursued development of nuclear weapons until the invasion. The US knew of this. Then Iraq trucked the program and personnel to Syria, so Syria could continue the development. Israel warned the US about this. Syria is aided by Iranian and Muslim scientists from former Soviet republics. Pres. Bush was right, not a liar, but his present policy of appeasement encourages more rogue development (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 11/14) IRAN TAKING OVER INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM Iran is training Al-Qaeda terrorists to attack US troops in Iraq. It is encouraging Al-Qaeda to promote pro-Iranian members to the leadership. Eventually, Al-Qaeda will belong to Iran (Con Coughlin, NY Sun, 11/14, p.1). Iran already controls Hizbullah and Syria. It is training Hamas members. It is directing war on Israel. It certainly is running an evil axis that Pres. Bush warned against. Now that Bush has turned to appeasement, Islam is on the way to victory. If the US destroyed the Iranian regime and its supporters and proxies, we would put jihad on the run and save Europe and Israel. Instead, they will blow up cities all over, and we will go down, too. All for lack of nerve and for inability to tell the Democrats that they have failed to grasp the reality of the Islamist menace. Bush failed to mock the futility of negotiating with Islamists unless backed by the credible threat of overwhelming force. ISRAELI LEFTIST MIND-SET Leftists have been attacking Israeli personnel erecting the security fence. One of them, Ronni Barkan, who refuses to serve in his country's defense forces, "is quoted in the Jerusalem Report of Nov 13, 06 as saying: 'In fact, blowing up a bus is far more legitimate than serving in the IDF.'" (Prof. Steven Plaut,11/16). Radicals think they are idealists, but they sympathize with enemy terrorists seeking to blow up the radicals' families. That is not idealism but pathological. ISLAMIST MIND-SET Israel arrested a Muslim from Judea-Samaria who was entering Israel on a humanitarian pass for medical treatment. He had been recruited by terrorists to commit terrorism once inside (IMRA, 11/14). That is what comes of a misguided humanitarian impulse. No non-Muslim country should take a chance letting Muslims enter, not when Islam is actively at war with the rest of the world. ISRAELI GOVERNMENT MIND-SET The government of Israel contends that not all classrooms need to be fortified against rockets. Instead, it would suffice to have a fortified area in the school, to which students may repair upon hearing the warning siren. IMRA contends that the seconds of warning are too brief for the teachers to shepherd all their students into the fortified area. Children will get killed. Then the policy would change (IMRA, 11/14). I think both are wrong. IMRA's criticism is valid. But the government cannot protect against all potential terrorism, just as the US cannot block all attacks. I'd spend nothing on fortified schools, but would root out all terrorists from Gaza, etc.. NEGATIVE ADS Some people don't like political attack ads. Sen. Feingold proposes a bill to regulate campaign speech, to reduce such ads. Other people find such ads stimulating and informative. Why shouldn't they hear what might be wrong with the policies of one candidate or another? Sen. Feingold is attacking free speech in the key area of democratic elections (NY Sun, 11/14, Ed.). Sen. Feingold should be more humble. The Cain-Feingold campaign finance law attempted to prevent wealthy donors from dominating elections. The law opened a loophole that encouraged wealthy donors to spend still more on elections. Poorly crafted laws fail to achieve their purpose. It is dangerous to censor speech. I disapprove of the French law that prohibits anyone denying the Armenian massacre. The point is not whether there was such a massacre, which I think there was, but that legislators ban statements with which they disagree. Today it is Holocaust denial, but tomorrow it might be defending Israel's right to exist or the right to call the President of France traitorous for condoning Muslim oppression of Frenchmen. UPHOLDING THE POSITIVE "Our enemies call Jews 'pigs' and 'apes,' and employ racist caricatures of the US's African-American secretary of state. Meanwhile, we worry about incurring charges of 'Islamophobia,' when we should be stressing our liberal values and unabashedly contrasting Western civilization with the 7th century barbarism of the jihadists." (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.50 from Victor Davis Hanson, RealClearPolitics.com, 8/24.) Which of our leaders upholds our values? Europe seems ashamed of them. We give the Islamists unchallenged opportunity to lie about themselves and about us. We let our own public be swayed by our enemies, until we have an election in which voters had been persuaded that we are too aggressive against Islamists. This attitude may spell our doom. B'TSELEM CONDEMNS ROCKET ATTACKS The human rights organization called rocket attacks by P.A. terrorist organizations war crimes. It urged the P.A. to stop such attacks (IMRA, 11/15). It is unusual for B'Tselem to pause from its constant condemnation of innocent Israeli actions to condemn guilty Arab ones, but this time it did. One wonders why it urged the P.A. to stop such attacks. The P.A. is run by two sets of terrorists: Hamas and Abbas and his Fatah. They favor war on Israel, although Abbas finds the timing of some terrorist attacks inopportune. It would be more practical to urge the IDF to stop such attacks by sweeping through and taking charge, again, and by policies that make emigration more attractive for the Arabs. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
SHI'ITES VS. SUNNIS
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 1, 2006. |
|
This was written by Allan Topol and it appeared today in the
Washington Times
(www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061130-084530-9774r.htm). Allan Topol is an international lawyer and the author of several novels. |
|
Failure to understand and to take into account the conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis has been devastating to American Middle Eastern policy. We had better focus on the issue now before it's too late. The stakes are large, including control of the oil that is the lifeblood of United States and European democracies. The basic problem in Iraq is not a dispute between the United States, as occupier, and the Iraqi people, as an occupied nation. It is not between secularists and fundamentalists. It is not between the Iraqi government and insurgents. To be sure, all of these play some role in the current violence. However, the single most important conflict is the one that pits Shi'ites against Sunnis. Likewise, in Lebanon this intra-Islam conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites is at the heart of the current problem and threatens an outbreak of civil war. The Shi'ites, led by Hezbollah, have made war on the Lebanese nation and its democratically elected government. With its brazen attack on Israel this summer, Hezbollah, which had for years been the government within the government in the south, decided unilaterally to become the government for all of Lebanon. The Lebanese civil war that erupted in the late 1970s pitted Muslims against Christians with the Druze joining one side or the other at various times. The current lineup is different. Now the Christians and Druze are joined by the Sunnis. For the combination of these three groups, the Shi'ites and Hezbollah are the enemy. In oil-rich Bahrain, Shi'ites, who comprise a majority of the population, are rearing their heads politically and attempting to gain control from the Sunnis who have governed the country for decades. Among the ruling monarchy in Saudi Arabia, ruled by a conservative Sunni regime, there is fear and dread about what the minority, but sizeable, Shi'ite population will do about asserting its political rights. The issue here is even more complex because the Shi'ites inhabit the oil-rich eastern part of the kingdom. In the United States, senior policy-makers and commentators have been slow to recognize both the extent of animosity between Shi'ites and Sunnis and its significance for events in the Middle East. The hatred between Sunnis and Muslims goes back to 632 CE and the death of prophet Muhammad. The most critical issue following Muhammad's death was his succession. The forbearers of the Sunnis followed the tribal tradition of having a council of elders select as the head of the Islamic community the individual most qualified to lead. The forbearers of the Shi'ites on the other hand believed that Muhammad heirs should rule the Islamic community. The conflict came to a head in the battle of Karbala in 680 CE when the Sunnis forbearers massacred the prophet's grandson Husayn and his followers. Gleefully, the victors carried Husayn's head to Damascus and paraded it there. Is it any wonder that for the next 1,300 years, there has been hatred and recurring warfare between these two sects within Islam who differ radically in their religious practices. Iran is a Persian, not Arab country. Its people are almost entirely Shi'ite. With the fall of the shah and the Islamic revolution, a Shi'ite government was installed in Tehran. This was a marked contrast to the ruling powers in the Arab Islamic nations where the Sunnis exert tight control, even though there are large, and often impoverished, Shi'ite populations. What the mullahs have done from their base in Iran is to stir up Shi'ite communities throughout the Middle East and encourage them to take control of their governments. This is what is happening in Lebanon and in Bahrain and will happen at some time in the near future in Saudi Arabia and other countries. The United States did not create this conflict, which has spanned 13 centuries, with our invasion in Iraq. Unwittingly, however, with our emphasis on democracy in the Middle East we have provided the means for Shi'ites to seize control in their countries. At the ballot box. In elections. For more than 50 years, the primary conflict in the Middle East has been the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. That is now changing. Coming to the forefront is the enmity between Sunnis and Shi'ites, which is likely to influence events in the Middle East at least for the rest of this decade, and perhaps much longer. |
|
LOSING ELECTIONS AND WARS FOR FUN AND PROPHET
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 1, 2006. |
|
This was posted by ZionistYoungster @ Thursday, November 09, 2006 on the Zionist Younger website: http://zionistyoungster.blogspot.com |
|
This isn't an actual book yet, as you may well have guessed. It's an idea, and it begins as most ideas do, with a rough sketch, a preliminary outline. That's what this post is about. The following tips, if applied consistently, can help any non-Muslim group of people cling to the course toward Islamic overlordship. Many, but not all, of the tips here were applied by the US administration from 9/11 onward and, while not so critical as to lead to the whole shebang of shariah law, have cost political power to those involved. Other tips were carried out elsewhere. 1. Don't identify the enemy. If you really must, wait until at least half a decade after the attacks. 2. If you have to use the I-word and M-word, always qualify them with a modifier such as "radical", "extremist", "militant" or "political". 3. Don't turn this into a religious war. That's the stuff of the Middle Ages, a horrible period in history, unlike our age, in which everything always can be and has been solved through negotiations and material concessions. 4. Don't turn this into a clash of civilizations. Huntington is a crackpot. You're much better served by following the ideas of Fukuyama, which are still applicable after the demise of the happy Clinton years. 5. Keep in mind that the other side is just like you. They have the same dreams as you have. The fact that affluent, settled members of theirs suddenly went to suicide bombing missions is irrelevant. 6. Know that the other side is as sensible as you are, and amenable to all manner of rational persuasion. Just remember never to wave cartoons of their prophet in front of their eyes, that's culturally insensitive. 7. Moderate Muslims (the majority of them) should be relied upon to defuse the threat of their extremist brethren (most definitely a tiny minority). They can, of course, be trusted to speak without fear of reprisals, unlike Pope Benedict XVI or Robert Redeker. 8. The main root cause of Arab rage is the immensely huge Jewish Empire threatening to leave them without any lands in the world whatsoever. 9. You should court the other side by using their own language, such as speaking of their "humiliation" under the jackboot of the aforementioned Jewish Empire. 10. Solve all problems by addressing the material cause: the Palestinians are clamoring for a state of their own, and the French immigrant youths are driven to desperate acts by their poverty and the discrimination of the white ruling-class. 11. Work with the other side. If need be, install even a general or Prime Minister from their number to carry out negotiations. 12. Get to know the sacreds of the other side. Mandatory reading: Esposito, Armstrong, Esmay, and anything coming out of CAIR. Stay away from racists like Spencer and Ibn Warraq. 13. Keep in mind that no culture is better than any other, except the oppressive culture of the West, so be ready to allow adulteresses to be stoned anywhere in the world as part of cultural understanding. Don't be a racist imperialist imposing his values over an innocent world! 14. Upon hearing of another attack, remember: it's all about self-determination! Every nation wants it, and every nation should have that right (except one nation that was born in sin and is the root cause of all the troubles in the world today). The idea that people could actually be fighting against the self-determination of others is a paranoid thought advanced by the colonialists to justify their imperialistic jingoism. 15. Guerrilla warfare can't be won. It just can't. So whenever a people rises against you with acts of insurgency, it's best to comply with their demands right away. 16. All people want democracy. Once gained, democracy is here to stay. There has never been a case in history where democracy was used by the people to elect leaders completely opposed to it. 17. Democracy is about majority rule. More than 50% of the voters deciding for shariah law means that's what there's going to be. 18. When attacked, do not, repeat, do not cave in to righteous anger. Knee-jerk reactions to the attack, even if they look sensible in the passage of time, should always be rejected. Especially if they're by Ann Coulter. 19. Listen to everything the other side says. When told to change the name, "Operation Infinite Justice" to "Operation Enduring Freedom", or when called on for racism upon hanging effigies of Osama Bin Laden, that's the way to go. You don't want to give people reasons to hate you. 20. World opinion is the ultimate, infallible arbiter of right and wrong. Keep that in mind in all your dealings. |
|
LET SALAH GO
Posted by Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, December 1, 2006. |
|
Now he risks the Death Penalty and is accused of Spying and Sedition: Bangladeshi Journalist Salah Uddin Choudhury is beaten by Government Thugs because of his pro-Israel Stand Can you imagine a country where two leaders of a government party assemble about sixty armed thugs, and together with them raid the editorial offices of one of the main opposition newspapers, injure the editor, take money from his pocket, steal cash from his desk and smash his chair? Can you image a country where the aforesaid editor goes to the police, but the police refuses to accept his report dealing with violence, theft and damages, and on the contrary blames him for coming to their office with his garments in disorder? Unfortunately such a country exists and is Bangladesh. According to Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, Editor of "Weekly Blitz International", on October 5, 2006, the office of his newspaper was attacked by a mob led by Helal Khan and Babul Ahmed, two leaders of the "cultural department" of the governing Bangladesh Nationalist Party (B.N.P.). The next day, another B.N.P. member, Ruhul Amin, called Choudhury by phone and asked him to sign a declaration according to which he will never sue the B.N.P. leaders, threatening him of serious consequences in case he refused to obey. But Choudhury was not stopped by fear; on the contrary, he described in an issue of his magazine the brutal tactics of the B.N.P., and asked Western media to circulate information about his case. What is the reason that leaders of the ruling Bangladeshi party attack a journalist in such a barbaric manner? This happens since Choudhury is a moderate Muslim who promotes interfaith dialogue, opposes and investigates fundamentalist groups which exist in his country and publicly stands for Jewish-Muslim friendship and for normal diplomatic relations between Israel and Bangladesh. If voicing such position is already dangerous in Italy (as is proved by the case of Magdi Allam, the Muslim Deputy Editor of Italy's main newspaper who lives under police protection due to threats he receives from fundamentalists belonging to the Italian Branch of the "Muslim brotherhood", U.C.O.I.I.) doing so under a regime like that of Bangladesh (theoretically secular and even pro-socialist, but conditioned by Saudi-sponsored fundamentalist parties) is dangerous in the extreme. Bangladesh has no diplomatic relations with Israel. Calling for the establishment of such relations was enough to land Choudhury in jail for seventeen months. On November 29, 2003, while Choudhury was flying to Israel to participate in a symposium, he was stopped by the police at Dhakah airport, and detained under on the ridiculous charge of "spying" (for Israel). An American friend and colleague of his, Dr. Richard Benkin, was able to mobilize American media and public opinion, and to convince two U.S. congressmen to pressure the Bangladeshi government to free Choudhury. His liberation from jail, however, did not represent the end of persecution against him. Last July 7, 2006, the office of "Weekly Blitz" experienced a terror attack. Now the authorities in Dhakah -- instead of protecting Choudhury and defending his right to exercise his profession -- will try him for "sedition", a crime which according to the Bangladeshi penal code can be punished by execution. That is the reason why we say it is essential for the Italian press to deal with this case, and for the Italian public opinion to mobilize to save Choudhury. We ask each of our distinguished readers to contact the Embassy of Bangladesh in Rome either by phone (068083595), fax (068084853) or e-mail info@bangladeshembassyitaly.com, asking them to protect Choudhury's life and to dismiss all the false accusations raised against him. Let the authorities in Dhakah know that our eyes are fixed on Bangladesh and its persecution of the free press. Saving Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury's life can depend on us, too. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi is Secretary General, Italian Muslim Assembly. And a member of the Root and Branch Association, which is based in Jerusalem. This appeared in L'opinione (The Opinion) Rome, Italy, October 12, 2006 |
|
YES, I KNOW. WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE JEALOUS
Posted by Batya Medad, December 1, 2006. |
|
I've been rather busy. Last night I wrote my "next article" for VOICES, instead of blogging. I couldn't believe it was already "that time" of the month. Actually it's December today. Even though it looked like we would have an undeserved wet winter, now it looks like a drought. The sky is as blue as the summer, which may look good in pictures and make things easier for some. But it's bad for the country. It's bad for our Holy Land. |
|
10. "You shall not covet your fellow's house. You shall not covet your fellow's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your fellow!" (Shemot 20:14) The Shiloh bus leaves from the same area in the Jerusalem Bus Station as the ones to Kever Rachel and Ma'arat HaMachpela. During certain times of the year there are crowds of hundreds at a time, and thousands each day, fighting for places on those buses. You'd think it the 1960's when teenagers fought to get close to The Beatles. For whatever reasons, Shiloh, which is for certain, equally rich in ancient Jewish History, never attracts masses of visitors. What is it in the Shiloh persona, so modest and humble, that we have never succeeded in marketing the first Capital of the Jewish Nation? Why is it that even though Shiloh's location is the most convenient in the Land of Israel that we still have a relatively small population? As Shlomo HaMelech wrote in Kohelet, "ain chadash tachat hashemesh," "there is nothing new under the sun." Even during the 369 years when Shiloh was capital, masses of Jews didn't come. That's why Elkanah trekked the long way around to Shiloh, reminding people of the address. But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, to the north of Bethel, and east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and to the south of Lebonah.", Judges 21:19 Masses of Jews didn't go to Shiloh then, either, but Elkanah and Chana did. Chana knew that G-d's spirit was focused on Shiloh, where the Mishkan was. She knew that it was in Shiloh where G-d would hear her prayers for a son, the son who would dedicate his life to G-d and the Jewish People. When her son, Shmuel, was old enough to be brought to Eli the High Priest, she reminded Eli that "this child is the one" she had prayed for. There was nothing selfish in her desire for a son, since raised him to dedicate his life for our People. Today there still are people who come to Shiloh to pray to G-d to request His help. Many of these people aren't even Jewish. In the days when I was very involved with groups, diplomats and media who visited Shiloh, I heard many beautiful stories. A Christian female preacher used to bring her flock every year, and they'd always have a prayer session at the Tel, where Biblical Shiloh once stood. One year a woman with a child and infant came up to me. "Do you remember me? I was here over a year ago. Ever since my son was little, the doctors told me that I wouldn't be able to have any more children. So, finally, I came to Shiloh and prayed. Here is my new baby." No, I can't guarantee that G-d will grant every request prayed for in Shiloh. We all know it doesn't work that way. I feel that there's an added significance to Shiloh today. In Biblical Times, the Mishkan in Shiloh was the stage before the Beit Hamikdash. Chazal say that some of the Ketoret, fragrance of the "shechina," remains in Shiloh. I find prayers in Shiloh to be very strengthening and spiritually invigorating. Our troubled People must gather in Shiloh to prepare for the Geula, Redemption. Today we are being plagued and persecuted by government policies just like King Saul went after David. King Saul was our first king, the one chosen by the people, because he looked the way they felt a king should look, tall and noble. Unfortunately, it proved to be a superficial decision, and he ended up being a very bad king. King David did not look like he fit the kingly role, but he had the qualities needed. That's why the same Shmuel Hanavi whose mother, Chana, brought him to serve the Jewish People from Shiloh, chose David. Shiloh is the place we must go to for our prayers to G-d for the right leadership. Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at
Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website
|
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |